The main stage at Assessment Festival opened with a progressive panel discussion on Generative AI (GenAI), with contributions from:

• Professor Michael Grove, Deputy Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Education Policy and Academic Standards), University of Birmingham.
• Dr Aftab Hussain, ILT and LRC Manager, Bolton College.
• Nayiri Keshishi, Senior Lecturer in Learning Development (Social Science Foundation), University of Surrey.
• Jack Medlin, PhD Student, Keele University.
• Dr Samuel Saunders, Educational Developer, Centre for Innovation in Education (CIE), University of Liverpool.

The discussion ranged from the conceptual to the practical, captured in this thematic summary:

• Embrace and adapt. As one panel member noted, we have 40 years of experience in introducing and embedding technological development. The panel and delegates agreed that GenAI is not something to be mitigated and managed out of student learning in order to protect the status quo by, for example, reverting to unseen exams. Rather, it needs to be incorporated into the overall approach to assessment at programme level, in the context of the learning outcomes, and engaging with students in the narrative around assessment.
• Potential and pitfalls. Discussions highlighted that GenAI can be more inclusive for students who do not have traditional academic support networks (such as first in family students) giving students a chance to find assessments that suit them. But we need to be aware of the emergence of a digital skills gap. Students from higher socio-economic backgrounds will always be able to afford paid access programmes, with some GenAI tools being potentially exploitative. This will require investment and resourcing by providers to level that playing field.
• How to? Practical applications were shared with delegates, including how assessments could be structured around correcting and improving GenAI outputs, or getting students to mark a GenAI-generated essay using the marking criteria. Such examples require students to engage with the output, and work on application and analysis rather than recall - it’s not a passive process. The role of the essay as an assessment tool is certainly not dead, but the process of putting it together is changing. The potential for GenAI in formative assessment was recognised, for example to have a more immediate dialogue with students about their learning, as long as we think carefully about the purpose of a formative assessment task. Crucially, the panel explored how the embedding of GenAI into assessment practice is only going to succeed if we have appropriate scaffolding, giving students the foundational understanding of how GenAI works, the data it draws upon and how it can benefit their learning.

You may be interested in our advice on reconsidering assessment for the ChatGPT era, and our wider advice and resources on GenAI.

Day 2 focused on developing assessment in a more holistic way, breaking away from the more traditional modular focus of assessment. We saw the following presentations:

This presentation links to a QAA Collaborative Enhancement Project which explored the impact of block delivery.

Three key themes emerged from the session.

• Radical approaches to learning and assessment. Colleagues from the University of Hull emphasised that their competence-based education (CBE) model represents a shift from what a student is learning, to what they are able to do, with the goal of supporting students as they enter the workforce and build their journey as a lifelong learner. The University of Bristol’s approach to integrated assessment resonated strongly with delegates. Drawing on the concepts of ‘knowing-acting-being’ and ‘becoming’, the focus is on the holistic student and not just the holistic curriculum. Utilising evidence from students to spearhead innovation, the result is an approach to assessment that is designed for all, integrated and authentic.
• Understanding the relationship between student and assessment. Placing assessment front-and-centre in the programme design process is key to the success for the University of Hull's CBE model. The team outlined the need to think carefully about how students evidence these competencies through assessment. De Montfort University’s block delivery allows for immersive learning through a range of interactive classroom exercises that facilitate stretch in the student experience and expanding the limits of their comfort zones. Elements of these activities are then reintroduced in the end-of-block assessment, building on the skills gained through learning and giving students more confidence with the assessments.
• Institutional commitment. Finally, there needs to be a full institutional commitment to changes in delivery of learning and assessment. A common challenge raised by all of the Day 2 contributors was the role of established cultures of practice and resultant fear of risk as barriers to implementing widespread change. We discovered strategies to address this, such as the three-day intensive sprint methodology used at De Montfort University, and the day-long festivals held at the University of Bristol, bringing together academics, students, and heads of departments to look at whole programmes, map the curriculum and assessments and negotiate a move away from traditional approaches.

There was considerable interest from delegates attending this session in establishing a sector-wide integrative assessment network. QAA is currently exploring this option with a number of sector colleagues leading work in the area.

Day 3 turned our attention to effective taught postgraduate assessment practice. Our panel comprised:

• Dr Sarah Henderson, Director of Postgraduate Taught Education - College of Medicine and Veterinary Medicine, University of Edinburgh.
• Dr Morven Shearer, Director, Graduate School for Interdisciplinary Studies, University of St Andrews.
• Professor Fay Short, Associate Pro-Vice Chancellor (Employability), Bangor University. 
• Dr Marie Stowell, Director of Quality and Educational Development, University of Worcester.  
• Professor Sean Tyrrel, Pro-Vice-Chancellor - Education, Cranfield University.

