From Recall to Resilience: Reforming Assessment Practices in Saudi Theory-Based Higher Education to Advance Vision 2030

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Your paper has addressed a critical issue about assessment reform in higher education and focused on Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). You have aligned your research to Saudi Vision 2030, and this provides a unique flavor to this research. You have indeed maintained clear focus on the strategic policy of the nation.
2. You have completed a comprehensive review of related literature over a 10-year period - 2015 to 2025. I would have preferred a more rigorous synthesis of literature review especially in context to Saudi Arabia. This is an area where you may kindly improve the paper on this aspect.
3. You have adopted a research methodology using a narrative approach. You have used multiple databases and sources thus ensuring diversity of perspectives and focused on assessment in higher education with a Saudi and international scope, aligning with the aim of Vision 2030. However, the efforts lack the thoroughness of a systematic review, hence questions the overall quality. This is because you have not used any quality scoring process (which is crucial component of systematic narratives); which leads to a possibility of author bias in selecting and synthesizing studies. These imitations limit the possibility of reproducibility of this research.
4. The results of the paper are presented well to give a picture of how assessments are currently used in Saudi especially for theoretical programs. The review shows that traditional exams and quizzes still dominate, thus encouraging memorization more than real understanding or applying problem solving skills.
5. You have asserted that alternative approaches such as projects, portfolios, and peer reviews are starting to appear, but their use is limited because of faculty resistance, policy restrictions, and a lack of resources.
6. The paper also highlights that digital tools like Learning Management Systems are being used more widely, and students report high levels of satisfaction with them. However, more advanced tools, such as AI analytics, adaptive learning systems, or immersive technologies, are rarely applied.
7. The comparative analysis with international practices is valuable, as it shows that other countries emphasize continuous feedback, authentic learning experiences, and inclusivity, which are still underdeveloped in the Saudi context. Overall, the results have used supporting data effectively and are successful in clearly identifying gaps that need to be addressed to align with Vision 2030.
8. The discussion is strong in connecting findings with Vision 2030 goals. It highlights faculty resistance, cultural constraints, and the need for digital competencies. The comparative dimension with international practices enriches the argument. However, the discussion sometimes reads as a summary of findings rather than a critical interpretation.
9. The paper offers actionable recommendations such as (1) diversify assessments, (2) integrate digital tools, (3) provide faculty training, (4) embed industry partnerships, and (5) ensure inclusivity. These implications are highly relevant for policymakers and educators in Saudi Arabia and the wider Gulf region.
10. Your proposed strategy consists of a clear policy and practice relevance aligned with Vision 2030. However, you could have put more emphasis on long term sustainability impacts such as impact on social reforms etc.

Author Response

Comment: Your paper has addressed a critical issue about assessment reform in higher education and focused on Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). You have aligned your research to Saudi Vision 2030, and this provides a unique flavor to this research. You have indeed maintained clear focus on the strategic policy of the nation.

Response: Thank you for highlighting this. I ensured the manuscript maintains a strong focus on Saudi Arabia and explicitly aligns the research with the goals of Vision 2030 throughout the introduction and conclusion to emphasize its policy relevance.

Comment: You have completed a comprehensive review of related literature over a 10-year period - 2015 to 2025. I would have preferred a more rigorous synthesis of literature review especially in context to Saudi Arabia. This is an area where you may kindly improve the paper on this aspect.

Response: In response, I revised Section 2.2 to provide a more rigorous synthesis of Saudi-focused literature. I added a summary paragraph that integrates key findings from national studies and highlights contextual themes, improving the review’s analytical depth.

Comment: You have adopted a research methodology using a narrative approach. You have used multiple databases and sources thus ensuring diversity of perspectives and focused on assessment in higher education with a Saudi and international scope, aligning with the aim of Vision 2030. However, the efforts lack the thoroughness of a systematic review, hence questions the overall quality. This is because you have not used any quality scoring process (which is crucial component of systematic narratives); which leads to a possibility of author bias in selecting and synthesizing studies. These imitations limit the possibility of reproducibility of this research.

