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

The Excitement of Alternative Final Assessment - Higher Education Perspectives

For many years, the sit-in final examination was treated as the default way to assess university students.

Students entered an examination hall, answered a set of questions within two or three hours, and left. It was controlled, familiar and relatively easy to manage.

But there was always one important question:

Does a final examination truly show what a student can do?

A student may be able to memorise theories and reproduce them during an examination. But can the student apply those theories, solve a real problem, create a product, defend a decision or perform a professional task?

This is where alternative final assessment became attractive.

National higher education quality guidance recognises that a final assessment can take different forms. It may be a final examination, but it may also be a final project, portfolio, exhibition, reflective assessment, seminar, expert review, critique or logbook.

This gives higher education institutions more flexibility to assess learning in ways that are more authentic and relevant.

For example:

• A learning design student can develop an online learning module.
• A business student can analyse a real organisational problem.
• A computing student can build and demonstrate a working system.
• A communication student can produce a digital campaign.
• An education student can develop and defend a teaching portfolio.

The intention is good. Instead of only asking students what they know, we can ask them to demonstrate what they can do.

However, one important distinction must be understood:

Final Assessment does not mean Final Examination has been abolished.

A final examination is still one form of final assessment. Alternative assessment is another.

Source: Guidelines to Good Practices: Assessment of Student Learning. Malaysian Qualifications Agency 2023
https://www2.mqa.gov.my/qad/v2/2024/DOKUMEN%20GGP%20AOSL%209223%20FINAL%20V3.pdf 

The flexibility was introduced to allow institutions to select the most appropriate assessment method for the learning outcomes. It was not introduced to force every course to abandon examinations.

That difference is extremely important.

In the next article, I will discuss what can go wrong when an institution becomes too excited and attempts to convert every final examination into an alternative final assessment.

Go to next article: The Danger of Going All Out - Alternative Final Assessment in Higher Education

#HigherEducation #Assessment #AuthenticAssessment #AcademicQuality #TeachingAndLearning