Are biomedical science assessments working for students?

assessment methodsbiomedical sciences (non-specific)

Not yet: students in biomedical sciences describe assessment as opaque and uneven unless providers standardise method, calibrate marking, and coordinate assessment across modules. In the National Student Survey (NSS), assessment methods carries a strongly negative tone: 66.2% Negative (index −18.8). Within biomedical sciences (non-specific), a Common Aggregation Hierarchy grouping used for sector comparisons, Feedback alone accounts for 10.6% of comments with sentiment −31.5, and Marking criteria sits at −52.3. These signals shape the priorities in this case study. Assessment methods in UK higher education have diversified with online delivery, and student voice analysis now routinely informs how rigour and applied practice are combined. Students value assessments that evidence learning and prepare them for professional contexts, but they disengage when criteria and marking feel inconsistent.

How complex are biomedical science assessments?

Assessment spans theoretical knowledge, data handling, and practical competency. Written exams test conceptual understanding; labs and OSCE-style tasks test application. Integrated assessments work when mapping to learning outcomes is explicit and the workload is proportionate. Programme teams should design around what the cohort must evidence, then select methods accordingly. Calibrate markers to the rubric, provide brief annotated exemplars, and ensure assessment briefs state purpose, weighting, allowed resources, and typical pitfalls. Students report greater confidence when project-style tasks use staged milestones and supervision patterns that mirror dissertation support, where expectations often land more effectively than in taught-module assessments.

How has the pandemic changed assessment methods?

Emergency online delivery exposed issues that persist in hybrid provision. Flexible scheduling helps many students and can lower anxiety, but concerns about academic integrity, uneven digital access, and the limited transferability of simulated labs remain. Where feasible, prioritise in-person practical assessment for skills and use online tasks for analytical and interpretive outcomes. Detail the integrity measures you will use and provide short orientation on formats and conventions, especially for learners unfamiliar with local assessment practices.

Why do students perceive unfair marking and criteria ambiguity?

Students often report that criteria read as generic or that different markers interpret them differently. Replace broad descriptors with checklist-style rubrics tied to learning outcomes and performance thresholds. Provide a concise assessment method brief per task, with a live Q&A early in the module. Use short calibration sessions with anonymised exemplars at grade boundaries and record moderation notes. Adopt sampling for double marking where variance is highest. Offer a post-assessment debrief to summarise common strengths and issues before individual marks release to improve perceived transparency.

What would fix feedback quality and workload pressures?

Students value specific, actionable feedback and visible turnaround commitments. Programme teams can ringfence time for feedforward, use structured comments aligned to criteria, and deploy feedback banks to scale comments without losing specificity. Large cohorts benefit from triage and consistent rubrics so staff do not have to reinvent phrasing for recurrent issues. Manage workload by coordinating assessment timing at programme level and streamlining marking processes with digital tools, protecting staff wellbeing and the quality of feedback.

Where do technology and sensitive content create risk?

Online assessments require resilient platforms, reliable authentication, and clear contingency routes if systems fail. Publish contact points and fallback plans in every brief. Build accessibility in from the outset with plain-language instructions, alternative formats, and options for oral or captioned submissions where appropriate. Biomedical topics can involve sensitive content. Signal content that may distress, explain its educational purpose, and give students routes to raise concerns. Train markers to use supportive, professional tone when responding to personal disclosures connected to assessment tasks.

Which changes would enhance assessment practices now?

• Train markers in applying rubrics, giving concise, forward-looking feedback, and using moderation notes consistently.
• Expand practice resources: short annotated exemplars, mini tasks that mirror the assessment method, and formative checkpoints.
• Coordinate assessment at programme level: publish an assessment calendar, avoid deadline clusters, and balance methods across terms.
• Reduce friction for diverse cohorts: provide predictable submission windows, early release of briefs, and asynchronous options for oral components where learning outcomes allow.
• Involve students in testing draft criteria and briefs to surface ambiguity before release.

What should we take forward?

The strongest student signals point to method clarity, criteria precision, and consistent marking as the levers that move perceptions of fairness. Feedback quality, not volume, drives learning value. Project-style structures that scaffold independence often translate well into taught modules. By aligning design choices to outcomes, calibrating staff, coordinating at programme level, and closing the loop with timely debriefs, providers can reduce noise around assessment and support student confidence in how they are evaluated.

How Student Voice Analytics helps you

• Pinpoints where assessment method issues concentrate by CAH discipline, demographics, cohort and site, with year-on-year trends.
• Surfaces concise, anonymised summaries on assessment method, marking criteria and feedback that programme teams can act on quickly.
• Supports like-for-like benchmarking against peer subjects and cohort profiles, with export-ready outputs for boards and quality reviews.
• Tracks sentiment for biomedical sciences across topics so you can evidence improvements in clarity, parity and flexibility at module and programme level.

Request a walkthrough

Book a Student Voice Analytics demo

See all-comment coverage, sector benchmarks, and governance packs designed for OfS quality and NSS requirements.

• All-comment coverage with HE-tuned taxonomy and sentiment.
• Versioned outputs with TEF-ready governance packs.
• Benchmarks and BI-ready exports for boards and Senate.

Book a demo Prefer email? [email protected]

More posts on assessment methods:

• What do Sport and Exercise Sciences students say about assessment methods?
• What do UK sociology students say about assessment methods?
• Are assessment methods working for electrical and electronic engineering students?
• Are assessment methods working for teacher training students?

More posts on biomedical sciences (non-specific) student views:

• Do biomedical sciences students rate their teaching staff?
• Can biomedical sciences be taught effectively remotely?
• What does student life in biomedical sciences look like?
• How do biomedical sciences students view marking criteria?