High stakes in the assessment arms race: a mixed-methods analysis of reducing assessment in an undergraduate psychology programme

Lists

Tools

Pye, R. E. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1395-7763, Gnagi, L. K., Chuah, A. B. Q. and Chung, K. L. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0012-8752 (2025) High stakes in the assessment arms race: a mixed-methods analysis of reducing assessment in an undergraduate psychology programme. Psychology, Learning & Teaching. ISSN 1475-7257 (In Press)

Text - Accepted Version
· Restricted to Repository staff only
· The Copyright of this document has not been checked yet. This may affect its availability.
287kB

It is advisable to refer to the publisher's version if you intend to cite from this work. See Guidance on citing.

To link to this item DOI: 10.1177/14757257251336295

Abstract/Summary

Reducing assessment load has been identified as one practical way to allow space within programmes and modules for students to develop deeper learning practices and to increase student satisfaction. Yet despite the obvious benefits, both staff and students report preferring to maintain a high assessment load as a way to ensure student attention (staff), or to manage risk (students). This mixed-methods study looked at the reduction of the number of assessments across final year optional modules in the international branch campus of a UK university psychology programme on module grades and student perceptions. We found that module grades did not increase following reduction. Students reported anxiety about single-assessment module regimes, regardless of their experience of assessment reduction. Students overwhelmingly preferred two assessments per module, interestingly on the grounds of fairness from a diverse assessment portfolio. We suggest that a simple reduction in the number of assessments isn’t itself sufficient to meet the broad aims of slow scholarship, but that programme teams could consider how better as well as fewer assessments and the perceptions of workload might be more important to tackle.

Item Type:	Article
Refereed:	Yes
Divisions:	Life Sciences > School of Psychology and Clinical Language Sciences > Department of Psychology
ID Code:	122570
Uncontrolled Keywords:	assessment load; anxiety and risk; mixed-methods; fairness in assessment; workload
Publisher:	Sage

Altmetric

Deposit Details

References

Bearman, M., Dawson, P., Bennett, S., Hall, M., Molloy, E., Boud, D, & Joughin, G. (2017). How university teachers design assessments: a cross-disciplinary study. Higher Education, 74(1), 49–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-016-0027-7 Biggs, J. B. (1989). Approaches to the enhancement of tertiary teaching. Higher Education Research and Development, 8(1), 7–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/0729436890080102 Biggs, J. B., Kember, D., & Leung, D. Y. (2001). The revised two-factor Study Process Questionnaire: R-SPQ-2F. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(1), 133–149. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709901158433 Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2012). Thematic analysis. In H. Cooper, P. M. Camic, D. L. Long, A. T. Panter, D. Rindskopf, & K. J. Sher (Eds), APA handbook of research methods in psychology, Vol. 2. Research designs: Quantitative, qualitative, neuropsychological, and biological (pp. 57–71). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/13620-004 Chen, T., & Lucock, M. (2022). The mental health of university students during the COVID-19 pandemic: An online survey in the UK. PLoS ONE, 17(1), e0262562. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0262562 Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed). Sage. Den Boer, A.W.J.P., Verkoeijin, P.P.J.L. & Heijltjes, A.E.G. (2021). Comparing formative and summative cumulative assessment: Two field experiments in an applied university engineering course. Psychology Learning and Teaching, 20(1), 128-143. https://doi.org/10.1177/147572570971946 Evans, C., Howson, C. K., Forsythe, A., & Edwards, C. (2021). What constitutes high quality higher education pedagogical research? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 46 (4), 525–546. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1790500 Galvez-Bravo, L. (2016). Overassessment in higher education: does less mean more? Innovations in Practice,10 (2), 93-102. https://doi.org/10.24377/LJMU.iip.vol10iss2article94 Guo, J. P., Yang, L. Y., Zhang, J., & Gan, Y. J. (2022). Academic self-concept, perceptions of the learning environment, engagement, and learning outcomes of university students: relationships and causal ordering. Higher Education, 83(4), 809–828 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-021-00705-8 Harland, T., McLean, A., Wass, R., Miller, E., & Sim, K. N. (2015). An assessment arms race and its Fallout: high-stakes grading and the case for slow scholarship. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 40 (4), 528–541. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2014.931927. Harland, T. A., & Wald, N. (2021). The assessment arms race and the evolution of a university’s assessment practices. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 46(1), 105–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1745753 Hartman, Y. & Darab, S. (2012). A call for slow scholarship: A case study on the intensification of academic life and its implications for pedagogy. The Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies, 34(1-2), 49-60. https://doi.org/10.1080/10714413.2012.643740 Jessop, T., & Tomas, C. (2017). The implications of programme assessment patterns for student learning. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42 (6), 990–999. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2016.1217501 Kubik, V., Gaschler, R. & Hausman, H. (2021). PLAT 20(1) 2021: Enhancing student learning in research and educational practice: The power of retrieval practice and feedback. Psychology Learning and Teaching, 20(1), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1177/1475725720976462 Lakens, D., Scheel, A.M. & Isager, P.M. (2018). Equivalence testing for psychological research: A tutorial. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1(2), 259-269. https://doi.org/10.1177/25115245918770963 Lizzio, A., Wilson, K., & Simons, R. (2002). University students’ perceptions of the learning environment and academic outcomes: implications for theory and practice. Studies in Higher Education, 27(1), 27-52, https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070120099359 O’Neill, G. M. (2019). Why don’t we want to reduce assessment? AISHE-J: The All Ireland Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 11 (2), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.62707/aishej.v11i2.415 Pereira, D., Assunção Flores, M., & Niklasson, L. (2016). Assessment revisited: a review of research in Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(7), 1008-1032. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2015.1055233 Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (1999). Understanding learning and teaching: The experience in higher education. McGraw-Hill Education Tomas, C., & Jessop, T. (2019). Struggling and juggling: a comparative analysis of assessment loads across different universities. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44 (1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1463355. Zusho, A. (2017). Toward an integrated model of student learning in the college classroom. Educational Psychology Review, 29(2), 301–324. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-017-9408-4

University Staff: Request a correction | Centaur Editors: Update this record

University of Reading

CentAUR: Central Archive at the University of Reading

Accessibility navigation

High stakes in the assessment arms race: a mixed-methods analysis of reducing assessment in an undergraduate psychology programme

Abstract/Summary

Page navigation

See also

Footer navigation