The Needle in the Assessment Haystack: Detailed, Formative Feedback
Perfecting feedback processes remains one of higher education’s biggest challenges. Despite constant tinkering, institutions are still struggling to find the right balance between providing meaningful input to students while being economical with the precious time of faculty.
Here’s where our Future of Assessment Working Group steps in. We’ve assembled more than 220 of the sector’s most agile minds to collaborate and tackle assessment challenges, including those which have arisen in recent years in parallel with the growth of generative AI. The insights extracted from this global group of experts have already informed two white papers; the first outlines crucial steps institutions can take today to prepare for a future where AI use is commonplace, the second expands on this to outline a robust assessment ecosystem grounded in academic research.
Our recent roundtable conversations with the Future of Assessment Working Group have focused on feedback. While best practices can vary depending on the region, institution type, and subject area, key imperatives emerge that apply across the breadth of higher ed:
- Move feedback from a grading process -> design consideration: Feedback shouldn’t just be a reflection after an assessment submission, rather it should be ongoing process aimed at student development. As Stephen Taylor, Learning Technology Lead at Regent’s University London, notes, “Learning happens through conversation: with the tutor, with peers, and through checking understanding in an ongoing loop.”
- Rubric use is essential: Institutions continue to push to make rubric use universal. Blackboard’s AI Design Assistant has been a gift to many institutions in this pursuit, as recently outlined in this case study with the Savannah College of Art and Design (SCAD).
- Evolve rubrics from analytic -> dialogic: Not all rubrics are created equal, however. Members of our Future of Assessment Working Group advocate for broader use of dialogic rubrics, providing students with genuine feedback and context rather than just a number. “Students need explicit structure,” explains Dr. Bevin Rainwater, Assistant Director for Academic Technology, Teaching, and Learning at the University of Hartford. “Guided questions, peer review and self-review help them know what they are supposed to be looking for.”
- The AI Opportunity: With all these areas, the thoughtful and ethical inclusion of AI offers the opportunity to scale positive feedback processes, without worsening the administrative burden for instructors.
The third white paper in our future of assessment series, The Future of Feedback: Reframing Rubrics as Dialogue, complements these institutional best practices with pedagogical research to explain why they’re effective. It goes well beyond theory, however, to detail a range of practical steps that institutions can take, including a “rubric cycle” framework to help instructors embrace a dialogic approach. This will come out in July – pre-register for a copy and we’ll have it in your inbox on the day of release.
Finally, allow us to close with a quick spoiler. The insights shared by Future of Assessment Working Group have caught the attention of Fredrik Klemming, Director of Product Management, and he’s planned a special little something to share with you all Building Blackboard Together. The “Future of AI in Assessment” focus group will take place on the morning of Wednesday July 15th, check out the agenda for full details and be sure to register early as attendance is strictly limited. We can’t reveal too much for the time being, but if detailed, formative feedback at scale is something you’d love to implement at your institution, we promise you won’t leave disappointed.
Interested in collaborating with other leaders to define the future of assessment? Sign up for our awesome working group today!
Pre-Register to receive The Future of Feedback: Reframing Rubrics as Dialogue