A Better Way to Introduce Alternative Final Assessment

If an institution wants to expand the use of alternative final assessment, the answer should not be:

“Remove all final examinations.”

The better instruction is:

Select the most appropriate final assessment method for each course and justify the decision.

The decision must begin with the Course Learning Outcomes (CLOs), not with a university-wide preference for or against examinations.

For every course, the faculty should ask:

1. What must the student know or be able to do?
2. What evidence would demonstrate that the student has achieved it?
3. Does the assessment need to measure individual performance?
4. Does the student need to perform under controlled conditions?
5. Can the work be completed using outside assistance or generative AI?
6. How will the institution confirm that the submitted work belongs to the student?
7. Can the assessment be marked consistently and fairly?

Based on these questions, a course may use one of three approaches:

1. Final Examination

Suitable when individual knowledge, procedural fluency, independent problem-solving or performance under controlled conditions must be assessed.

2. Alternative Final Assessment

Suitable when students need to create, design, investigate, perform, demonstrate, reflect or solve an authentic problem.

3. Hybrid Assessment

Suitable when both knowledge and application must be assessed.

For example, a course may use:

• A controlled test to assess core knowledge
• A project to assess application
• A presentation or viva to verify ownership and understanding

A hybrid model may be more academically defensible than completely removing examinations.

Before implementing the change widely, the institution should also:

• Establish clear definitions of final examination and alternative final assessment.
• Train academic staff in constructive alignment and authentic assessment design.
• Review each course individually rather than applying one rule to all courses.
• Develop clear rubrics and moderation procedures.
• Introduce checkpoints, presentations or viva sessions where appropriate.
• Address plagiarism, contract cheating and generative AI use.
• Pilot the approach in suitable courses before expanding it.
• Review grade patterns, student workload and learning outcome attainment.

Most importantly, lecturers should not be asked only to change the assessment label in the LMS.

Lecturers need time, guidance, examples and proper academic support to redesign the assessment itself.

The objective should not be to become an institution without final examinations. That is not, by itself, a sign of innovation.

The objective should be to become an institution that uses the right assessment for the right learning outcome.

Do not remove examinations because they appear old-fashioned. Remove an examination only when a better and more defensible assessment method is available.

Assessment transformation should be driven by learning, not by policy targets, administrative convenience or excitement over a new approach.

Go to previous articles:
> The Excitement of Alternative Final Assessment - Higher Education Perspectives
> The Danger of Going All Out - Alternative Final Assessment in Higher Education

#HigherEducation #AssessmentLiteracy #AuthenticAssessment #AcademicGovernance #EducationalInnovation