Inspired by Phil Race’s “If I were in charge…” blog, we asked our Student Fellows to come up three things they would change about university education if they had the power to.
We did this activity together in a team meeting and ended up having a brilliant conversation about what we thought was best -you will see below that the Student Fellows’ experiences on their courses led them to sometimes have completely conflicting opinions about what they would change!
Jump to:
- Emma, a MSci in Medical Microbiology student
- Pratham, a 3rd year UG Law student
- Elliot, a 2nd year UG Sociology student
- Gaurav, a final year PhD in Psychology student
If Emma were in charge, she would:
- Use a mix of assessment formats, chosen intentionally
Imagine two modules. One relies on a single in-person essay exam worth 100% of the grade. The other breaks assessment into smaller tasks that each require something different, such as creativity or collaboration.
The first mostly teaches students how to cram and how to guess which questions might come up, which many already learned at school. The second helps them build skills they will actually use later, including teamwork, communication and adaptability.
What matters is intentional design. Simply turning an essay into a podcast or presentation without changing the underlying task feels pointless to students. Assessments make a real impact when they reflect real-world challenges. For example, asking a group to create a public awareness campaign on a relevant issue requires subject knowledge as well as practical communication abilities such as video or animation skills.
2. Organise group work so everyone can play to their strengths
Group work can be valuable, yet students often report uneven workloads and frustration when some group members fail to engage. One simple improvement is to build in clear roles, such as a chair, a scribe, a design lead or a researcher. These roles can change depending on the task.
This approach allows every student to contribute in a way that suits them while still working collaboratively. It also encourages peer learning. A student with graphic design or animation experience can teach others something new, which benefits the whole group.
3. Avoid using a single assessment to determine the whole grade
In scientific research, one result is never enough. Experiments are repeated across different days to reduce the effect of natural variation and human error. Assessment should work the same way.
A single high-stakes exam or project measures how a student performs on one particular day. Spreading a grade across several smaller assessments, at different points in the term, is far more accurate and far less stressful. It gives students multiple opportunities to show what they know and reduces the risk of one bad day affecting an entire module outcome.
If Pratham Gupta, Student Fellow for Inclusive Assessment, were in charge, he make sure:
- Formatives (and formative feedback) would be a direct reflection of the summative.
Feedback should not merely be the means to an end of achieving a high grade, and instead should actively inform student journeys in higher education. Qualitative feedback is considerably more valuable than quantitative grades when attempting to arrive at the central thesis of higher education: critical engagement with the world around us.
With that in mind, feedback’s centrality should also be reflected in strong links between the formative and summative exams. Often, formative assessments have little or nothing to do with the structure, format, and content of the summative, and any feedback is hard to apply. Students should be given the opportunity to not only reflect on their learning, but also actively apply it. Formatives should be structured as a “first draft” or similar opportunity to attempt summative questions. Aside from being a better reflection of how most tasks are undertaken in the workplace and outside higher education, this format tests and develops students’ ability to adapt to constructive feedback. After all, what is the use of the scholarly disposition of higher education if it doesn’t allow its benefactors a chance to grow and learn?
2. Higher consistency in assessment methods
Universities are sacred grounds, and must strike a balance between reflections of the “Real World” and the development of academic thought. A particular pressure point in achieving this synergy seems to be the university’s approach to inconsistency, particularly in relation to the uncertainties it forces upon student assessments. Students are loaded with a myriad of assessments that often don’t test their understanding and engagement of the content but simply their ability to adapt a flat understanding to bite-sized presentations across essays, videos, group tasks, portfolios, journals and so on.
Evidently, the goal here is not to overburden certain assessments so that they encompass all the weightage of a module in one horrifying exam (which has problems of its own). I don’t believe it has to be an all-or-nothing proposition. Teachers should definitely and intentionally reflect on how they can best structure their assessments to allow for skilled engagement with all materials. However, this should be implemented proportionately, so that students aren’t constantly overwhelmed with just trying to keep up with different assessment methods and criteria. Consistency allows students the structures necessary to succeed – and tests them on what is actually required: learning of content, not learning of assessment design.
