invitation with targeted e-mails to programme leaders in less well represented faculties. The researchers used semi-structured questions in the interviews which were recorded, professionally transcribed, and analysed using the qualitative software, Atlas.ti.
This paper reports on findings from the University of Winchester study. The Winchester study draws on a growing body of research on assessment and feedback at programme level (Bloxham and Boyd 2007; Gibbs and Dunbar-Goddet 2008, 2009; Knight 2000; Rust 2000). In the literature, a programme approach to assessment is generally described as having learning outcomes to reflect both the whole programme philosophy and the complexity of outcomes not routinely contained in a 12 week module. It implies de-coupling assessment from modular credit schemes to allow for fewer and more wide-ranging summative assessment tasks spanning modules across a programme. Implicit in a programme approach is the view that more low-stakes, formative assessment is a vital condition of student learning. Progression through levels, and coherence of courses are central ideas in programmatic strategies of assessment. Strategies to make assessment more programmatic necessarily wrestle with the academic structure of modular degree programmes and the quality assurance regimes which underpin them.
The researchers analysed the data using a holistic reading of all the transcripts, and iterations of coding on the software programme, Atlas.ti. The coding combined distinctive in vivo codes derived directly from the particular words of research participants, as well as standard codes which were linked to our research questions. These included how programme leaders viewed the academic structure as impacting on assessment patterns, or the balance of summative and formative assessment, feedback and its use, student approaches to assessment, volumes and variety of assessment, and ideas about community of practice and collegiality in assessing students. The value of the software programme, Atlas.ti, lies in its capacity to identify and enumerate the frequency of segments of conversation, leading to more focused theorising about key issues in the data. Developing themes leading to theory generation forms a key element of grounded theory (Glaser and Strauss, 1967), allowing the researcher to distil themes from data in ever increasing levels of abstraction. Atlas.ti enables the researcher to merge and cluster codes as themes are conceptualised and relationships between the various codes are identified.
Our paper explores what happens in the gap between official validated documents describing assessment regimes within the quality process, and their interpretation on a programme, through the eyes of the team leader. It seeks to distinguish the official version of assessment practices from the lived experience of assessment as recounted by programme leaders.
Alongside the interview process, a member of the research team, Gubby, conducted a fine-grained analysis of the definitive documents to elicit key data about aspects of assessment on each programme. This element of data gathering became more sophisticated because it coincided with the audit process on the TESTA project, which has developed a fairly robust framework for getting a bird’s eye view of assessment on a whole programme.
Methodology From March to April 2009, two researchers, Jessop and McNab, collected interview data from 14 programme leaders of undergraduate degree programmes across the four faculties of the University of Winchester. The programmes included foundation degrees, humanities and social science degrees, and professional courses. Respondents were invited to participate in the research through the Programme Leaders’ Forum. Sampling of programmes was based on voluntary selection, but also sought to be representative across faculties. To ensure that each faculty was represented, the researchers followed up the general
The research process was ethically scrutinised by the then Faculty of Education Chair of Ethics, to conform with University Research and Knowledge Transfer guidelines on the conduct of research. Following a careful explanation of the purpose and remit of the 18