Rethinking Assessment: Large-Scale Threshold and Grading Assessment in Engineering

Research Paper Recommended citation: Saad, R., Maiden, A., Li, G.-J., & Ford, L. (2025). Rethinking Assessment: Large-Scale Threshold and Grading Assessment in Engineering. In Kangaslampi, R., Langie, G., Järvinen, H.-M., & Nagy, B. (Eds.), SEFI 53rd Annual Conference. European Society for Engineering Education (SEFI), Tampere, Finland. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17631774. This Conference Paper is brought to you for open access by the 53rd Annual Conference of the European Society for Engineering Education (SEFI) at Tampere University in Tampere, Finland. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License. RETHINKING ASSESSMENT: LARGE-SCALE THRESHOLD AND GRADING ASSESSMENT IN ENGINEERING R. Saad a, 1 , A. M. Maiden b, G.J. Li c, K. L. Ford d a School of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, The University of Sheffield, UK, ORCID: 0000-0002-3312-2106 b School of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, The University of Sheffield, UK, ORCID: 0000-0002-8192-8235 c School of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, The University of Sheffield, UK, ORCID: 0000-0002-5956-4033 d School of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, The University of Sheffield, UK, ORCID: 0000-0002-1080-6193 Conference Key Areas: Curriculum development and emerging curriculum models in engineering, Quality assurance and accreditation of engineering educational programs Keywords: flexible assessment, scalable assessment, two stage assessment, threshold assessment, grading assessment ABSTRACT In modern education, the widely used traditional examination assessment framework often places excessive stress on students (Robotham, 2008), hindering their holistic development and fostering a reactive rather than proactive approach to learning. Conversely, a resilient assessment framework is characterised by its ability to evolve in response to diverse learning needs and emerging educational paradigms. Such a structure is integral in mitigating the overwhelming pressure associated with highstakes examinations, thereby cultivating a conducive learning environment that offers intellectual curiosity and academic growth. Central to the efficacy of a resilient assessment structure is its capacity to embrace diverse assessment methods that 1 Corresponding Author R Saad [email protected] encourage students to engage with learning free from the constraints of exam pressure. This paper presents a unique framework that enables large-scale implementation of assessment across degree programmes and any discipline. The model is represented by the Threshold Assessment (TA), to assess student competencies and ensuring they meet learning outcomes, and the Grading Assessment (GA) which promotes creativity and higher-level problem-solving skills to distinguish between students’ abilities. For the past 5 years, the model proposed has been implemented across 50 taught modules at the Department of Electronic and Electrical Engineering (EEE), The University of Sheffield, demonstrating excellent scalability. Results from a wide-scale survey, administered to students at all levels, suggest that the TA/GA approach is clearly understood by students and recognised as a flexible approach to modern assessment. 1 INTRODUCTION In 2019, the EEE Department at the University of Sheffield, adopted a split examination scheme. This approach involves a two-stage assessment: a Threshold Assessment (TA) at an earlier stage to test basic competency and meeting of learning outcomes (LOs) to a pass level, and a Grading Assessment (GA) at a later stage to address deeper understanding of the curriculum, aligning with Bloom's Taxonomy model (Bloom et al., 1956). The rationale for this approach was to offer consistency, scalability and a standard that can be adopted across all modules and degree programmes. The 2020 pandemic accelerated the large-scale implementation of the TA/GA system and led to the establishment of an online TA and in-person GA structure across 50 modules in the Department. Having run this TA/GA model for 5 years, this paper presents the structure of the two-stage examination process and the results from a survey of 337 undergraduate and 220 post-graduate students (response rates 27% and 20% respectively) when asked about their views and experiences with the new assessment format. The results show that students understand the structure and purpose of this split assessment and appreciate its flexibility. 