1. STAGE 2: Evaluate individual modules Individual module convenors Approximately 1hour Ask module convenors to reflect on the programme summary from Stage 1, alongside any module- specific evidence that they possess e.g. individual MACE data, informal student feedback, peer dialogue (~15 mins). Next, they should read the guidance notes that explain how to use the online chronological assessment matrix (~10 min), before entering data for their individual module(s) (~15 min). Finally, ask convenors to work with a paper copy of the dimensions model to self-evaluate the assessment on each module. They should transfer their finalised ratings onto a transparent version of the model, for use in Stage 3 (~20 min). Using the RADAR toolkit to enhance assessment across a programme: a possible itinerary STAGE 4: Refine assessment details for individual modules Individual module convenors Variable Ask convenors to action the changes to individual modules, which they volunteered during Stage 3. They need to specify the fine detail of their revised assessments, which might require the formulation of new assessment questions/tasks; modification of module descriptors/handbooks; composition of new marking criteria; and planning of any particularly complex assessment arrangements (e.g. group work, peer assessment, online submission). Naturally, once changes are made it is, important to review their effectiveness. This can be achieved via the usual evaluation mechanisms e.g. NSS; MACE; SSLC; informal student/peer feedback; external examiners' reports. Solicit student opinion To triangulate the results of self-evaluation, convenors could ask current or former students on the module(s) in hand to consider the assessment arrangements,using the same items from the dimensions model. A PowerPoint presentation has been prepared, which features all nine dimensions and is configured to work in conjunction with Turning Point ResponseWare. This resource can be quickly used within a normal teaching session to tap student opinion. Solicit student opinion To triangulate the results of self-evaluation, convenors could ask current or former students on the module(s) in hand to consider the assessment arrangements,using the same items from the dimensions model. A PowerPoint presentation has been prepared, which features all nine dimensions and is configured to work in conjunction with Turning Point ResponseWare. This resource can be quickly used within a normal teaching session to tap student opinion. Solicit input from colleagues Whilst module convenors can complete Stage 2 independently, they may find it valuable to work in small groups, with colleagues who have a close understanding of their module(s). Individuals could use the dimensions model to appraise the assessment arrangements on each others’ modules, as a means of triangulating the self- evaluations. Solicit input from colleagues Whilst module convenors can complete Stage 2 independently, they may find it valuable to work in small groups, with colleagues who have a close understanding of their module(s). Individuals could use the dimensions model to appraise the assessment arrangements on each others’ modules, as a means of triangulating the self- evaluations. Tackle cross-cutting assessment issues The RADAR toolkit focusses on the following aspects of assessment: number, type (e.g. essay, exam), function (i.e. summative, formative) and timing. There are, however, additional characteristics of assessment, for which it may be helpful to develop disciplinary/college norms. These include assessment size, and the type and volume of feedback. So as not to overburden individual convenors, these matters could be tackled via a separate working party. A group of that type could then communicate its recommendations to module convenors, so as to inform their detailed planning. Tackle cross-cutting assessment issues The RADAR toolkit focusses on the following aspects of assessment: number, type (e.g. essay, exam), function (i.e. summative, formative) and timing. There are, however, additional characteristics of assessment, for which it may be helpful to develop disciplinary/college norms. These include assessment size, and the type and volume of feedback. So as not to overburden individual convenors, these matters could be tackled via a separate working party. A group of that type could then communicate its recommendations to module convenors, so as to inform their detailed planning. Possible Enhancement Activity Possible Enhancement Activities STAGE 1: Identify strengths and weaknesses of current assessment arrangements on the programme Programme Director or DoE Approximately 1 hour A host of data sources are likely to be available, which shed light on the current assessment arrangements e.g. National Student Survey (NSS) data; Staff-Student Liaison Committee (SSLC) feedback; aggregated Module and Course Evaluation (MACE) data; discipline-level minutes from Annual Student Experience Reviews (ASERs); external examiners' reports; and TESTA audits (Transforming the Experience of Students Through Assessment). If you wish to further embellish your understanding, use questions from the Assessment Experience Questionnaire (AEQ) or Transforming Assessment Pilot Scheme (TAPS) to ‘take the pulse’ amongst students. Such questionnaires can be conducted online with help from support staff.