Jon Powell (Assistant Professor in Engineering)

What I did 

I teach a Foundation Year Engineering module called Mechanics and Properties of Matter, a laboratory-based module that introduces students to experimental work and technical report writing. When I took over the module in 2022, students were required to complete seven reports: six during term time and a further report during the assessment period. Four of these were substantial laboratory reports. My initial observation was that the volume of assessment was overwhelming, particularly for students who had never undertaken laboratory work or technical writing before. 

Over a three-year period, I redesigned the assessment to focus on developing students’ skills gradually. The redesigned approach incorporated three interrelated elements: 

1. Progressive authorship 

2. Self-assessment and reflection 

3. Draft submission and feedback 

The progressive authorship model was designed to scaffold report writing. Rather than expecting students to write a complete laboratory report from the outset, the first report was largely written by me, with students completing only the summary and conclusions. With each subsequent report, students assumed greater responsibility for the writing until, by the fifth report, they were producing a complete laboratory report independently. 

Alongside this, students completed a self-assessment and reflection cover sheet. They were required to evaluate their work against the marking criteria, identifying strengths and areas for improvement. Importantly, they had to reference specific criteria rather than providing general reflections. 

Here is the guidance provided around effective self-reflection: 

To support the self-assessing process, I also provided explicit training on how to use the criteria. During the first week of the module, students worked collaboratively to assess sample reports, compare marks, and discuss feedback. This helped demystify the assessment process and familiarised students with the language and expectations of technical report writing. 

More recently, I introduced an optional draft submission stage. Students could submit a draft report and receive one-to-one feedback during their laboratory session before submitting the final version. Feedback discussions were structured around the assessment criteria and focused on helping students understand where improvements could be made. 

Why I did it 

The redesign was motivated by a concern that the original assessment structure was neither supporting learning nor enabling meaningful improvement. Students were being asked to write complex laboratory reports before they had developed the necessary skills. Technical report writing requires students to manage a large number of components simultaneously, including structure, presentation of results, analysis, discussion, and conclusions. For students encountering these expectations for the first time, this represented a substantial cognitive and emotional challenge. I observed only marginal improvements in report quality across the module and was unconvinced that students were genuinely developing as writers. The workload also appeared excessive and potentially discouraging. 

The progressive authorship model was designed to reduce this burden while maintaining opportunities for assessment. By focusing initially on a smaller number of report sections, students could concentrate their efforts on developing specific skills before tackling increasingly complex tasks. The self-assessment component was intended to help students engage actively with assessment criteria and develop the ability to evaluate their own work. This is not only a valuable academic skill but also a professional skill. As engineers, students will eventually be expected to evaluate their own work in order to continue improving throughout their careers. 

The draft submission process was introduced to provide timely, dialogic feedback. Rather than receiving comments after submission, students were able to discuss their work directly with me and clarify misunderstandings before final submission. 

What did I discover? 

Students responded very positively to the draft submission process. Mid-term feedback suggested that the opportunity to receive draft feedback reduced anxiety and increased confidence. For Foundation Year students in particular, reducing assessment-related stress appeared to support more authentic engagement with the task. 

The most significant findings emerged when I analysed student performance across three years of implementation. Perhaps surprisingly, the interventions did not improve all aspects of report writing equally. The largest improvements occurred in sections requiring evaluative thinking. Marks improved significantly in discussion and conclusion sections, with improvements of approximately 14% and 13% respectively. By contrast, sections involving more procedural tasks, such as presenting results, showed less change. This suggests that the interventions were particularly effective in supporting students’ ability to analyse data, evaluate findings, and discuss significance rather than simply follow instructions. 

The self-assessment process was also revealing. Students who engaged fully with self-assessment produced marks that were much closer to my own marking than those who did not engage. Their performance also improved over time. For me, this was one of the most interesting outcomes. Students who could more accurately judge the quality of their own work appeared better able to identify the improvements needed for future assessments. Developing this evaluative capacity may therefore be as important as improving performance on any individual assignment. 

The work also highlighted the importance of helping students critique information rather than merely produce it. This has become increasingly relevant in the context of generative AI, where students need to be able to evaluate outputs critically rather than accept them uncritically. 

What I can improve 

Although I am pleased with the outcomes, there are several aspects I would like to develop further. The current marking criteria has become too lengthy and detailed. While students appreciate the specificity, it can be cumbersome for both students and assessors. My next step is to streamline the marking criteria while maintaining clarity. 

I would also like to provide additional worked examples. Currently, each report section includes key points and example paragraphs demonstrating individual assessment criteria. Expanding these examples could further support students in understanding expectations. 

Another area for development is self-assessment. Only around half of students engaged fully with the reflection cover sheet. Interestingly, this created a useful comparison group in the evaluation, but ideally I would like all students to participate. My longer-term ambition is to integrate self-assessment directly into Canvas. Before submitting their work, students would complete a short structured self-evaluation linked to the assessment criteria. This would simplify the process and encourage wider participation. 

Finally, I would like to investigate which elements of the intervention are having the greatest impact. The progressive authorship model, self-assessment process, draft feedback, and marking criteria training were designed as pedagogical responses to a teaching challenge rather than as a formal research study. My next step is to explore these components individually to understand how they work together and which have the strongest effects on learning. 

My top tips

1. Scaffold complex assessments: If students are new to a form of assessment, avoid expecting complete mastery from the outset. Start with smaller components and gradually increase complexity as confidence develops. 

2. Teach students how to use the marking criteria: Do not assume students understand assessment language. Explicitly teach the criteria and give students opportunities to practise using them. 

3. Make self-assessment specific: Ask students to reference precise assessment criteria when evaluating their work. This grounds reflection in the expectations of the assessment and discourages vague responses. 

4. Expect a temporary dip in marks: With scaffolded assessment, student performance may drop when expectations increase. In my module, marks typically fell in the middle of the term before improving again as students gained confidence and experience. This dip is often a sign that learning is happening. 

5. Be consistent with terminology: Students need clear and consistent language, particularly when encountering unfamiliar forms of assessment. Once they understand core concepts, additional complexity can be introduced later. 

6. Use feedback as a conversation: Where possible, discuss feedback directly with students. One-to-one conversations helped me ensure that feedback was understood and gave students opportunities to ask questions and clarify misunderstandings. 

7. Share your expectations: As educators, we always have an internal standard against which we judge work. Where possible, make those standards visible. Clear criteria, examples, and explanations help students understand what success looks like and support more equitable assessment practices.