Today I’m very excited to present a student-authored blog by two undergraduate students, Alex Farsari and Moulika Shoume, from the UCL Political Science department. Thanks to them for running this project and writing a post about it and to Dr Manuel Vogt for supporting them.
Imagine a classroom where assessments don’t just test knowledge but actively guide students toward mastering the skills and competencies they need for success. What if every exam, essay, and project were carefully aligned with key learning outcomes (LOs), ensuring both theoretical knowledge and practical application? Educators hold the power to shape this experience—but are they using the right tools? As Political Science students at University College London (UCL), we embarked on a project to explore whether our academic journey truly fosters the skills we need to thrive in our future careers.
It is important to start by asking the fundamental: What skills should we be taught? Since the political world is constantly changing, political science extends beyond facts to understanding how we move from causal theories with testable hypotheses to scientific knowledge and specific, real-world applications. As students, we are taught not to speculate about the future and instead champion critical analysis based on verifiable trends. The term “critical thinking” comes up time and again as a vital skill, but this leads us to question: how effectively do standard assessments, like exams, essays, and projects, cover the competencies that students are supposed to develop? Are these tools sufficient for fostering the analytical and practical skills we need, or is there room for improvement in aligning assessments with explicit LOs?
While most higher education programs outline learning goals for students, the combined aggregate of assessments used within individual modules or by lecturers may not always align to cover these goals fully. This is why conducting an evaluation is valuable. We collaborated with the directors of our Department’s undergraduate programmes, who identified eight core learning objectives, including fostering independent and reflective learning, mastering data and evidence collection with proper referencing, and developing evidence-based solutions while critically evaluating diverse perspectives (see Graph 1). Additionally, the directors highlighted the importance of students developing and testing hypotheses with an awareness of different methods, considering replication and generalisation, and demonstrating a strong grasp of key concepts, theories, and methodologies. Our project built on these objectives to evaluate how effectively the module assessments in UCL’s Politics, Philosophy and Economics (PPE) and Politics and International Relations (PIR) programs align with them while identifying improvement opportunities.
Our analysis revealed that while common assessment formats, like instructor-set essays, effectively address certain LOs (such as demonstrating subject knowledge), they often fail to cover others, like practical data analysis or hypothesis testing (Graph 2). Most modules predominantly rely on essays, highlighting a preference for traditional assessment methods that – while familiar – limit opportunities for varied or practical assessments that could better develop a wider range of skills (Graph 3).
In larger modules, which impact more students, the constraints are greater. When assessments have unequal weights, those with more weight naturally have a larger influence on student learning but often come with stricter regulations (e.g., second marking in the UK), limiting lecturers’ flexibility. This means the unequal coverage of learning goals becomes more pronounced when considering module size and assessment weight, underlying the need for more diverse and balanced assessment practices.
How do we improve coverage of the different LOs? When planning assessments, module convenors should think about which specific LOs they want to target. Each assessment type corresponds to separate skills and LOs. For example, presentations or podcasts are most appropriate for targeting oral communication skills. Alternatively, problem sets, or online multiple-choice exams may be best suited for quantitative-based modules. Gaps in LOs should be taken into account when thinking about assessment planning. Most importantly, university programmes will benefit from dialogue between module convenors/teachers/tutors within a given programme to balance out the overall assessment diet. While obviously no single module can cover all LOs, ongoing dialogue about, and periodic evaluation of, the overall assessment balance will lead to well-rounded programmes supporting a student’s learning journey.
Let’s take this a step further. Why should we replicate this across other political science departments? Our project aims to ensure that students are exposed to and assessed on diverse LOs throughout their time at university. Implementing this process in other institutions would make tracking how students learn different skills throughout their studies easier. It will also standardise the assessment criteria and ensure consistency. Implementing this process across political science departments would create a more integrated and cohesive learning experience for all students, regardless of their university. Moreover, employers value transferable skills more than ever. Thus, replication will ensure that students have a more well-rounded education, better preparing them for challenges in their future careers.
So, where does this leave us? We believe that the most effective method for increasing LO Coverage is evaluating coverage at the programme level, diversifying assessment types, maintaining awareness of the specific LOs, and matching assessment types to the particular skills they aim to develop within a given political science programme. Additionally, we recommend regularly assessing their effectiveness in increasing LO coverage. Lastly, we suggest that future studies incorporate student-staff surveys to evaluate formative assessments. It’s important to note that summative assessments represent only part of the story. Formative assessments and seminars will likely cover additional LOs not captured in our study.