{"id":1912,"date":"2026-07-13T11:54:33","date_gmt":"2026-07-13T10:54:33","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.sussex.ac.uk\/learning-matters\/?p=1912"},"modified":"2026-07-13T12:05:12","modified_gmt":"2026-07-13T11:05:12","slug":"faculty-education-dialogue-assessment-of-participation-possibilities-and-challenges","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.sussex.ac.uk\/learning-matters\/2026\/07\/13\/faculty-education-dialogue-assessment-of-participation-possibilities-and-challenges\/","title":{"rendered":"Faculty Education Dialogue: Assessment of Participation \u2013 Possibilities and Challenges"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

 <\/a>Assessment of participation remains one of the more complex and contested areas of higher education practice. While universities increasingly emphasise active learning, belonging, and student engagement, questions persist around what participation actually means, how it can be assessed fairly, and whether it should be assessed at all. The recent Faculty Education Dialogue: Assessment of Participation: Possibilities and Challenges<\/em>, organised by Dr Carli Rowell and Dr Emily Danvers, featured colleagues from across the Faculty of Social Sciences, who explored these questions through examples of innovative practice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The discussion resonated strongly with wider scholarship on participation assessment. Research has highlighted both the educational benefits and ethical challenges of assessing participation, particularly in recognising diverse forms of contribution and avoiding narrow definitions of engagement (Armstrong & Boud, 2006)<\/a>.  Similarly, Lai (2011)<\/a> explores assessing participation via online discussions and emphasises the importance of transparent criteria and acknowledging different modes of participation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

 Colleagues at Sussex have reflected on the practicalities of participation assessment and the importance of designing approaches that reward meaningful engagement rather than simple attendance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Below are some of the examples of assessment participation that were shared at the event. We hope they provide inspiration and resource for educators working across the sector.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Engaged<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Reframing participation through reflection and shared learning<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Dr Beth Mills presented an inspiring example of participatory pedagogy through her MA module, \u2018Doing Gender in Theory and Practice\u2019.Through its structure, content and assessment design, the module challenges us to reconsider one of the most familiar ideas in higher education: participation. Rather than viewing participation simply as speaking confidently in seminars, it encourages us to think more critically about whose knowledge is recognised, whose voices are heard, and what forms of engagement universities choose to value.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Teaching takes place in intensive three-hour sessions with cohorts of up to 30 students. The module content covers four main quadrants of the Gender at Work Framework to support rigorous analysis of intersectional inequalities across scale, from the individual to the community and wider institutions. These quadrants include: Individual Consciousness and Capabilities; Social Norms; Politics and Policies; and Resource Allocation. The module is designed across two week blocks that focus on each quadrant. In the first week, students are supported to learn relevant theory; this theory is then applied through a tutor- and group-facilitated practice session in the second week.  In the practice sessions, l<\/ins>earning extends beyond traditional academic texts to include blogs, podcasts, music, and poetry. These sessions often begin with \u201cstory circles\u201d that seek to move the theory of the previous week into the student\u2019s reflections of their everyday lives and work, reframing participation as collaborative narrative exchange rather than simply speaking during classroom discussions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the practice sessions, students engage in small-group work, collaborative activities supported by Padlet, and analytical methods such as policy analysis, stakeholder analysis, problem trees and opportunity mapping. Participation is broadened to include storytelling, collaborative discussion, online engagement, reflective writing, creative work, practice-based case studies and professional or activist expertise. The classroom becomes a space for collective knowledge production, where learning is understood as relational, embodied and collaborative rather than something transmitted from lecturer to student. The module foregrounds inclusivity. Expectations are clearly communicated from the outset, and students are given opportunities to express concerns and preferences around teaching activities early in the course.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Assessment reflects the module\u2019s philosophy of reflection and collaboration. A traditional case study, worth 60%, requires students to analyse an organisation using the Gender at Work framework. Complementing this, a 40% learning journal encourages ongoing reflection throughout the module, enabling students to integrate experiences, challenge assumptions about what constitutes valid knowledge, and recognise that academic understanding often emerges through reinterpretation and dialogue. Students are encouraged to reflect on module readings, practical experiences and the evolution of their own thinking throughout the course. The learning journal assessment focusses on three key criteria\u2014critical thought, creativity and reflexivity\u2014while giving students the freedom to communicate their learning through a wide range of formats, including reflective writing, photographs, poetry, blogs, drawings, videos and organisational examples. Importantly, this approach does not abandon academic rigour; instead, it expands the ways in which intellectual engagement could be demonstrated and encourages students to synthesis academic analysis with their own lived experience of \u2018doing gender\u2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