1.1 Effective assessment models in engineering education Assessment in engineering education ensures that students develop the necessary skills and knowledge to progress in their learning. Various methods of assessment aimed at better evaluation of student learning outcomes have been explored in the literature. Li et al. discussed the use of peer assessment in group projects, highlighting the importance of refining this process to ensure fair and accurate evaluations (Li, 2001). Wildman et al. introduced the use of electronic portfolios in engineering education, demonstrating the potential benefits of incorporating technology into assessment practices (Wildman et al., 2005) and in line with this, Boud et al. emphasised the need to rethink assessment in higher education to promote long-term learning outcomes (Boud & Falchikov, 2007). Abidin et al. focused on outcome-based education and performance evaluation in an electrical engineering laboratory setting to highlight the importance of aligning assessments with desired learning outcomes (Abidin et al., 2009). Furthermore, Grigg et al. evaluated the PROCESS assessment tool as a grading rubric to promote problem-solving proficiency in first-year engineering students (Grigg & Benson, 2015). Additionally, Usher et al. engaged in a comparative analysis of peer assessment in project-based engineering courses between oncampus and online learning environments, emphasising the importance of peer feedback quality and grading accuracy (Usher & and Barak, 2018). In addition to the assessment methods mentioned above, competency assessment is also commonly used in engineering education, and is increasingly seen as essential to ensure that graduates have the necessary basic skills and knowledge for their careers, with several studies emphasising the importance of competency frameworks in engineering education and accreditation (Hongyu et al., 2019; Radchenko et al., 2020; Syahmaidi et al., 2019). These frameworks define specific learning outcomes (LOs) that students must achieve to meet accreditation standards, concentrating on developing industry-relevant competencies to prepare graduates for the job market. Moreover, the necessity of integrating systems engineering competency expectations into engineering education programs has been highlighted (Wade et al., 2022). 2 METHODOLOGY The TA/GA assessment model involves a two-stage summative assessment. First the TA: an online (or in person), open-book, quiz-style assessment that evaluates students' basic competency. The TA features a set of multiple choice and calculationbased questions that assess the module learning outcomes. The TA is a must pass component; by achieving a threshold score of 70% at this stage, students meet the minimum pass requirement and secures a bare-pass mark (example 40% in level 1-3 undergraduate modules) in the examination. Subsequently, students undertake a Grading Assessment—an invigilated exam comprising stimulating questions that assess higher-order thinking skills, including evaluation, critical analysis, and design, as per Bloom's Taxonomy model (Bloom et al., 1956). The score attained in the GA constitutes 60% of the exam marks and builds upon the bare pass mark obtained through the TA, reflecting students' deeper understanding and analytical abilities. Further to this, when the module LOs cover aspects of the curriculum that require a non-traditional assessment method - for example practical skills, or explicit assessment of critical thinking or report writing - these are assessed via additional coursework or laboratory-based activities. In this model students are required to pass the TA and any associated coursework which are mapped to the module learning outcomes, therefore no implication to failing the GA. 2.1 Example module using TA/GA implementation a. Coursework based assessments b. Exam based assessments Figure 1 Example module assessment criteria structure. Figure 1 illustrates a sample undergraduate Level 1 module focusing on teaching students the fundamentals of electrical and magnetic circuits. This module has five LOs covering theoretical concepts, practical applications, problem-solving and critical analysis skills as shown below: o LO1 - Analyse DC and AC electrical circuits using circuit theorems. o LO2 - Evaluate magnetic circuits and systems. o LO3 - Recognise the structure of power supply systems. o LO4 - Calculate the performance parameters of three-phase networks. o LO5 - Demonstrate the ability to practically apply and describe these concepts. For the consolidation of practical skills (LO 5), labs and practical exercises are included in the module, assessed via a technical report. These summative assessments account for 30% of the overall module grade, as indicated in Figure 1(a). Learning outcomes 1-4, focusing on knowledge, understanding, and analysis of theory, are assessed through the TA, an online test featuring multiple-choice, multiple- answer, and calculated formula questions. The TA contributes a mark of 40% to the examination component of the module. The GA allows students to build on this 40% mark by demonstrating advanced understanding, critical thinking, and evaluation skills essential for future engineers. The final exam mark contributes 70% of the overall module grade. However, passing the TA is a must pass, as is obtaining a pass grade in the laboratory report, to demonstrate basic competency in all of the module LOs. There is no ‘pass’ grade in the GA - a score of zero can be returned without failure of the module. Whilst this module serves as an example, various modules within our degree program are assessed solely through coursework, exams, or a blend of both. The implementation of TA and GA across modules that have an exam component ensures consistency and a robust mechanism to verify students' achievement of learning outcomes, as well as to meet accreditation requirements. 