Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Irwin, Brian; Hepplestone, Stuart (2012)
Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Languages: English
Types: Article
There have been calls in the literature for changes to assessment practices in higher education, to increase flexibility and give learners more control over the assessment process (Boud and Falchikov 2006; Nicol and MacFarlane-Dick 2006; Taras 2002). This article explores the possibilities of allowing student choice in the format used to present their work, as a starting point for changing assessment, based on recent studies and current examples of flexible assessment practice in Higher Education. The benefits of this flexible assessment format approach are highlighted, along with a discussion of classic assessment considerations such as validity, reliability and marking concerns. The role of technology in facilitating assessment method choice is considered, in terms of new opportunities for providing student choice in the way they evidence their learning and present their work. Considerations for implementing flexible assessment choices into the curriculum are presented, along with a call that further research into such practice is needed to develop a comprehensive set of practical recommendations and best practice for implementation of flexible assessment choice into the curriculum. The article should be of interest to curriculum developers and academics considering implementing changes to the assessment process to increase student ownership and control.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Alexander, B. 2006. Web 2.0: A new wave of innovation for teaching and learning? Educause Review 41, no. 2. http://www.educause.edu/apps/er/erm06/erm0621.asp (accessed October 27, 2010).
    • Asafu-Adjaye, J. 2001. Flexible Assessment in a Business Course. The University of Queensland, Australia. http://www.tedi.uq.edu.au/largeclasses/pdfs/CaseStudy02_Asafu.pdf (accessed October 27, 2010).
    • Australian National Training Authority. 2002. Assessment and Online Teaching. Australian Flexible Learning Quick Guide Series. http://pre2005.flexiblelearning.net.au/guides/assessment.pdf (accessed November 5, 2009).
    • Bloxham, S., M. Ashworth, and P. Boyd. 2009. Investigating the mysteries of marking: the implications of staff marking practices for academic development. Paper presented at the 17th Improving Student Learning Symposium, September 7-9, in Imperial College London, UK.
    • Boud, D. 1995. Assessment and learning: contradictory or complementary? In Assessment for Learning in Higher Education, ed. P. Knight, 35-48. London: Kogan Page.
    • Boud, D. and N. Falchikov. 2006. Aligning assessment with long-term learning. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 31, no. 4: 399-413.
    • Boud, D. and N. Falchikov 2007. Developing assessment for informing judgement. In Rethinking Assessment in Higher Education: Learning for the Longer Term, ed. D. Boud and N. Falchikov, 181-197. London: Routledge.
    • Cook, A. 2001. Assessing the use of flexible assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 26, no. 6: 539-549.
    • Clayton, B. and R. Booth. 2000. How Flexible is Assessment in Online Delivery? Paper presented at NET*Working 2000 Conference, November 1-14, in Australia (Online). http://nw2000.flexiblelearning.net.au/talkback/p34.htm (accessed October 27, 2010).
    • Craddock, D. and H. Mathias. 2009. Assessment options in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 34, no. 2: 127-140.
    • Crook, C., H. Gross and R. Dymott. 2006. Assessment relationships in higher education: the tension of process and practice. British Educational Research Journal 32, no.1: 95- 114.
    • Ellis, C. and S. Folley. 2009a. Improving student assessment choice using Blackboard's eassessment tools. Paper presented at BbWorld Europe 2009, April 6-8, in Barcelona, Spain.
    • Ellis, C. and S. Folley. 2009b. The use of scoring rubrics to assist in the management of increased student assessment choice. Paper presented at ALT-C 2009, September 8- 10, in Manchester, UK.
    • Errington, E. 2004. The impact of teacher beliefs on flexible learning innovation: some practices and possibilities for academic developers. Innovations in Education and Teaching International 41, no. 1: 39-47.
    • Francis, R. 2008. An investigation into the receptivity of undergraduate students to assessment empowerment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 33, no. 5: 547-557.
    • Gibbs, G. and C. Simpson. 2004. Conditions under which assessment supports students' learning. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education 1: 3-31.
    • Hall, C. 1982. Giving more choice to students in economic education; results and evaluation. The Journal of Economic Education 13, no. 1: 19-31.
    • Hockings, C., S. Cooke, M. Bowl, Y. Hiromi, and S. McGinty, 2008. Learning and Teaching for Diversity and Difference in Higher Education: Towards more Inclusive Learning Environments. Teaching & Learning Research Briefings, no. 41. London: ESRC/TLRP.
    • Hounsell, D. 2008. The trouble with feedback: new challenges, emerging strategies. Interchange 2: 1-10.
    • Jamieson, G. 2005. Weighting assessment tasks according to student preferences: Differences relating to a student's primary language. Paper presented at Making a Difference: 2005 Evaluations and Assessment Conference, December 1, in Sydney, Australia. http://www.iml.uts.edu.au/EAC2005/papers/Jamieson2005.pdf (accessed November 9, 2009).
