View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Transforming Assessment Policy: Improving Student Outcomes through an Immersive Block Model

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Transforming Assessment Policy: Improving Student Outcomes through an Immersive Block Model
Language: English
Authors: Erica Wilson (ORCID 0000-0003-4768-3251), Elizabeth Goode (ORCID 0000-0001-8966-7853), Thomas Roche (ORCID 0000-0002-3736-7100)
Source: Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management. 2025 47(2):192-209.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 18
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Foreign Countries, College Students, Student Evaluation, School Policy, Block Scheduling, Governance, College Administration, Educational Change, Academic Achievement, Student Satisfaction, Public Colleges, Outcomes of Education
Geographic Terms: Australia
DOI: 10.1080/1360080X.2024.2434724
ISSN: 1360-080X
1469-9508
Abstract: This paper describes how one Australian university achieved deep assessment reform through transition to the Southern Cross Model: a 6-week, immersive block learning approach. There are few studies that explicitly discuss the governance, policy and people changes required to effect whole-of-institution shift. Addressing this gap, this case study draws on a mixed-method investigation of policy reform and student achievement data. It outlines the tenets underpinning the university's new assessment approach, and how these were translated into practice. A principles-based approach was developed, providing the foundation for pedagogical change. Analysis of the quantitative data demonstrates a significant increase in student pass rates and, over time, student satisfaction with assessment, workload and skills development. The findings underscore how essential whole-of-institution assessment reform is in transitioning to an immersive block model. Implications and recommendations are offered for other institutions seeking to transform assessment and drive enhanced learning and teaching outcomes through institution-wide change.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2026
Accession Number: EJ1499551
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwEEtodZ64oTbJ5cybYTreXJAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDP8R0RTFYfs-sCDhLwIBEICBm7pFaBcdxhG73WuRnUyTJACnEBQgVSZg5VPZG5oz3kLvK_2j-dDq-J5001-Jm9veOy8UjUHte_GjzdOHTv-y0x7qgKk3V1uuP8PcSF2JVAgfPUBk3jMcAF2gYaU2vCVDb6IuKohZLJBDgEJtIlwJEp6GJcg0RF3u5WftCWlkNyJ8TUkKUtXYdH2bf0GerO6La49_BzxnDmoYa4b3
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0183842037;0v101apr.25;2025Mar21.03:43;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0183842037-1">Transforming assessment policy: improving student outcomes through an immersive block model </title> <p>This paper describes how one Australian university achieved deep assessment reform through transition to the Southern Cross Model: a 6-week, immersive block learning approach. There are few studies that explicitly discuss the governance, policy and people changes required to effect whole-of-institution shift. Addressing this gap, this case study draws on a mixed-method investigation of policy reform and student achievement data. It outlines the tenets underpinning the university's new assessment approach, and how these were translated into practice. A principles-based approach was developed, providing the foundation for pedagogical change. Analysis of the quantitative data demonstrates a significant increase in student pass rates and, over time, student satisfaction with assessment, workload and skills development. The findings underscore how essential whole-of-institution assessment reform is in transitioning to an immersive block model. Implications and recommendations are offered for other institutions seeking to transform assessment and drive enhanced learning and teaching outcomes through institution-wide change.</p> <p>Keywords: Authentic assessment; block model; curriculum reform; academic transformation; higher education policy</p> <hd id="AN0183842037-2">Introduction</hd> <p>In times of higher education sector and curricular reform, university assessment policies assume heightened importance as key drivers of educational transformation. Currently in Australia, as an example, there is sharp regulatory attention on assuring assessment integrity and robust governance in the face of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) (Lodge et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref1">25</reflink>]). While assessment integrity is of paramount importance, beyond this focus, there are few studies that explore how assessment more broadly can be vital to higher education institutional transformation – and to improving student outcomes. Careful consideration of assessment policy and practice is core to student learning and the higher education sector (Boud & Associates, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref2">4</reflink>]; Charlton & Newsham-West, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref3">7</reflink>]; Simper et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref4">40</reflink>]), but becomes particularly important for universities who have moved to immersive block model delivery (Buck et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref5">6</reflink>]; Goode et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref6">15</reflink>]; Jackson et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref7">23</reflink>]; Roche et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref8">35</reflink>]; Samarawickrema et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref9">38</reflink>]).</p> <p>University students have, historically, learned through semester delivery models, where students are taught and assessed over a period of several months and full-time students normally complete four concurrent subjects. In a different form of university teaching, 'immersive', 'block' or 'intensive' models engage students in shorter, more focused periods of learning, whereby students 'immerse' themselves in just one – or sometimes two – subjects at a time (Roche et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref10">34</reflink>]; Turner et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref11">42</reflink>]). While studies of these models generally evidence positive outcomes, showing increases in student success (Goode et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref12">14</reflink>]; Loton et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref13">26</reflink>]; Roche et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref14">36</reflink>]; Turner et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref15">42</reflink>]; Wilson et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref16">49</reflink>]), assessment remains a persistent area of concern when it is linked to lower student satisfaction in certain disciplines or cohorts (Dixon & O'Gorman, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref17">10</reflink>]; Loton et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref18">26</reflink>]; Wilson et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref19">49</reflink>]).</p> <p>In this paper, we outline a program of institution-wide assessment reform to enable transition to an immersive block model (see also Wilson et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref20">47</reflink>]). Utilising a mixed-methods approach combining policy reform description and student outcome data, the paper describes the tenets underpinning a new assessment framework at Southern Cross University, Australia, and the changes necessary to translate it into practice. Data indicating improvements in student outcomes related to assessment are also presented. Implications for other institutions seeking to reform their assessment policy to drive enhanced learning and teaching outcomes are offered.</p> <hd id="AN0183842037-3">Assessment reform for immersive block models</hd> <p>The importance of purposefully redesigning assessment schemes and tasks for immersive block learning is consistently emphasised in the literature (Buck & Tyrrell, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref21">5</reflink>]; Dixon & O'Gorman, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref22">10</reflink>]; Goode et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref23">13</reflink>]; Goode, Roche, et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref24">15</reflink>]; Samarawickrema et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref25">39</reflink>]). Sources highlight the need to implement 'assessment strategies that accommodate both academics' and students' time pressures' (Samarawickrema et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref26">39</reflink>], p. 3) by, for example, designing smaller and more frequent tasks in place of large summative tasks (Chau et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref27">8</reflink>]; Dixon & O'Gorman, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref28">10</reflink>]; Vieira Braga et al., [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref29">44</reflink>]; Walsh et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref30">45</reflink>]). Buck et al. ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref31">6</reflink>]) found statistically significant improvements in students' grades in an immersive block model at a British university when time-constrained and multiple smaller assessments were used instead of single final essays. This is echoed in studies in an Australian higher education context, which emphasise the importance of moving to 'scaffolded, developmental assessment' in immersive block learning (Samarawickrema et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref32">39</reflink>], p. 14). Scaffolding tasks for incremental learning while carefully considering how the timing of these tasks may affect manageability, appear to facilitate a sense of accomplishment for students, which translates into higher confidence and achievement (Dixon & O'Gorman, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref33">10</reflink>]; Goode et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref34">13</reflink>]; Goode et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref35">16</reflink>]; Samarawickrema et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref36">37</reflink>]).