3. A collaboration among students and teachers in assessments
I may have my fair share of issues with ideas proposed by Phil Race, but I agree with his arguments for a higher need for students and teachers to collaborate. Self-assessment is a slippery slope, but it can be well implemented if it has tangible outcomes for the student. The proposition that a student’s self-assessed grades and a teacher’s given marks would together account for their degree outcome is promising. Particularly, what it reflects is direct collaboration between students and teachers, which is valuable and often forgotten about in the intricately large structures of higher education. Feedback is valuable not just as a one-way written note, but in the form of dialogue – something that may be achieved by Race’s conception of self-assessments.
If Elliot were in charge, he would:
- University should be free – including tuition and living costs
The biggest barrier for entry into and success within higher education is money. The cost of university and living is constantly rising, and a maintenance loan can suitably fulfil the cost of staying alive. Many students have to work, a lot close to full time hours, and this means they don’t have the time or energy to focus on their studies. And that’s only if they’re lucky enough to get a job, which is becoming increasingly difficult and not an option for some students, such as disabled students. If you do manage to finish university, you are faced with what I call a ‘poor people tax’, and will forever be earning less money for the same work, for a debt that will increase faster than most people can pay it back.
2. University should be longer than 6 months
In my first year of university, my course started at the end of September and finished at the end of February. During this time, I was overwhelmed with contact hours, content and assessments, constantly felt like I didn’t have enough time to complete anything. To make matters worse, my essays and projects were always due right at the last week of teaching, meaning I had to start working on them many weeks before teaching was finished, meaning I hadn’t even learnt everything I needed to know and would often have to skip classes and make things up as I go along. If university stretched beyond 6 months, this would give me and other students the opportunity to engage in content as it was being taught, and then have plenty of time to prepare and work on assessments once we have been given all the information and resources we need
3. University shouldn’t be graded – you either pass or didn’t
Assessments being met with numbered marks and your overall qualification having different classifications create unnecessary hierarchies. If assessments are graded with a number, then students will be focused on this number rather than on what the actual feedback is. When I get feedback, I am personally a lot less concerned with the actual feedback my lecturer has gieven, and more with what number appears. The same goes for degree classifications – when it comes to degrees, you should either be qualified or not. These categories unfairly separate students and fail to recognise their interpersonal differences and unique strengths. Instead, students should have a personal review written about them, as sorting them into ranked categories based off a single calculated number feels almost cruel, especially when which classification you are given can determine to course of your life.
If Gaurav were in charge, he would:
- Universities should rethink what assessments really means for learning
I am unsure what the alternatives to current assessments should be, or whether we even need to assess learning in the way we do, but there are clear problems with our existing approaches. In the push for rigour, authenticity, and relevance, we have forgotten that learning should also be enjoyable. When learning is enjoyable, students appreciate the joy and value of learning rather than seeing the value in their learning.
Regarding written assessments and word counts, universities rely heavily on writing despite strong pedagogic criticisms. I hear the arguments for reducing the words in assessment, but I believe that imposing strict word limits is inequitable. Particularly for students who are non-native English speakers who may need more elaboration. Why should it be a problem if I need two sentences where someone else uses one, especially when I am trying to communicate my learning?
Attempts to move away from written assessments often default to oral assessments, which are, in my opinion, equally problematic. There is an imposition of tight time limits (e.g., in oral presentations) assume that everyone can communicate fluently. I use many filler words and need more time to translate my thoughts into speech. Does this indicate a flaw in my learning? Universities should consider this carefully, especially as they invest heavily to attract international students.
2. Universities should make the feedback-action loop quicker:
Second, we need a faster feedback-action loop. Students complete endless evaluation forms, yet the actions taken rarely benefit the students who provided the feedback. Future cohorts may have entirely different views. For example, teachers may realise that the deadline for an assessment is not feasible. However, nothing can be done to make adjustments for the cohort because the dates are already added to the university systems. Universities function very bureaucratically. They need to be more flexible. Academics should be trusted that any decisions they will make decisions will be in the best interests of students and the institution.
3. Universities should invest in improving the quality of its teaching staff:
Third, as universities become increasingly research-intensive, they often end up with researchers who teach as well, rather than researchers who can teach well. This reduces teaching quality. Although educating students is a core university responsibility, many staff members teach simply to meet job requirements. Universities assume they can train anyone to teach through generic workshops, but meaningful teaching requires more. While teaching-focused roles are emerging, a deeper shift in educational purpose is needed
Leave a Reply