2. The expectations, including assessment requirements, were clear

Overview

Based on student feedback and a series of conversations with ABP subject coordinators, BEL+T has produced a set of Tactics for Assessment-Related Expectations. The objective of this process was to identify the characteristics that students attribute to subjects with clear expectations to inform teaching practices. In addition to student commentary, the following guidance includes tactics used by subject coordinators as well as things to consider for their application. Access the PDF version here.

Themes

ABP student voices described the qualities they associated with clear expectations, including for assessment requirements, as:

Clearly Communicated - Communications prepared by teaching staff around expectations are clear and effective.
Supported by Interaction - Opportunities are available for students to clarify expectations with staff and peers.
Reliable - Student expectations are confirmed through summative assessment procedures (i.e., no surprises).
Consistent - Expectations are consistent over time, and across communications and teaching staff.

The student quotes included in this guide were generated using artificial intelligence, based on submitted student comments from the ESS survey. These original comments were uploaded to a secure University of Melbourne AI chatbot, which processed and returned similar but anonymised quotes to preserve confidentiality but maintain the focus and intention of the original. All outputs were reviewed for language and consistency with the original by a member of BEL+T.

Clearly Communicated

Communications prepared by teaching staff around expectations are clear and effective.

Tactic 1 - Setting clear expectations, including deliverables and deadlines, in subject documentation

Examples:

Concise summary or checklist at beginning of subject guide (e.g. what, how, when and why?)
Timeline showing assessment tasks with links between various assessments
Criteria in assessment rubrics reiterate expectations.

Things to consider:

Cohort-wide interactive opportunities to clarify expectations
Open-ended and/or creative tasks may call for multiple approaches to expectation-setting
Group work may demand an additional layer of expectation-setting about collaborative processes

Tactic 2 - Breaking down expectations along the way through supplemental channels of communication

Examples:

Weekly signposting in lectures of Canvas announcements recap expectations
Examples of past student work are provided alongside explanations of grading (i.e., as a graphic rubric)
Screenshare recordings of practice exam with voiceover commentary
Assessment-related Canvas FAQs share and reframe individual student queries (e.g., from Q+A sessions)

Things to consider:

Mid-semester communications around expectations can be informed by ongoing interaction with students
In some studio subjects, expectations may differ between individual studio groups with different projects
Alert students if/how their current assignment brief differs from past student work examples.

Tactic 3 - Designing the LMS site for straightforward navigation and access to resources that clarify expectations

Examples:

Assessment-related information is located in a central and easily accessed part of Canvas site (i.e., directly from homepage)
Canvas site structured around weekly pages of learning resources aligned to in-class activities and assessment tasks

Things to consider:

Student expectations for Canvas sites may differ between subjects or subject types.

- Weekly announcement summaries really clarified what was expected of us and helped keep us on track. Knowing what's coming next makes planning so much easier.
- The clear outline of each module right at the beginning made it easier to understand the intended learning outcomes and goals of each assignment.
- The detailed breakdowns and examples provided for each assignment were so nice! They not only made expectations clear but also improved my overall performance.
- I appreciated how my tutor used detailed examples to explain the assignments. It gave us a clear direction and was super helpful not just for this subject but for other subjects as well!
- The Canvas site was really well-organised. It did a great job of marking what we needed for each tutorial, assignment etc.
- The examples provided for our assignments were often of average quality, which didn't help in aiming for higher grades. More high-quality examples would be beneficial.
- Our tutor gave the assignment details really late in the semester, which meant we only had about a week to get it ready! We need this information earlier to adequately prepare.
- It was frustrating to find relevant assignment information scattered across various sections of the Canvas page. A single, comprehensive page would be much more helpful.
- The grading criteria were sometimes unclear, and it was challenging to understand what was needed for a good grade. Clearer guidelines would help tremendously.
Bloxham, S. & Boyd. P. (2007). Teaching a module: Maximising the potential of assessment. In Developing Effective Assessment in Higher Education: A Practical Guide (pp. 49-65). McGraw-Hill.
Ford, M.L. (2002). Preparing students for assessment in the on-line class. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 91, 77-82.
McLaughlan, R. & Chatterjee, I. (2020). What works in the architecture studio? Five strategies for optimising student learning. International Journal of Art and Design Education, 39(3), 550-64.

Supported by Interaction

Opportunities are available for students to clarify expectations with staff and peers.