</p> <p>However, there are also cautions to avoid 'over assessing' in immersive blocks. Several sources suggest limiting the number of assessments to three or fewer per unit (McDonald et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref37">28</reflink>]; Samarawickrema et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref38">39</reflink>]). Beyond the individual unit level, others are adopting programmatic assessment, where traditional distinctions between formative and summative assessment are broken down, and select tasks are purposefully collated to determine student attainment of learning across a whole degree (Van der Vleuten et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref39">43</reflink>]). Others discuss the importance of efficient and timely feedback to mitigate staff workload concerns and to appropriately scaffold students' learning (Chau et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref40">8</reflink>]; Huber et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref41">22</reflink>]; Walsh et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref42">45</reflink>]). Additionally, the need for authentic and experiential learning through assessment has been emphasised as a cornerstone of effective teaching in these models (Roche et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref43">35</reflink>]; Samarawickrema et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref44">39</reflink>]; Vieira Braga et al., [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref45">44</reflink>]).</p> <p>It is evident from extant scholarly work that immersive block models present both opportunities and challenges for how institutions and educators approach assessment (Chau et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref46">8</reflink>]; Vieira Braga et al., [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref47">44</reflink>]; Walsh et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref48">45</reflink>]). The literature includes discussion of how immersive block curricula (including assessment) have been approached at an institutional level (McCluskey et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref49">27</reflink>]; Nerantzi & Chatzidamianos, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref50">31</reflink>]; Roche [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref51">35</reflink>]) or within particular disciplines (Huber et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref52">22</reflink>]; McDonald et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref53">28</reflink>]). However, there are few examinations of how assessment policy reform specifically was enacted.</p> <p>This dearth can be observed not only in studies of the immersive block models, but also in the higher education literature more broadly. Harvey and Kosman's ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref54">20</reflink>]) examination of assessment reform at an Australian university is one exception, describing a four-step process: developing a process for the review; collecting stakeholder views on the existing policy; data analysis and interpretation; and developing recommendations for policy amendments. Their paper also highlights the importance of a pragmatic framework for reviewing policy, multi-level support across the institution, leveraging existing governance structures and leadership capacity, the use of qualitative data collection methods, and adequate resourcing (Harvey & Kosman, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref55">20</reflink>]). Further, Nicol and Draper's ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref56">32</reflink>]) account of assessment transformations at three Scottish universities emphasises the development of evidence-based principles; connecting principles to a recognised set of problems and an institutional aspiration; supporting staff in implementing principles within the context of their disciplines; building a robust evidence base to support the reforms, and coordinating internal and external dissemination of the reform project. These and other studies of assessment reform (e.g., Charlton & Newsham-West, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref57">7</reflink>]; Hains-Wesson et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref58">17</reflink>]) provide useful background for exploring how institutional transformation in assessment policy and practice can be undertaken. However, there remains a notable lack of published case studies, although this may change as the sector confronts the challenges inherent in GenAI, engendering a renewed focus on authenticity and integrity in assessment (Lodge et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref59">25</reflink>]). This paper seeks to address the aforementioned gaps in relation to assessment policy reform for immersive block models specifically, but with implications for higher education more generally.</p> <hd id="AN0183842037-4">The Southern Cross Model</hd> <p>This case study outlines the implementation of assessment reform to support the Southern Cross Model, a new academic delivery approach implemented at Southern Cross University in 2021–2023 (see Goode et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref60">14</reflink>]; Roche et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref61">34</reflink>]). A regionally based public university in eastern Australia, Southern Cross faced longstanding student attrition concerns, coupled with intractably poor student success (pass) rates. These entrenched issues required radical change of such size and scope that we have since, and perhaps with a few years of humble hindsight, taken to labelling the shift 'revolutionary' (Wilson & Roche, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref62">48</reflink>]; Wilson et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref63">49</reflink>]). A variation on one-unit-at-a-time block models, the Southern Cross Model engages full-time students in two units across 6-week terms (see Figure 1), with a seventh week for final assessment and grading and a break of 2 weeks between terms. A typical full-time enrolment extends across four terms per year, equivalent to the eight units required for full-time academic credit at most Australian institutions.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 1. Teaching terms in the Southern Cross Model.</p> <p>Methods of teaching delivery were reconceptualised in moving to the Southern Cross Model: stand-and-deliver lectures were removed entirely in favour of active, focused learning, or what we call 'immersive' learning. Students immerse themselves in a 3-hour weekly 'class learning block', made up of a 1-hour online workshop and a 2-hour tutorial. Unit content and learning management sites (Blackboard) were also completely transformed, utilising guided, self-access, modular learning (Goode et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref64">13</reflink>]) designed to be <emph>focused</emph> (aligned directly to what students need to know to meet the learning outcomes), <emph>media-rich</emph> (videos and sound recordings alongside reading material) and <emph>interactive</emph> (e.g., quizzes, polls, problems; Roche et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref65">35</reflink>]).</p> <p>The model's implementation required significant reform across all facets of the university, and in all areas of academic policy, procedure, and practice (Roche et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref66">35</reflink>]). However, and as this paper argues, assessment policies and processes perhaps bring into sharpest relief the level of change required to move an entire university to a block delivery model (Buck & Tyrrell, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref67">5</reflink>]; Konjarski et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref68">24</reflink>]). Mislevy and colleagues ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref69">29</reflink>]) argue that most educational assessment design falls within a traditional, standard assessment paradigm, reliant upon assessment of learning through tasks such as essays, exams, multiple-choice questions and quizzes. Here, we will focus on how Southern Cross University reframed its existing assessment policy, coupled with data showing improvement in assessment-related student outcomes.</p> <hd id="AN0183842037-5">Methodology</hd> <p>A single descriptive case study approach (Yin, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref70">51</reflink>]) was used, drawing on mixed-methods data. While single cases are context-dependent and therefore not typically generalisable, their value lies in how they illuminate complex real-life phenomena that might not be easily apparent to those outside of the case; learnings can then be applied in other contexts, leading to practice improvements, and advancing collective knowledge about the phenomenon (Harland, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref71">19</reflink>]). The guiding premise of the approach used here was to illuminate a roadmap for deep assessment reform at an institutional level, describing the key decisions and courses of action: 'why they were taken, how they were implemented, and with what result' (Schramm, 1971, as cited in Yin, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref72">51</reflink>], p. 12).</p> <p>The study drew upon qualitative data obtained from university governance documents, comprising:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> discussion papers and meeting minutes from Academic Board, working groups and committees</item> <p></p> <item> draft and final versions of university policies, procedures, and guidelines</item> <p></p> <item> feedback submitted as part of the above processes.