Discussion opened with reflections on some of the biggest challenges and opportunities within current postgraduate taught delivery. Our panel chair captured the ensuing discussion in a ‘3D’ summary:

• Diversity of student population, and of provision. The panel noted that we must recognise the increasing diversity of our students: their nationality, culture, life experiences, journeys and stages, and career paths. Bringing this diversity into the classroom is enriching and allows for peer learning. Staff also need to be cognisant of this in assessment design. Student diversity has implications for provision: many of our students are full-time professionals and so longer (2-3 year) and online/hybrid programmes can serve this section of the postgraduate market, whereas shorter 12-month programmes might be preferred by international students. The reasons for undertaking postgraduate study are also becoming increasingly diverse, which has implications for the second ‘D’…
• Design of programmes, and of assessment. The panel discussed the benefits of utilising Level 6 (SCQF 10) content in Level 7 (SCQF 11) programmes for students returning from a break in their studies where the graduated step could help with retention but also with providing better foundations for success on the programme. There was a fascinating discussion on the role and necessity of the dissertation in Masters programmes. Panel members commented that traditional dissertations are not the norm anymore; programme teams are developing ways to assess that are authentic to the problems faced and skills required in the industries and sectors that their students will be progressing into. Assessments must be fit for purpose, and this brings us to the final ‘D’…
• Deliver on the purpose of the programme. A more fundamental consideration raised was what is a Masters course? Who is it for? What is its purpose and distinctiveness? If we know that, we can assess it. The panel was of the view that as a sector we should be interested in the distinctiveness of Masters level assessment as much as course design and delivery.

The overarching theme for Day 4 was inclusive assessment design and practice. We saw four examples of work being undertaken to embed inclusive assessment within institutions:

This presentation links to a QAA Collaborative Enhancement Project which is establishing a Compassionate Assessment Network.

Themes that emerged across the presentations and ensuing discussion were:

• Benefits for all. The presentations effectively captured the rationale for, and therefore the benefits of, inclusive assessment: it supports all types of learners; it draws on the personal strengths and experiences of students; and students themselves value choice. This last point echoes a key theme emerging across the whole Festival: the importance of the student voice in learning, teaching and assessment development. Finally, our presenters outlined that inclusive assessment can have direct and positive impacts on reducing attainment gaps
• Purposeful design. A key point from all the presentations is the need to make inclusivity an intrinsic element of assessment strategy and not just bolt on alternative modes of assessment or adaptations. This requires everyone involved to be on board and understand the aims and possibilities of the approach taken to inclusive assessment. There needs to be appropriate scaffolding, with staff working with students to help them understand the assessment options available to them and why they have value, providing formative opportunities and space to reflect on learning and skills gained. Crucially, students need to be prepared to take the risk on doing something different, and staff need to be open to unexpected outputs.
• Institutional change. A final theme emerging from the presentations and Q&A with delegates was the importance, and difficulties, of embedding inclusivity at institutional level. There is a need to change the top-down nature of institutional policy to facilitate local adjustments being made, and the importance of engaging the student voice was emphasised because it will facilitate this. Compassion can be viewed as lacking at the institutional level, so there is an opportunity and need to write compassion and inclusivity into providers’ assessment policies.

Our Assessment Festival concluded with a provocative, future-facing panel discussion about qualifications and classifications. Our panel was:

• Professor John Curnow, Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Education and Student Experience, University of Plymouth. 
• Professor Clare Peddie, Vice-Principal Education (Proctor), University of St Andrews. 
• Professor Susan Smith, Deputy Director (Student Experience) and Professor of Accounting, University College London (UCL).
• Dr Charlotte Snelling, Head of Regulatory Policy, Universities UK.

Panel members were asked if they think degree classifications remain the best way of recording achievement and, if not, how should the sector act to address that? The opening responses and ensuing discussion from the panel drew out several key themes:

• Algorithms and alternatives. It was acknowledged that there is varied practice in the use of algorithms across the sector as each degree awarding body is the custodian of its own regulations. The panel considered some of the disadvantages to the current classification system, noting that students can be discouraged from innovation and experimentation in their assessed work because they are focused on trying to get a ‘good’ degree. Alternative options, such as pass/fail, were raised as having the potential to allow students to focus on learning with less risk to their final award.
• Employer views of degree classifications. The panel debated who degree classifications are really for? Discussion outlined that some employers are no longer placing such emphasis on degree classifications. Employers value competencies more than classifications and are increasingly turning to more sophisticated tools to assess these competencies in graduates. Furthermore, the panel recognised that graduates won’t stay in their first jobs for as long as they used to, so the work experience they gain becomes more important in progressing through their careers than their degree classification.
• Recognition of broader graduate attributes. Degree classifications as originally conceived were based more strictly on traditional academic achievement, but the sector is now using the same system to capture a broader range of skills and competencies. This broader recognition of student achievement needs to take place alongside degree classifications. We heard experiences of engaging with the Higher Education Achievement Record (HEAR), which has been adopted at the University of St Andrews for some time, and the portfolio-based Plymouth Compass, both approaches which seek to meet the need to recognise wider student achievements. This links to a more fundamental question about the broader value of learning - the transformation that students undergo - and how we make that aspect of higher education clearer to those outside the sector.