Download Assessment loading & equivalencies matrix
To ensure our assessment approaches are congruent with the ESJ Framework and particularly the pillars of inclusive assessment, it is essential to balance the assessment workload for both students and staff. This will ensure assessment loading is equivalent across programmes and proportionate and consistent across modules with the same credits at each of the academic levels. Providing assessment equivalencies also supports the diversification of assessment and promotes the development of creativity in assessment.
The Assessment loading & equivalencies are designed to help you look up appropriate equivalencies for the different types of assessment to promote parity, consistency, and proportionality. It has been created to support staff to develop meaningful, fair, and equitable assessments which benefit our students. It should be used in conjunction with the section on Programme-foced assessment and with the developed resources on creative assessments.
The focus of this assessment equivalency matrix is that of assessment hours. It is based on a ratio of 20% of the total learning hours of a module being dedicated to assessment, in line with the sector standard of 1 FHEQ credit equalling 10 hours of learning.
The indicative assessment type equivalences have been provided for guidance, intending to promote discussion about equitable assessment and for determining workloads that are appropriate for a programme, module, and discipline, whilst enhancing the student and staff experience and overall wellbeing. The aim should be to promote parity, consistency, and proportionality while at the same time encouraging diversity and creativity.
This clear and common equivalency approach aids in setting clear guidance on assessment, improving assessment literacy within our learning community, encouraging creativity, and seeking to better engage, assess, and motivate students.
Assessment literacy is a critical element of student success and within the design of your chosen assessment you should provide direction and practice time for students to acquire and perfect the skills and knowledge required to complete the assessment task.
The Transforming the Student Experience Through Assessment (TESTA 2012) project identified that intellectual challenge is a key predictor of student learning gains, but this challenge needs to be clearly set out, since students poor assessment literacy and who do not know what they are supposed to be doing tend to drop down to a material reproduction approach to assessments ( Entwistle, 1997; ESCalate, 2009; QAA, 2006 ).
There should be a clear emphasis on the development of assessment literacy and ensuring students are versed in the purposes of assessment, what the processes of assessment are and the expected standards. Setting out important factors including weighting, volume, timing and types of assessment tasks, and the clarity of assessment criteria enables students to demonstrate their achievement of the intended learning outcomes and in maintaining the standards of awards; (QAA, 2006; Oyugi, 2017).
It is recognised that assessment types vary greatly by subject, discipline and level of study, but overall, the assessment loading hours include guidance, preparation and production of the assessed tasks. As the module lead you should consider how you structure this for students and improve student assessment literacy by providing guidance on how this time might be best deployed.
Where digital skills, tools, or delivery formats are being used, it is prudent to ensure that some of the assessment hours are devoted to discussion with students on the digital tools or digital delivery format required. Digital skills literacy is an important consideration and may be a totally unfamiliar concept to many, so may need to be developed alongside their assessment literacy at the module level. (See, for example, the Open University Digital and Information Literacy Framework and also the Digital Capabilities Framework from JISC).
20% of the total learning hours for a module should be allocated for assessment and staff should use academic freedom in how they use these ‘assessment load hours’. They will include the hours needed to gather evidence, materials, reading, preparation, revision, rehearsals, drafts and the writing up or assembly of these components to produce the finished piece for submission . (AdvanceHE, 2012; QAA, 2006; University of Greenwich, 2019).
Students must be provided with detailed relevant guidance on how this time might be best utilised in both the module guide and on the supporting virtual learning environment. Some of this time might also include in-class discussions, Q&As, one to ones or other tutor-led elements to support students alongside student directed activity.
There are a huge choice of assessment types that could be set as a task for or by students during their studies. The equivalencies matrix supports having an equitable and creative approach to assessment whilst diversifying what students are asked to do.
Word counts and minutes are equitable when considering the full amount of ‘assessment hours’ which incorporate all aspects of planning, research, practice, drafting, and the submission of the final task, and include a stepped change from FHEQ introductory levels 3&4 to intermediate levels 5&6. The indicative words or minutes have been developed in consultation with all schools at London Metropolitan University and meet a broad range of needs. The equivalencies are 15% below sector standards but align to London Metropolitan University school requirements and allow for learning through assessment rather than learning for assessment.
To ensure that the assessment for a module is set out and communicated clearly to students, each component should be a defined piece of work and should not include assessing a student by ‘stealth’. For instance, an exam would be a single occurrence rather than for example several in-class tests. However, there may be occasions where this approach is deemed appropriate such as a series of blog postings or multiple pieces of social media content which make up a whole.
Within a defined piece of assessment, it may be appropriate to include specific requirements or subcomponents which are weighted for marking purposes and are appropriate to the learning outcomes of the module, PSRB requirements or aligned to industry practices. Where subcomponents are set out they should be accompanied by their own defined assessment criteria and set out in a rubric.
Where there is more than one task for a module the minimum sizing of that assessment should be weighted at 20% and no less. Below this may lead to tactical fails and is considered too low a component to have significant benefit for students in relation to their learning and the module’s learning outcomes.
Where assessment is by groupwork, refer to other sections in the guide relating to guidance on this and how best to use, what elements should be individually assessed. Ensure that the loading of a group work assessment is comparable at an individual level as for any other form of assessment. Detailing how this differs from collaboration. When opting for assessed groupwork please refer to the section on groupwork in this guidance.
‘Independent project’ is an umbrella title for a wide range of ‘capstone’ module assessments where a large piece of work, usually conducted independently, is considered equivalent to a dissertation. It is typical for such modules to be at least a double weighted module or more and the task is a single piece of work.Usually, it has assessed subcomponents, but each should be accompanied by its own defined assessment criteria and set out in a rubric. As part of the move to designing out plagiarism, it would be reasonable to expect accompanying drafts, notes, workings evidencing the work, and this could be awarded marks as a subcomponent of the independent project.
Bloxham, S. ESCalate (2009). Guide to Assessment. ESCalate.
Entwistle N. (1997). Introduction: phenomenography in higher education. Higher Education Research and Development. 16(2), 127-134.
Fielding, A. (2008.) Student Assessment Workloads: a review. Learning and Teaching in Action: Assessment. Vol. 7(3). 7-15.
HEA (2012). A Marked Improvement: Transforming Assessment in Higher Education. Advance HE
Oyugi, C. (2017) Inclusive Assessment: A Framework for Enhancing Practice. Investigations in university teaching and learning. Vol. 11, spring.
Open University (2022) Digital and Information Literacy Framework.
QAA (2006) Code of practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in higher education.Section 6: Assessment of students.
REAP (2009).
TESTA (2012). Transforming the Student Experience Through Assessment
University of Greenwich (2019) Assessment & Feedback Policy.