</item> </ulist> <p>These sources were reviewed and triangulated by the lead author, who led the policy reform at the university, to construct a description of how and why the reform was implemented.</p> <p>To investigate the impact of the changes, student success (pass) rates and responses to the Unit Feedback Survey, an anonymous, standardised online survey delivered at the end of every teaching period before the release of the final grades, were collected. The data were uploaded to SPSS (<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref73">29</reflink>) and analysed to explore two hypotheses:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Assessment policy reform for the Southern Cross Model is followed by significant increases to student success (pass) rates.</item> <p></p> <item> Student satisfaction with unit feedback items relevant to assessment design increases significantly after two offerings of a unit under the new assessment policy.</item> </ulist> <p>The success rate data were filtered to include only results from 'matched' units offered in both the traditional (2019) and immersive block (2021 and 2022) models. Student results were categorised as undergraduate, postgraduate, or non-award pathways and dichotomised into 'pass' and 'not pass'.</p> <p>The Unit Feedback Survey data were filtered to include only those units offered three or more times in the Southern Cross Model in 2021 and 2022. This approach was chosen to enable insight into the impact of the assessment policy reforms over time, with the underpinning assumption that policy impacts may not be immediate but are instead likely to become evident after cycles of reflection and refinement at a unit level. Five Unit Feedback Survey questions relevant to assessment practice were identified for analysis, shown in Table 1. One of the survey items is directly and explicitly referable to Assessment ('<emph>I am satisfied with the assessment tasks in this unit'</emph>); the others could be described as indirectly relevant, but still pertinent given their link to assessment and impact on student learning, e.g., Objectives, Workload, Skills and Overall Unit Satisfaction.</p> <p>Table 1. Unit feedback survey items analysed.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Item</td><td>Statement</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Objectives</td><td>The objective and performance standards in this unit were made clear</td></tr><tr><td>Assessment</td><td>I am satisfied with the assessment tasks in this unit</td></tr><tr><td>Workload</td><td>The workload demands of the unit are about right</td></tr><tr><td>Skills</td><td>This unit helped me to develop some valuable skills/attributes</td></tr><tr><td>Overall</td><td>Overall, I am satisfied with this unit</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 A 5-point Likert scale (strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree, strongly agree) was used for all statements.</p> <p>Student responses were dichotomised into 'agree' (5 or 4 on a 5-point Likert scale) and 'neutral or non-agree' (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref74">3</reflink>, 2 or 1 on a 5-point-Likert scale). Pearson's chi-square test results and Cramer's <emph>V</emph> outputs were generated to compare outcomes in the first two iterations of a unit in the Southern Cross Model with those from subsequent iterations.</p> <hd id="AN0183842037-6">Findings</hd> <p>The case study analysis identified two overarching phases for assessment policy reform: firstly, crystallising the core principles to guide the reform and implementing these into policy; and secondly, implementing the policy into practice through procedures, professional development, and quality assurance mechanisms.</p> <hd id="AN0183842037-7">Phase 1: assessment policy reform for the Southern Cross Model</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0183842037-8">Developing policy through communities of practice</hd> <p>In 2019, an Academic Design Team was established as a community of practice to guide the pedagogical shift to the Southern Cross Model, and delivery in six-week terms. To ensure diversity and wide stakeholder input, the team included representation from each faculty and college, in addition to educational partners, student services and the Centre for Teaching and Learning. In mid-2020, the university's Academic Board established an Assessment Policy Working Party, drawn from membership of the Academic Design Team, to review the suitability of current policies for assessing students in the Southern Cross Model. The Working Party reviewed current policy documents and benchmarked the assessment policies of 15 Australian universities, including Victoria University (McCluskey et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref75">27</reflink>]), which offers a 4-week block model.</p> <p>It was quickly evident that the existing policy framework, while having many good elements focused on students and their learning, would no longer be fit-for-purpose in the new model. As an example, the Learning and Teaching and Curriculum policies had not been significantly updated for almost a decade, and the Assessment Policy (2017) also needed significant reform. A complete rethink of how (and why) we assessed our students was needed. This, along with the emerging impacts of COVID-19, meant challenging some long-held assumptions and practices around student assessment, such as those relating to volume, timing, marking turnaround, feedback, and a reliance – arguably an over-reliance – on face-to-face invigilated examinations.</p> <p>Having established a clear need for reform, the Working Party, continuing the community of practice approach initiated through the Academic Design Team, collaboratively drafted a new Assessment, Teaching and Learning Policy. The policy was discussed and reviewed by the Teaching and Assessment Committee, chaired by the lead author and Pro Vice-Chancellor (Academic Innovation), who has oversight of the Centre for Teaching and Learning at Southern Cross. In December 2020, the Working Party presented to Academic Board a full draft of a new Assessment, Teaching and Learning Policy, which outlined an entirely new framework for assessment in the Southern Cross Model (as well as to teaching and learning, which is out of scope for this paper). This process for developing policy – and procedures, which are discussed in phase 2 – is outlined in Figure 2.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 2. Developing assessment policy and procedure for the Southern Cross Model.</p> <hd id="AN0183842037-9">A principles-based approach to policy reform for the Southern Cross Model</hd> <p>The revised assessment policy adopted a principles-based and student-centred approach, starting from a standpoint of values rather than process, from which all practice would flow. At the outset of the new policy was an overarching statement that the <emph>'primary purpose of assessment is the systemic assurance of a student's attainment of intended learning outcomes'</emph>. Moreover, assessment is designed with the whole-of-course in mind, developed to monitor, assess, and support student progress in accordance with six key principles. These principles, outlined in Figure 3, formed the new framework for assessing learning in the Southern Cross Model.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 3. Assessment principles in the Southern Cross Model.</p> <p>Several tenets were brought over from the previous Assessment Policy (2017–2020). For example, the Working Party felt strongly that <emph>assessment for learning, inclusivity, transparency, integrity</emph>, alignment with <emph>learning outcomes</emph> and timely, quality <emph>feedback</emph> should remain central in the University's assessment policy. Some additions, however, demonstrate how the new policy needed to challenge the old in transitioning to the immersive block model; these additions are centred on the concepts of assessment for <emph>student engagement and success</emph>, <emph>manageable</emph> assessment, <emph>fit-for-purpose</emph> assessment, and <emph>authentic and relevant</emph> assessment.</p> <hd id="AN0183842037-10">Assessment for student engagement and success</hd> <p>Given our institutional goal to improve student outcomes through the Southern Cross Model, and the vital role of assessment in students achieving those outcomes, the Working Party deliberately foregrounded the concept of assessment <emph>for</emph> student engagement and success. This guided the reform and necessitated a fundamental cultural change, particularly around matters of assessment volume, timing, type and feedback.</p> <hd id="AN0183842037-11">Manageable assessment</hd> <p>While assessment should challenge and extend student learning (Ashford-Rowe et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref76">3</reflink>]), it also needs to be manageable to avoid cognitive overload and student overwhelm (O'Neill, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref77">33</reflink>]). As Swiecki et al. ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref78">41</reflink>]) argue, assessment and design in the standard education paradigm can be onerous for both staff and students, as they navigate everything from task expectations, through to rubrics and, increasingly, sophisticated digital marking systems. Ideally, assessments should be spaced so that markers have sufficient time to grade and provide feedback, and students can gauge the progress of their learning before submitting their next assessment (Dunn et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref79">11</reflink>]). For these reasons, assessment in the Southern Cross Model must be <emph>'appropriate in volume and workload, [and] manageable for both students and staff'</emph>. For a six-week term, and to drive cultural change away from over-assessment practices, this required a hard 'cap' on the number of assessment tasks for each unit, as well as the provision of parameters around assessment timing, weighting and timely feedback.