Assessment Practices in Saudi Higher Education During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Assessment is a cornerstone of education, and interest in teachers' assessment literacy has grown, particularly amid the disruptions of COVID-19. Assessment-literate educators must understand what and why they assess, choose effective methods, and implement sound practices. In Saudi higher education, a lack of precise specifications and standards creates variability in assessment conceptualization and implementation, making contextualized data necessary—especially after the rapid transition to online assessment in March 2020 under Ministry of Education (MOE) directives. This study uses a quantitative approach to examine faculty assessment practices and literacy needs across departments and career stages during COVID-19. Research questions: (1) What assessment practices are used by teaching staff in Saudi universities, and did these practices change during COVID-19? (2) What are teaching staffs' assessment training needs and preferred training methods before and during COVID-19?

Prior work has emphasized teacher and student assessment literacy and the consequences of inadequate assessment knowledge (e.g., Broadfoot, Popham, Malone). Calls exist to familiarize educators with principles such as practicality, reliability, validity, authenticity, washback, and fairness. In Saudi higher education—particularly EFL contexts—evidence indicates dominance of summative exams focusing on knowledge retrieval, limited use of standards and criteria, and constraints on teacher autonomy in unified assessments. Research on higher education assessment in the MENA region remains limited. Studies on COVID-19 in higher education have documented challenges with online assessment, including technological hurdles and redesign of tasks, but few focus on faculty practices during the pandemic. This study addresses gaps by providing cross-departmental data on Saudi faculty practices and needs.

Design: Quantitative cross-sectional survey administered online between June and December 2020. Instrument: Adapted Approaches to Classroom Assessment Inventory (ACAI; DeLuca et al., 2016b), using only Part 2 (25 items on assessment practices covering purpose, process, fairness, and theory) and adding sections on demographics, pre/during COVID-19 practices, and assessment education priorities and preferences. Pilot: Six Saudi university staff piloted the survey for clarity and relevance before main deployment. Participants: N=267 faculty from 27 Saudi universities and 13 colleges; varied ranks (assistant professor, lecturer, associate professor, professor, teaching assistant, language teacher, etc.), career stages, and student levels taught (diploma, BA, MA, PhD). Most reported prior assessment training; some relied on self-study or had none. Setting: On March 8, 2020, the Saudi MOE mandated a shift to online learning mid-semester and issued assessment guidelines promoting alternative assessments over exams, limiting tasks, and sharing coursework grades before finals (typical pre-COVID weighting 40% final exam, 60% mid-term/coursework; during COVID recommended 20% final, 80% coursework/alternatives). Data analysis: Descriptive statistics, exploratory factor analysis (principal axis factoring with varimax rotation), independent samples t-tests, one-way ANOVA, and chi-square tests to examine differences by demographics (gender, college, academic position, experience, assessment education) and preferred learning methods. Analyses were conducted in SPSS. Sampling adequacy and sphericity supported EFA (KMO=0.880; Bartlett’s p<0.001).

