Teaching, Learning and Assessment Quality
This domain tests whether you can judge the coherence of a module or programme: whether outcomes, teaching, assessment and feedback fit together, and whether grades can be trusted. EAQE items typically give a module outline, a rubric or an assessment regime and ask what is wrong and how to fix it.
Core rules
- Constructive alignment (Biggs). Intended learning outcomes state what students will be able to do, at an appropriate cognitive level; teaching activities require that performance; assessment tasks elicit evidence of it. Misalignment is the most common and most examinable defect.
- Outcome verbs and level. "List", "explain", "apply", "evaluate", "design" demand different tasks. Bloom's taxonomy is a usable ladder, especially for checking whether stated level and assessed level match.
- Assessment qualities. Validity (assesses the intended outcome), reliability (consistent results across markers and occasions), fairness, transparency (criteria and weighting published in advance), and manageability of workload.
- Formative and summative. Formative assessment generates feedback that is used; summative judges achievement. Feedback is only formative if the student has an opportunity to act on it.
- Rubrics and moderation. Criteria must describe observable qualities at each level and map to the outcomes, not merely to content coverage. Moderation, second marking of samples, and external examiner review protect consistency and detect grade drift.
- Academic integrity and assessment security. Design out forseeable misconduct; vary tasks; authenticate authorship; state permitted AI use explicitly.
- Staff and resources. Teaching staff competence and development (ESG 1.5) and learning resources (1.6) are quality conditions, not background.
Worked example
A module states the outcome: "Critically evaluate competing explanations of urban segregation." The assessment is a multiple-choice test on definitions from the reading list, plus a pass/fail seminar attendance mark. Reasoning: the outcome demands evaluation and argument; a recall test cannot elicit it, so the assessment is invalid for that outcome. The attendance mark measures presence, not learning. Remedy: redesign a written or oral task requiring students to compare two explanations and weigh evidence, with a published rubric naming the criteria (selection of explanations, quality of evidence, recognition of counter-arguments, coherence of judgement). Add a formative draft with peer and tutor feedback in week six so students can act on feedback before the summative submission. Keep a short recall quiz only as formative self-check. Validate by moderating a sample and asking the external examiner whether the task supports the claimed level.
Traps that cost marks
- Writing an outcome with a high-level verb and assessing recall.
- Confusing assessment criteria (what is judged) with learning outcomes (what is achieved).
- Treating feedback as a justification of the grade rather than usable guidance.
- Assuming high pass rates or high satisfaction indicate assessment quality.
- Ignoring moderation and external examiner evidence when discussing reliability.
- Overlooking workload: too many summative points at the same time distorts learning.