Do management studies students find marking criteria fair and usable?

marking criteriamanagement studies

Mostly no. Across the National Student Survey (NSS), student comments on marking criteria skew strongly negative, with 87.9% Negative and a sentiment index of −44.6. Within management studies, the specific topic of marking criteria is even more challenging at −48.4, despite the subject’s overall balance trending positive at 53.0% Positive. The category captures how students experience rubric clarity and consistency across UK provision, while the CAH grouping for management studies is used sector‑wide for benchmarking across business and management programmes. These patterns shape how we approach transparency, relevance and consistency in assessment on Management Studies modules.

Management Studies encompass a combination of strategic thinking and practical application, so assessment needs to reflect both. Students in this field benefit from well-defined marking criteria that guide their work and benchmark performance in relation to real-world business contexts. Incorporating student voice through surveys and engagement in criteria development helps ensure relevance and fairness. Using text analysis of survey feedback, institutions refine approaches so that criteria are rigorous and comprehensible.

How can marking criteria be transparent and predictable?

Ambiguity undermines trust in marking. Students value criteria that make expectations and grade standards predictable. When criteria are vague or applied inconsistently, motivation drops and dissatisfaction rises. In response, programme teams increasingly co‑design criteria with students, publish annotated exemplars at key grade bands, and use checklist-style rubrics with weightings and common error notes. Releasing criteria with the assessment brief and running a short walk‑through improves understanding, while marker calibration using a shared sample set helps align standards. Providing a short “how your work was judged” summary alongside grades shows how markers interpreted the rubric and supports feed‑forward.

Do criteria capture real-world relevance for management students?

Assessment gains credibility when it reflects genuine business practice. Criteria should test theoretical command and the application of theory to realistic scenarios. Case work, live projects and simulations allow students to demonstrate strategic thinking and practical problem‑solving, provided criteria articulate how applied judgement, data use and teamwork are assessed. Balancing these authentic tasks with theory-focused components supports a rounded education. Consultation with students during criteria design aligns objectives with professional expectations and improves confidence in fairness.

What feedback helps students use criteria to improve?

Actionable, timely feedback that maps directly to rubric descriptors has the greatest impact. Students want to see which lines of the rubric they met and what to do next. Aligning feedback to future tasks, and keeping turnaround close enough for students to apply it, improves attainment and credibility. With younger students making up 72.7% of comments in this category, early induction to criteria and exemplars in first‑year modules sets shared expectations that carry across the programme. Where feedback seems disconnected from criteria, it is perceived as arbitrary.

How can we secure consistency across modules and markers?

Variability between modules creates confusion and perceptions of unfairness. Programme teams can standardise criteria where learning outcomes overlap, and explicitly signal any intentional differences. Regular calibration using a bank of shared samples, followed by brief “what we agreed” notes for students, reinforces reliability. Text analysis of student feedback helps identify problematic descriptors and drift in interpretation, prompting targeted revisions and staff development.

How should group work evidence individual contributions?

Group projects mirror workplace practice but raise concerns about fairness if individual effort is obscured. Criteria can combine assessment of the collective output with evidence of individual contribution. Structured roles, milestone artefacts and light-touch peer evaluation provide usable evidence without excessive process. Rubrics that separate teamwork behaviours from disciplinary outcomes protect individual accountability while still rewarding collaboration.

How can varied assessments stay aligned to criteria?

Diverse assessment methods showcase different competencies, from analysis to implementation. Reflective logs and portfolios can surface learning progression, while presentations and simulations test applied decision‑making. As formats diversify, criteria must evolve in parallel so that markers evaluate the intended construct rather than presentation polish or tacit expectations. Publishing task‑specific exemplars, clarifying weightings and ensuring rubrics use unambiguous descriptors helps students target effort appropriately.

What practical improvements should programmes prioritise now?

Focus on assessment clarity first. Publish annotated exemplars and checklist-style rubrics with weightings; release criteria with the assessment brief and run a short Q&A; calibrate markers using shared samples and share “what we agreed” notes; add a “how your work was judged” summary to returned grades; standardise criteria across modules where outcomes overlap and explain any differences up front; offer brief feed‑forward clinics before major submissions; track recurring student questions about criteria and close the loop on changes made.

How Student Voice Analytics helps you

Student Voice Analytics surfaces where criteria and feedback are driving sentiment in management studies, so teams can act where it matters. You can track movement in the marking criteria theme over time, compare patterns against management studies cohorts across sites and modes, and drill from school to programme to module. Concise, anonymised summaries and exemplars of representative comments support calibration sessions and assessment design reviews. Like‑for‑like comparisons across CAH areas and demographics help you prioritise interventions that shift tone, while export‑ready outputs make it straightforward to brief boards and external partners.

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 marking criteria:

• What needs to change in medical student assessments?
• What do sociology students think about marking criteria?
• Do English Studies students understand how their work is marked?
• Do computer science students trust marking criteria?

More posts on management studies student views:

• Is communication with academic staff working for management studies students?
• What do management students need from course and teaching communication?
• What do management studies students need from career guidance?
• Do management studies students feel the course content has the right breadth?