Trends in Higher Education Assessment

Digital Accessibility: Coupling Tools with Training

Universities continue to highlight the importance of, and place emphasis on, the usability of accessibility tools to ensure the benefits of a digital environment are available to their students irrespective of differing needs. Fostering inclusivity is not limited to providing technological tools, but also necessitates ensuring students and educators know how to use them effectively. 

In their study, Northwestern University (USA) researchers found that while many digital tools were available, a lack of training often rendered them ineffective, leading them to recommend tailored workshops for both educators and students. Furthermore, university websites and internal networks have seen a growth in online resources and in-person instructional sessions to aid faculty and students understanding of assistive technologies- their existence, best practices on deployment, and how to use them with digital tools.

These initiatives collectively highlight a continuing global recognition of the need for accessibility. However, challenges persist, particularly around maintaining consistency across diverse institutional contexts and ensuring that advancements in accessibility keep pace with technological innovations. Expect this to continue in 2025.

Emphasis on Assessment Design in the Face of Academic Integrity Challenges 

A year ago, we saw some institutions revert back to in-person pen and paper exams as the only way to combat student use of generative AI. This, in part, was driven by uncertainty surrounding institutional AI policies. That ambiguity has changed over the course of 2024 as universities mature their thinking on the use of AI. Currently,  AI policies range from very permissive, to granular divisions between where and why it is allowed or not. 

Across this spectrum, there are a number of scholars publishing engaging information across the disciplines. Examples include:

• Dr. Michelle Meadows at the University of Oxford wrote an insightful blog on How to encourage academic integrity in the age of generative AI, framing the point positively to educators to assist their thinking on the subject. 
• Alex Steele at the University of New South Wales considered the question in the broader ambit of assessment design in law. A pre-print of his forthcoming book chapter, wherein he examines how programmatic assessment can be part of the solution, is a concept with many supporters but is as yet under-utilized.  Steele argues, ‘It is written with a Law focus – but it’s broadly applicable for any discipline that is content heavy and struggling to find space for innovation’.
• From a different discipline, Developing Learning Skills through Multi-Part Assessment, out of the University of Sydney, examines how to increase student engagement with assessment. Scholarship demonstrates that as student engagement increases, their desire to find a shortcut decreases and instead they produce high quality submissions. 
• Finally, a comprehensive treatment of the subject can be found in the online journal Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. The editorial on Challenging Cheating by Phil Dawson and Mollie Dollinger is worthy of particular attention. As is the perhaps more provocative article Validity matters more than cheating, by Phil Dawson, Margaret Bearman, Mollie Dollinger and David Boud. 

Turning to student attitudes, it appears clear that the overwhelming majority of students don’t see AI as a panacea for outsourcing their work, with concerns about accuracy and quality of output. 8000 students across four Australian universities were asked questions on the topic and the results make for interesting reading. Half of those surveyed don’t trust what AI generates, but 83% of them use it for their studies.

Engagement with the topic as a whole continues to bloom with the University of Glasgow launching a free online course called Generative AI for Students: Ethics and Academic Integrity. 

While AI continues to be a central focus, the reframing of how assessment is led by sound pedagogy instead of reacting to an external threat, demonstrates the historic adaptability of education and educators in the face of new challenges and opportunities.