(AEQ)(TAPS) From the available data, create a one page summary of current assessment for circulation to individual module convenors. STAGE 3: Bring the programme team together Whole programme team Approximately 3 hours At the start of the event, convenors should form groups according to the programme stage where their module resides. Next, they should : Overlay the transparent versions of the dimensions model to identify areas of strength and weakness across the stage (~20 mins) Brainstorm potential changes to number, type (e.g. essay, exam) and function (summative, formative) of assessments across the constituent modules, using the practical advice cards for inspiration (~50 mins) Examine the completed chronological assessment matrix to identify where the timing of assessments could be modified to reduce bunching and improve opportunities for feed-forward (~20 mins). After a break, each stage team should present a summary of their proposed assessment revisions to the other groups (3 x ~10 mins for a Bachelor’s programme). A whole group discussion should then follow, to ensure that plans are coherent across all stages of the programme (~60 mins). Establish common understanding of performance in the discipline(s) To create a coherent assessment regime it important that individual module convenors have a common understanding of the level of performance that is expected from students on the programme. For guidance purposes, the University provides Generic Assessment Criteria and level descriptors (see the Credit and Qualifications Framework). These resources indicate the degree of complexity and autonomy that should be incorporated in assessments at different levels (e.g. Bachelors versus Masters). For discipline-specific guidance, colleagues can consult the following resources, where available: Subject Benchmark Statements from the Quality Assurance Agency; criteria from any relevant professional, statutory or regulatory bodies (PSRBs) who accredit the programme; the current programme-level intended learning outcomes.Generic Assessment CriteriaCredit and Qualifications FrameworkSubject Benchmark Statements Establish common understanding of performance in the discipline(s) To create a coherent assessment regime it important that individual module convenors have a common understanding of the level of performance that is expected from students on the programme. For guidance purposes, the University provides Generic Assessment Criteria and level descriptors (see the Credit and Qualifications Framework). These resources indicate the degree of complexity and autonomy that should be incorporated in assessments at different levels (e.g. Bachelors versus Masters). For discipline-specific guidance, colleagues can consult the following resources, where available: Subject Benchmark Statements from the Quality Assurance Agency; criteria from any relevant professional, statutory or regulatory bodies (PSRBs) who accredit the programme; the current programme-level intended learning outcomes.Generic Assessment CriteriaCredit and Qualifications FrameworkSubject Benchmark Statements Possible Preparatory Activity

2. The RADAR Toolkit: Resources for Assessment Design, Alignment and Review The RADAR toolkit supports academic staff in analysing how existing assessments align with the good practice identified in educational research. It then provides concrete ideas as to how assessment and feedback arrangements might be improved. The constituent tools can be used flexibly, depending on the users’ scope. For example, they can be applied to an individual module; across an entire programme; or a subset of modules (e.g. all compulsory modules; a single academic year). Where required, the Strategic Planning Team can provide a list of the most commonly taken optional modules in the programme. Colleagues can also choose to apply a single tool, or multiple tools in combination. What’s in the toolkit? 1. A dimensions model for evaluating assessment and feedback. This helps to visualise nine key aspects of assessment, with a view to redesign.dimensions model for evaluating assessment and feedback 2. Nine practical advice cards; one for each dimension of assessment. These offer proven, practical ideas about how to improve assessment arrangements.practical advice cards 4. A choice of two chronological assessment matrices. These can help to visualise assessment timing across a programme to avoid bunching; student overload etc.chronological assessment matrices Overleaf there is a possible itinerary for how the tools can be applied to optimise assessment arrangements across an entire academic programme. 3. A ready-made PowerPoint presentation for use with ResponseWare. This can capture student perceptions of the assessment and feedback arrangements on a module, so triangulating the convenor’s self-evaluations.PowerPoint presentation For more information contact: Education Quality and Enhancement, University of Exeter Version 2.0 (March 2015)