1. Challenge / Need: Has the formative assessment solution been developed to address a clearly identified need? What is this need? How has the need been addressed?
2. Implementation: Is there evidence of a successful implementation strategy, including alignment with organisational goals, engagement with key stakeholders, marketing, piloting, support and evaluation?
3. Learner Engagement: Does the solution enhance the engagement of students/learners? How has this been measured and what evidence is provided to demonstrate that this has been achieved?
4. Impact: How has this project or solution delivered measurable improvements in practice, process, cost-savings or learning outcomes? How has this been evidenced and how sustainable is this for the longer term?
5. Accessibility: Describe how your project 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 assessment taker and easy to deliver for the test administrator?
6. Robustness and Scalability: Is the solution robust and reliable enough to be scaled over time to meet the growing needs of the sector? How has this been measured and evidenced? How are any remaining challenges in meeting this being addressed?

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: Has the summative assessment solution been developed to address a clearly identified need? What is this need? How has the need been addressed?
2. Implementation: Is there evidence of a successful implementation strategy, including alignment with organisational goals, engagement with key stakeholders, piloting, support and evaluation?
3. Scale and Complexity: What is the scale and complexity of the project? How many learners or end-users are using the solution. Did the project entail overcoming specific challenges, finding and working with new partners, or new software and/ or involve significant changes to an existing solution?.
4. Impact: How has this project or solution delivered measurable improvements in practice, process, cost-savings or assessment outcomes? Has this been evidenced and how sustainable is this for the longer term?
5. Accessibility: Describe how your project 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. Robustness and Scalability: Is the solution robust and reliable enough to be scaled over time to meet the growing needs of the sector? How has this been measured and evidenced? How are any remaining challenges in meeting this being addressed?
   

1. Challenge / Need: What was the reason for developing this innovation? Were you looking to solve a particular problem or challenge? What evidence is there of a need for this innovation?
2. Research: What evidence do you have that demonstrates a need for this innovation within the sector? What research was undertaken to establish if an existing solution was available?
3. Trialling / Pilots: What pilots or trials were carried out and how have these shaped further innovation and development of the product or service in light of the findings of an initial pilot or trial?
4. Impact: How has this product or service delivered measurable improvements in practice, process, cost-savings or learning and/or assessment outcomes? Has this been evidenced and how sustainable is this for the longer term?
5. Implementation: What were the barriers to adoption of the new technology and its innovative nature? How was the use and purpose of the new product or service communicated to stakeholders?
6. Robustness and Scalability: Is the solution robust and reliable enough to be scaled over time to meet the growing needs of the sector? How has this been measured and evidenced? How are any remaining challenges in meeting this being addressed? 

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. Project Requirements: What did the project set out to achieve and how were the requirements of the project established? For applications from institutions and exam awarding bodies, what process did you then follow to select your project partner(s), both technical and regional? For applications from assessment technology suppliers, how were the client and stakeholders engaged in the process? If you utilised local partners, what were the selection criteria for these partners?
2. Project Management: What was the approach to managing the programme to ensure successful delivery in each location? What were the success criteria used to judge the outcome for all key stakeholders? What challenges had to be overcome with each phase of the programme? What were the implications for the home business (for example programme management, partner management, coordination with a client, training, establishing local infrastructures)?
3. Implementation: Is there evidence of a successful implementation strategy, including establishing agreed outcomes, alignment with organisational goals, engagement with key stakeholders, piloting, support services and evaluation? Was there a phased implementation and if so, why?
4. Regional Challenges: What were the regional and cultural factors taken into account in the context of the digital assessment programme? For example, communication, language, attitudes to digital assessments, support services? How did you address the non-technical factors of implementation and support in another country?
5. Technical / Digital Challenges: Were there technological limitations or challenges in delivery? For example, bandwidth, local data protection laws, points of presence for cloud hosting, support and time zone differences? Explain how you overcame these challenges or came up with strategies to work around these challenges.
6. Robustness and Scalability: Is the solution robust and reliable enough to be scaled over time to meet the growing needs of the country/countries in which you deployed the programme? How has this been measured and evidenced? How are any remaining challenges in meeting this being addressed?