</p> <hd id="AN0183842037-12">Fit-for-purpose assessment</hd> <p>Assessment design would also need to be <emph>'fit for purpose'</emph>. That is, assessment must be designed for the immersive Southern Cross Model, rather than a traditional semester, and thus matters of scaffolding and progression must become paramount. We wanted to move away from a series of disconnected tasks; rather, assessments should be fewer in number, build upon each other, and give students multiple opportunities to receive constructive feedback and demonstrate their learning. Scaffolding enables students to access timely formative feedback that they can reflect on and implement in subsequent tasks; this in turn assists to demystify academic culture and minimise the alienation that students may feel when faced with tasks that expect too much of them too soon (Whiley et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref80">46</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0183842037-13">Authentic and relevant assessment</hd> <p>In designing principles for the Southern Cross Model, it was also important to us that assessment was <emph>relevant</emph> to students, that is, <emph>'designed using practice-based and/or authentic tasks, and relevant to students' career or further study aspirations'</emph>. Authentic assessment is defined in the broadest sense by its demonstrable connection to the 'real world', often understood as professional environments (Fulton et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref81">12</reflink>]), but also inclusive of everyday contexts that bring opportunities for critical judgement and productive citizenship (Mueller, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref82">30</reflink>]). A principle of authentic assessment provided a valuable opportunity for creating more meaningful assessment schemes, particularly as we sought to move away from passive, lecture-based learning and summative examinations to a more active, engaged pedagogy (Roche et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref83">35</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0183842037-14">Bringing principles to life through policy</hd> <p>Table 2 delineates further how the assessment principles are 'brought to life' or, put another way, the intent with which each principle is to be approached. These sub-principles were written in an active, strengths-based tone. While integrity, inclusivity and constructive alignment remain central to assessment in the Southern Cross Model, Table 2 presents only the principles discussed above as hallmarks of difference in the Southern Cross Model, i.e., the unique tenets of assessment for success, manageability, being purpose-fit, and authenticity (see Appendix A in the Online Supplementary Material for a full list of the assessment principles and sub-clauses).</p> <p>Table 2. Setting the intent of principles for Southern Cross Model assessment in policy.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Principle</td><td>Principle intent</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Assessment is designed for student learning, engagement and success.</td><td>Our assessment: <list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Engages and motivates students' learning across the course progression;</p></list-item><list-item><p>Facilitates students' induction into higher education and the principles of academic integrity;</p></list-item><list-item><p>Builds a future-focused foundation for lifelong learning; and</p></list-item><list-item><p>Is appropriate in volume and workload, manageable for both students and staff.</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td>Assessment is designed for the attainment of learning outcomes.</td><td>Our assessment design: <list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Takes a whole-of-course approach;</p></list-item><list-item><p>Aligns with course and unit learning outcomes, study content and learning activities, in accordance with the Curriculum Policy;</p></list-item><list-item><p>Is appropriately scaffolded and interlinked across both units and courses; and</p></list-item><list-item><p>Is aligned with professional accreditation and expectations where appropriate.</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td>Assessment is fit for purpose and relevant to students.</td><td>Our assessment is: <list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Fit for purpose in the Southern Cross Model, relevant to students and their educational and/or professional goals;</p></list-item><list-item><p>Designed specifically for the teaching period in which units are offered;</p></list-item><list-item><p>Evaluated across the unit of study, rather than through a single, final assessment task; and</p></list-item><list-item><p>Designed using practice-based and/or authentic tasks, and relevant to students' career or further study aspirations.</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td>Assessment incorporates timely, clear and constructive feedback.</td><td>Our assessment feedback is: <list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Timely, clear, and directly relevant to the assessment task, criteria and purpose;</p></list-item><list-item><p>Based on structured rubrics and clear grading standards, guiding students to accurately appreciate the quality of their learning; and</p></list-item><list-item><p>Constructive, formative and respectful, taking a strengths-based approach focused on future learning.</p></list-item></list></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>2 This table contains select clauses sourced from Southern Cross University's Assessment, Teaching and Learning Policy, March 2024.</p> <p>All staff were invited to provide feedback on the draft policy through the governance office's Policy Library Bulletin Board. The feedback overall showed broad support for the new policy, with particular emphasis on the importance of a strengths-based and evidence-led approach to assessing for student learning. Once feedback was incorporated and final changes made to the satisfaction of the Teaching and Assessment Committee and Academic Board, the new policy was formally implemented in early 2021. With the principles-based foundation of the assessment reform in place, mechanisms were required to guide its implementation in practice.</p> <hd id="AN0183842037-15">Phase 2: translating policy into practice</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0183842037-16">Assessment procedures</hd> <p>For the policy to take effect towards practice, a new, streamlined set of assessment procedures were also developed. These were developed in mid-late 2021, following the same collaborative development approach and feedback mechanisms as the policy, and formally came into force in November 2021. Table 3 outlines how clauses in the procedures map to the policy principles identified above. The clauses provide clear parameters around assessment volume, weighting, timing, feedback and examinations (see Appendix B in the Online Supplementary Material for the full assessment procedures).</p> <p>Table 3. Enacting assessment principles for the Southern Cross Model through assessment procedures.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Principle</td><td>Enacting the principle: Procedure clauses</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Assessment is designed for student learning, engagement and success.</td><td><bold>Assessment load, weighting and distribution</bold> (20) Assessment is designed with an appropriate workload for staff and students, commensurate with the credit point weighting, length of the Teaching Period, and the Unit's Level of Study. (21) Normally, there will be no more than three summative assessment tasks set in a Unit, inclusive of any graded sub-tasks. Approval from the Associate Dean (Education) is required to include more than three summative tasks per unit. (23) The maximum weighting of any graded assessment task is 60% of the mark for the Unit except for substantial pieces of research in independent research project units, which may be worth more than 60% of the mark for the Unit.</td></tr><tr><td>Assessment is designed for the attainment of learning outcomes.</td><td><bold>Assessment design and validation</bold> (17) The Unit's assessment scheme is designed so that tasks are interlinked and progressive; a cumulative set of connective activities that lead to a summative task.</td></tr><tr><td>Assessment is fit for purpose and relevant to students.</td><td><bold>Assessment design and validation</bold> (14) Assessment is designed to be authentic for students wherever possible; for example, setting tasks that are performance-based, practice-based; industry-relevant; work-integrated; project-based; self-reflective or dilemma-based. <bold>Group work, examinations, quizzes and hurdles</bold> (27) In the Southern Cross Model, authentic assessment tasks are preferred over examinations, as per clause (14). (28) Examinations must only be set as an assessment task where there are documented, and justifiable external accreditation reasons approved by the relevant Associate Dean (Education) at the assessment design stage. (31) Non-proctored automated tests, online multiple-choice quizzes, and Blackboard quizzes should not normally be set as a major summative task (i.e., more than 30% weighting). Approval from the Associate Dean (Education) is required to do so.</td></tr><tr><td>Assessment incorporates timely, clear and constructive feedback.</td><td><bold>Assessment design and validation</bold> (18) The first graded assessment task should occur no later than Week 3 of the Term. (19) Formative (non-graded) activities will commence from the first week of the Term, to aid early indication of student performance. <bold>Feedback, grades and results</bold> (57) Marked assessment tasks submitted on time will be returned to students within 7 days of submission in Terms.</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>3 This table contains select clauses sourced from Southern Cross University's Assessment, Teaching and Learning Procedures, March 2024.