**1.3 What are we assessing? The assessment**

Reimann and Khosronejad [4] rightly suggest that the designing of assessments need to be an authentic process, which effectively combines pedagogy and the rationality of the assessment. Bloxham and Cambell [17] emphasize the need for the academic community to engage in dialogue to ensure that assessments continue to meet the performance and quality standards and this evaluation provided an opportunity to do this. Having recognized that inclusivity is a crucial element in the designing and implementation of assessments in higher education [18]. Assessments must be designed to reflect the diverse range and ability of learners particularly in widening participation universities [19]. This is also reflected in the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA)'s quality code, which is clear about the need to ensure that all students are offered the same opportunities to be able to show evidence of their learning by the adoption of diverse strategies to demonstrate the achievement of learning outcomes. Evidence also shows that in order to achieve this, course teams must be creative and malleable in developing assessment strategies across courses and departments to ensure that students are offered a variety of methods and formats to give all the students a chance at succeeding [20].

The assessment was changed from a 1500-word report to a 2000-word portfolio which was deemed to be more inclusive and reflective of the student-centered approach. The portfolio required students to use different academic skills and draw from a range of sources to accommodate different strengths and in so doing, optimise their grade potential. Drawing on the Universal Design for Learning (UDL) guidelines in offering choice and autonomy [21] the students were given four broad topic areas to choose from thus engaging student interest and acknowledging the diverse learners as well as their individual backgrounds and employment routes. This was also to afford students the ability to link learning to employment particularly for those already in practice, but also for the students with no practical experience, as they

#### **Figure 1.**

*This graph shows the grades for the previous academic year for the previous assessment and the lowest grade was 10 and highest 75. Fifty percent of the class scored between 42 and 58. With the new assessment, the highest grades went up the more student scoring in the upper quartile range but fail grades increases with average grade being 45.4 in 2021/2022 compared to 48.1 in 2020/2021. There were however more students in the 2020/2021 cohort (128) when compared to the 2021/202s2 (95 students) cohort which suggests that grades worsened overall.*

would be able to learn from colleagues during workshops and assignment preparation sessions and in so doing, engage in community and collaboration [21].
