Session 1 - Strand 1 (Online)

Abstract:

This session will present findings from one project in the recent institutional Alternate Assessment pilot. This project explored whether allowing students to choose the weighting of assessment components can influence outcomes. The study involved 210 undergraduate students on a compulsory second-year module, where students could select between predefined weighting options for three coursework components using a ‘no-jeopardy’ model, ensuring they received the highest available mark. This session will present the quantitative analysis of assessment outcomes and contribution this made to reducing the Black/White awarding gap. The session will begin by situating the work within sector priorities around inclusive assessment and awarding gap reduction, highlighting the limitations of deficit-based approaches and the importance of assessment design as a structural intervention. Participants will be introduced to the flexible weighting model, including practical implementation considerations such as scaffolding student decision-making, maintaining equitable defaults and managing staff workload. The core of the session will present key findings. Overall, 55.8% of students improved their marks by selecting their own weightings, with qualitative data indicating that students used the choice to align assessment with their strengths and prior experiences. Most notably, 83% of Black students benefited from the intervention compared to 50% of White students, suggesting that flexible weighting may help mitigate structural inequalities embedded in traditional assessment practices. The session will conclude with practical guidance for educators interested in adopting flexible assessment approaches, including design principles, ethical considerations and scalable implementation strategies. Participants will be encouraged to reflect on how flexible weighting could be adapted within their own disciplinary contexts as part of broader inclusive assessment and awarding gap strategies.