</p> <hd id="AN0183842037-17">Professional development and quality assurance</hd> <p>Alongside the policy framework, professional development and quality assurance mechanisms were needed to embed the new culture of assessment across the university. The Academic Portfolio Office, jointly led by the two Pro Vice-Chancellors Academic, developed an online module outlining the core principles for assessment design in the Southern Cross Model, and compiled a suite of examples of how each core principle could be operationalised. Online seminars were also delivered for all Course Coordinators, where staff who had designed and delivered assessments in the pilot year of the Southern Cross Model showcased their assessment schemes, what worked, and lessons learned. Following a team-based approach to unit redesign for the Southern Cross Model (a practice also enshrined in policy), academic practice experts from the Centre for Teaching and Learning also worked alongside academics redeveloping units for the Southern Cross Model, enabling greater consistency in how the assessment principles were understood and applied at a unit level. The Centre for Teaching and Learning further developed guidelines for assessment volume, moderation and calibration to sit alongside the policy, procedures and showcase examples.</p> <p>Quality assurance mechanisms were put in place to enable oversight on the policy implementation. A Southern Cross Model steering committee met weekly, with representation from the Centre for Teaching and Learning, the Academic Portfolio Office and, importantly, the Associate Deans (Education), who have oversight of teaching and learning in each faculty and college. While the remit of this group was much broader than just assessment, this served as a forum (alongside the Teaching and Assessment Committee) in which key initiatives could be reviewed and reported on (Roche et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref84">35</reflink>]). The Associate Deans (Education) played a particularly key role in driving the implementation of the new policy in each faculty and college (and in partner institutions), with responsibility for approving unit assessment schemes in line with the new policy.</p> <p>The reduction of final summative examinations across the university is particularly indicative of the effectiveness of these mechanisms. In Trimester 1, 2019, 34% of units across the university offered final exams, which resulted in over 2,300 external exam papers collected at more than 100 exam centres across Australia and offshore. In Term 1, 2023, only eight end-of-unit exams, required by external accreditation bodies, were held across the university.</p> <p>The extent to which the assessment reforms and policy changes outlined above translate into improved student outcomes will now be outlined in the following section.</p> <hd id="AN0183842037-18">Quantitative data: student outcomes</hd> <p>Results of the quantitative analysis are presented in Tables 4 and 5. Supporting hypothesis 1, student success (pass) rates rose to a statistically significant extent in the years following the implementation of the assessment policy reforms (Table 4). These increases occurred for all groups – undergraduate, postgraduate and non-award pathways – and ranged from 7.1% to 24.9%. Using Akoglu's ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref85">1</reflink>]) classification for Cramer's <emph>V</emph>, strong effect sizes were observed for postgraduate and pathways students, with a weak effect size for undergraduates and a moderate effect size overall.</p> <p>Table 4. Success rate changes, traditional model to the Southern Cross Model.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td>2019</td><td>2021 and 2022</td><td>Success rate change (%)</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Cohort</td><td><italic>n</italic></td><td>Success rate (%)</td><td><italic>n</italic></td><td>Success rate (%)</td><td>X<sup>2</sup>(1)</td><td><italic>p</italic></td><td>Cramér's <italic>V</italic></td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>All students</td><td>47,120</td><td>71.9</td><td>32,062</td><td>82.8</td><td><bold>10.8</bold></td><td>1241.5</td><td><.001</td><td>0.125</td></tr><tr><td>Undergraduate</td><td>33,163</td><td>75.7</td><td>23,249</td><td>82.8</td><td><bold>7.1</bold></td><td>407.5</td><td><.001</td><td>0.085</td></tr><tr><td>Postgraduate</td><td>10,052</td><td>64.6</td><td>4,017</td><td>89.5</td><td><bold>24.9</bold></td><td>880.3</td><td><.001</td><td>0.250</td></tr><tr><td>Pathways</td><td>3,905</td><td>59.0</td><td>4,796</td><td>77.2</td><td><bold>18.2</bold></td><td>333.9</td><td><.001</td><td>0.196</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>4 Statistically significant changes (<emph>p</emph> <.05) are bolded.</p> <p>Table 5. Unit satisfaction changes in the Southern Cross Model, 2021–2022.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td /><td>Objectives</td><td>Assessment</td><td>Workload</td><td>Skills</td><td>Overall</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>All students (<italic>n</italic> = 6,081)</td><td>% agree: U1-2</td><td>84.1</td><td>78.4</td><td>76.7</td><td>84.3</td><td>83.1</td></tr><tr><td>% agree: U3+</td><td>90.1</td><td>85.6</td><td>82.2</td><td>90.4</td><td>89.2</td></tr><tr><td>% agree change</td><td><bold>6.0</bold></td><td><bold>7.2</bold></td><td><bold>5.6</bold></td><td><bold>6.1</bold></td><td><bold>6.1</bold></td></tr><tr><td>X<sup>2</sup>(1)</td><td>45.4</td><td>49.7</td><td>27.1</td><td>47.6</td><td>43.9</td></tr><tr><td><italic>p</italic></td><td><.001</td><td><.001</td><td><.001</td><td><.001</td><td><.001</td></tr><tr><td>Cramer's <italic>V</italic></td><td>.09</td><td>.09</td><td>.07</td><td>.09</td><td>.09</td></tr><tr><td>Undergraduate (<italic>n</italic> = 3,381)</td><td>% agree: U1-2</td><td>81.4</td><td>76.2</td><td>76.9</td><td>82.5</td><td>80.3</td></tr><tr><td>% agree: U3+</td><td>88.4</td><td>83.5</td><td>82.4</td><td>87.8</td><td>86.5</td></tr><tr><td>% agree change</td><td><bold>7.0</bold></td><td><bold>7.4</bold></td><td><bold>5.5</bold></td><td><bold>5.3</bold></td><td><bold>6.2</bold></td></tr><tr><td>X<sup>2</sup>(1)</td><td>25.7</td><td>23.2</td><td>13.2</td><td>15.4</td><td>19.0</td></tr><tr><td><italic>p</italic></td><td><.001</td><td><.001</td><td><.001</td><td><.001</td><td><.001</td></tr><tr><td>Cramer's <italic>V</italic></td><td>.09</td><td>.08</td><td>.06</td><td>.07</td><td>.07</td></tr><tr><td>Postgraduate (<italic>n</italic> = 590)</td><td>% agree: U1-2</td><td>87.5</td><td>77.8</td><td>71.4</td><td>88.0</td><td>83.4</td></tr><tr><td>% agree: U3+</td><td>89.4</td><td>85.4</td><td>73.7</td><td>91.4</td><td>88.9</td></tr><tr><td>% agree change</td><td>1.9</td><td><bold>7.5</bold></td><td>2.3</td><td>3.4</td><td>5.5</td></tr><tr><td>X<sup>2</sup>(1)</td><td>0.5</td><td>4.7</td><td>0.3</td><td>1.6</td><td>3.1</td></tr><tr><td><italic>p</italic></td><td>.502</td><td>.029</td><td>.554</td><td>.209</td><td>.077</td></tr><tr><td>Cramer's <italic>V</italic></td><td>.03</td><td>.09</td><td>.02</td><td>.05</td><td>.07</td></tr><tr><td>Pathways (<italic>n</italic> = 2,110)</td><td>% agree: U1-2</td><td>89.2</td><td>84.1</td><td>78.4</td><td>87.1</td><td>89.7</td></tr><tr><td>% agree: U3+</td><td>91.8</td><td>87.5</td><td>83.6</td><td>92.6</td><td>91.7</td></tr><tr><td>% agree change</td><td><bold>2.6</bold></td><td><bold>3.4</bold></td><td><bold>5.2</bold></td><td><bold>5.5</bold></td><td>2.0</td></tr><tr><td>X<sup>2</sup>(1)</td><td>4.1</td><td>5.2</td><td>9.2</td><td>17.6</td><td>2.5</td></tr><tr><td><italic>p</italic></td><td>.042</td><td>.023</td><td>.002</td><td><.001</td><td>.116</td></tr><tr><td>Cramer's <italic>V</italic></td><td>.04</td><td>.05</td><td>.07</td><td>.09</td><td>.03</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>5 U1–2 = unit offered once or twice in the new model. U3+ = unit offered three times or more in the new model. Statistically significant changes (<emph>p</emph> <.05) are bolded.</p> <p>Table 5 shows the results of inferential statistical tests demonstrating that in units offered three or more times in the Southern Cross Model, there was overall a statistically significant uplift on all Unit Feedback Survey items directly and indirectly related to assessment. For the 'Assessment' item directly, there was a positive lift in unit satisfaction agreement for all students (<emph>n</emph> = 6,081) of + 7.2% (78.4 to 85.6%), the highest increase of all five survey items analysed. The other indirect survey items (Objectives, Workload, Skills and Overall Unit Satisfaction) also showed significant positive increases in agreement amongst all students surveyed. In relation to 'Assessment' specifically in the Southern Cross Model, undergraduate (+7.4%), postgraduate (+7.5%) and pathways (+3.4%) students all recorded a positive change in agreement. As these increases were significant, it is with statistical confidence then that we can assert that students are more satisfied with assessment in the Southern Cross Model. Hypothesis 2 is therefore supported.</p> <hd id="AN0183842037-19">Discussion</hd> <p>This analysis of our university's transition to the Southern Cross Model provides insights about the fundamental relationship among pedagogy, assessment policy settings, and implementation of immersive block models. This case study affords some key learnings that other institutions can use to inform their own transformations: the importance of principles-based assessment reform; a layered approach to implementing principles in practice; and the core role of transparent governance structures built on communities of practice.</p> <p>Strong principles are recognised as an important foundation for assessment practice changes (Handley & Read, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref86">18</reflink>]; Nicol & Draper, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref87">32</reflink>]). The reform described in this paper demonstrates not only how principles can effectively drive change, but also how these can be enacted in process and practice. This development and articulation of 'a single set of educational ideas' (Nicol & Draper, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref88">32</reflink>], p. 11) provided a solid foundation for an institution-wide reform.