Do Synoptic Assessments Lead to Authentic Learning? A Critical Perspective on Integration and Intentionality in Higher Education Assessment Design

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Hello, and thanks for the opportunity to review this good article. My suggestions include, (a) consider expanding the Conceptual Framing a bit further, especially the synoptic assessment and authentic learning. Perhaps, divide the Conceptual Framing section into two sub-sections: (1) synoptic assessment and (2) authentic learning. I believe this would enhance the paper further and provide the readers with a bit deeper analysis regarding the two approaches; and (b) consider expanding the Conclusions a bit further and perhaps focusing a bit more on answering the “why.” I believe this would enhance your thoughtful conclusions further. Best wishes.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1

1. Expand conceptual framing; consider separating synoptic assessment and authentic learning.

We have revised Section 2 to provide a clearer and more developed conceptual framing. The section is now organised into subsections on synoptic assessment and integration, authentic learning and authentic assessment, and a short subsection that explicitly discusses integration and authenticity as complementary but distinct. This structure deepens the analysis of each construct and clarifies their relationship. A table has been added to further clarify the distinctions and complementarities. 2. Expand conclusions and focus more on “why”.

The conclusions have been expanded to explain more clearly why the distinction between integration and authenticity matters in practice. We now spell out the risks of assuming that synoptic assessment automatically leads to authentic learning (superficial integration, misallocated effort, and student disillusionment) and link these risks back to the case study evidence. We also make the implications for programme leaders and institutions more explicit.

3. Clarify methodology, research purpose and ethical aspects.

We have added a new section on methodological framing, placed between the conceptual framing and the case studies. This section clarifies that the paper is a reflective practitioner commentary drawing on programme documentation, evaluative data and the authors’ programme leadership experience; explains that the case studies are illustrative rather than statistically generalisable; and outlines the ethical stance (no identifiable student data; programme‑level abstraction).

4. Clarify the sentence about separating teaching and assessment blocks.

The sentence in Case Study A that suggested “separating teaching or study blocks from assessment blocks” has been rewritten to make clear that teaching and assessment remain pedagogically integrated, but that summative assessment is structurally consolidated into synoptic assessment blocks at programme level. This removes the unintended implication that assessment is separated from learning.

5. Improve the readability of the comparative table.

The large comparative table has been simplified by replacing full sentences with more concise, keyword‑like phrases, and we have added a brief explanatory paragraph about the dimensions used for comparison.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript provides a clear insight into the important topic of synoptic assessment and authentic learning, which is very relevant to higher education today. The study is based on adequately selected literature. Although the literary sources cover a wide time period, the selection of the oldest sources is mostly appropriate.

The research methodology is the weakest point of the manuscript. The purpose of the study is only implied, it is not clearly formulated, there is no research question. The manuscript has no methods section at all, so there is no idea how the case study data was obtained and how it was processed. There is also no mention of the ethical aspects of the study. It is obvious that it was not just an analysis of documents (e.g., program descriptions), as some sentences mentioned the students' opinion, but did not indicate how it was obtained.

One phrase was very confusing in the Case Study A: “The redesign introduced a fully integrative, synoptic assessment model that separated teaching or study blocks from assessment blocks, enabling holistic learning experiences supported by fewer, more integrated summative tasks.” (line 115-117). This is in complete contradiction to the leading theoretical (and practical) approach of the last decades, that assessment and learning are integral.

The table included in the manuscript is well structured, but quite broad and not transparent. Maybe full sentences can be turned into keyword-like phrases.

The results are reasonably well analysed, although it is not known how they were obtained. Conclusions are consistent with the evidence and arguments presented.

It is valuable that the latest trends in higher education are outlined (fragmentation, microcredentials), however, this only appears in the conclusions. It is necessary to justify this in the introduction at least with educational policy documents.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2

1. Absence of explicit methods section and research question.

The new methodological framing section now explains the nature and scope of the work as reflective practitioner inquiry, the rationale for selecting the three programmes, the kinds of evidence drawn upon (programme specifications, assessment briefs, student evaluation summaries, internal review reports, and teaching experience), and the interpretive aim of deriving design insights rather than testing formal research questions.