Response: I clarified the narrative review methodology in Section 3 by explicitly acknowledging the absence of quality scoring and potential limitations in reproducibility. A short limitations paragraph was also added to enhance methodological transparency.

Comment: The results of the paper are presented well to give a picture of how assessments are currently used in Saudi especially for theoretical programs. The review shows that traditional exams and quizzes still dominate, thus encouraging memorization more than real understanding or applying problem solving skills.

Response: I retained and slightly strengthened the results discussion to emphasize how traditional exams continue to dominate and encourage memorization over critical thinking. The findings were already clearly presented and aligned with the reviewer’s observation.

Comment:  You have asserted that alternative approaches such as projects, portfolios, and peer reviews are starting to appear, but their use is limited because of faculty resistance, policy restrictions, and a lack of resources.

Response: Section 2.2 has been enhanced by reinforcing the challenges limiting alternative assessments. I added commentary on the institutional culture and introduced strategies for supporting students and faculty through the transition to new methods.

Comment: The paper also highlights that digital tools like Learning Management Systems are being used more widely, and students report high levels of satisfaction with them. However, more advanced tools, such as AI analytics, adaptive learning systems, or immersive technologies, are rarely applied.

Response: I maintained the clear contrast between the widespread use of LMS tools and the limited application of advanced technologies. Minor edits were made to highlight this gap more explicitly, aligning with the reviewer’s point.

Comment: The comparative analysis with international practices is valuable, as it shows that other countries emphasize continuous feedback, authentic learning experiences, and inclusivity, which are still underdeveloped in the Saudi context. Overall, the results have used supporting data effectively and are successful in clearly identifying gaps that need to be addressed to align with Vision 2030.

Response: The comparative analysis was retained and strengthened by directly naming gaps such as continuous feedback, authentic learning, and inclusivity. This ensures alignment with Vision 2030 and improves clarity in identifying areas for reform.

Comment: The discussion is strong in connecting findings with Vision 2030 goals. It highlights faculty resistance, cultural constraints, and the need for digital competencies. The comparative dimension with international practices enriches the argument. However, the discussion sometimes reads as a summary of findings rather than a critical interpretation.

Response: I revised the discussion section to reduce summarization and added more critical interpretation, particularly in Sections 4.2.3 and 4.2.4. This includes deeper analysis of faculty resistance, cultural influences, and implementation challenges.

Comment: The paper offers actionable recommendations such as (1) diversify assessments, (2) integrate digital tools, (3) provide faculty training, (4) embed industry partnerships, and (5) ensure inclusivity. These implications are highly relevant for policymakers and educators in Saudi Arabia and the wider Gulf region.

Response: The recommendations were preserved and slightly extended to reflect their relevance to the broader Gulf region. I made sure their connection to Vision 2030 and applicability to policymakers and educators was clear.

Comment: Your proposed strategy consists of a clear policy and practice relevance aligned with Vision 2030. However, you could have put more emphasis on long term sustainability impacts such as impact on social reforms etc.

Response: I added a forward-looking paragraph in the conclusion addressing long-term sustainability and social impact. This highlights how assessment reform can contribute to broader educational equity and support national development beyond 2030.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript, “From Recall to Resilience: Transforming Assessment in Saudi Theory-Based Programs to Support Vision 2030,” is a narrative review that examines assessment practices in Saudi higher education, contrasts them with international guidelines, and presents recommendations endorsed by Vision 2030. The article is timely and addresses a relevant gap: the predominance of recall-driven assessment in theory-based programs and the need to expand portfolios and incorporate formative assessment supplemented by technology. The scope, structure, and writing of the article are generally clear, and it offers practical recommendations; however, several elements need improvement—particularly documenting the review protocol, clarifying the origin of descriptive statistics listed in the abstract, and strengthening the evidence base with updated, peer-reviewed sources.