</p> <p>Infusing these principles through the institutional policy framework and into practice involved a layered approach whereby academics were provided with 'multiple gateways' (Nicol & Draper, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref89">32</reflink>], p. 11) into understanding and applying the renewed assessment principles. The assessment procedures, along with guidelines developed by the Centre for Teaching and Learning, were key to translating the principles from rhetoric to practice (e.g., specifying what 'manageable' assessment looks like in a six-week term). Professional development opportunities enabled staff to engage with the literature underpinning the assessment principles and with examples of their operationalisation. Additionally, the policy-driven team-based approach to curriculum redevelopment ensured that the Centre for Teaching and Learning was able to work with academics at a unit level to implement the principles in particular disciplinary contexts.</p> <p>As with the introduction of the immersive block model more broadly, leadership structures 'drawing on fit-for-purpose governance mechanisms' and communities of practice with institution-wide membership were key contributors to the success of the assessment policy reform (Roche et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref90">35</reflink>], p. 18). As implementation began, the Southern Cross Model steering committee and Teaching and Assessment Committee became key fora for reporting on progress and providing guidance on emergent issues. At a faculty and college level, the newly created Associate Dean (Education) roles were critical in providing the leadership necessary for block-model assessment reform and design. Alongside the work undertaken by the Centre for Teaching and Learning, these structures and roles were fundamental to the 'negotiation of meaning' involved in translating policy into practice at a local level (Annala & Mäkinen, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref91">2</reflink>]), and allowed for coordinated change to occur, mitigating the danger of disparate disciplinary silos (Nicol & Draper, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref92">32</reflink>]).</p> <p>Student satisfaction with assessment, objectives, workload and skills development increased over time in the immersive block model. This indicates that manageable, fit-for-purpose, authentic and scaffolded assessment schemes contribute towards heightened student achievement and satisfaction in immersive block models. These findings corroborate prior literature emphasising the importance of these elements in assessment in immersive block models (Chau et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref93">8</reflink>]; Goode et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref94">16</reflink>]; Harwood et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref95">21</reflink>]; Samarawickrema et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref96">39</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0183842037-20">Limitations</hd> <p>We acknowledge as a limitation that this case study is, as with most policy reforms, highly context dependent (Simper et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref97">40</reflink>]). Cross-institutional analyses, such as those undertaken by Nicol and Draper ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref98">32</reflink>]), may provide more fulsome insights into best practice for transforming assessment policy, culture and practice. We note also that the present study was undertaken just prior to the widespread emergence of GenAI in the higher education sector. While not the focus of the current paper, future reforms must address this added complexity (and opportunity), and the role of authentic assessment will undoubtedly become even more important as we review our assessment policy in the era of GenAI (Lodge et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref99">25</reflink>]), as we are currently doing now at Southern Cross.</p> <p>It could also be argued that a focus here solely on assessment is too narrow, and that the positive student outcomes noted could in fact be attributed to other factors, such as teaching delivery methods, learning site transformation, student support, and business procedure, among others. We acknowledge that this may be viewed as a study limitation. Indeed, it is difficult to isolate just one element, such as assessment reform, and say that <emph>this</emph> is the factor that led to improved outcomes in the Southern Cross Model. It is therefore important to situate our results within a wider context; as demonstrated in some of our other analyses, the success thus far of the Model has been attributable to the interlinking nature of all curriculum changes together: pedagogy, scheduling, etc., and assessment (Goode et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref100">14</reflink>]; Wilson et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref101">49</reflink>]). The Southern Cross Model was not just a calendar change, but a wholesale transformation in academic practice driven by a combination of policy, procedure change and staff uplift, resourcing and professional development. However, the assessment and curriculum changes made are central to that success, given how demonstrably important they are in lifting student outcomes (Boud & Associates, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref102">4</reflink>]). Another limitation relates to the lack of qualitative staff and student data, which in future research would provide further insights into how the changes were experienced. Nonetheless, while transforming an institution's assessment culture is typically complex and challenging (Deneen & Boud, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref103">9</reflink>]; Handley & Read, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref104">18</reflink>]; Simper et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref105">40</reflink>]), with an approach such as the one described here, effective change can be achieved for the benefit of students and their learning success.</p> <hd id="AN0183842037-21">Conclusion</hd> <p>In looking to the future of assessment in higher education, David Boud and Associates ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref106">4</reflink>]) wrote well over a decade ago that 'Assessment ... powerfully frames how students learn and what students achieve. It is one of the most significant influences on students' experience of higher education and all that they gain from it' (p. 1). While the higher education sector grapples with a range of new contexts, opportunities and challenges, such as that offered by generative artificial intelligence (Lodge et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref107">25</reflink>]), assessment remains a most vital element of the curriculum; and, its power remains as potent now. If we want to improve student outcomes for the long term and make university more accessible and more suited to diverse student cohorts (Roche et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref108">36</reflink>]; Winchester et al., [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref109">50</reflink>]), then assessment reform remains one of the most compelling ways to do so.</p> <p>This case study of the Southern Cross Model shows that an institutional curriculum shift away from traditional, semester-based learning focused heavily on lectures and exams, can improve academic outcomes and lead to more highly satisfied students. The analysis here of both policy shifts and student feedback demonstrates the power of targeted assessment reform, and how it can make a significant positive difference to the academic success of students. Statistically significant improvements to student pass rates and satisfaction provide strong evidence for the positive impact of assessment reform. Students' experiences in immersive block models will continue to be a rich site of study, and future research focused on assessment and curriculum, and grounded in the student voice, will assist institutions in their transformation.</p> <hd id="AN0183842037-22">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).</p> <ref id="AN0183842037-23"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref85" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Akoglu, H. (2018). User's guide to correlation coefficients. Turkish Journal of Emergency Medicine, 18 (3), 91 – 93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tjem.2018.08.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref91" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Annala, J., & Mäkinen, M. (2017). Communities of practice in higher education: Contradictory narratives of a university-wide curriculum reform. Studies in Higher Education, 42 (11), 1941 – 1957. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1125877</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref74" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Ashford-Rowe, K., Herrington, J., & Brown, C. (2014). Establishing the critical elements that determine authentic assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39 (2), 205 – 222. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2013.819566</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref2" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Boud, D. & Associates. (2010). Assessment 2020: Seven propositions for assessment reform in higher education. Australian Learning and Teaching Council. https://<ulink href="http://www.uts.edu.au/sites/default/files/Assessment-2020%5fpropositions%5ffinal.pdf">www.uts.edu.au/sites/default/files/Assessment-2020%5fpropositions%5ffinal.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref21" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Buck, E., & Tyrrell, K. (2022). Block and blend: A mixed method investigation into the impact of a pilot block teaching and blended learning approach upon student outcomes and experience. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 46 (8), 1078 – 1091. