There is increasing awareness from universal design for learning (UDL) and teaching for understanding (TfU) frameworks that undergraduate assessments require a diverse array of methodologies to allow students to express learning and demonstrate performances of understanding. In STEM, undergraduate practical laboratory classes provide hands-on training in experimental design, techniques and workflows, development of critical thinking and problem solving, communication and working with peers and building student identity as working scientists. However, despite the myriad of benefits that practical classes can impart, student performances can sometimes be evaluated from over-reliance on traditional written reports, which only effectively evaluate a narrow range of student competencies.

In Dundalk Institute of Technology (DkIT), we recently modified the assessment strategy of a ‘Biotechnology’ module within a third year BSc (Hons) programme in Biopharmaceutical Science. In our initial study, we altered our assessment strategy away from an emphasis on written reports (3-4 over a semester) to include 3 different modes (Moodle Quiz, Group Presentation and Written Report). We initially hypothesised that this mixture of assessments may not necessarily impact student scores but might positively influence perceptions of different skills that varied assessments allowed students to practice. Over 3 academic years, we found there was no statistical difference in student scores between the Moodle Quiz, Group Presentation and Written Report, and this was consistent each year (2020, n=24 students; 2021, n=13 students; 2022, n=29 students). However, when survey and focus group data was analyzed from these cohorts, it emerged that each assessment allowed students to practice different skill sets and express learning and understanding differently, with some assessments more suited to practicing (and presumably evaluating) specific skills over others. For example presentations were deemed best for communication skills, whereas written reports were effective in allowing deep research and critical thinking (Drumm et al., 2024).

In an expansion of this study, we queried how assessment choice affected practical class assessment scores. We designed a study in the same 3^rd year Biotechnology module over 2 academic years (2023 - 2024), where students performed varied assessments as before (Moodle Quiz, Group Presentation and Written Report), and introduced a 4^th assessment where students had a choice of which of modality they would engage with. We hypothesised that students would choose assessment in which they previously scored highest. We analysed student scores (n=72 students), and found that when asked to choose their final assessment 72.6% chose Moodle Quiz, 16.4% chose Written Report and only 11% chose Presentation. 58% of students chose the assessment in which they previously scored highest. However, almost the same proportion did not, and 29.3% of students even chose the assessment they had previously scored lowest. Interestingly, when individual scores in chosen assessment modality were tracked to scores with the same modality on first attempt, there was no statistical difference (P>0.05, n=72).

These data suggest providing students with a choice in assessment modality for practical classes does not necessarily result in increased scores. We conclude that students appear to select assessment modalities based on factors beyond prior grades. We are now in the process of analysing focus group data from these students to further explore the motivations underlying their decisions.

References

Drumm BT, Bree R, Griffin CS & O'Leary N. (2024). Diversifying laboratory assessment modes broadens engagement with practical competencies in life science students. Adv Physiol Educ 48, 527-546.