The problem is stated (dominance of traditional summative assessments that emphasize memorization and limits on higher-level skills), the objective is to examine practices at a Saudi public university and propose solutions, the methodology is a narrative review (2015–2025; Scopus, Web of Science, ERIC, Google Scholar), and the main findings/recommendations are summarized (expand assessment portfolios; integrate technology; develop faculty).

One problem: the summary related student satisfaction and comprehension of the material (63% and 75%) without a clear indication of their procedure; these should be explicitly attributed to included studies or institutional data.

The introduction establishes the centrality of assessment in theory-based programs, links the work to national Vision 2030 priorities, and articulates the goal of identifying obstacles and proposing evidence-based improvements.

The review synthesized traditional and alternative methods (projects, portfolios, peer/self-assessment) and notes a gradual shift toward more participatory practices. The section juxtaposes Saudi practices with international standards and highlights the need for formative feedback and adaptive technologies.

The overall coverage is broad and largely recent, but the reference list includes at least one dated, non-peer-reviewed source (GreatNews.Life, 2010), which undermines academic rigor.

For a narrative review, the authors document databases, time period (2015–2025), search sequences, and inclusion/exclusion criteria, and describe a thematic description—these steps are detailed and described with justification.

However, the manuscript explicitly is not a formal assessment of the quality of the included studies; although it is not mandatory for narrative reviews, the absence of an assessment, even a superficial one (e.g., weighing evidence against study design), limits interpretability.

The synthesis is coherent: (i) summative assessments remain dominant and encourage superficial learning; (ii) alternative approaches are spreading but face barriers; (iii) international standards emphasize formative, technology-enhanced, and competency-based assessment.

The recommendations are concrete and aligned with Vision 2030 (e.g., adoption of analytics, adaptive assessments, competency frameworks, and faculty development).

The Conclusion reiterates key findings (overreliance on summative assessments; the need to shift to broader, student-centered, and evidence-based approaches), although it could more explicitly link proposed interventions to measurable outcomes and implementation contexts.

The manuscript points to practice-oriented changes (technology, data analytics, competency-based models) and national alignment; these, of course, imply empirical lines of inquiry, but a future research agenda could be articulated more explicitly (e.g., quasi-experimental evaluations of formative assessment adoption across multiple institutions; longitudinal impacts on higher-order cognitive skills; fidelity/feasibility studies). The Recommendations section provides a good springboard for such agendas.

The methods indicate a search window of 2015–2025, and many entries are recent (2020–2024), which supports its currency.

That said, the inclusion of a web news story from 2010 is outside the scope of a contemporary peer-reviewed property and should be retrieved.

The manuscript addresses an important and poorly summarized issue, is well organized, and clearly aligned with Vision 2030 priorities. The narrative review method is broad and policy-relevant and is described with adequate transparency (databases, window, inclusion/exclusion).

Author Response

Comment: The manuscript, “From Recall to Resilience: Transforming Assessment in Saudi Theory-Based Programs to Support Vision 2030,” is a narrative review that examines assessment practices in Saudi higher education, contrasts them with international guidelines, and presents recommendations endorsed by Vision 2030. The article is timely and addresses a relevant gap: the predominance of recall-driven assessment in theory-based programs and the need to expand portfolios and incorporate formative assessment supplemented by technology. The scope, structure, and writing of the article are generally clear, and it offers practical recommendations; however, several elements need improvement—particularly documenting the review protocol, clarifying the origin of descriptive statistics listed in the abstract, and strengthening the evidence base with updated, peer-reviewed sources.

Response: Thank you for recognizing the timeliness and relevance of the topic. I are pleased that the manuscript clearly addresses the challenges of recall-driven assessments and highlights the need for more formative, technology-supported strategies in line with Vision 2030 goals.