Tactic 1 - Organising (synchronous) time to discuss expectations

Examples:

Dedicated time for Q+A with teaching staff, with peer-to-peer opportunities to identify questions or confusion
Past students invited to discuss their working process vis-à-vis expectations

Things to consider:

Whole-cohort versus small-group (i.e., tutorial-based) discussions may offer different benefits
Discussions at the launch of assessment tasks can clarify expectations
Activities designed for students to demonstrate their understanding of expectations can be more effective than open Q+A sessions.

Tactic 2 - Managing open and effective asynchronous communication channels

Examples:

Canvas discussion board or MS Teams channel dedicated to assessment-related queries
'Treasure hunt' activity on cohort-wide Miro board to clarify assessment task requirements and elicit points of confusion, collective wisdom.

Things to consider:

Separate discussion boards for each assessment task may avoid overloading
Peer-to-peer platforms may require staff moderation to ensure accuracy of information
Stated cohort preference for synchronous versus asynchronous interaction, or hybrid (i.e., recording of synchronous session)

Tactic 3 - Encouraging teaching team to communicate their availability to receive assessment-related queries

Examples:

Students provided with timely communication as to when/how assessment-related questions will be answered and by whom
Tutors encouraged to proactively invite student queries
Clear guidance for tutors to know when/how to pass student queries to subject coordinator and/or senior tutor

Things to consider:

Budget implications for tutor time for responding to student queries (e.g., moderating discussion boards).

- The studio sessions were great for getting questions answered. It felt like we had a direct line to what we needed to do each week.
- Breaking out into smaller groups was very helpful. We could hash out details about the assignments and bounce ideas off each other.
- I found it great how quickly my questions were answered. Whether it was posting on the discussion board or a quick query after Zoom, I got help right when I needed it.
- The review sessions before we had to turn stuff in were really great. They made it crystal clear what we were supposed to do.
- My tutor was a lifeline—always there when I needed to clear up anything about the assignments and super respectful too.
- Sometimes, it felt like we were playing tag with the tutors, constantly chasing them for more precise info on assignment requirements.
- The assignment requirements were not clear, so we often ended up having to keep clarifying with each other in the group chat.
- A bit more structure in the lectures for question time would be great. It’s a bit rough trying to get a handle on assignment details when things feel rushed.
Bloxham, S. & Boyd. P. (2007). Preparing students for assessment. In Developing Effective Assessment in Higher Education: A Practical Guide (pp. 66-80). McGraw-Hill.
O'Donovan, B., Price, M. & Rust, C. (2008). Developing student understanding of assessment standards: A nested hierarchy of approaches. Teaching in Higher Education, 13(2), 205-17.
Steel, A., 2013. Clarifying Assessment: Developing Typologies for Forms of Assessment in Law. Journal of the Australasian Law Teachers Association, pp.2014-39.

Reliable

Student expectations are confirmed through summative assessment procedures (i.e., no surprises).

Tactic 1 - Ensuring rubric aligns with expectations communicated elsewhere

Examples:

Weightings of rubric criteria match relative emphasis in activities and communications
Past student work used to illustrate distinctions between marking bands
Input gathered from teaching team to iteratively improve language and structure of rubrics, thereby clarifying expectations

Things to consider:

Rubrics that outline the values to be applied in assessment of submitted work, but not necessarily specific deliverables
Students may become reliant on rubrics as a prescriptive guide - consider the right balance for the cohort

Tactic 2 - Outlining marking/moderation procedures to students for transparency

Examples:

Marking and moderation procedures presented during lecture sessions (e.g., to explain staff use of rubrics)
Hypothetical marking and/or moderation demonstration to provide students a 'behind the scenes' look at these processes.

Things to consider:

A dedicated discussion on the distinction between rubrics, deliverables, feedback, etc.
Whether 'justification of mark' details should be communicated to entire cohort or only those students with queries.

Tactic 3 - Ensuring consistent marking/moderation procedures are applied across cohort

Examples:

Pre-marking meetings with tutors to review submitted examples relating to each criterion
Feedback provided to students on common issues observed across the cohort, providing context to individual students
Prepare a strategy to deal with marking discrepancies efficiently and fairly

Things to consider:

Students and staff numbers may impact concerns around marking consistency and how to approach these
Sharing anonymised examples of submitted work alongside collective summative feedback.