2.2 Surveying students’ understanding and experience of the TA/GA system An ethically approved survey-based research design was employed to investigate students' experience with the newly implemented Threshold and Grading assessment method across all their modules. The survey was developed to gather both quantitative and qualitative data, enabling a comprehensive understanding of students’ perceptions. It included open-ended questions prompting students to reflect on their understanding of the purpose and rationale behind the TA/GA approach, as well as to provide constructive feedback on its implementation. Additionally, the survey explored students' emotional responses and preferences by comparing the TA/GA method to traditional assessment techniques. To ensure inclusivity and encourage diverse responses, the survey was disseminated online via institutional communication channels (emails and blackboard). Students were informed of the voluntary and anonymous nature of their participation. In the initial round of data collection, 91 responses were received from undergraduate students (n=337), and 42 responses from postgraduate taught (PGT) students (n=220), yielding response rates of approximately 27% and 19% respectively. 3 RESULTS 3.1 Students' understanding of the purpose of TA and GA a. UG Students b. PGT Students Figure 2 Students’ response to the question: “I understand that the Threshold Assessment is designed to assess learning outcomes.” When questioned about the purpose of the TA, 78.1% of UG students and 78.6% of PGT students indicated they understood that it is intended to assess module learning outcomes to a large or very large extent, as shown in Figure 2. Similarly, when surveyed about their understanding of the purpose of the GA, 83.6% of UG students and 78.6% of PGT students reported recognising its role in distinguishing between abilities, as illustrated in Figure 3. a. UG Students b. PGT Students Figure 3 Students' response to the question: “I understand that the Grading Assessment is designed to differentiate between students' abilities.” Furthermore, when asked to reflect on their responses: students provided qualitative reflections on their holistic understanding of the TA/GA technique such as: ▪ “The threshold assessment challenges straightforward application of engineering concepts, taught in lectures and tutorials. Grading assessments are way more difficult and challenge us in Waze that are not taught in the lectures and tutorials and hence HELP differentiates students. Those who are able to stretch their knowledge and understanding further than what it taught, who have an inquisitive mind, will do much better on grading assessment” ▪ The Grading Assessment builds on the fundamental knowledge required to pass the TA, allowing for the student to apply this in the context of a realistic design-focused problem. While it does technically assess Learning Outcome achievement, this seems to come as a result of the TA connection. ▪ “For me the threshold assessments test the baseline understanding of all parts of the module and do check if the learning outcomes have been minimally achieved. If all lectures are attended and quizzes or problem sheets are done as refreshers and to test understanding the TA can be an easy assessment. As for the GA, it is considerably harder than the TA and definitely I can feel that the subject needs to be understood on a deeper level, particularly in terms of application of the knowledge. Personally, I think the design questions are good and doing the mock GAs and discussing them with peers to study before the exam are things that really help me deepen my understanding.” ▪ “I think the online and offline exams are a very good choice. Tests that are more complex offline and more compatible with the real problems engineers face are very effective and different from traditional test-taking experiences. This kind of exam experience will help us understand the practical application in our future work. Online exams can reduce some of the pressure on students in their heavy studies, and do not cause too much pressure while testing their basic knowledge.” From the qualitative answers provided above, students are in strong agreement that the TA addresses their understanding of the topic with direct relationship to assessing the learning outcomes of a module. While students collaboratively appreciate that the GA builds on the TA and measures their deeper understanding of the concepts and provides space for them to reflect and show their critical thinking and problem solving to real world engineering problems. 3.2 Students’ views on the flexibility of the TA/GA assessment method TA/GA assessment was designed with flexibility in mind and to reflect a modern way to assess students allowing them to demonstrate engineering competency and creative thinking knowing that they have passed the module by passing the TA-first stage assessment. Therefore, data collected asking students to reflect on whether they like the flexibility of the TA/GA. Responses demonstrated that 78.1% of UG students appreciate the flexibility offered to a large or very large extent, compared to 92.9% of PGT students who shared a positive perspective, as shown in Figure 4. a. UG Students b. PGT Students Figure 4 Students’ response to the question: “I like the flexibility of the Threshold and Grading assessments combined” Students were further asked to reflect on their response by asking them: “What is your definition of a flexible assessment? How could the assessment be made more flexible?”