Should English studies change how it assesses students?
Published Apr 15, 2024 · Updated Oct 12, 2025
assessment methodsEnglish studies (non-specific)Yes. Student feedback in the National Student Survey (NSS) on assessment methods is consistently negative across the sector: 11,318 comments are tagged to this topic (2018–2025), with 28.0% positive, 66.2% negative and 5.8% neutral, producing a sentiment index of −18.8. Within English studies, the English studies (non-specific) grouping under the Common Aggregation Hierarchy spans broad programmes; while discipline-level category metrics are not available in this extract, the sector pattern directs English teams to tighten design, explanation and quality assurance of assessment so that students experience parity and transparency.
Assessment in English studies evaluates interpretation as much as knowledge, so eliciting and acting on student perspectives matters. Using structured analysis of comments and surveys, programme teams can refine assessment briefs, marking criteria and moderation to support learning while maintaining standards.
We focus on how assessment practices shape student experience in English studies, from fairness and consistency to workload coordination and wellbeing.
How do criteria and marking practices demonstrate fairness?
Fairness improves when staff publish concise assessment briefs that set out purpose, weighting, marking approach, allowed resources and common pitfalls. Checklist-style rubrics with separated criteria and grade descriptors reduce subjectivity in analytic and interpretive work.
Calibration sustains parity. Use anonymised exemplars at grade boundaries for quick marker calibration and record moderation notes. For larger cohorts, sample double-marking with targeted checks where variance occurs. Involve students in understanding how their work is evaluated by discussing criteria in seminars and unpacking exemplars; this strengthens perceived fairness and supports attainment.
During recent disruptions such as COVID-19, no-detriment policies mitigate unusual risks to performance. Beyond exceptional measures, programmes should review criteria regularly and communicate any changes promptly, maintaining trust through consistent application and timely updates.
Which assessment formats best support English studies, and how should they be balanced?
Essays, exams, presentations and group projects each develop distinct capabilities: critical analysis, argumentation, oral communication and collaboration. Balance formative and summative tasks so students receive usable feedback early enough to influence final submissions. Participation expectations should be explicit and inclusive, with asynchronous pathways where appropriate to ensure all students can evidence learning.
A clear method brief per task reduces uncertainty and avoids hidden expectations. Explicit alignment between assessment method and learning outcomes helps students select appropriate strategies and promotes transparency for staff and external examiners.
How should coursework and modules scaffold progression?
Coursework often carries substantial weighting in English studies. Programmes should map progression across modules, with early tasks building academic writing and referencing, and later ones extending research and independent argument. Varied question options within modules allow students to demonstrate strengths without narrowing the curriculum.
Coordinate at programme level to avoid duplication of methods within the same term. Use a single assessment calendar to spread deadlines and to balance methods (e.g., written, oral, creative-critical) across the year.
How can assessment drive engagement without excluding parts of the cohort?
Creative and interdisciplinary tasks stimulate engagement when designed with accessibility in mind. Offer alternative formats (e.g., recorded or captioned oral components, written equivalents for presentations) and provide plain-language instructions. Not UK domiciled students benefit from short orientation to assessment formats, academic integrity and referencing conventions, with mini practice tasks embedded early. These approaches support diverse cohorts while preserving rigorous standards.
What reduces assessment-related stress without diluting standards?
Anxiety rises around clustered deadlines, high-stakes exams and public presentations. Early release of briefs, practice opportunities in small settings, and clear milestones reduce pressure. Predictable submission windows support part-time and commuter students, while opportunities to rehearse presentations or submit a script outline can help students manage performance demands without lowering the bar.
Which support and communications improve assessment outcomes?
Timely, actionable feedback enables students to adjust approach in subsequent tasks. Workshops on essay planning, argument structure and close reading techniques complement written feedback. Post-assessment debriefs that summarise common strengths and issues—issued before individual marks where feasible—enhance perceived transparency and direct learning for the cohort.
During the COVID-19 period, virtual office hours and online forums maintained continuity; many of these practices continue to provide accessible routes for queries and one-to-one guidance. Keeping these channels open ensures the student voice remains integral to assessment design and delivery.
How should teaching align with assessment?
Lectures and seminars should build towards the types of analysis and evidence expected in assignments. Staff can audit coherence by mapping sessions to marking criteria and using student surveys to check whether teaching prepares students for the demands of each task. Where misalignment emerges, adjust content, exemplars and workshop activities to better reflect assessment requirements.
How do we manage workload and timing across the programme?
Assessment scheduling affects wellbeing and performance. Avoid deadline pile-ups by coordinating across modules and staggering due dates. Regular, predictable feedback timelines help students apply learning to the next task and enable staff to manage marking loads sustainably. Involving student representatives in scheduling decisions provides real-time insight into pinch points across the cohort.
Where does this leave English studies?
Given the sector pattern on assessment methods, English studies should prioritise clarity, parity and flexibility: unambiguous briefs, calibrated marking, accessible options, coordinated timetabling and post-assessment debriefs. These adjustments respect disciplinary traditions of interpretation while addressing what students consistently tell us about fairness and workload.
How Student Voice Analytics helps you
- Analyses student comments by discipline and cohort to surface where assessment method issues concentrate in English studies.
- Tracks sentiment and themes over time, with concise summaries for programme and module teams.
- Supports like-for-like comparisons by CAH, mode, domicile and disability, and provides export-ready outputs for boards and quality reviews.
- Helps you evidence impact by linking changes in assessment design, calibration and scheduling to shifts in student sentiment.
Request a walkthrough
Book a free Student Voice Analytics demo
See all-comment coverage, sector benchmarks, and reporting designed for OfS quality and NSS requirements.
- All-comment coverage with HE-tuned taxonomy and sentiment.
- Versioned outputs with TEF-ready reporting.
- Benchmarks and BI-ready exports for boards and Senate.
UK-hosted · No public LLM APIs · Same-day turnaround
More posts on assessment methods:
- Are assessment methods working for biochemistry students?
- What assessment methods work in therapy education?
- Are civil engineering assessment methods working for students?
- What are economics students saying about assessment methods?