2. Ethical considerations.

The same section clarifies that no identifiable student data are reported, that the analysis uses existing quality assurance and evaluative data at programme level, and that within the authors’ institutional framework this does not require separate ethical approval. We nevertheless acknowledge the importance of respecting student and staff perspectives and present them at an appropriately aggregated level.

 

3. Table breadth and density.

As noted above, the comparative table has been streamlined to improve transparency and readability, while retaining the key comparative dimensions that support the argument.

4. Link trends such as fragmentation and microcredentials into the introduction.

The introduction has been revised to make more explicit reference to modularisation, fragmentation and flexible pathways, connecting the paper’s focus on synoptic and authentic assessment to wider policy and structural trends in higher education which are brought out in the discussion.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article provides a compelling analysis of how synoptic assessment interacts with authentic learning in higher education, drawing on three reflective case studies to illustrate the conditions under which integration supports or fails to support authentic learning. The paper addresses an important topic for curriculum design and assessment reform, particularly in the context of increasingly modularized programmes.

However, there are a number of issues related to clarity, contextual explanation, and framing of the study’s contribution that suggest the manuscript would benefit from revision before it is considered for publication. The comments below are intended to offer formative guidance to help the authors strengthen the manuscript.

• Clarify the contribution and aims. While the abstract and introduction indicate that the paper examines the relationship between synoptic assessment and authentic learning, it would be helpful to more explicitly state the paper’s contribution. For example, why is a critical practitioner perspective on this topic particularly valuable? What specific insights can readers take away for designing assessment in modularized programmes? Consider summarizing in one sentence the practical and theoretical implications of your findings in the abstract.

• Contextualize the case studies more explicitly. The reflective case studies are the core evidence supporting the argument, but there is limited description of the institutional and programme context. What are the characteristics of the university, student population, or disciplinary norms that may influence the implementation and outcomes of the synoptic assessments? Providing more context will help readers understand the transferability and relevance of the findings.

• Clarify methodology and scope. The manuscript describes the case studies as reflective practitioner analyses, but it would be beneficial to explicitly indicate their epistemological status. Are these illustrative cases, or do they aim to produce generalizable findings? This distinction will help readers interpret the conclusions appropriately. Additionally, clarifying the role of the authors in programme leadership, and how their positionality may have shaped observations, will improve transparency.

• Strengthen literature connections. The theoretical framing is generally solid, but at times discussions of authentic learning or synoptic assessment could engage more critically with the broader literature. For example, how do your insights extend, challenge, or nuance existing models of programme-level assessment or integration? A brief discussion linking your findings to debates on curriculum modularization and flexible learning pathways could enhance the contribution.

• Refine discussion and conclusions. The discussion is thorough, but some paragraphs are dense, making it difficult to extract key points. Consider breaking long paragraphs into shorter ones and using topic sentences to clearly signal the main argument. Additionally, it would be helpful to explicitly highlight practical principles derived from your case studies, e.g., a concise bullet list summarizing actionable recommendations for programme leaders.

• Minor details. 1) Check consistency of terminology (“programme” vs “program” in different sections). 2) Ensure headings and subheadings are numbered and formatted consistenly. 3) Consider small edits for readability and sentence flow in the discussion section, as some sentences are long and complex.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3

1. Clarify the contribution and aims.

We have revised the abstract and the final paragraph of the introduction to state more explicitly that the paper offers a critical practitioner perspective on the relationship between synoptic assessment and authentic learning, and that its core contribution is to articulate design principles for embedding authenticity within synoptic assessment in increasingly modularised programmes.

2. Contextualise the case studies.

The new methodological framing section includes contextual information about the programme and institutional setting, including key features of the student cohorts that shape the implementation and outcomes of synoptic assessments. This is intended to aid readers in assessing transferability.