- The assessment rubric was really clear, which made it easier to understand what we were being graded on. It's good to know exactly what's expected for the marks.
- The rubrics in this subject were great—they laid out what was needed and how we'd be assessed, leaving no room for confusion.
- It felt like we were somewhat misguided with the assessment outlines; they weren't clear, which led to write in a style that wasn’t what the tutor wanted. Furthermore, the feedback came too late, so we couldn’t really change anything.
- The marking scheme could use more clarity. As it stands, it seems subjective and not consistently applied across the board, which can be quite frustrating.
- The rubrics were pretty broad and didn't really offer the detailed clarity needed to tackle the assessments confidently.
- Post-assessment, it turned out that the heavily weighted criteria were the ones less emphasised earlier, while the sections we focused on didn't count as much. It was pretty disorienting.
- Some upfront detail on how our assignments would be marked would've been super helpful for focusing our efforts.
- The lack of a transparent assessment rubric in the feedback makes it hard to decode the marking. I wish I knew how the final grade was pieced together.
- The lectures and tutorials sometimes didn't seem to go deep enough in terms of subject content, which was a mismatch with what we were expected to deliver in our submissions.
Bloxham, S. & Boyd. P. (2007). Moderation: Towards greater consistency in marking. In Developing Effective Assessment in Higher Education: a Practical Guide (pp. 117-128). McGraw-Hill.
Boud, D. (2017). Standards-based assessment for an era of increasing transparency. In Carless, D. et al. (Eds.) Scaling up assessment for learning in higher education. Springer.
Jönsson, A. & Panadero, E. (2017). The use and design of rubrics to support assessment for learning. In Carless, D. et al. (Eds.) Scaling up assessment for learning in higher education. Springer.
McConlogue, Teresa. (2020). Designing Assessment for a Course Unit/Module. Assessment and Feedback in Higher Education: A Guide for Teachers. University College London.
Onsman, A. (2016). Assessing creativity in a ‘New Generation’ architecture degree. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 19, 210-18.
Wolf, K., Connelly, M., & Komara, A. (2008). A tale of two rubrics: Improving teaching and learning across the content areas through assessment. The Journal of Effective Teaching, 8(1), 21-32.

Consistent

Expectations are consistent over time, and across communications and teaching staff.

Tactic 1 - Confirming assessment expectations are consistent across all subject documentation

Examples:

Pre-semester meeting for teaching staff to cross-check subject guide, timeline, and support resources
Common vocabulary for assessment aligning to language in subject documentation
Content on Canvas site checked against subject handbook entry to avoid discrepancies

Things to consider:

Canvas site as a 'single source of truth' (including links to single assessment page to reduce risk of discrepancies)
Assessments and expectations may need to change due to unforeseen circumstances, with potential for inconsistency or flow-on effects
Have a 'fact-check buddy' to offer a fresh set of eyes on subject content (and vice versa).

Tactic 2 - Ensuring all staff have a shared understanding of expectations before each assessment launches, and again prior to marking

Examples:

Preparatory meeting with teaching team to emphasise use of assessment briefs/rubrics to support a shared understanding
Input invited from all staff and students to inform future brief/rubric revisions

Things to consider:

Open-ended tasks and/or diverse cohorts, as well as variation in tutor experience levels, can complicate achieving a shared understanding
Use coordination meetings to confirm shared understanding amongst teaching staff and resolve competing perspectives

Tactic 3 - Developing a strategy in the event of mixed messages around assessment expectations

Examples:

Tutors encouraged to urgently raise issues about inconsistencies with subject coordinator
Canvas announcements used to communicate any mid-semester changes to expectations; 'flow-on' implications of changes reviewed for consistency.

Things to consider:

Consider how much variation/flexibility is appropriate for tutor expectations, modes of communication, etc.
How will mid-semester changes to documentation be made clear to students? (e.g., using highlighting, strikethrough text, etc.)

- The structure for our weekly tasks were really well-defined. Our tutors knew exactly what points to cover, which kept us all on the same page.
- There was a good match between what was in the subject guide and the specifics laid out in the assignment materials—helped keep us aligned.
- Sometimes the information from my tutor seemed a bit off-track compared to what was outlined for the assignments. A bit more clarity would have saved a lot of confusion.
- There was a disconnect between the lecture content and the studio tasks. The tutor would tell us things about how we would be graded, but they didn’t always align the grading criteria in the subject guide, so we were often misinformed.
- It felt like everyone had a different take on what was expected for the assignments—tutors, lecturers, even the examples from previous years. Consistency would have made a huge difference.
- Different tutors seemed to have varying ideas about the assignment criteria, which made it challenging to understand what was needed to meet the evaluation standards.
- The absence of a subject guide left us scrambling for information during classes. When the tutor is also in the dark, it's not exactly reassuring—it's like trying to hit a moving target.
- At times, it seemed we were all trying to decode the assignments together, including the tutor. A solid, shared understanding would have gone a long way in giving us some direction.
Soccio, P., Tregloan, K., & Thompson, J. (2021). Well-coordinated: Learner-focused coordination tactics beyond the pandemergency. Archnet-IJAR, 15(1).