Dear colleagues,
We’re seeking offers to undertake blind peer-review of the following submissions to the Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education (JLDHE).
If you would like to complete a review of one of the submissions, please email the designated editorial contact below.
If you haven’t reviewed for us before, please include a brief description of your interest in the topic, your relevant qualifications, expertise and/or experience in relation to the submission (up to 200 words). This might include your knowledge of the subject and/or your experience acting as a peer reviewer for academic papers or as an author or researcher in the field.
Please also join our register of reviewers and list your interests via http://journal.aldinhe.ac.uk/index.php/jldhe/user/register.
New reviewers are very welcome! We provide a developmental environment for those interested in this important community service. Why not try something new today?
| No. | Type | Title and abstract | Editorial contact |
| 1948 | Paper | Piloting the SHARP assessment cycle: an iterative framework for collaborative assessment design through real-time student voice Assessment in higher education often suffers from a critical disconnect where student feedback benefits future cohorts rather than current participants. This study presents SHARP (Strategic, Holistic, Adaptive, Reflective, Process), a systematic framework for embedding real-time student voice into assessment design. SHARP was piloted across three mathematics tests with 246 students at a foundation-level UK university programme using a mixed-methods quasi-experimental design. Post-assessment surveys from 108 students captured perceptions of fairness, clarity, and engagement before grade release. Quantitative analysis revealed statistically significant improvements in clarity ratings, from 3.98 to 4.44 (Cohen’s d = 0.51, p = 0.03), whilst fairness perceptions rose from 70.3% to 96.0%, and 100% supported continuing the process. Quasi-experimental comparison with historical controls demonstrated 73% reduction in assessment volatility (Volatility Index: 1.54 to 0.41). This pilot demonstrates SHARP’s potential as a transferable framework for student-informed assessment practice, though replication is needed to establish broader generalisability. | Maggie Scott: M.R.Scott@salford.ac.uk |
| 1961 | Opinion piece | Compassion by design: co‑creating detailed rubrics to humanise assessment, increase parity, and grow assessment literacy in higher education Calls for student‑centered assessment often stall at rhetoric, with student voice remaining tokenistic even where participation is mandated. I argue that compassionate assessment by design, operationalised through co‑created, detailed rubrics, offers a practical route to parity in marking and assessment literacy for both students and staff. Drawing on contemporary literature and a multi‑phase project to design, test, and implement new rubrics across nursing and allied health programmes, I show that clear, collaboratively developed criteria, accessible language, and explicit guidance can reduce perceived subjectivity, support self‑regulation, and make marking more consistent and humane. Staff and students endorsed greater detail, transparent descriptors, and shared guidance; pilot testing suggests minimal impact on overall grade distributions but higher confidence in fairness and greater marking satisfaction. I offer a call to arms for learning developers and educators to place compassion and assessment literacy at the centre of assessment design. | Lee Fallin: Lee.Fallin@hull.ac.uk |
| 1858 | Opinion piece | From classroom to C-suite: rethinking how we teach students to think Learning development in higher education has long emphasised critical thinking as a core competency for graduates. However, as students face increasingly dynamic academic and professional environments, there is a growing need to complement critical thinking with strategic thinking. This opinion piece differentiates strategic thinking from critical thinking and examines how higher education curricula often assume strategic competence will develop implicitly over time rather than through intentional instruction. Drawing on educational and leadership research, this piece outlines why strategic thinking is particularly valuable during the undergraduate years and then proposes practical, transferable pedagogical strategies that learning developers and educators can embed within existing curricula. The role of artificial intelligence is also considered for its potential to scaffold student reasoning rather than supplant it. Ultimately, this piece calls for a redefinition of what it means to ‘prepare students for the real world’ within learning development practice. | Craig Morley: c.morley@mmu.ac.uk |
N.B. it is essential to be respectful of the writers of submissions to our journal, especially when they are at the draft stages. Please do not comment publicly on the list or elsewhere on any aspect of the paper titles or abstracts above.
We look forward to hearing from you!
With warm wishes on behalf of the Editorial Board,
Chad
Dr Chad McDonald
Managing Editor, Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education