Staff student partnership in assessment: Enhancing assessment literacy through democratic practices
Open accessAbstract
In recent years, research and practice focused on staff and students working in partnership to co-design learning and teaching in higher education has increased. However, within staff–student partnerships a focus on assessment is relatively uncommon, with fewer examples evident in the literature. In this paper, we take the stance that all assessment can be oriented for learning, and that students’ learning is enhanced by improving their level of assessment literacy. A small study in a Scottish university was undertaken that involved a range of different adaptations to assessment and feedback, in which students were invited to become partners in assessment. We argue that a partnership approach, designed to democratise the assessment process, not only offered students greater agency in their own and their peers’ learning, but also helped students to enhance their assessment literacy. Although staff and students reported experiencing a sense of risk, there was immense compensation through increased motivation, and a sense of being part of an engaged learning community. Implications for partnership in assessment are discussed and explored further. We assert that adopting staff–student partnership in assessment and more democratic classroom practices can have a wide range of positive benefits.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
A key attribute of resource availability is a commitment to enabling the professional enhancement of all staff, particularly strengthening strategies to enhance student assessment literacy.
“A key attribute of this is a commitment to enabling the professional enhancement of all staff, particularly while strengthening strategies to enhance student assessment literacy (Deeley and Bovill 2017; Smith et al. 2013; Price et al. 2012).”
From A typology for a social justice approach to assessment: learning from universal design and culturally sustaining pedagogy (2019) · cites this paper as Deeley and Bovill 2017
The Abstract in our indexed copy says that staff–student partnership in assessment helped students enhance their assessment literacy. It does not address resource availability or a commitment to the professional enhancement of all staff, so those parts of the attributed claim are unsupported. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe co-design of essay titles and marking criteria can improve student engagement in the assessment process, as students feel empowered as participants in the decision-making process.
“The co-design of essay titles and marking criteria can also improve student engagement in the assessment process, as students feel empowered as participants in the decision-making process (Deeley & Bovill, 2017).”
From Assessment design through co-creation (2025) · cites this paper as Deeley & Bovill, 2017
The indexed passages returned for searches on essay titles, marking criteria, empowerment, and decision-making contain only bibliographic information and keywords (no section or page identified). They do not say whether co-designing those assessment elements improves engagement or makes students feel empowered, so the claim cannot be verified from the available passages. (LLM, conf=0.72)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
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
Rethinking models of feedback for learning: the challenge of design
Boud, D., & Molloy, E. (2013) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2012.691462 · Cited by 1,636 · cited 2× · see citing works
“…that power relations continue to exist between student and teacher, even when assessment and feedback is ‘mutually constructed and co-dependent’ (Boud and Molloy 2013, 711); or, in co-assessment (Deeley 2014), where students and staff agree appropriate grades following critical appraisal and…”
BackgroundBeyond 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
Orsmond, P., Merry, S., & Reiling, K. (2002) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/0260293022000001337 · Cited by 292 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Authentic assessment: creating a blueprint for course design
Villarroel, V., Bloxham, S., Bruna, D., Bruna, C., & Herrera-Seda, C. (2018) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2017.1412396 · Cited by 560 · see citing works
Co-creation in learning and teaching: the case for a whole-class approach in higher education
Bovill, C. (2020) · Higher Education · doi:10.1007/s10734-019-00453-w · Cited by 535 · see citing works
Self-citationHanesworth, P., Bracken, S., & Elkington, S. (2019) · Teaching in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/13562517.2018.1465405 · Cited by 80 · see citing works
Deeley, S. J., Fischbacher-Smith, M., Karadzhov, D., & Koristashevskaya, E. (2019) · Higher Education Pedagogies · doi:10.1080/23752696.2019.1644659 · Cited by 76 · see citing works
Self-citationSelf-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
Godbold, N., Hung, T.-Y. (., & Matthews, K. E. (2022) · Higher Education Research & Development · doi:10.1080/07294360.2021.1887095 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
Training to increase student perceptions of fairness in peer assessment
H. Stonewall, J., C. Dorneich, M., & Rongerude, J. (2024) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2024.2327858 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Assessment design through co-creation
Williams, A., & Ingle, E. (2025) · International Journal for Students as Partners · doi:10.15173/ijsap.v9i1.5802 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
- Authors
- Deeley, S. J., & Bovill, C.
- Affiliations
- University of Glasgow (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Deeley, Susan J.
- ORCID
- Bovill, Catherine
- Venue
- Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2015-12-29
- Volume
- 42
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 463-477
- ISSN
- 0260-2938 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-297X
- OpenAlex
- W2219614165
- Cited by
- 238
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 14 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 42 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 31 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 4
- FWCI
- 46.69
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- Licence
- other-oa
- Locations
- Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education (publishedVersion)
- ENLIGHTEN (Jurnal Bimbingan dan Konseling Islam) (acceptedVersion)
- Edinburgh Research Explorer (University of Edinburgh) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Funders
- University of Auckland
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Higher Education Practises and Engagement
- Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
- Social Sciences › Education › Evaluation of Teaching Practices
- Keywords
- staff-student partnership, assessment literacy, democratic evaluation, student agency, assessment for learning, assessment feedback, student motivation, learning communities, higher education assessment
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