• Factor structure and reliability: Assessment practice items loaded strongly onto a single factor with excellent internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha=0.957). KMO=0.880; Bartlett’s test p<0.001.
• Most endorsed practices (item means):
  • Provide timely feedback to improve learning (mean 4.18, SD 0.86).
  • Link assessment tasks/questions to learning objectives (mean 4.08, SD 0.87).
  • Use the same rubric/scoring guide for all students when grading (mean 4.07, SD 0.93).
  • Monitor and revise assessment approaches to improve teaching (mean 4.00, SD 0.92).
• Least endorsed practices:
  • Summative grades meaningfully represent learning relative to curriculum expectations (mean 3.46, SD 1.05).
  • Ensuring responsiveness to cultural/linguistic diversity (mean 3.59, SD 1.00).
  • Providing resources/time/accommodations for students with special needs/exceptionalities (mean 3.67, SD 0.89).
• Differences by demographics (assessment practice factor):
  • Academic position: Significant differences (ANOVA p=0.003). Associate professors highest endorsement (mean 4.14, SD 0.39), followed by assistant professors (3.86, SD 0.61), lecturers (3.79, SD 0.53), teaching assistants (3.69, SD 0.40), with professors lowest (3.46, SD 1.11).
  • Gender: No significant difference at 0.05 (male mean 3.92 vs female 3.75; t=1.953, p=0.052).
  • College: No significant differences (p=0.692).
  • Years of experience: No significant differences (p=0.097).
  • Assessment education: Non-significant trends (those with courses/self-study higher than no course; p≈0.10–0.21).
• Pre-pandemic assessment usage (N=267):
  • Total reported assessments=1384 (~5.2 per participant).
  • Summative assessments: 700 (exams 214; mid/final 207; quizzes 172; other summative 107).
  • Performance assessments: 584 (assignments 215; presentations 161; projects 148; portfolios 57; case studies 2; group work 1).
  • Formative assessments: 102 (formative 100; peer 1; self 1).
• During pandemic assessment usage (n=177 responding to this section):
  • Total reported assessments=343 (~1.94 per participant), indicating a reduced number but more varied types.
  • Performance assessments dominated: 320 (take-home exams 106; assignments 89; projects 84; presentations 40; portfolios 5).
  • Modified summative: 6 (open-book 2; online exams 1; take-home already counted under performance; note categorization as modified varies in table).
  • Summative quizzes: 3.
  • Modified performance assessments: 12 (discussions 4; group project/work 1; research projects 1; reading task 1; designing surveys/interviews 1; reflective essays 1; others as listed).
  • Formative assessments: 2 instances total during pandemic.
  • Other: 95 (includes not applicable 90; other 3; started mid-pandemic 2; no examination 1).
• Change in practices: 67.8% reported changing assessment practices during COVID-19; 32.2% did not (reasons included pre-aligned plans or course types not requiring changes, e.g., MA/PhD).
• Training preferences and needs:
  • Those who did not change practices were significantly more likely to prefer online learning for assessment education.
  • Males more likely than females to prefer individual learning and online learning (chi-square significant).
  • BA instructors more likely to prefer learning via a peer/mentor/coach and less likely to prefer university courses compared to those teaching mixed levels.
  • Priority topics: writing test items; marking/scoring; feedback; peer assessment; 21st-century skills assessment; designing effective assessments; project/online assessment ideas; mapping learning outcomes; alternative assessments; reducing tests; measurement theory; ensuring validity, reliability, accuracy; fairness and accommodations; and general PD on online tools and teaching methods.

Findings show Saudi faculty prioritized feedback, alignment of assessments with learning objectives, consistent use of rubrics, and iterative refinement of assessment approaches. During COVID-19, assessment shifted markedly away from traditional exams toward performance-based tasks (e.g., take-home exams, assignments, projects, presentations), with a substantial reduction in the overall number of assessments. Formative assessment, however, was used far less during the pandemic, likely due to rapid transitions, workload, and accountability pressures. Fairness-related practices (responsiveness to cultural/linguistic diversity, accommodations for students with special needs) and mapping of summative assessments to curriculum expectations were less emphasized—posing risks to validity and reliability if unaddressed. Differences across academic ranks suggest mid-career faculty (associate professors) most strongly endorsed comprehensive assessment practices, while professors and early-career staff showed lower endorsement—potentially reflecting course types, responsibilities, or attitudes toward assessment. Training preferences varied by gender and student level taught, underscoring the need for flexible, multimodal professional learning opportunities. Overall, the findings address the research questions by documenting prevalent practices and shifts during COVID-19 and by identifying concrete training needs and preferred modalities for assessment education in the Saudi higher education context.

This study contributes empirical evidence on Saudi higher education assessment practices across colleges, ranks, and career stages before and during COVID-19. It documents a substantial pivot toward performance assessments and fewer examinations during the pandemic, alongside persistent underuse of formative assessment and limited attention to fairness and alignment to curriculum expectations. The results highlight the necessity of tailored professional development to strengthen assessment literacy—particularly in formative assessment, fairness and accommodations, validity/reliability, and designing alternative assessments suitable for online and hybrid contexts. Institutions and policymakers should provide diverse, accessible training formats (e.g., online modules, webinars, peer coaching, university courses) aligned to faculty preferences and needs. Future research should examine post-pandemic trajectories of assessment practices, cross-country comparisons in the MENA region, and in-depth qualitative investigations of how faculty engage with and implement assessment education.

• Self-report survey data may introduce bias in describing actual practices.
• Sample size and voluntary participation limit generalizability; findings reflect those who completed the survey.
• Context-specific to Saudi public universities during COVID-19; results may not transfer to other settings or time periods.