How Diverse Postgraduate Learners Experience Authentic Assessments—and Why It Matters
Taught postgraduate students often struggle to understand assessment criteria and expectations, especially when transitioning from diverse academic and professional backgrounds. This exploratory case study consulted students from two diverse cohorts to help redesign assessment processes to make them more transparent, inclusive, and effective in a 5190M - Managing and Developing Environmental Projects module in the School of Earth, Environment and Sustainability. Students in both cohorts came from diverse backgrounds, such as a wide range of undergraduate disciplines, including home and international students; some were transitioning directly from undergraduate study, while others brought substantial professional expertise as consultants.
The study was implemented over two iterations during the 2023/24 (Cohort A ) and 2024/25 (Cohort B) academic years, engaging two distinct cohorts of students. The module provided foundational skills and knowledge necessary for students to thrive as sustainability consultants.
Students engaged in two authentic assessments: a formative assessment group presentation, which did not count towards the final mark, and a summative assessment individual consultant report, which formed 100% of the final mark.
What did you do?
I adopted a three-phase approach based on Bovill and Bulley's (2011) ladder of student participation in curriculum design and The Partnerships in Assessment and Feedback (PiAF) spectrum of practice (Sansavior, 2025). They both emphasise that student-staff partnerships can occur at different levels, ranging from consultation to partnership, or from 'inform/consult' to ‘involve/partner’. Through focus group discussions, I did the following:
- Phase 1 – Student Consultation (Cohort A) [Consult]: In the final session of the module in academic year 2023/24, we dedicated 30 minutes of the session for students to share their experiences of the module and suggest improvements for future cohorts. However, due to time limitations, I decided to follow up with students afterwards to engage in a more in‑depth discussion based on the issues previously raised. Feedback from the module evaluation forms also informed the focus group discussions. Seven students participated in the follow-up consultations, during which they gave in-depth feedback on their experiences completing the assessment and their understanding of the assessment criteria.
- Phase 2 – Co-Design and Implementation [Involve/Partner]: Insights from Cohort A informed revisions to the assessment brief, marking criteria, and teaching materials for Cohort B. While students were not directly involved in the decision-making process, their feedback shaped the changes implemented, which also informed Curriculum Redefined changes to the module.
- Phase 3 – Evaluation (Cohort B) [Consult]: In 2024/25, students evaluated the implemented revisions, highlighting improvements and remaining challenges. Their feedback provided insights into which improvements were effective and which areas still require attention. This phase returned to "Consultation”, with students providing evaluative feedback that will inform future iterations of the module and broader curriculum development.
Why an intervention was needed?
Two key factors drove this approach:
- Practical challenges— some students struggled with group work, learning and completing the individual consultant report. Low engagement was observed in in-class group work activities and on the online FAQ discussion board.
- Pedagogical values—a commitment to decolonising assessment by centring diverse student voices and disrupting hierarchical norms in designing assessments. What may seem to work from a staff perspective may not necessarily work from a student's perspective.
What was the impact of your practice, and how have you evaluated it?
Impact on Cohort B:
- Greater ownership and engagement: We changed how and when groups are formed. Students were given an option to choose a case study that aligned with their professional goals and interests; hence, groups were formed based on shared case study interests rather than random allocation. These changes improved engagement, resulting in better group and individual outputs.
- Improved group work: A Skills@Library workshop on how to work and present in groups led to better collaboration and well-structured outputs. Another session in another module on criticality helped students understand expectations for demonstrating critical thinking.
- Clearer expectations: An early assessment briefing session and weekly scaffolding provided a transparent learning pathway for both the formative and summative assessments.
Student feedback:
- Cohort B appreciated the structured approach and clearer links between group work and individual reports. Both cohorts valued the progression from collaborative projects to individual assessments.
- Students appreciated receiving feedback from external practitioners on their group presentations, as it mirrored real-world scenarios of presenting to stakeholders and enhanced the authenticity of their learning experience.
- Mixed reactions to unweighted presentations highlighted the need for balancing group work presentation practice opportunities with motivation.
How could others benefit from this example?
- Embed reflexivity in assessment design: Critically examine assumptions and biases to ensure inclusivity when we design authentic assessments. For instance, how one student perceives what it means to work in groups can be different from another.
- Prioritise clarity: Offer early assessment briefings and build assessment literacies as the module progresses, e.g., discussing marking rubrics or students' grading exemplary work
- Act on module feedback: Communicate changes informed by students' feedback to let them know we value their voices. This also reinforces trust and responsiveness when we ask for module feedback.
- Support diverse cohorts: Provide tailored guidance, don't assume that every student knows how to work in groups and provide assessment feedback opportunities throughout the module.
- Foster partnership: Even small consultative steps can redistribute power and enhance student engagement.
This study demonstrates that student diversity is not only a characteristic of a cohort but has pedagogical significance as it shapes the meaning, challenge, and value of authentic assessment. Therefore, facilitators of learning should design authentic assessment tasks with multiple entry points to allow students to meaningfully locate themselves within the assessment tasks, whether they are transitioning directly from undergraduate study or drawing on extensive practitioner expertise. Therefore, ongoing dialogue and feedback with students is essential to continuously refine the assessment design so it remains responsive to these diverse needs.
Author
Dr Noleen Chikowore, [email protected]
I acknowledge the valuable contributions of Dr Rita Anne Domingus as a co-instructor of the module, and the student participants, whose insights were instrumental in shaping and refining several changes to the module and to my teaching practice.
References:
- Bovill, C. and Bulley, C. J. (2011). ‘A model of active student participation in curriculum design: exploring desirability and possibility ’ , in Rust, C. (ed.) Improving Student Learning (18): Global theories and local practices—institutional, disciplinary and cultural variations. Oxford Brookes University: Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development, pp.176–188.
- Sansavior, E. (2025). Working in Partnership with Students for Assessment and Feedback: A Practice Toolkit for Higher Education Teaching Staff.