Assessment co-creation: an exploratory analysis of opportunities and challenges based on student and instructor perspectives
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.
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.
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
Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane‐Dick, D. (2006) · Studies in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/03075070600572090 · Cited by 5,846 · see citing works
Constructing Multiple Choice Questions as a Method for Learning
Palmer, E., & Devitt, P. (2006) · Annals of the Academy of Medicine, Singapore · doi:10.47102/annals-acadmedsg.v35n9p604 · Cited by 60 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
AI assistance in peer feedback provision: Pedagogically sound, but minimally adopted
Pozdniakov, S., Brazil, J., Banihashem, S. K., Noroozi, O., Gašević, D., Sadiq, S., & Khosravi, H. (2026) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2026.105591 · Cited by 11 · 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
- Doyle, E., Buckley, P., & Whelan, J.
- Affiliations
- University of Limerick (IE)
- Corresponding author
- Doyle, Elaine
- Venue
- Teaching in Higher Education
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- 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