Conference Agenda

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.

This study explores students’ perceptions of choice in assessment and the effectiveness of assignment briefs in communicating such tasks. Increased learner diversification in Ireland has accelerated the adoption of inclusive practices, with Universal Design for Learning (UDL) promising to increase inclusivity in education (Almeqdad et al. 2023). Recently, there has been increased momentum towards adopting the (UDL) framework in higher education (Healy et al. 2024). One UDL principle, student engagement, involves recruiting interest and sustaining effort, with choice as a key strategy (Finlay, Burg, and Wang 2025; Mrachko and Vostal 2020). Indeed, choice has been linked to a sense of inclusion, decreased anxiety, and increased participation and engagement (Fleming 2023). While choice can be enacted through delivery mode, learning activities, technologies, and assessment, this study focuses assessment.

Designing clear and detailed assignment instructions is inherently challenging (Walsh and Knight 2026 under review), and adding choice further complicates this task. For students, a well-designed assignment brief is crucial for optimising engagement and minimising confusion and stress (Walsh 2021). However, explorations on how well-designed assessment briefs can mitigate the complexities of choice remain limited.

Conducted at the University of Limerick, this small-scale study used an online questionnaire to gather qualitative and quantitative data. Respondents were enrolled on three undergraduate modules (n= 61; n= 3; n= 16) and one postgraduate module (n=7). The qualitative data were analysed via thematic analysis and quantitative data were subjected to descriptive statistical analysis.

Findings were mixed, revealing both benefits and challenges associated with choice in assessment. The benefits align with three primary themes: student interest, freedom of choice, and leveraging personal strengths. Interestingly, smaller cohorts also linked choice in assessment to the development of workplace-related critical thinking skills. Two primary challenges emerged in the findings: overwhelm and decision fatigue. Students found that defining the scope of the task exacerbated an already complex task. This complicates the effectiveness of the written assignment brief, as conceptualised by the 5Cs Framework for Effective Assessment Communication (Walsh and Knight 2025).

These findings underscore the pedagogical benefits of choice in assessment while highlighting the importance of clarity in assessment design. For educators, understanding the implications of choice on the communication of assessed tasks is fundamental to effective teaching.

References:

Almeqdad, Qais I., Alodat, Ali M., Alquraan, Mahmoud F., Mohaidat, Mohammad A., & Al-Makhzoomy, Alaa K. (2023). The effectiveness of universal design for learning: A systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis. Cogent Education, 10(1), 2218191. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2023.2218191

Finley, Sara, Burg, Oliva, & Wang, Anqi. (2025). Perception of choice is associated with internal locus of control: implications for Universal Design for Learning (UDL). Educational Psychology, 45(9), 993-1011. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2025.2546968

Fleming, Erica. C. (2023). ‘UDL for Inclusive Teaching: Offering Choice to Increase Belonging Through Technology’. Journal of teaching and learning with technology, 12(1), 72-90. https://doi.org/10.14434/jotlt.v12i1.36327

Healy, Richard, Ryder, Dara, & Banks, Joanne. (2024). Universal Design for Learning Policy in Tertiary Education in Ireland: Are we Ready to Commit? The All-Ireland Journal of Teaching and learning in Higher Education, 16 (2), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.62707/aishej.v16i2.919

Mrachko, Alicia, & Vostal, Brooks. (2020). Using the “Universal Design for Learning” Framework to Plan for All Students in the Classroom: Engagement through Choice. Elementary STEM Journal, 25(2), 29-31.

Walsh, Elaine. (2021). The role of effective communication on students’ emotional response to assessment: Written assignment brief. La Revue LEeE, 5, 1-24. https://doi.org/10.48325/rleee.005.02

Walsh, Elaine, & Knight, John. (2026). Exploring educators’ views of the challenges of communicating assessed tasks in higher education. [Manuscript under review].