3. Clarify methodology, epistemological status, and author positionality.

The new methodological framing section explicitly describes the case studies as reflective, illustrative cases based on the authors’ direct experience as programme leaders, quality assurance experts and teachers, supported by programme documentation and evaluative data. We clarify that the epistemological stance is interpretive and practice‑oriented.

4. Strengthen literature connections and link to modularisation debates.

The introduction, conceptual framing and discussion now engage more explicitly with recent work on authenticity, including distinctions between educational and real‑world authenticity and the tensions between complexity and support, and briefly situate the analysis within debates about modular curricula, microcredentials and flexible learning pathways.

5. Refine discussion and highlight practical principles.

We have introduced a clearly signposted subsection that presents the design principles as a concise bullet‑point list, derived from the case studies, and we have sharpened the conclusions to make the practical implications more readily extractable for programme leaders. We have also broken up some long paragraphs in the discussion to improve readability.

6. Minor points (terminology, headings, sentence flow)

We have standardised terminology (using “programme” consistently), ensured consistent heading levels and numbering, and edited several sentences in the discussion for clarity and flow.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript offers a well-argued and timely contribution to ongoing discussions around synoptic assessment and authentic learning in higher education. The conceptual distinction drawn between structural integration and intentional authenticity is clear and valuable, and the three reflective case studies illuminate this distinction effectively. The paper is coherent, well written, and grounded in relevant contemporary scholarship, including recent debates on the nature of authenticity and programme-level assessment reform.

That said, several areas could be strengthened to further enhance clarity and methodological transparency:

1. Clarify the nature of the study.
   While the paper is positioned as an opinion/reflection piece, the use of three case studies resembles a small-scale qualitative analysis. A short methodological framing section explaining how the cases were selected, what type of evidence they draw upon, and how the comparative analysis was conducted would greatly increase transparency and transferability.

2. Provide a more explicit analytical framework for the comparison of case studies.
   Table 1 is helpful, but the reader would benefit from a brief explanation of the dimensions used for comparison and how they were derived from the literature or practitioner experience.

3. Support core claims with tighter theoretical linkage.
   The key argument—that integration does not inherently create authentic learning—resonates strongly but could be further reinforced by more systematic reference to frameworks such as Wiggins’ authentic performance tasks or the conditions for authenticity outlined by Gulikers et al. This would strengthen the conceptual contributions of the paper.

4. Leadership and governance discussions could be expanded or better integrated.
   Section 4.3 provides an interesting insight into programme-level leadership but presently feels somewhat separate from the core argument. Expanding the theoretical support for this claim or linking it more explicitly to the case studies would improve coherence.

5. Explicitly acknowledge limitations.
   Even for opinion papers, it is useful to briefly state the boundaries of the insights presented (e.g., reliance on reflective practitioner experience within a single institutional context and limited generalisability).

Overall, the manuscript is conceptually strong, clearly written, and makes a meaningful contribution to current discourse. With revision for clarification and framing, it will be very well suited for publication.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 4

1. Clarify the nature of the study.

As noted above, the methodological framing section now explicitly states that this is an opinion/reflection piece using reflective practitioner case studies, not a formal qualitative study with systematic data collection. The intended scope and level of generalisation are clarified.

2. Provide an explicit analytical framework for comparing case studies.

We have added a short explanation of the dimensions used to compare the cases (e.g. real‑world connection, student agency, scaffolding, integration–authenticity alignment, staff understanding) and how they derive from the conceptual framing and practitioner experience. The comparative table has been refined accordingly.

3. Support core claims with tighter theoretical linkage.

The argument that integration does not inherently create authentic learning is now more tightly linked to established frameworks on authentic assessment and recent critiques of authenticity as a simple property of task types. We explicitly connect our findings to these frameworks in the introduction, conceptual framework and discussion.

4. Leadership and governance.

The discussion of leadership and governance has been more clearly integrated into the overall argument. Programme‑level leadership and staff alignment now appear both as one of the explicit design principles and as a central theme in the conclusions, rather than as a separate aside.