One of the most compelling aspects of the approach is the emphasis on creating a genuine learning community. Student feedback suggests that the module fosters trust, wellbeing and solidarity, with one student describing the experience as “making knowledge together.” Students feel empowered to develop their own thinking collectively, linking personal experience with academic scholarship in meaningful ways.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Assessing engagement through in-class group presentations<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Dr David Karp shared an approach to assessing student engagement through group presentations that shifts the emphasis from product to process. In a third-year module, all preparation occurred during class time rather than outside scheduled teaching sessions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Across five weeks and five topics, students selected areas of interest and formed groups accordingly. Each group explored a guiding question supported by individual preparatory research based on case studies. Students facilitated breakout discussions with peers before presenting a five-minute summary of their group\u2019s conclusions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What distinguished this approach was the opportunity for direct observation of collaboration, interpersonal skills, and critical reasoning as they developed. Although framed as group presentations, assessment focused on individual contributions, with presentations accounting for approximately 20% of the module mark.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ultimately, Dr Karp’s model shows that when assessing student participation, the collaborative process itself is just as important as the final product.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Portfolio assessment and fostering belonging<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Professor Lynne Murphy described an innovative portfolio approach designed to encourage engagement among first-year students. Within 30-credit modules, 20% of the assessment is allocated to an \u201cengagement sheet\u201d documenting participation across various activities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Students receive credit for maintaining reflective journals, submitting formative assessments, attending seminars or talks accompanied by brief reflections, and participating in reading quizzes. Crucially, the assessment does not evaluate the quality of participation itself; rather, it acknowledges that students have engaged with learning opportunities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Murphy emphasised that formative work need not be polished. Simple notes are sufficient, reducing perfectionism while supporting feedback and demonstrating progress over time. The approach also strengthens community building through randomly assigned groups and opportunities for extracurricular engagement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Although labour intensive, Murphy noted that this model works effectively with cohorts of fewer than 40 students and positively influences both engagement and belonging. Resit arrangements remove the engagement component entirely, replacing it with alternative assessments.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Murphy\u2019s experience demonstrates that designing participation-focused assessment<\/a> often requires experimentation and adaptation. As outlined in her case study on encouraging attendance and engagement through portfolio assessment<\/a>, these approaches can significantly enhance students\u2019 sense of connection and investment in learning communities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The value of deeper intellectual engagement<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Dr Sabrina Gilani and Dr Ashleigh Keall presented perhaps one of the most thought-provoking examples of engagement assessment through their Level 6 elective module, Aboriginal Law<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This third-year module, taught through highly interactive seminars without lectures, encourages students to engage with Indigenous legal thought and embodied approaches to law. Students prepare by listening to podcasts before class, creating space for discussion-based learning during seminars.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A forthcoming assessment redesign introduces an in-class presentation, critical case analysis, and a 10% engagement component assessed through a 500-word reflective statement. Students explain how they engaged with the module, what they gained from this engagement, and how it influenced their thinking. They are also encouraged to position themselves within a grade band based on self-assessment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Importantly, engagement is conceptualised broadly. Alongside attending classes and office hours, students might engage by attending talks, watching documentaries, undertaking supplementary reading, or independently exploring legal cases. The intention is to reward intellectual curiosity that extends beyond formal teaching sessions, rather than penalising absence. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The presenters also addressed practical considerations surrounding reflective assessment, including marking fairness, self-assessment, and whether reflective work should be assessed anonymously. Supporting reflective practice throughout the module, students are given opportunities to consider their weekly engagement and participate in peer review activities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This approach prompts important questions about the distinction between participation as visible activity and engagement as deeper intellectual investment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Building communities of enquiry<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Dr Marcelo Staricoff described several innovations within the MA Education programme that seek to strengthen collaborative learning, applied theory, and critical engagement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Students complete group presentation tasks linking educational theorists with contemporary educational organisations. Assessment is based on pass\/fail participation, emphasising involvement rather than performance. Students also present preliminary ideas for subsequent written assignments, encouraging iterative development and dialogue around assessment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Teaching incorporates debate-style activities requiring students to apply theoretical concepts to authentic problems. Notably, dissertation assessment now includes a presentation component worth 25% of the final mark, requiring students to discuss and defend their research ideas before submitting written work.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Staricoff also highlighted the integration of artificial intelligence within portfolio work. Students critically engage with AI tools<\/a> to transform academic resources into alternative formats or generate materials that must then be contextualised and adapted appropriately.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Underlying these innovations is a commitment to developing classrooms as communities of enquiry characterised by collaboration, dialogue, and reflective engagement with emerging technologies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Final reflections<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The dialogue highlighted that there is no single approach to assessing participation, and that it goes far beyond just \u2018bums on seats\u2019. Instead, participation emerges as a multifaceted concept encompassing reflection, collaboration, seminar discussions, online forums, group projects, with predominant focus on \u2018effort and process, as opposed to product\u2019.<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Across the presentations, common principles emerged: valuing diverse forms of engagement, prioritising inclusivity, making expectations transparent, and recognising that meaningful learning often occurs through dialogue and shared inquiry. At the same time, presenters were refreshingly honest about the practical challenges involved, including workload, scalability, and ensuring fairness.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Perhaps the most significant takeaway was the value of creating spaces where colleagues can openly share experiments, successes, uncertainties, and lessons learned. Events such as this remind us that educational innovation flourishes through collaboration and conversation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hopefully, this will not be the last event of its kind. Bringing academics together to exchange good practice, challenge assumptions, and collectively explore possibilities for enhancing student learning is itself an example of the very participatory ethos that many of the presenters advocated. As we continue to rethink assessment and engagement in higher education, these opportunities for shared reflection may prove just as valuable as the innovations they inspire.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

 Assessment of participation remains one of the more complex and contested areas of higher education practice. While universities increasingly emphasise active learning, belonging, and student engagement, questions persist around what participation actually means, how it can be assessed fairly, and…<\/span><\/p>\n

Read more ›<\/a><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":432,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[71757],"tags":[123700,123702],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.sussex.ac.uk\/learning-matters\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1912"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.sussex.ac.uk\/learning-matters\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.sussex.ac.uk\/learning-matters\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.sussex.ac.uk\/learning-matters\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/432"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.sussex.ac.uk\/learning-matters\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1912"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.sussex.ac.uk\/learning-matters\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1912\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1923,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.sussex.ac.uk\/learning-matters\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1912\/revisions\/1923"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.sussex.ac.uk\/learning-matters\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1912"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.sussex.ac.uk\/learning-matters\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1912"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.sussex.ac.uk\/learning-matters\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1912"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}