Ensuring bachelor’s thesis assessment quality: a case study at one Dutch research university

PurposeIn the Netherlands, thesis assessment quality is a growing concern for the national accreditation organization due to increasing student numbers and supervisor workload. However, the accreditation framework lacks guidance on how to meet quality standards. This study aims to address these issues by sharing our experience, identifying problems and proposing guidelines for quality assurance for a thesis assessment system.Design/methodology/approachThis study has two parts. The first part is a narrative literature review conducted to derive guidelines for thesis assessment based on observations made at four Dutch universities. The second part is a case study conducted in one bachelor’s psychology-related program, where the assessment practitioners and the vice program director analyzed the assessment documents based on the guidelines developed from the literature review.FindingsThe findings of this study include a list of guidelines based on the four standards. The case study results showed that the program meets most of the guidelines, as it has a comprehensive set of thesis learning outcomes, peer coaching for novice supervisors, clear and complete assessment information and procedures for both examiners and students, and a concise assessment form.Originality/valueThis study is original in that it demonstrates how to holistically ensure the quality of thesis assessments by considering the context of the program and paying more attention to validity (e.g. program curriculum and assessment design), transparency (e.g. integrating assessment into the supervision process) and the assessment expertise of teaching staff.

[1]  Riina Koris,et al.  We cannot agree to disagree: ensuring consistency, transparency and fairness across bachelor thesis writing, supervision and evaluation , 2022, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education.

[2]  M. Malcolm.  The challenge of achieving transparency in undergraduate honours-level dissertation supervision , 2020, Teaching in Higher Education.

[3]  S. Kometa,et al.  Research project assessments and supervisor marking: maintaining academic rigour through robust reconciliation processes , 2020 .

[4]  Leoniek Wijngaards-de Meij,et al.  Improving curriculum alignment and achieving learning goals by making the curriculum visible , 2018 .

[5]  Susan M. Brookhart,et al.  Appropriate Criteria: Key to Effective Rubrics , 2018, Front. Educ..

[6]  Mercedes Reguant,et al.  Supervisors’ perceptions of research competencies in the final-year project , 2018 .

[7]  Lenore Adie,et al.  What’s the point of moderation? A discussion of the purposes achieved through contemporary moderation practices , 2016 .

[8]  M. Price,et al.  Let’s stop the pretence of consistent marking: exploring the multiple limitations of assessment criteria , 2016 .

[9]  Matthew Bamber.  The impact on stakeholder confidence of increased transparency in the examination assessment process , 2015 .

[10]  C. Golding,et al.  What examiners do: what thesis students should know , 2014 .

[11]  D. Andriessen,et al.  Beoordelen is mensenwerk , 2014 .

[12]  Amani Bell,et al.  Students’ perceptions of the usefulness of marking guides, grade descriptors and annotated exemplars , 2013 .

[13]  D. Royce Sadler,et al.  Assessment in Education : Principles , Policy & Practice , 2012 .

[14]  Susan M. Brookhart,et al.  How to Create and Use Rubrics for Formative Assessment and Grading , 2013 .

[15]  J. Willison,et al.  When academics integrate research skill development in the curriculum , 2012 .

[16]  Abel Nyamapfene,et al.  Involving supervisors in assessing undergraduate student projects: is double marking robust? , 2012 .

[17]  R. Smyth,et al.  Higher degree research supervision: from practice toward theory , 2011 .

[18]  Susan Bloxham,et al.  Mark my words: the role of assessment criteria in UK higher education grading practices , 2011 .

[19]  J. Bettany-Saltikov,et al.  Bones, boys, bombs and booze: an exploratory study of the reliability of marking dissertations across disciplines , 2009 .

[20]  J. M. Ryan,et al.  The Critical Role of Anchor Paper Selection in Writing Assessment , 2009 .

[21]  山下 顕史,et al.  National board for professional teaching standardsの設立と現状に関する考察 , 2008 .

[22]  S. Bloxham,et al.  Developing Effective Assessment in Higher Education: A Practical Guide , 2007 .

[23]  R. Haigh,et al.  Enhancing the quality and consistency of undergraduate dissertation assessment: A case study , 2007 .

[24]  Suellen Shay,et al.  The assessment of complex tasks: a double reading , 2005 .

[25]  M. Price,et al.  Assessment standards: the role of communities of practice and the scholarship of assessment , 2005 .

[26]  Belita Gordon,et al.  Resolving Score Differences in the Rating of Writing Samples: Does Discussion Improve the Accuracy of Scores? , 2005 .

[27]  Chris Rust,et al.  Know what I mean? Enhancing student understanding of assessment standards and criteria , 2004 .

[28]  Sue Clegg,et al.  Independent inquiry and the undergraduate dissertation: perceptions and experiences of final‐year social science students , 2004 .

[29]  Michelle Y. Szpara,et al.  NATIONAL BOARD FOR PROFESSIONAL TEACHING STANDARDS BIAS-REDUCTION TRAINING: IMPACT ON ASSESSORS' AWARENESS , 2004 .

[30]  Chris Rust,et al.  Improving Students' Learning by Developing their Understanding of Assessment Criteria and Processes , 2003 .

[31]  Margaret Kiley,et al.  'It's a PhD, not a Nobel Prize': How experienced examiners assess research theses , 2002 .

[32]  Stephen Merry,et al.  The Use of Exemplars and Formative Feedback when Using Student Derived Marking Criteria in Peer and Self-assessment , 2002 .

[33]  Frank Webster,et al.  Assessing the Undergraduate Dissertation , 2000 .

[34]  Debbie Clewes,et al.  Marking the Difference: An investigation of the criteria used for assessing undergraduate dissertations in a business school , 2000 .

[35]  Barbara E. Walvoord,et al.  Effective grading : a tool for learning and assessment in college , 1998 .

[36]  Laura Heinonen,et al.  Bachelor’s Thesis , 2012 .

[37]  G. Boulton‐Lewis.  Teaching for quality learning at university , 2008 .

[38]  M. Berg.  The Framework for Qualifications of the European Higher Education Area , 2005 .

[39]  Margaret Kiley,et al.  Examining the examiners: How inexperienced examiners approach the assessment of research theses , 2004 .

[40]  G. V. D. Watering.  De actuele kwaliteit van assessment: ontwikkelingen in de edumetrie , 2002 .

[41]  D. Royce Sadler,et al.  Specifying and Promulgating Achievement Standards , 1987 .