. The following quotes defined their views of flexible assessment: ▪ “A flexible assessment is one that can easily be done by many people in different environments at a convenient time. The TA's being online is great for flexibility as they are a more basic test. The GA's being at a later time than 9am would make them more "flexible" even though they would be done at a rigid time as this would allow people to get to and prepare for the test easier.” ▪ “The TA, by nature, greatly reduces the stress placed on students by eliminating traditional exam conditions (a paper sheet in a silent room) and allowing students to take the exam in an environment which is comfortable and suited to them. This also reduces pressure on students, as they can undertake the GA without fear of failing a module if they are overstressed by the conditions and questions within.” ▪ “A flexible assessment is one that adapts to the diverse needs, abilities, and learning styles of students. It allows for variations in how students demonstrate their understanding or skills and provides options for when and how the assessment takes place.” ▪ “A flexible assessment allows a variety of students to achieve what they are capable of and demonstrate their learning. Flexible exams should emphasise fairness.” ▪ “They aren’t flexible, assessments can’t really be flexible, they are a fixed time and date and content.” From the above responses, students clearly appreciate the TA being administered online and how this supports scalability. They also appreciated that the two-stage assessment promotes fairness, supports students’ learning style and reduces their feelings of exam stress having secured a pass in the module by passing the TA. The last response: “They aren’t flexible, assessments can’t really be flexible, they are a fixed time and date and content.” - brings up a valid point — assessments are often perceived as rigid in terms of time, date, and content. This reflects a common understanding of traditional assessment structures. While the fixed nature of assessments can be a challenge, exploring alternative approaches might help create a more adaptable and inclusive assessment experience, which the TA/GA address. However, it is worth considering whether flexibility can exist in other ways, such as in the format and structure (Boud & Falchikov, 2007). Students defined flexible assessment as one that accommodates diverse needs, environments, and schedules, making assessments more accessible and less stressful. They highlighted key aspects such as convenience & accessibility, reduced Stress (moving away from rigid, highpressure exam conditions to formats that support student well-being), adaptability (providing different ways for students to demonstrate their understanding, considering varied abilities and learning styles), fairness (by ensuring assessments are equitable and allow all students to showcase their capabilities effectively). Overall, students value assessments that prioritise flexibility in timing, format, and conditions while maintaining fairness and academic integrity. 4 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS The implementation of the Threshold Assessment (TA) and Grading Assessment (GA) framework within the Department of Electronic and Electrical Engineering at the University of Sheffield represents a significant shift toward a more flexible and scalable assessment model. The findings from this study highlight that students generally understand the purpose of TA/GA and appreciate the flexibility it offers compared to traditional assessment methods. The TA/GA system addresses key challenges in engineering education assessment by providing a structured yet adaptable approach. The TA ensures that students achieve a minimum competency level in learning outcomes, reducing exam-related stress and fostering a foundation of core knowledge. The GA, on the other hand, allows students to demonstrate deeper understanding and higher-order thinking skills through more complex, application-based problems. Survey responses indicate that students largely value the flexibility inherent in the TA/GA model, particularly the ability to complete assessments in varied environments and at a manageable pace. While some students still perceive assessments as inherently rigid, the majority recognise that flexibility can exist through alternative formats, scheduling, and structure. The model’s emphasis on fairness, accessibility, and reduced stress aligns with modern educational paradigms that prioritize student well-being and learning diversity. Ultimately, the TA/GA approach provides a promising framework for scalable and effective assessment in engineering education. By balancing competency assurance with opportunities for differentiation and deeper learning, this model not only enhances student experience but also contributes to the ongoing evolution of assessment practices in higher education.