Submissions will be judged according to how well they meet each of the criteria below (max 300 words per criteria). We also request a brief overview, or executive summary for the judging panel (max 200 words).

Please do not submit any additional information, such as links to websites; this information will not be considered in initial shortlisting.

The e-AA expect e-assessment research to be undertaken to the highest ethical standards in any and all contexts, and that e-assessment researchers operate within an ethic of respect for all persons. Evidence of unethical practice will result in automatic rejection of a submission.

    1. Relevance:  

• There is clear evidence to show that the topic is relevant or has its roots in research in educational e-assessment.
• The research offers a genuinely relevant topic, or a fresh perspective on an existing topic, considered important to a variety of e-assessment stakeholders.
• The research displays scientific rigour and up-to-date insights.

    2. Relation to existing research:

        The submission:  

• builds on previous research in e-assessment and adds to findings that can be useful within e-assessment contexts.
• addresses issues which are characteristics for issues in e-assessment, making clear how these will lead to the improvement of e-assessment processes and products and their appropriate use by organisations, institutions, agencies, and other associations. 

    3. Clarity/ completeness: 

• The submission is well structured, clear, concise, and well-written.
• The underlying rationale/argument - including research aims, hypotheses and research questions - is sound.
• The research represents excellent conceptual/theoretical and/or technical work.
• The methodological approach is appropriate and acknowledges any research limitations/caveats.

    4. Originality/ innovativeness:

• The research makes a significant and original contribution (i.e. not previously investigated) to the field of e-assessment contributing materially to the research body of knowledge.
• The underlying ideas are original and as such have not been the subject of previous research and/or publications.
• Approaches are innovative and the conclusions contribute to wider or deeper understanding of issues in e-assessment.

    5. Impact:

• The submission makes clear what impact the research has on existing e-assessment policies and practices and suggest ways of exploring unresolved issues in this respect.
• The research has real-world impact to the wider community of e-assessment researchers and practitioners:

1. either influencing improvements in the design, development, promotion, or execution of e-assessments
2. or supporting - even reinforcing - an existing approach (where the research instead has perhaps laid a foundation for exploration for improvement elsewhere). 

Submissions will be judged according to how well they meet each of the six criteria below (max 300 words per criteria). We also request a brief overview, or executive summary for the judging panel (max 200 words).

Please do not submit any additional information, such as sales and marketing material or links to websites; this information will not be considered in initial shortlisting. Each submission will be considered on individual merit.

1. Challenge / Need: What was the reason for developing this programme or the approach that you developed? What challenges needed to be addressed in order to achieve this?
2. Programme Design & Innovation: How was the programme designed to make use of innovative assessment techniques, learning pathways, and adaptive technologies? What evidence is there to support that the programme design or innovation has been successful?
3. Stakeholder Engagement: What evidence is there of close collaboration with industry experts, employers, and professionals to ensure the programme's relevance and credibility? Were all stakeholders equally accepting of the changes your programme made and if not, how did you overcome any stakeholder reservations?
4. Impact & Reach: Is there demonstrable evidence of the programme’s success in terms of candidate outcomes, professional development, and industry recognition? What evidence is there that the programme is being used effectively and equally by a wide-range of users?
5. Accessibility & Inclusivity: Describe how your certification meets or exceeds the accessibility requirements or guidelines for your sector and/or location(s). What steps have been taken to ensure the assessments are fair and accessible for the test taker, and what measures, if any, have been taken to ensure accessibility for test administrators?
6. Sustainability: Is the solution sustainable so that it can be scaled and adapted over time to align with the future growth of the organisation? How has this been measured and evidenced?

