Cited by 50Higher Education Practises and EngagementStudent Assessment and FeedbackEvaluation of Teaching Practices

Assessment co-creation: an exploratory analysis of opportunities and challenges based on student and instructor perspectives

Doyle, Elaine, Buckley, Patrick, Whelan, Joanne·2019·Teaching in Higher Education

Abstract

In recent years, research and practice focused on academics and students working in partnership to co-design learning and teaching in higher education has increased [Deeley and Bovill 2017. ‘Staff student partnership in assessment: enhancing assessment literacy through democratic practices.’ Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 42 (3): 463–477. doi:10.1080/02602938.2015.1126551]. Student generation of content has been advocated as a means of fostering deep learning and high levels of students engagement, leading to enhanced conceptual understanding [Draper 2009. ‘Catalytic Assessment: Understanding how MCQs and EVS can Foster Deep Learning.’ British Journal of Educational Technology 40 (2): 285–293.]. However, within the discourse exploring staff-student co-creation, some concerns have been raised about whether students ought to, or indeed can, meaningfully act as partners in assessment [Cook-Sather, Bovill, and Felten 2014. Engaging Students as Partners in Learning and Teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.]. This paper describes the introduction of a co-creation assignment into an undergraduate tax module. Students’ and instructors’ perceptions of several aspects of the assignment were examined, facilitating the cataloguing and elucidation of the tensions involved in assessment co-creation. The paper suggests techniques to manage these challenges effectively, thereby providing a case study for others with an interest in implementing assessment co-creation within their own disciplinary context.

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 · 10.1080/13562517.2018.1498077

Cites

2 of 2 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

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
Doyle, E., Buckley, P., & Whelan, J.
Affiliations
University of Limerick (IE)
Corresponding author
Doyle, Elaine
Venue
Teaching in Higher Education
Published
2018-07-09
Volume
24
Issue
6
Pages
739-754
ISSN
  • 1356-2517 (ISSN-L)
  • 1470-1294
OpenAlex
W2871983979
Cited by
50
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1
FWCI
9.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Teaching in Higher Education (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Higher Education Practises and Engagement
  • Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
  • Social Sciences › Education › Evaluation of Teaching Practices
Keywords
student engagement, student perceptions, instructor perceptions, assessment design, deep learning, student-centered 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