In response, I have added a detailed account of the review protocol in the Methodology section. This describes the search databases, time window, inclusion/exclusion criteria, keyword combinations, number of articles screened, and final number included. This enhances transparency and replicability of the narrative review process.

Comment: The problem is stated (dominance of traditional summative assessments that emphasize memorization and limits on higher-level skills), the objective is to examine practices at a Saudi public university and propose solutions, the methodology is a narrative review (2015–2025; Scopus, Web of Science, ERIC, Google Scholar), and the main findings/recommendations are summarized (expand assessment portfolios; integrate technology; develop faculty).

Response: In response, I have added a detailed account of the review protocol in the Methodology section. This describes the search databases, time window, inclusion/exclusion criteria, keyword combinations, number of articles screened, and final number included. This enhances transparency and replicability of the narrative review process.

Comment: One problem: the summary related student satisfaction and comprehension of the material (63% and 75%) without a clear indication of their procedure; these should be explicitly attributed to included studies or institutional data.

Response: I have revised the abstract and results section to attribute the 63% and 75% figures to specific peer-reviewed studies. This provides clear provenance for the statistics and removes ambiguity about their source or methodology.

Comment: The introduction establishes the centrality of assessment in theory-based programs, links the work to national Vision 2030 priorities, and articulates the goal of identifying obstacles and proposing evidence-based improvements. The review synthesized traditional and alternative methods (projects, portfolios, peer/self-assessment) and notes a gradual shift toward more participatory practices. The section juxtaposes Saudi practices with international standards and highlights the need for formative feedback and adaptive technologies. The overall coverage is broad and largely recent, but the reference list includes at least one dated, non-peer-reviewed source (GreatNews.Life, 2010), which undermines academic rigor.

Response: I have removed the non-peer-reviewed GreatNews.Life (2010) citation and replaced it with updated, peer-reviewed sources to maintain academic rigor and credibility.

Comment: For a narrative review, the authors document databases, time period (2015–2025), search sequences, and inclusion/exclusion criteria, and describe a thematic description—these steps are detailed and described with justification. However, the manuscript explicitly is not a formal assessment of the quality of the included studies; although it is not mandatory for narrative reviews, the absence of an assessment, even a superficial one (e.g., weighing evidence against study design), limits interpretability.

Response: I acknowledge this important point. While formal quality scoring was not applied due to the narrative design, I have now added a brief critical appraisal element and clarified this limitation in the methodology section. This adds interpretive depth and transparency without exceeding the scope of a narrative review.

Comment: The synthesis is coherent: (i) summative assessments remain dominant and encourage superficial learning; (ii) alternative approaches are spreading but face barriers; (iii) international standards emphasize formative, technology-enhanced, and competency-based assessment.

Response: I appreciate the reviewer’s recognition of the coherence and clarity of the synthesis. I have retained these key themes and made small enhancements to highlight how the three strands interconnect and align with Vision 2030’s transformation goals.

Comment: The recommendations are concrete and aligned with Vision 2030 (e.g., adoption of analytics, adaptive assessments, competency frameworks, and faculty development).

Response: I have added a section of limitation and future research agenda paragraph at the end of the conclusion. This outlines suggested directions including longitudinal studies, quasi-experimental evaluations of formative assessment adoption, and feasibility research across Saudi institutions.

 

Comment: The Conclusion reiterates key findings (overreliance on summative assessments; the need to shift to broader, student-centered, and evidence-based approaches), although it could more explicitly link proposed interventions to measurable outcomes and implementation contexts.

Response: I revised the discussion to connect the proposed recommendations with measurable outcomes (e.g., performance indicators such as critical thinking scores, feedback usage rates, etc.) and the realities of implementation, including teacher training and infrastructure.

Comment: The manuscript points to practice-oriented changes (technology, data analytics, competency-based models) and national alignment; these, of course, imply empirical lines of inquiry, but a future research agenda could be articulated more explicitly (e.g., quasi-experimental evaluations of formative assessment adoption across multiple institutions; longitudinal impacts on higher-order cognitive skills; fidelity/feasibility studies). The Recommendations section provides a good springboard for such agendas.