Each submission will be considered on individual merit. For this particular award you may like to consider some or all of the following points:

• What three words describe this individual or team? Why do they deserve recognition for their work using digital assessment for the benefit of their learners?
• What digital assessment practices are used? Be as descriptive as you can! e-Assessment is the use of technology to enhance ANY part of an assessment cycle, so we’d love to know what technology is being used and how!
• Vision/ purpose - What were the drivers behind the decision to choose digital assessment? What was happening before choices were made to implement digital assessment? Why now?
• Impact/ assessment for learning - Tell us a bit about the impact on the learners and how this was/ is measured? What is great about it from a learner's perspective? How does it improve teaching and learning?
• Innovation/ value for money - We are looking to celebrate everyone’s impact regardless of budget. We are looking for e-assessment champions and want to understand the innovation and value for money that has been realised through their work.
• Inclusivity - How does the Practitioner or Team being nominated ensure equity of access? What steps are being taken in this regard?
• Lessons learned - What lessons have been learned in the process and what would they do differently?

Each submission will be considered on individual merit. For this particular award you may like to consider some or all of the following points:

• What three words describe this individual or team? Why do they deserve recognition for their work using digital assessment for the benefit of their learners?
• What digital assessment practices are used? Be as descriptive as you can! e-Assessment is the use of technology to enhance ANY part of an assessment cycle, so we’d love to know what technology is being used and how!
• Vision/ purpose - What were the drivers behind the decision to choose digital assessment? What was happening before choices were made to implement digital assessment? Why now?
• Impact/ assessment for learning - Tell us a bit about the impact on the learners and how this was/ is measured? What is great about it from a learner's perspective? How does it improve teaching and learning?
• Innovation/ value for money - We are looking to celebrate everyone’s impact regardless of budget. We are looking for e-assessment champions and want to understand the innovation and value for money that has been realised through their work.
• Inclusivity - How does the Practitioner or Team being nominated ensure equity of access? What steps are being taken in this regard?
• Lessons learned - What lessons have been learned in the process and what would they do differently?
  

For the Lifetime Contribution Award, you may like to consider some or all of the following points: 

• Is there a specific stakeholder community (or communities) to which the individual has contributed? 
• Does this stakeholder community encompass a recognised area of assessment that could be, or has been changed by the use of e-assessment solutions?
• What evidence is available to demonstrate their vision and work e.g. published papers, conference contributions, influencing key decision-makers, building a new consensus of opinion?
• Has the individual demonstrated a long-term commitment to one or more stakeholder communities, working through and overcoming issues such as scepticism, lack of interest, funding challenges, practical difficulties and lack of willingness to take risks?
• Has the individual been flexible in approach over their career, such that the vision has not been compromised but the route to achieving it may have been varied from that first envisaged?
• Has the individual developed a profile as a ‘go-to person’ in the stakeholder community or communities where they are recognised as an authority?
• Has the individual demonstrated that they have kept pace with new developments in the sector and with technology, which may have impacted upon their field of work over time, and been able to adapt where appropriate as a result?
  

Submissions will be judged according to how well they meet each of the six criteria below (max 300 words per criterion). A brief overview or executive summary (max 200 words) is also required for the judging panel.

• Motivation: what was the use case that provided the motivation for this innovation and, specifically, what was the basis for integrating digital badges into the solution? How does the use of digital badges in this assessment system confer advantages which are difficult to achieve using conventional approaches to assessment?
• Benefits to badge holders: given that digital badges are designed to be web-based, shared and distributable, what advantages does your solution bring to badge holders that are not available in traditional approaches to certifying qualifications?  
• Benefits to awarding bodies: in what ways does your innovation improve the services provided by the relevant awarding body in terms of efficiency, security and other factors?
• Benefits to third parties: how does you solution add value to the work of third parties with an interest in assessment outcomes, such as professional bodies, quality assurers and employers?
• Unique characteristics: what are the unique characteristics that set your use case of digital badges apart from other deployments of this technology? (These characteristics could be in the design of the assessment system itself, or in terms of the benefits for badge holders, awarding bodies or third parties).
• Scalability: to what extent are the innovative aspects of your use case transferable to other contexts, thereby improving the use of digital technologies in assessment more generally?