Walsh, Elaine, & Knight, John. (2025). ‘The 5 Cs Framework for Effective Assessment Communication in Higher Education’. International Conference on Education and New Developments. 28-30 June 2025. Budapest, Hungary. (Available

Technology-enabled learning environments offer significant potential to support equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) in higher education, particularly within large-scale online and asynchronous modules where traditional assessment design often struggles to accommodate diverse learner needs. However, achieving meaningful inclusion at scale requires more than the adoption of digital tools; it demands intentional pedagogical design (Biggs et al., 2022; Kandlbinder, 2014) that promotes participation, flexibility, and student agency across large and diverse cohorts (Cook-Sather & Loh, 2023; Karen D. Könings & Ramani, 2021; Nahar & Cross, 2020).

This study investigates how the intentional integration of technology, curriculum design, and student co-creation can support EDI outcomes in large-scale online higher education modules. Specifically, it presents the design, implementation, and mixed-methods evaluation of the FACCtS (Formative Assessment Co-Created with Students) framework, which positions students and instructors as partners in the formative assessment design process. Students contribute questions, critique assessment items, and engage with peer-generated content, while instructors act as facilitators providing scaffolding and quality assurance.

The approach was implemented in a large multidisciplinary undergraduate module on data literacy and analytics, delivered in an online asynchronous format to a highly diverse cohort spanning 15 undergraduate programmes, with over 2,000 students enrolled annually (Abgaz, 2026; Abgaz & Dunne, 2023). Drawing on Universal Design for Learning (UDL) principles (CAST, 2018; Farrell, 2021), formative activities were designed to offer multiple means of engagement and representation: students could engage flexibly in terms of timing (asynchronous, self-paced access), question type (multiple choice, drag-and-drop, fill-in-the-blank, true/false), immediate automated feedback, and student agency through co-creation of assessment content. Crucially, while UDL implementations are typically instructor-designed, the FACCtS framework extends student agency beyond participation into assessment design itself — a contribution to inclusive assessment practice.

The technological infrastructure consisted of Loop (Dublin City University’s Moodle-based VLE), H5P interactive learning tools, and learning analytics. Loop provided the central platform for accessing materials, submitting formative contributions, and engaging with assessment activities. H5P enabled the creation of interactive learning objects — quizzes, scenario-based tasks, and game-like activities — that support immediate feedback and iterative learning (Llerena-Izquierdo & Zamora-Galindo, 2021). Together, these tools enabled highly interactive content while supporting flexible engagement patterns suited to students with varied disciplinary backgrounds and prior knowledge.

A mixed-methods evaluation was conducted across two consecutive academic years. Quantitative data were collected through platform analytics, activity participation metrics, and student surveys, while qualitative data from open-ended survey responses were analysed using thematic analysis. This combination enabled examination of both behavioural engagement patterns and students’ perceptions of the learning experience.

Findings indicate that the FACCtS approach supported inclusive formative assessment practices at scale. Platform analytics showed high rates of student interaction with H5P activities and co-created assessment tasks across the full cohort. Students reported that immediate automated feedback helped them identify misconceptions and reinforce understanding, while flexible asynchronous access was particularly valued by students with varied schedules and prior knowledge levels. Qualitative themes highlight how co-creation of assessment questions supported metacognitive reflection and deepened conceptual understanding, with game-based elements contributing to sustained motivation and engagement.

This study demonstrates how the strategic combination of EdTech platforms, UDL-informed design, and student co-creation can operationalise inclusive formative assessment in large-scale digital higher education environments. The FACCtS framework offers a replicable model for institutions seeking to move beyond surface-level tool adoption towards genuinely participatory and inclusive assessment design.

Key words: Formative assessment, student co-creation, UDL, intentional design, EdTech

References

Abgaz, Y. (2026). An Integrated Framework for Interactive and Inclusive Asynchronous Online Learning at Scale: Data Literacy in Higher Education. Education Sciences, 16(4). https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci16040639

And others