The Impact of Changes to Finance-Major Assessment Structures on Student Engagement and Success.

Analysis of assessment activities that encourage student engagement and attainment of higher-order cognitive outcomes within Bloom’s Taxonomy (deep learning; Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001) supports greater use of individual and group presentations, research reports, and open-book exams. Consistent with this analysis this paper outlines changes made to the assessment structures of three final-year finance-major courses and details the impact on student engagement and success. It was found that the changed assessment structures were associated with enhanced student engagement, satisfaction and success. It was also found that the changes to the forms of assessment enhanced the development of students’ verbal and written communication abilities and did not detract from the quantitative emphasis required of finance majors. In the early 2000s the Applied Finance discipline at the University of South Australia responded to two major concerns regarding its finance major: student feedback evidencing low student satisfaction with finalyear courses, and high student failure rates in these courses. Given both of these concerns, it was decided by the group that assessment would be the focal point for improving learning satisfaction and outcomes. To facilitate a review of the suitability of the assessment structures in each of the finance-major courses comprising the University’s three-year undergraduate Bachelor of Applied Finance degree, funding was applied for and awarded under a University of South Australia Teaching and Learning Grant. The resulting modifications to assessment in the final-year finance major courses are part of the outcome associated with the grant report. In keeping with the University’s promotion of a student-centered perspective on teaching and learning, suitability was defined in terms of the potential impact on student learning outcomes and satisfaction rather than attempting to measure teaching effectiveness. This analysis of suitability required consideration of the “fitness for purpose” and the transformation qualities of different forms of assessment. Fitness for purpose defines quality strictly in relation to the purpose of the education service/teaching and learning materials. First, a set of qualitative characteristics or benchmark criteria against which to make these judgments was established. This comprised: specifying the characteristics desired of finance graduates, based on survey evidence of the core concepts and skills required by employers and as specified by the University of South Australia’s Graduate Qualities; and recognition that the concepts and skills required of finance majors may be linked to learning outcomes associated with specific levels of cognitive development within Bloom’s Taxonomy (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). As well as having a firm grasp of application when learning undergraduate finance, students are expected to engage mainly in the higherorder levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy—analysis, evaluation, and synthesis (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). This supports a focus on teaching and learning arrangements, especially changing assessment structures to encourage a deep approach to learning by the student. Second, evaluation of existing assessment structures was undertaken against these benchmarks. Third, a revised assessment structure displaying greater ‘fitness for purpose’ of assessment comprising changes to the coursework assignment and final exam format was selected. Finally, these changes to assessment were evaluated, based on student course evaluation scores and student success rates. The following sections of this paper provide a brief outline of this process.