We designed public-facing alternative assessments in our Renaissance literature modules so that students can demonstrate their ability to translate complex academic knowledge into real-world outputs such as theatre programmes, exhibition guides and teaching packs while retaining academic rigour through the inclusion of a rationale.
Our challenge / opportunity
In literary studies, and in the humanities more broadly, one of the recurring challenges is helping students articulate the value of their learning beyond the university, and in language which makes sense to employers. We know that skills like close reading, historical interpretation, and engagement with critical theories develop powerful transferable skills like synthesising large amounts of textual information, or being able to see an issue from multiple perspectives. The difficulty is that students do not get regular opportunities within individual modules to evidence how those skills and attitudes might apply in ‘real-world’ contexts.
Programme-level employability lectures and transferable skills sessions are useful, but they can often be overlooked by students. We wanted to embed this thinking in the modules themselves, including in the way students are assessed. The question became: how can we ask students to take highly specialised academic knowledge (like the niche topic of Renaissance literature) and translate it for a wider audience?
For us, the opportunity was to make assessment feel more connected to the kinds of work students might encounter in creative and heritage industries, in publishing, theatre, education or public engagement. Rather than asking students only to demonstrate knowledge through a traditional academic essay, we wanted to offer a route where they could communicate complex ideas in engaging forms that have a life beyond academia.
Our solution (approach)
We introduced optional alternative assessments that ask students to create public-facing outputs alongside a scholarly rationale.
Across different modules, students have produced some of the following alternative assessments: a theatre programme, a class anthology, a digital exhibition guide, a set or costume design proposal, an educational blog, a proposal for a community theatre project. The scenario is usually framed as a simulated real-world brief. For example, students might imagine they have been commissioned to develop an education pack for school pupils studying a non-Shakespearean text, or to propose a staging plan for a modernised mystery play as part of a cultural festival.
We show students real examples of the kinds of outputs they are creating, drawing on open-access educational resources from organisations such as the Royal Shakespeare Company, Shakespeare’s Globe, the British Library and the Folger Shakespeare Library.
This public-facing output is then supplemented with a critical rationale. This rationale is crucial. It asks students to explain how they arrived at their concept, what scholarly or textual evidence underpins it, and how their choices relate to the module’s intellectual concerns. This means the assessment still requires students to demonstrate their strengths in analysis of primary texts and historical context, the application of theoretical approaches, and rigorous use of secondary reading and referencing. It also gives students space to reflect on their process and to make visible the academic thinking behind a creative or public-facing outcome.
We have used this approach, for example, in the Stage 2 module Renaissance Bodies, where students have been able to choose between formats such as a theatre programme about a module text, an educational resource pack, or a digital exhibition. Towards the end of the semester, we run workshops for students taking this option. In these sessions, we discuss the task, share examples from previous years, look at real-world models, and explain what the rationale needs to do.
The assessment has so far been offered as an alternative rather than the only route. This gives students choice and recognises that some may prefer the familiarity of an essay. At the same time, it allows those who want to experiment with a different mode of communication to do so within a clear academic framework.
The impact (results)
One of the most important impacts is that the assessment creates variety and, in many cases, more joy (for students and markers alike). That matters. Students are still engaging deeply with challenging material, but they are also able to think creatively about making their research more accessible to a wider range of audiences: what register is needed, and what are the formal allowances of their chosen format? In my stage 3 module Shakespeare’s Showbusiness, an additional element is that students can choose to deliver their work as a presentation (for example, one student’s work on cosmetics on the Renaissance stage included a make-up tutorial underpinned by research into contemporary recipe books).
The assessment helps students practise problem solving. They have to decide not only what they want to say about a text, but how to make that interpretation meaningful for a particular audience. A strong theatre programme or educational pack cannot simply be decorative; it needs a clear concept, a rationale for its choices, and evidence that the student understands the material they are adapting or presenting.
It also gives students something distinctive to draw on when they talk about their skills. When writing references for students applying for MA study, teacher training, publishing, or related fields, I have seen how useful it can be for them to point to an assessment where they have translated academic knowledge into a public facing format or a professional format like a presentation. It gives them a concrete example of applied communication (in comparison, students who stick to essays alone tend to be limited to referencing generic communication skills: essay writing and speaking in seminars), as well as their creativity and independent thinking.
Around 20% of students choose the alternative assessment route: not so few that it feels marginal, but it also reflects the fact that many students are understandably cautious about trying an unfamiliar assessment format. Some confident students thrive because they enjoy the chance to take a risk and work imaginatively. Others may have a strong creative idea but then need more support to develop the rationale or ensure the premise works analytically.
