Opinion
In recent years there has been an enormous amount of attention on university assessment practices. From Lane 1 and Lane 2 to assessment of learning, assessment for learning, and assessment for inclusion, there’s no shortage of catchy terms.
But in the context of financial constraints across the sector, and the pressing need to rebuild public trust and strengthen the student experience, perhaps another term is pertinent:
‘assessment as investment’.
After all, assessment is one of the largest expenditures a university makes. When one factors in the costs of academic workload involved in designing the tasks and rubrics, as well as the marking, moderation, and feedback costs, the total is already large. Add the resourcing of assessment procedures, which may include exam halls, invigilators, software, simulations, lab equipment, and even paid actors, and assessment makes up a significant proportion of any school or faculty’s budget.
The costs extend further still once one factors in investigating and managing misconduct matters, as well as student complaints and appeals processes.
But this is not money lost. It is money invested.
Assessment is an investment, and the main mechanism by which a university assures learning across its programs, builds its reputation for producing high-quality graduates, and earns public trust in the degrees it awards. That is the return.
So how much do we know about this investment? Surprisingly little.
The problem comes down to visibility. You cannot manage what you cannot see, and right now most leaders and educators cannot see assessments across the program.
Ask a dean or program coordinator what types of assessment sit in a program, how many are supervised, and what the whole approach costs, and most would not know. The few who went looking would count what they could in the curriculum system, guesstimate the rest, and produce an approximation that would be out of date by the next teaching period.
That’s why every university needs live, program-level dashboards right now.
At Curtin, Assessment 2030 has been building exactly that, with data drawn directly from the curriculum management system. The dashboards show every program learning outcome and whether it’s underpinned by secure assessments (aligning with Standards 1.4.3 and 1.4.4 of the Higher Education Standards Framework).
More than that, they show assessment type (secure or open) and the diversity of assessment across the program. This means an educator can see at a glance how many oral presentations, skills demonstrations, essays, or exams each student will complete.
Future iterations will go further, breaking down details such as when each assessment is scheduled and how much resourcing each task is likely to require. Considerations such as the risk of misconduct (or past incidence rates) will also help identify where more resourcing for preventative security is required.
This is a new paradigm for senior leaders, educators, and assessment researchers. Every degree a university awards rests on this investment. It's time we understood what we design, what it costs, and how it delivers on our mission.
Professor Mollie Dollinger is from Curtin University and Associate Professor Amanda White is from UTS.