1. Challenge / Need: Has the assessment project been developed to address a clearly identified need? What is this need? How has the need been addressed? Please explain if you have adopted a new solution or if transformation has occurred because of the enhancement, or further development of an existing solution.
2. Implementation: Is there evidence of a successful implementation strategy, including alignment with organisational goals, engagement with key stakeholders, piloting, support and evaluation?
3. Scale and Complexity: What is the scale and complexity of the project? Did the project entail finding and working with new partners, or new software and/ or involve significant changes to an existing solution? Please note that the judges are looking to understand the project better, not judge it just by its size.
4. Transformation / Impact: How has the project transformed teaching and learning? What quantitative and qualitative evidence do you have that demonstrates the transformational impact on the learners or users of the solution?
5. Best Fit: In what way is this project the 'best fit' for the identified challenge, or the institution, organisation or assessment? What are the unique qualities of this project that have supported the transformation in assessment practice?
6. Accessibility: Describe how your project 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?
   

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. Initial Challenge and Assessment Model: Briefly explain why the digital assessment solution was developed and then explain the assessment model it was deployed to support. In what way does it align with the assessment of knowledge, competencies, behaviours and capabilities? Are other factors taken into account, such as the environment in which the assessments are set or the situations used as the context? To what extent are team or personal attributes assessed and why?
2. Implementation: Is there evidence of a successful implementation strategy, including alignment with organisational goals, engagement with key stakeholders, piloting, support and evaluation?
3. Specific Achievements: Please provide details of the specific achievements, or longer term impact delivered by the solution to date. Detail evidence supporting the effectiveness and value of the solution, including any case studies. For example, improved employee engagement, performance, reduced turnover, cost savings, time savings.
4. Futureproofing Assessment: How does the solution respond to current/future trends in workplace recruitment and continuous professional development, such as remote or hybrid work environments, diversity and inclusion?
5. Accessibility: Describe how your project 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. Robustness and Scalability: Is the solution robust and reliable enough to be scaled over time to align with the future growth of the organisation? How has this been measured and evidenced? How are any remaining challenges in meeting this being addressed?

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.

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

1. Innovation and Uniqueness: Describe the AI technology or solution you developed. What makes it unique or innovative in the assessment industry?
2. Challenge / Need: What specific challenges in assessment were you addressing with this AI solution, and why was it necessary?
3. Impact and Outcomes: What were the measurable outcomes and impacts of using AI in this project? Include metrics where possible.
4. Scalability and Adaptability: How scalable is your AI solution, and how adaptable is it to different contexts or assessment needs?
5. Ethics and Fairness: How does your AI solution address concerns related to bias, fairness, and data privacy in assessments?
6. Collaboration and Stakeholder Engagement: Describe the collaboration process with stakeholders, customers, or end-users in developing and implementing this AI solution or if this wasn’t done, explain why.
   

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?
  

Submissions will be judged according to how well they meet each criterion listed below (max 300 words per criterion). 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. Each submission will be considered on individual merit and solely on the information provided to the independent panel of judges in the application form. Please show consideration of the scope and criteria carefully in your submission.

For the Best use of educational assessment outcomes to improve teaching and learning Award your submission should address the following criteria. Please note that the examples are provided to aid rather than confine the submission.

1. Project or approach intentions: What did the project set out to achieve and how were the intentions of the project established and communicated to others participating in the approach or those with an interest in the project/approach?
2. Implementation: Outline the scale of the project/approach and timeline. Is there evidence of a successful implementation strategy, for example establishing agreed outcomes, alignment with organisational goals, engagement with key stakeholders, piloting and evaluation? Was there a phased implementation and if so, why? Please note that the judges are looking to understand the programme better, not to judge it by its size.
3. Details of impact and specific achievements, or benefits delivered by the project/approach to date with supporting evidence. For example: improved learner performance, reductions in teaching/instruction preparation time or workload, improved teacher/student engagement, teacher/student surveys or peer evaluation, evidence from classroom or workplace observations of teaching and or learning.
4. Reliability and Scalability: How robust / reliable is the assessment approach? Do you have any research or experiential evidence? What challenges did you overcome in introducing the project/approach? Is the approach scalable and how could it be shared more widely?
5. What aspects of educational assessment theory and practice did the project/approach draw on and did the theory support or challenge the practice?
6. Lessons learned - What lessons have been learned in the process and what would you do differently if you ran the project again or shared your approach and conclusions with other colleagues?