A particularly rewarding example emerged when a student who had taken this kind of approach in our stage 2 module went on to work with me as a research assistant on a separate digital exhibition. The student went on to develop a final year research project on the use of zines and other alternative assessments as a more inclusive format for students with chronic illnesses because they develop portfolio-style over time, and therefore offer a different model from high-pressure, single-sitting assessments. Her work also raised important questions about co-creation, hierarchy and how students can contribute as partners in research and assessment design. As will be apparent, this was a unique outcome, based on a combination of this student’s intrinsic motivation and academic strength, and my having the funding to pay for her to work as an intern on a research project. You can read more in this presentation about co-led research the student and I gave for the English Association.
Lessons learned
The biggest lesson is that alternative assessment cannot simply be introduced at the end of a module as a new option with minimal preparation. Students need time, examples and structured opportunities to test ideas through seminar or study group discussion.
There is a good reason why some students are cautious. A public-facing assessment often requires them to learn unfamiliar formats and sometimes unfamiliar tools. Producing a digital exhibition, for example, asks students to work out how to use software and design material in a different way from a standard essay. Even when a tool like ‘Shorthand’ is relatively intuitive, that is still an additional layer of learning to factor in.
We have also learned that creativity needs careful academic scaffolding. A student might begin with an exciting premise, such as a gender-swapped production of an early modern play, but this alone is not enough: the strongest work comes when they think through the consequences of that premise. For example, how would swapping the gender of Petruchio and Katherine in Shakespeare’s The Taming of the Shrew change the power relations between those characters (in our period as well as the period being depicted)? What, if any, textual changes need to be made to the script? How might those gender-swapped characters interact differently with others in the play? What does it reveal about the text? Those are the kinds of questions that need to be developed through seminar discussion, or formative feedback before the final submission.
For that reason I think this approach may work best as part of a portfolio-style structure, with formative stages that build towards the final assessment (and, as alluded to in the previous section, this slow build-up could also lend itself to greater inclusivity). It could therefore involve rebalancing teaching time, replacing some traditional lecture delivery with more interactive workshop-style activity. That would help students develop their concepts in conversation, while also making the process less risky.
There are workload implications. Students value the personal touch and often want to discuss their ideas with a specialist. That can be one of the strengths of the approach, but it also draws on staff time. Colleagues need to plan for that supervision and support, rather than assuming the assessment will run in the same way as an essay.
The other important consideration is whether to use external partnership. Working with theatre companies, actors, heritage organisations or alumni can be hugely valuable, but will usually require a budget for commissions. In addition, the amount of time they can offer may be limited, so careful planning to avoid straining relationships is good practice. Simulated briefs, especially those grounded in the local context, can be a practical and sustainable alternative where budgets are limited.
Tips for colleagues
Start from the learning outcomes, not the format. Be clear about what students still need to demonstrate: for us it was close attention to textual features and the ability to extrapolate using their contextual knowledge. Both the process of adapting their learning to a new format and the accompanying rationale could evidence critical thinking, their use of scholarly evidence to support claims and reflective learning.
Use a two-part structure. The public-facing output gives students the opportunity to evidence their ability to communicate their expertise to a wider audience and to create an impact; the rationale ensures the academic rigour (though this can also be demonstrated within the output itself) and makes the student’s decision-making visible.
Show students real examples from your field. This helps demystify the task and gives them a clearer sense of audience, tone, structure and professional conventions. However, this also needs to be balanced with reassurance that students are not expected to produce equivalent length pieces: set reasonable limits to keep the project manageable. Consider how this would work with an appropriate word length.
Build in formative support. Workshops, draft concepts, peer discussion or portfolio stages can help students test whether their ideas work before the final submission.
Be transparent about assessment criteria. Students need reassurance that they are not being rewarded for design flair alone, or penalised for choosing a less familiar format. They should be assured that the work meets equivalent academic standards.
Think carefully about your own workload. Students may need more individual guidance because the outputs can vary widely. Plan where that support will sit in the module.
Keep accessibility in view. Digital or portfolio-style assessments can create useful flexibility for some students, but they also need clear guidance, accessible tools and manageable expectations.
Consider a reflective or viva-style element to your assessment. As generative AI becomes more embedded in student practice, live or dialogic reflection may help students demonstrate ownership of their ideas and process.
Skills and attributes
Students were able to develop the following attributes:
- Reflective and self-aware
- Self-directed learning
- Critical thinking
- Problem solving
- Creative thinking
- Digital skills
- Communication
- Insight
- Future focused
Education for Life Strategy
This case study reflects the following aims of the Education for Life strategy:
- Equity: To provide a core, universal offer for all students, including tailored provision where needed, to ensure equity of access, experience and in outcomes for all, regardless of background, identity, nationality, location or mode of study.
- Fit for the future: To ensure our students are fit for their future, our teaching is fit for the future of our offer, and our colleagues are fit for the future of HE
Further resources
Digital Thomas Nashe exhibition
Authors
 |
Dr Kate De Rycker Lecturer in Renaissance Literature School of English Literature, Language & Linguistics kate.de-rycker@newcastle.ac.uk |