5. Explicitly acknowledge limitations.

We have added a short limitations subsection noting the single‑institution context, the reflective practitioner basis of the work, the illustrative (rather than generalisable) nature of the cases, and the need for further empirical research in diverse settings

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Editor and Author(s),

Thank you for inviting me to review the manuscript titled, “Do Synoptic Assessments Lead to Authentic Learning? A Critical Perspective on Integration and Intentionality in Higher Education Assessment Design.” The proposed manuscript addresses an important and timely question in higher education assessment design, that is, whether synoptic assessments, which aim to integrate knowledge across modules, inherently lead to authentic learning. The authors argue persuasively that integration alone is insufficient, and that authenticity requires intentional design features such as contextual relevance, scaffolding, and student agency. The paper is positioned as an opinion piece but draws upon reflective case studies, which gives it both conceptual and practical weight. Notwithstanding the potential contributions, the manuscript would benefit from sharper conceptual and methodological framing, and more fully developed connections to current debates in the domain researched:

1. The definitions of key terms should be sharpened. A more precise delineation of “integration,” “synoptic assessment,” and “programme coherence” would strengthen the theoretical foundation. I suggest the author(s) to engage more deeply with existing debates on authenticity, particularly the tension between educational authenticity and real-world authenticity, and the challenges of balancing complexity with student support. A distinction between synoptic assessment (breadth/synthesis) and authentic learning (depth/relevance) is warranted. The idea that they are complementary but distinct is well explained. But it would be helpful to add a visual model or table to illustrate the relationship and differences.
2. The descriptions of Programmes A, B, and C are good, but the evidentiary basis is not sufficiently transparent. As a reader, I am left uncertain about the sources of data, whether student feedback was systematically collected, and how staff perspectives were analyzed. Even within an opinion piece, a brief methodological note outlining the nature of the reflective evidence is necessary. For each case, consider adding a short subsection on data sources (perhaps, programme evaluations, student feedback surveys, or module leader reflections?) to bolster methodological transparency.
3. At present, the discussion feels insufficiently connected to larger debates in authentic and/or scenario-based assessment and fully engaging them. Specifically, some of the added interpretations to the discussion are general and do not tie closely to the most current scholarship/debates. To strengthen the pertinent part, I suggest the author(s) to refer to recent works that most closely align with their argument about intentionality and contextual framing. The works suggested below would strengthen your manuscript by situating your case studies within a broader, contemporary literature on authentic (e.g., scenario-based, modular) assessment, underscoring your central claim that authenticity must be intentionally embedded rather than assumed through integration. You may cite:

• • Quinlan, K. M., Sellei, G., & Fiorucci, W. (2025). Educationally authentic assessment: reframing authentic assessment in relation to students’ meaningful engagement. Teaching in Higher Education, 30(3), 717-734.
  • Darzhinova, L. (2025). Technology-enhanced Scenario-based Reading Assessment of Pre-service English Teachers. In The Routledge Handbook of the Sociopolitical Context of Language Learning (pp. 470-489). Routledge.
  • Mohamed, S. (2025). Designing a scenario-based learning framework for a university-level Arabic language course. Language Learning in Higher Education, 15(1), 191-220.
  • Kırmacı, Ö., & Kılıç Çakmak, E. (2025). The impact of scenario-based online gamified learning environment tailored to player types on student motivation, engagement, and environment interaction. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 57(4), 800-819.

4. The manuscript’s most significant contribution lies in its articulation of design principles for embedding authenticity within synoptic assessment. The emphasis on professional relevance, developmental scaffolding, open-ended student responses, and programme-level leadership is well founded. The discussion of leadership and governance is particularly strong, highlighting the need for authority at programme level to ensure coherence and prevent assessment proliferation. However, these principles could be more explicitly tied back to the case studies by showing how each principle emerged from specific successes or failures. Moreover, the paper would benefit from a more systematic presentation of these principles, perhaps in the form of a checklist or framework, to enhance its practical utility for educators.

