4.4 Article

Student wellbeing and assessment in higher education: the balancing act

期刊

ASSESSMENT & EVALUATION IN HIGHER EDUCATION
卷 46, 期 3, 页码 438-450

出版社

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/02602938.2020.1782344

关键词

Assessment; wellbeing; mental health; whole university approach

资金

  1. UPP Foundation
  2. Office for Students, through the Charity Student Minds, as part of the development of the University Mental Health Charter

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper identifies five key tensions that can arise in assessment design and strategy when balancing student wellbeing with pedagogical, practical, and policy considerations. It emphasizes the need to acknowledge the pressures of assessment on both staff and students, and provides educators with valuable reflection points to navigate conflicts within their assessment design and practices.
This paper draws on staff and student consultations conducted during the development of Student Minds' University Mental Health Charter to identify five key tensions which can arise in assessment design and strategy when seeking to balance the wellbeing of students with pedagogical, practical and policy considerations. It highlights the need to acknowledge the pressures of assessment on staff wellbeing as well as students. The particular tensions explored include the need to balance challenge against the psychological threats this can entail; the varying impacts of traditional and novel forms of assessment; the differing demands of collaborative and individual work; the tensions between ideal strategies and those which are practically feasible; and the ways in which feedback is given (as a constructive learning tool) and received (often as a psychological threat). These tensions can provide a valuable point of reflection for educators who need to critically and proactively navigate these conflicts within their own assessment design and practices, as part of a wider whole university approach to promoting student wellbeing.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据