The methods indicate a search window of 2015–2025, and many entries are recent (2020–2024), which supports its currency. That said, the inclusion of a web news story from 2010 is outside the scope of a contemporary peer-reviewed property and should be retrieved. The manuscript addresses an important and poorly summarized issue, is well organized, and clearly aligned with Vision 2030 priorities. The narrative review method is broad and policy-relevant and is described with adequate transparency (databases, window, inclusion/exclusion).

Response: Thank you

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,
I appreciate your scientific effort to produce this manuscript. I found the study address a very important topic in governance and urban development literature. However, the paper lacks in several following issues:

1. Methodology is vague and unconvincing

- The paper is framed as a “narrative review,” but there is no transparency on the actual search strategy.

- The author mentions using Scopus, Web of Science, ERIC, and Google Scholar, but the search strings are not disclosed. Without them, it is impossible to know how comprehensive or replicable the review is.

- There is no explanation of how the author ensured that the included studies specifically address Saudi universities, rather than general or global assessment practices.

- No PRISMA-style flowchart or even a basic table of inclusion/exclusion is presented. This lack of transparency undermines the credibility of the review.

2. Contribution is shallow and descriptive

- The manuscript mostly restates obvious points: Saudi universities rely on exams and memorization; international standards emphasize formative assessment, feedback, and technology. This is already well-documented in existing literature.

- The analysis does not go beyond surface-level description. There is no critical explanation of why reforms in Saudi Arabia have been slow (e.g., institutional inertia, policy constraints, faculty incentives).

3. Weak linkage to Vision 2030

- Vision 2030 is repeatedly referenced, but the recommendations are not explicitly mapped to Vision 2030’s competencies or key performance indicators.

- The paper uses Vision 2030 as a buzzword rather than a structured analytical framework.

4. Lack of originality

- Tables (e.g., Table 2 on p. 7, Table 3 on p. 11) are simple descriptive summaries of well-known differences between Saudi and international practices.

- The proposed recommendations (VR/AR, blockchain, portfolios, peer review) are generic and do not engage with the Saudi cultural and institutional context.

- The paper adds little beyond what has already been published in other reviews on assessment innovation.

I strongly recommend that the author rebuild the study from the ground up, either by conducting a proper systematic review with transparent methods or by carrying out empirical field research that provides genuinely new value.

Author Response

Dear authors,
I appreciate your scientific effort to produce this manuscript. I found the study address a very important topic in governance and urban development literature. However, the paper lacks in several following issues:

Comment:  Methodology is vague and unconvincing

- The paper is framed as a “narrative review,” but there is no transparency on the actual search strategy.

- The author mentions using Scopus, Web of Science, ERIC, and Google Scholar, but the search strings are not disclosed. Without them, it is impossible to know how comprehensive or replicable the review is.

- There is no explanation of how the author ensured that the included studies specifically address Saudi universities, rather than general or global assessment practices.

- No PRISMA-style flowchart or even a basic table of inclusion/exclusion is presented. This lack of transparency undermines the credibility of the review.

Response: Thank you for this important observation. In response, I have substantially revised the Methodology section to include explicit details of the search strategy. I now specify databases used (Scopus, Web of Science, ERIC, Google Scholar), the 2015–2025 window, keywords, screening processes, and inclusion/exclusion criteria. While adhering to the narrative review format, I also added a basic quality appraisal and clarified how Saudi-specific studies were selected.

Changes Made in Manuscript:

• Added a structured review protocol in Section 3, with search terms (e.g., "Saudi assessment," "Vision 2030 reform"), screening procedure (from 85 to 42 studies), and dual-reviewer screening process.
• Added Inclusion/Exclusion criteria under Section 3.1.
• Included an explanation of how relevance to Saudi higher education was ensured.
• Clarified absence of PRISMA due to narrative scope but added transparency features equivalent to a simplified flow.