    • Kehoe, J., B. Tennent, and K. Windeknecht. 2004. The challenge of flexible and nontraditional learning and teaching methods: Best practice in every situation? Studies in Learning, Evaluation, Innovation and Development 1, no. 1: 56-63.
    • Knight, P. 2001. A Briefing on Key Concepts: Formative and Summative, Criterion- and NormReferenced Assessment. LTSN Generic Centre Assessment Series, no.7. York: Learning and Teaching Support Network Generic Centre. http://www.palatine.ac.uk/files/938.pdf (accessed December 16, 2008).
    • Knight, P. T. (2002). Summative assessment in Higher Education: Practice in disarray. Studies in Higher Education 27, no. 3: 275-286.
    • Konur, O. 2007. Teaching disabled students in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education 11, no. 2: 351-363.
    • Landow, G. 1997. Hypertext 2.0: the convergence of contemporary critical theory and technology, 231-245. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
    • Leitch, S. 2006. Leitch Review of Skills: Prosperity for all in the global economy - world class skills - Final Report. Norwich: The Stationery Office.
    • Lindsay, R. 2007. Review of 'Towards inclusive learning in higher education. (ed.) Adams, M. and Brown, S., Routledge, 2006.' British Journal of Educational Technology 38, no. 6: 1133-1134.
    • MacLellan, E. 2001. Assessment for learning: the differing perceptions of tutors and students. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 26, no 4: 307-318.
    • Martin, T. 2006. Maximising student participation in optional assessment. Paper presented at Enhancing Student Learning: 2006 Evaluations and Assessment Conference, November 30 - December 1, in Queensland, Australia. http://otl.curtin.edu.au/eac2006/papers/martin.pdf (accessed November 6, 2009).
    • McClenaghan, K. 2006. Inclusive Assessment. Rough Guides to Learning & Teaching Series. Teeside: University of Teesside.
    • McCurdy, D. 2000. The Flexible Assessment Paradigm. In Proceedings of the 13th Annual Conference of National Advisory Committee on Computing Qualifications 2000, 227- 233.Wellington, NZ: National Advisory Committee on Computing Qualifications.
    • McLoughlin, C. and J. Luca. 2001. Quality in Online Delivery: What Does it Mean for Assessment in e-Learning Environments? In Meeting at the Crossroads: Proceedings of Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (ASCILITE), December 9-12, in Melbourne, Australia. http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/melbourne01/pdf/papers/mcloughlinc2.pdf (accessed November 9, 2009).
    • Millwood, R. and I. Terrell. 2005. Overview: New technology, learning and assessment in higher education. Innovations in Education and Teaching International 42, no 3: 195- 204.
    • Nicol, D. 2007. Assessment Principles: Some Possible Candidates. Re-Engineering Assessment Practices in Scottish Education (REAP) Online Resource. http://www.reap.ac.uk/reap/resourcesPrinciples.html (accessed March 11, 2011).
    • Nicol, D. and D. MacFarlane-Dick. 2006. Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education 31, no. 2: 199-218.
    • O'Reilly, T. 2005. What Is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software. http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html (accessed December 16, 2008).
    • Phillips, R. and K. Lowe. 2003. Issues associated with the equivalence of traditional and online assessment. In Interact, Integrate, Impact: Proceedings of the 20th Annual Conference of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education, ed. G. Crisp, D. Thiele, I. Scholten, S. Barker, and J. Baron, 419-431.
    • Russell, J., L. Elton, D. Swinglehurst, and T. Greenhalgh. 2006. Using the online environment in assessment for learning: A case-study of a web-based course in primary care. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 31, no. 4: 465-478.
    • Sambell, K., L. McDowell, and S. Brown. 1997. 'But is it fair?': An exploratory study of student perceptions of the consequential validity of assessment. Studies In Educational Evaluation 23, no. 4: 349-371.
    • Scouller, K. 1998. The influence of assessment method on students' learning approaches: Multiple choice question examination versus assignment essay. Higher Education 35, no. 4: 453-472.
    • Struyven, K., F. Dochy, and S. Janssens. 2005. Students' perceptions about evaluation and assessment in higher education: a review. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 30, no. 4: 325-341.
    • Tal, T. 2005. Implementing multiple assessment modes in an interdisciplinary environmental education course. Environmental Education Research 11, no. 5: 575-601.
    • Taras, M. 2002. Using Assessment for Learning and Learning from Assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 27, no. 6: 501-510.
    • Veenendaal, B. 2001. Flexible assessment in GIScience education. In Expanding Horizons in Teaching and Learning; Proceedings of the 10th Annual Teaching Learning Forum, ed. A. Herrmann and M.M. Kulski. Perth, Australia: Curtin University of Technology. http://www.lsn.curtin.edu.au/tlf/tlf2001/veenendaal.html (accessed December 14, 2008).
    • Wood, L. and G. Smith. 1999. Flexible Assessment. Paper presented at The Challenge of Diversity: The Delta 99 Symposium on Undergraduate Mathematics, November 23, in Queensland, Australia. http://www.sci.usq.edu.au/staff/spunde/delta99/Papers/wood_s.pdf (accessed November 6, 2009). 229-233.
  • No related research data.
  • Discovered through pilot similarity algorithms. Send us your feedback.

    Title Year Similarity

    Student Self-Assessment in Higher Education


Share - Bookmark

Cite this article