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2022.2050686</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref5" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Buck, E., Vierira Braga, P., & Ortiz Granero, C. M. (2023). Effective assessment in a block pedagogy: Understanding the impact of summative assessment type on student achievement. Journal of Block and Intensive Learning and Teaching, 1 (1), 6 – 16. https://doi.org/10.15209/jbilt.1280</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref3" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Charlton, N., & Newsham-West, R. (2023). Program-level assessment planning in Australia: The considerations and practices of university academics. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 48 (6), 820 – 833. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2022.2134553</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref27" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Chau, H.-W., Jamei, E., & Li, M. (2022). Block mode delivery for studio design teaching in higher education. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 60 (3), 346 – 356. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2022.2062031</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref103" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Deneen, C., & Boud, D. (2014). Patterns of resistance in managing assessment change. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39 (5), 577 – 591. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2013.859654</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dixon, L., & O'Gorman, V. (2020). 'Block teaching'–exploring lecturers' perceptions of intensive modes of delivery in the context of undergraduate education. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 44 (5), 583 – 595. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2018.1564024</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dunn, L., Morgan, C., Parry, S., & O'Reilly, M. (2003). The student assessment handbook: New directions in traditional and online assessment. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203416518</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fulton, J., Scott, P., Biggins, F., & Koutsoukos, C. (2021). Fear or favor: Student views on embedding authentic assessments in journalism education. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 22 (1), 58 – 71. https://<ulink href="http://www.ijwil.org/files/IJWIL%5f22%5f1%5f57%5f71.pdf">www.ijwil.org/files/IJWIL%5f22%5f1%5f57%5f71.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goode, E., Nieuwoudt, J. E., & Roche, T. (2022). Does online engagement matter? The impact of interactive learning modules and synchronous class attendance on student achievement in an immersive delivery model. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 38 (4), 76 – 94. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.7929</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goode, E., Roche, T., Wilson, E., & McKenzie, J. W. (2023). Implications of immersive scheduling for student achievement and feedback. Studies in Higher Education, 48 (7), 1123 – 1136. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2023.2184472</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goode, E., Roche, T., Wilson, E., Zhang, J., & McKenzie, J. (2024a). The success, satisfaction and experiences of international students in an immersive block model. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 21 (2). https://doi.org/10.53761/1.21.2.08</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goode, E., Syme, S., & Nieuwoudt, J. E. (2024b). The impact of immersive scheduling on student learning and success in an Australian pathways program. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 61 (2), 263 – 275. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2022.2157304</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hains-Wesson, R., Pollard, V., Kaider, F., & Young, K. (2020). STEM academic teachers' experiences of undertaking authentic assessment-led reform: A mixed method approach. Studies in Higher Education, 45 (9), 1797 – 1808. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1593350</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Handley, F.J.L., & Read, A. (2017). Developing assessment policy and evaluating practice: A case study of the introduction of a new marking scheme. Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education, 21 (4), 135 – 139. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603108.2015.1128490</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harland, T. (2014). Learning about case study methodology to research higher education. Higher Education Research & Development, 33 (6), 1113 – 1122. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2014.911253</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harvey, M., & Kosman, B. (2014). A model for higher education policy review: The case study of an assessment policy. Journal of Higher Education Policy & Management, 36 (1), 88 – 98. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2013.861051</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harwood, K.J., McDonald, P. L., Butler, J. T., Drago, D., & Schlumpf, K. S. (2018). Comparing student outcomes in traditional vs intensive, online graduate programs in health professional education. BMC Medical Education, 18 (1), 1 – 9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-018-1343-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Huber, E., Davila, Y. C., & Thomson, A. C. G. (2022). Designing intensive mode science subjects: Improving the student and teacher experience. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 19 (5). https://doi.org/10.53761/1.19.5.4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jackson, J., Tangalakis, K., Hurley, P., & Solomonides, I. (2022). Equity through complexity: Inside the "black box" of the block Model. National Centre for Student Equity in Higher Education. https://<ulink href="http://www.ncsehe.edu.au/publications/black-box-block-model/">www.ncsehe.edu.au/publications/black-box-block-model/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Konjarski, L., Weldon, J., Ashley, S., Freeman, T., Shanata, J., Yamanishi, M., Lotz, E., Gilde, C., & Ganzel, A. (2023). The block: A catalyst for ongoing innovation. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 20 (4). https://doi.org/10.53761/1.20.4.13</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lodge, J.M., Howard, S., Bearman, M., Dawson, P., (2023). Assessment reform for the age of artificial intelligence. Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency. https://<ulink href="http://www.teqsa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-09/assessment-reform-age-artificial-intelligence-discussion-paper.pdf">www.teqsa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-09/assessment-reform-age-artificial-intelligence-discussion-paper.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Loton, D., Stein, C., Parker, P., & Weaven, M. (2022). Introducing block mode to first-year university students: A natural experiment on satisfaction and performance. Studies in Higher Education, 47 (6), 1097 – 1120. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2020.1843150</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McCluskey, T., Weldon, J., & Smallridge, A. (2019). Rebuilding the first year experience, one block at a time. Student Success, 10 (1), 1 – 15. https://doi.org/10.5204/ssj.v10i1.1148</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McDonald, P.L., Harwood, K. J., Butler, J. T., Schlumpf, K. S., Eschmann, C. W., & Drago, D. (2018). Design for success: Identifying a process for transitioning to an intensive online course delivery model in health professions education. Medical Education Online, 23 (1), 1415617. https://doi.org/10.1080/10872981.2017.1415617</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mislevy, R.J., Behrens, J. T. Discerbo, K. T., & Levy, R. (2012). Design and discovery in educational assessment: Evidence-centered design, psychometrics, and educational data mining. Journal of Educational Data Mining, 4 (1), 11 – 48. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3554641</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mueller, J. (2005). The authentic assessment toolbox: Enhancing student learning through online faculty development. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 1 (1). https://jolt.merlot.org/documents/vol1_no1_mueller_001.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nerantzi, C., & Chatzidamianos, G. (2020). Moving to block teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Management and Applied Research, 7 (4), 482 – 495. https://doi.org/10.18646/2056.74.20-034</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nicol, D., & Draper, S. (2009). A blueprint for transformational organisational change in higher education: REAP as a case study. https://<ulink href="http://www.psy.gla.ac.uk/~steve/rap/docs/NicolDraperTransf4.pdf">www.psy.gla.ac.uk/~steve/rap/docs/NicolDraperTransf4.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> O'Neill, G. (2019). Why don't we want to reduce assessment? All Ireland Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 11 (2), 1 – 7. https://<ulink href="http://www.ojs.aishe.org/index.php/aishe-j/article/view/415">www.ojs.aishe.org/index.php/aishe-j/article/view/415</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Roche, T., Wilson, E. & Goode, E. (2022). Why the Southern Cross Model? How one university's curriculum was transformed. Southern Cross University Scholarship of Learning and Teaching Paper No. 3. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4029237</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Roche, T., Wilson, E., & Goode, E. (2024a). Immersive learning in a block teaching model: A case study of academic reform through principles, policies and practice. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 21 (2). https://doi.org/10.53761/1.21.2.12</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Roche, T., Wilson, E., Goode, E., & McKenzie, J. W. (2024b). Supporting the academic success of underrecognised higher education students through an immersive block model. Higher Education Research & Development. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2024.2424157</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Samarawickrema, G., Cleary, K., Loton, D., Ambler, T., & Krcho, T. (2024). Academics' experiences of block model assessment during COVID-19: Taking principles-based insights into the future. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 61 (6), 1242 – 1257. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2023.2296657</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Samarawickrema, G., Cleary, K., Male, S., & McCluskey, T. (2022). Designing learning for intensive modes of study. Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia. https://<ulink href="http://www.herdsa.org.au/publications/guides/designing-learning-intensive-modes-study">www.herdsa.org.au/publications/guides/designing-learning-intensive-modes-study</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Samarawickrema, G., Galloway, T., Raponi, K., & Everett, G. (2020). A participatory evaluation of transforming first year LLB into block mode. Legal Education Review, 30 (1), 1 – 18. https://ler.scholasticahq.com/article/22297-a-participatory-evaluation-of-transforming-first-year-llb-into-block-mode</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Simper, N., Mårtensson, K., Berry, A., & Maynard, N. (2022). Assessment cultures in higher education: Reducing barriers and enabling change. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 47 (7), 1016 – 1029. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.1983770</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Swiecki, Z., Khosravi, H., Chen, G., Martinez-Maldonado, R., Lodge, J. M., Milligan, S., Selwyn, N., & Gašević, D. (2022). Assessment in the age of artificial intelligence. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 3, 100075. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100075</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Turner, R., Webb, O. J., & Cotton, D. R. E. (2021). Introducing immersive scheduling in a UK university: Potential implications for student attainment. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 45 (10), 1371 – 1384. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2021.1873252</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Van der Vleuten, C., Heeneman, S., & Schuwirth, L. W. (2017). Programmatic assessment. In J. Dent, R. Harden, & D. Hunt (Eds.), A practical guide for medical teachers 5th ed. (pp. 295 – 303). Elsevier.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vieira Braga, P.R., Ortiz Granero, C. M., & Buck, E. (2024). Student and faculty perceptions of summative assessment methods in a block and blend mode of delivery. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 21 (2). https://doi.org/10.53761/1.21.2.04</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Walsh, K.P., Sanders, M., & Gadgil, S. (2019). Equivalent but not the same: Teaching and learning in full semester and condensed Summer courses. College Teaching, 67 (2), 138 – 149. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2019.1579702</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Whiley, D., Witt, B., Colvin, R. M., Sapiains Arrue, R., & Kotir, J. (2017). Enhancing critical thinking skills in first year environmental management students: A tale of curriculum design, application and reflection. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 41 (2), 166 – 181. https://doi.org/10.1080/03098265.2017.1290590</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wilson, E., Goode, E., & Roche, T. (2024a). Transforming assessment policy: Improving student outcomes through an immersive block model. Southern Cross University Scholarship of Learning and Teaching Paper No. 17. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4867346</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wilson, E., & Roche, T. (2022, November 20). Revolutionary teaching & learning the southern cross U way. Campus morning mail. https://campusmorningmail.com.au/news/revolutionary-teaching-learning-the-southern-cross-u-way/</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wilson, E., Roche, T., Goode, E., & McKenzie, J. W. (2024b). Creating the conditions for student success through curriculum reform: The impact of an active learning, immersive block model. Higher Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-024-01283-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Winchester, M., Klein, R., & Sinnayah, P. (2021). Block teaching and active learning improves academic outcomes for disadvantaged undergraduate groups. Issues in Educational Research, 31 (4), 1330 – 1350.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yin, R.K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Sage.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Erica Wilson; Elizabeth Goode and Thomas Roche</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref95"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref109"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1499551
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Transforming Assessment Policy: Improving Student Outcomes through an Immersive Block Model
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Erica+Wilson%22">Erica Wilson</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4768-3251">0000-0003-4768-3251</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Elizabeth+Goode%22">Elizabeth Goode</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8966-7853">0000-0001-8966-7853</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Thomas+Roche%22">Thomas Roche</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3736-7100">0000-0002-3736-7100</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Higher+Education+Policy+and+Management%22"><i>Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management</i></searchLink>. 2025 47(2):192-209.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 18
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Students%22">College Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Evaluation%22">Student Evaluation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22School+Policy%22">School Policy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Block+Scheduling%22">Block Scheduling</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Governance%22">Governance</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Administration%22">College Administration</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Change%22">Educational Change</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Academic+Achievement%22">Academic Achievement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Satisfaction%22">Student Satisfaction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Public+Colleges%22">Public Colleges</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Outcomes+of+Education%22">Outcomes of Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Australia%22">Australia</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/1360080X.2024.2434724
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1360-080X<br />1469-9508
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: This paper describes how one Australian university achieved deep assessment reform through transition to the Southern Cross Model: a 6-week, immersive block learning approach. There are few studies that explicitly discuss the governance, policy and people changes required to effect whole-of-institution shift. Addressing this gap, this case study draws on a mixed-method investigation of policy reform and student achievement data. It outlines the tenets underpinning the university's new assessment approach, and how these were translated into practice. A principles-based approach was developed, providing the foundation for pedagogical change. Analysis of the quantitative data demonstrates a significant increase in student pass rates and, over time, student satisfaction with assessment, workload and skills development. The findings underscore how essential whole-of-institution assessment reform is in transitioning to an immersive block model. Implications and recommendations are offered for other institutions seeking to transform assessment and drive enhanced learning and teaching outcomes through institution-wide change.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2026
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1499551
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1499551
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/1360080X.2024.2434724
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 18
        StartPage: 192
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Evaluation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: School Policy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Block Scheduling
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Governance
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Administration
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Change
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Academic Achievement
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Satisfaction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Public Colleges
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Outcomes of Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Australia
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Transforming Assessment Policy: Improving Student Outcomes through an Immersive Block Model
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Erica Wilson
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Elizabeth Goode
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Thomas Roche
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1360-080X
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1469-9508
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 47
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management
              Type: main
ResultId 1