‘What do you mean I failed?’ Using in year retrieval as a learning tool
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.47408/jldhe.vi35.1296Keywords:
resits, student outcomes, inclusion, compassionate assessmentAbstract
When students receive a fail mark on an assessment in UK higher education (usually a mark under 40%), the most common experience is that they wait many months for a point of re-assessment after their marks have been confirmed by an examination/progression/award board. The outcome of the board will confirm whether they are to resit the piece of work, repeat the level, or be failed out of the programme of study. This process is a relatively blunt tool and offers little by way of compassion or of learning opportunity. Neither does it reflect the likely approach of employers to poor performance where improvement would be expected within a short timeframe. For the majority of students who receive a resit opportunity, often several months have passed since their original attempt. From both a pedagogical perspective and a graduate outcomes perspective, change is needed to bring about a more compassionate, purposeful, and meaningful approach to failed assessment in HE.
This piece calls for a change in resit practices and outlines the steps taken to introduce ‘in year retrieval’ (IYR) within one university. Data from the pilot phases of the work, the principles established, and the positive impact upon student retention and progression show that enabling students to retrieve failed assessment at a point in time close to the failure yields positive outcomes for learners. The author does not suggest that IYR is the answer to all assessment ills but does argue that it is time that the sector consider anew the often-significant delay learners face prior to assessment retrieval.
References
Burr, S., Morrison, J.M. and Salih, W.M. (2018) ‘When another assessment attempt is bad for progress’, MedEdPublish, 7(147).
Campbell, P.I. (2022) ‘”Pray(ing) the person marking your work isn't racist”: racialised inequities in HE assessment practice’, Teaching in Higher Education, 29(5), pp.1166-1180. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2022.2119075
Nieminen, J.H. (2022) ‘Assessment for inclusion: rethinking inclusive assessment in higher education’, Teaching in Higher Education, 29(4), pp.841-859. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2021.2021395
Ricketts, C. (2010) ‘A new look at resits: are they simply a second chance?’, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(4), pp.351-356. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/02602931003763954
Slater, R. (2009) ‘The timing of referred examinations’, Bioscience Education, 13(1), pp.1-9. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3108/beej.13.c1
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).