Three in-course assessment reforms to improve higher education learning outcomes
Abstract
A current international concern is that, for too large a proportion of graduates, their higher order cognitive and practical capabilities are below acceptable levels. The constituent courses of academic programmes are the most logical sites for developing these capabilities. Contributing to patchy attainment are deficiencies in three particular aspects of assessment practice: the design and specifications of many assessment tasks; the minimum requirements for awarding a passing grade in a course and granting credit towards the degree; and the accumulation of points derived from quizzes, assessments or activities completed during the teaching period. Rethinking and reforming these would lead to improvements for significant sub-populations of students. Pursuing such a goal would also have significant positive implications for academic teachers, but be contingent on favourable contextual settings including departmental and institutional priorities.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The CIA triad has been demonstrated to be highly related to the quality of specific programs and the college students they prepare for the future.
“The CIA triad has been demonstrated to be highly related to the quality of specific programs and the college students they prepare for the future (Merchant et al., 2014;Sadler, 2016).”
From A systematic review of the early impact of artificial intelligence on higher education curriculum, instruction, and assessment (2025) · cites this paper as Sadler, 2016
Cites
Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane‐Dick, D. (2006) · Studies in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/03075070600572090 · Cited by 5,846 · see citing works
Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems
Sadler, D. R. (1989) · Instructional Science · doi:10.1007/bf00117714 · Cited by 4,285 · see citing works
Self-citationRoese, N. J. (1997) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.121.1.133 · Cited by 1,156 · cited 1× · see citing works
“The second part of this is known as ‘counterfactual reasoning’, because, although it is valid to think this way, it is essentially hypothetical, being contrary to what actually happened (Roese 1997).”
ResultBeyond feedback: developing student capability in complex appraisal
Sadler, D. R. (2010) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602930903541015 · Cited by 1,138 · see citing works
Self-citationRevision Strategies of Student Writers and Experienced Adult Writers
Sommers, N. (1980) · College Composition & Communication · doi:10.2307/356588 · Cited by 749 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Sommers (1980) highlighted the special role that editing and revising one’s work can play in creating and clarifying meaning: experienced writers seek to discover (to create) meaning in the engagement with their writing, in revision.”
BackgroundRecent research on human learning challenges conventional instructional strategies
Rohrer, D., & Pashler, H. (2010) · Educational Researcher · doi:10.3102/0013189x10374770 · Cited by 269 · cited 1× · see citing works
“This research provides robust findings on how humans learn (Bloom 1974; Budé et al. 2011; Conway, Cohen, and Stanhope 1992; Ebbinghaus 1885; Rohrer and Pashler 2010).”
Background
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Liang, J., Stephens, J. M., & Brown, G. T. L. (2025) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2025.1522841 · Cited by 112 · see citing works
Self-assessment to incite learning in higher education: developing ontological awareness
Bourke, R. (2018) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2017.1411881 · Cited by 61 · see citing works
- Authors
- Sadler, D. R.
- Venue
- Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2015-07-17
- Volume
- 41
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 1081-1099
- ISSN
- 0260-2938
- 1469-297X
- Cited by
- 51
- References
- 6
- Language
- en
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review