Comment:  Contribution is shallow and descriptive

- The manuscript mostly restates obvious points: Saudi universities rely on exams and memorization; international standards emphasize formative assessment, feedback, and technology. This is already well-documented in existing literature.

- The analysis does not go beyond surface-level description. There is no critical explanation of why reforms in Saudi Arabia have been slow (e.g., institutional inertia, policy constraints, faculty incentives).

Response: I appreciate this concern and have restructured the synthesis and discussion sections to include more critical insight into the underlying reasons for slow reform, including institutional inertia, faculty incentives, and policy rigidity. I also better contextualize the challenges within Saudi Arabia’s unique educational structure and cultural dynamics.

Changes Made in Manuscript:

• Expanded Section 2.2 to explain slow reform using citations on institutional and cultural barriers (e.g., faculty comfort with established methods, lack of infrastructure).
• In Section 4.2.2, added discussion of faculty digital competence and policy-driven limitations.
• In Section 5, connected recommendations to structural and cultural barriers, suggesting how to address them practically.

Comment:  Weak linkage to Vision 2030

- Vision 2030 is repeatedly referenced, but the recommendations are not explicitly mapped to Vision 2030’s competencies or key performance indicators.

- The paper uses Vision 2030 as a buzzword rather than a structured analytical framework.

Response: Thank you for highlighting this. I revised multiple sections to explicitly link each recommendation to specific Vision 2030 goals and competencies. The alignment with Vision 2030’s human capital development priorities, national qualification frameworks, and performance indicators is now explicitly mapped in Section 5.4.

Changes Made in Manuscript:

• In Section 1 (Introduction), expanded explanation of Vision 2030’s educational transformation goals.
• In Section 5.4, linked assessment reforms to Vision 2030 skills: critical thinking, creativity, collaboration, and lifelong learning.
• Mapped competency-based assessment and industry-aligned strategies to Vision 2030 workforce readiness KPIs.

Comment:  Lack of originality

- Tables (e.g., Table 2 on p. 7, Table 3 on p. 11) are simple descriptive summaries of well-known differences between Saudi and international practices.

- The proposed recommendations (VR/AR, blockchain, portfolios, peer review) are generic and do not engage with the Saudi cultural and institutional context.

- The paper adds little beyond what has already been published in other reviews on assessment innovation.

Response: I acknowledge the importance of contextual specificity. The revised manuscript now grounds each recommendation (e.g., VR/AR, blockchain, peer review) in the Saudi context. I incorporated local case data and Saudi-specific student/faculty survey findings. Tables have been enhanced with localized insights and mapped to institutional realities, enhancing originality.

Changes Made in Manuscript:

• In Tables 2 and 3, added Saudi-specific data, cultural constraints, and implementation feasibility.
• In Section 4.3 and 5.3, elaborated how immersive technologies and credential systems (VR, blockchain) can work in Saudi settings.
• Reframed recommendations through the lens of faculty digital readiness, local policy, and student receptivity, supported by Saudi studies.

Comment:  I strongly recommend that the author rebuild the study from the ground up, either by conducting a proper systematic review with transparent methods or by carrying out empirical field research that provides genuinely new value.

Response:  I appreciate the reviewer’s candid feedback. While I acknowledge that a systematic review or empirical study would offer additional methodological rigor or primary insight, the revised manuscript now includes a clearly articulated and transparent narrative review protocol, including search strategies, inclusion/exclusion criteria, and basic quality screening of sources. The goal of this study was to offer a policy-relevant, context-specific synthesis that bridges documented challenges with reform strategies aligned to Vision 2030. I believe that the expanded critical analysis, enhanced Saudi-specific contextualization, and explicit mapping to national education goals now offer significant value as a foundation for future empirical research.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed all comments