1. Background

Often in universities, there are different modes of assessment designed to determine the understanding and abilities of students. Some of the most conventional methods are coursework, tests and the ‘unforgettable’ exams! To help learners prepare for these assessments, they have access to online learning materials, university-facilitated subscriptions to journals and publications. In some cases, to further facilitate the students’ learning, even a recorded version of their lectures is available online as a podcast. Moreover, learners are encouraged to request new books and resources in the library if they are not already available. All these sources of information are at their disposal so that they are equipped with the proper resources and skills to excel in their degree. However, it is far from universally agreed that the conventional mode of assessment – based on average upon a two-hour written examination – is the best way to determine learners’ academic capabilities and understandings.

The other significant point to consider is that, nowadays, these vast sources of knowledge are not the preserve of higher education institutions: in our digital world, they are readily available to learners, literally at the tips of their fingers. The idea of institutional education stemmed from the fact that in ancient times the sources of information were scarce. There were few books and even fewer people to disseminate and decipher the subject matter correctly. However, it is evident that this is no longer the case. This plausibly creates a demand for the tutor–pupil relationship to evolve.

2. R=T Masterclass and focus group outcome

In the focus group, there was a discussion as to whether exams might impose an invisible barrier to the inquisitive nature of students. And although coursework may present a brief window of flexibility for exploring outside the set core modules, it still does not fully promote self-learning. One of the alternative forms of assessment suggested by Professor Levesley in the R=T Masterclass consists of a tiered grading method. Rather than marks being based on exams and tests, students would need to demonstrate a basic understanding of the fundamental concepts to achieve a first-year pass. In progressive years they would have to present a higher understanding and analytical skills to be awarded a lower-second honours degree classification, and demonstrate in-depth knowledge and application for an upper-second honours degree classification or above. The cohort in the focus group generally approved the idea. Personally, I find this system very appealing. Once the learners have acquired the fundamental concepts, there would essentially be the freedom to pick the topics to be further, independently explored. Students would not necessarily have to abide by the compulsory syllabus and core modules, but could choose to spend time on what truly interested them.

The other highlight of the focus group discussion was the idea of peer-assisted learning. Professor Levesley had suggested this as the principle method that suits the current era where students have immediate access to immense sources of knowledge. It involves students meeting periodically to discuss whatever they are independently learning with tutors. Among the focus group it was unanimously agreed that it is a good tool for learning. However, some interesting concerns were raised. As students may pick and explore different subjects, realistically there may not be sufficient staff to accommodate this, as current student–staff ratios are very high. To allow students to explore a wide range of subjects and effectively manage this, the student–staff ratio would need to fall, as it would not always be possible to break down the interests of students into a broad category and run a massive lecture. This system would require a more tutorial-like environment.

The idea of the UCL Connected Curriculum was also suggested as a way of changing university-level education from research-led to research-based. For instance, here at UCL, research-led education is already embraced. The lecturers integrate their research into their teaching, meaning learners are readily informed of recent advancements in their field of study. However, the idea of research-based education is to engage students in research activity, so that students work alongside teaching staff as co-creators of knowledge. The idea is very novel and full of new opportunities for students, breaking the traditional tutor–student barrier. However, the focus group participants questioned the validity of the knowledge that would be co-produced by learners. While it might be a good idea to involve students in research, to co-produce knowledge might be challenging for tutors, as it may require students to have expertise and skills that they don’t yet possess. But there certainly remains scope for students, as they extend their skills, to play a role in generating information. It would depend upon the complexity of the information being generated. However, increasing the opportunity for learners to co-produce their education would enhance their educational experience and would be a major step towards research-based education.

3. Conclusion

Research-based education is an alternative perspective, or rather just one of the reforms, that the contemporary education system needs. For learning to be integrative, inspiring and innovative in nature, there is a dire need for different learning and assessment methods to be sampled, as times have definitely changed.