Cited by 238Higher Education Practises and EngagementStudent Assessment and FeedbackEvaluation of Teaching Practices

Staff student partnership in assessment: Enhancing assessment literacy through democratic practices

Open access
Deeley, Susan J., Bovill, Catherine·2017·Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/02602938.2015.1126551

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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 measured
  • The 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

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Deeley, S. J., & Bovill, C.
Affiliations
University of Glasgow (GB)
Corresponding author
Deeley, Susan J.
Venue
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education
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