I hope the above is helpful and I look forward to seeing the article in print following the recommended revisions.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 5

1. Sharpen definitions of integration, synoptic assessment and programme coherence.

The conceptual framing now provides clearer and more precise definitions of integration, synoptic assessment and programme coherence, and articulates the necessary‑but‑insufficient relationship between integration and authenticity. We have also added a small conceptual table contrasting synoptic assessment and authentic learning and indicating how they can complement one another.

2. Engage more deeply with authenticity debates and the authenticity–support tension.

We have drawn on recent literature to discuss educational vs real‑world authenticity and the challenges of balancing complex, realistic tasks with appropriate scaffolding. These ideas are now included in both the conceptual framing and the discussion.

3. Clarify evidentiary basis of the case studies.

The methodological framing section explains what sources underpin the reflective cases (programme documentation, student evaluation data, internal reviews and teaching experience) and makes clear that the cases are not based on a formal, bespoke data collection protocol.

4. Tie design principles more explicitly to case study evidence and present them systematically.

We have added a dedicated design‑principles subsection that presents the principles as a structured list and explains how each is exemplified or challenged in Programmes A, B and C. The revised conclusions again link these principles to specific case‑based insights.

5. Connect to contemporary scenario‑based/authentic assessment literature.

We have incorporated some recent work on authentic assessment that aligns with our focus on intentionality and contextual framing, and updated the reference list accordingly.

Round 2

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Editor and Authors,

Thank you for inviting me to review the manuscript titled, “Do Synoptic Assessments Lead to Authentic Learning? A Critical Perspective on Integration and Intentionality in Higher Education Assessment Design” once again.

1. Definitions of key terms

The authors have addressed my concern, and Sections 2.1-2.3 now provide precise definitions and distinctions. The addition of Table 1 clearly contrasts synoptic assessment (breadth/synthesis) with authentic learning (depth/relevance), and shows their complementarity.

2. Evidentiary basis of case studies

The authors have satisfactorily addressed my previous concerns and suggestions. Section 3 (“Methodological Framing”) now explains the reflective practitioner approach, listing programme documentation, anonymised student evaluations, informal staff feedback, and experiential knowledge. It clarifies that cases are illustrative, not statistically generalizable.

3. Engagement with authenticity and connection to larger debates in literature

The authors have partially incorporated my suggestions. Section 2.2 explicitly discusses educational authenticity vs real-world authenticity. It also highlights the challenge of balancing complexity with student support. The reference list is largely the same. Minor differences in citation details include spelling of Ajawi/Ajjawi, and Fawns cited as single vs plural authors. While the current version of the manuscript expands the conceptual framing by introducing themes such as educational authenticity, modularization, and lifelong learning, it does not sufficiently draw on the relevant literature to situate these discussions within ongoing scholarly debates. To strengthen the manuscript’s contribution, I encourage the authors to engage more directly with the suggested sources, as these works provide critical perspectives that closely align with the manuscript’s treatment of modularization (see doi:10.4324/9781003398172-33) and lifelong learning (doi:10.1515/cercles-2024-0095). Incorporating these references would enrich the pool of literature, enhance the theoretical grounding, and more convincingly connect the manuscript to extant debates in the field.

4. Design principles

The manuscript now has a more structured design-principles section (professional relevance, scaffolding, open-ended responses, programme-level leadership). Each principle is linked to Programmes A, B, and C.

I trust these comments will be helpful, and I look forward to seeing the article published once the recommended revisions have been addressed.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for their further guidance on engaging with current debates. We have corrected minor citation details (including the spelling of author names and authorship attributions) and have now incorporated the suggested sources into the manuscript. These works are used to strengthen our discussion of authenticity, modularisation and flexible curricula, and scenario-based learning and lifelong learning, thereby situating our argument more clearly within contemporary scholarly conversations. Together, the added references broaden the literature base, deepen the theoretical grounding of our analysis, and more explicitly connect the manuscript to ongoing debates in the field, as requested.