Do medical technology students find assessment methods fit for purpose?

assessment methodsmedical technology

Mostly, no: across the National Student Survey (NSS), student comments tagged to assessment methods skew negative, with 66.2% negative out of 11,318 comments and a sentiment index of −18.8. In medical technology, applied learning remains the anchor—placements feature in 19.9% of comments with a positive tone of +14.4—but operational friction around assessment scheduling drags sentiment down (−29.0). As a sector theme, assessment methods captures how tasks are designed, communicated and marked; as a discipline grouping, medical technology reflects UK programmes preparing students for diagnostic and clinical technology roles where clarity, parity and practical authenticity matter.

Welcome to our exploration into the perspectives of medical technology students on assorted assessment methods used within their courses. Grasping how students feel and interact with different assessment strategies enhances both teaching techniques and student learning outcomes. As these methods form a substantial part of the educational process, gaining insights from the students themselves through avenues such as student surveys and text analysis matters. This post focuses on areas of student concern around their assessment experiences. By analysing student feedback and listening to the student voice, staff can gather information that supports refining assessment methods. We look at facets of the assessment process, bringing to light what works, what doesn't, and where improvements can be made, from the perspective of those at the heart of the process—the students.

How well do assessments reflect medical technology practice?

A frequent concern among medical technology students centres on the relevance of assessments to their future professional roles. Many doubt whether assessments truly prepare them for the challenges and responsibilities they will face in the field. Traditional examinations often prioritise memorisation rather than practical skills and problem-solving, which are more applicable to real-world scenarios. The mismatch between course content and the skills needed post-graduation leaves some students feeling underprepared and sceptical about utility. Assignments can be perceived as disconnected from actual applications—lengthy reports on theoretical models do not always align with the hands-on, technical tasks typical in clinical laboratories and imaging departments. Staff should adapt assessment strategies so they mirror practice, mapping tasks to learning outcomes and competency frameworks, and using authentic tasks such as case interpretation, troubleshooting workflows, and quality assurance checks. Engaging with industry partners and updating assessment briefs each cycle helps sustain relevance.

What support and guidance lift performance during assessment periods?

Support and guidance during assessment periods are integral to student success and wellbeing. Availability and precision of revision materials, assignment guidelines, and actionable feedback matter most when deadlines cluster. Staff can assist by providing concise instructions and explicit expectations for assessments—ideally a one-page brief outlining purpose, weighting, marking criteria and common pitfalls. Structured revision schedules and drop-ins reduce anxiety. Short, annotated exemplars at key grade boundaries and checklist-style rubrics help students interpret the assessment brief and calibrate their own work. Early release of briefs and predictable submission windows support part-time and commuting students; short orientation on assessment formats and academic integrity benefits not UK domiciled students. Peer discussion spaces often add value, but they work best when a named module lead curates updates so there is a clear source of truth.

How do workload and deadlines drive stress, and what changes help?

High workloads, tight deadlines, and expectations to excel in both exams and practical assignments raise stress levels and can depress performance. Programmes should coordinate assessment calendars to avoid deadline pile-ups, avoid duplication of methods within the same term, and sequence tasks to build skills progressively. Modules benefit from agreed feedback service levels that are monitored and communicated to cohorts. Flexible submission windows and capped resit loads reduce friction without lowering standards. Academic staff should recognise signs of stress and provide timely support, including time management workshops and wellbeing signposting integrated into module handbooks. Open dialogue about pressure makes it easier for students to seek help early.

What complicates online assessment for a practical discipline?

Assessing students online introduces challenges in a discipline that relies on hands-on skills. Platforms designed for submissions and similarity checking do not always suit simulations, interactive tasks, or image-based interpretation. Without practice tests and preparatory resources, students feel underprepared, which affects performance and confidence. Programmes should diversify methods to capture practical competence—structured viva-style reviews, supervisor-verified checklists, and scenario-based questions—while providing alternatives where accessibility or connectivity varies. Technical issues and internet reliability can disproportionately affect students by location and socio-economic status; pre-flight checks, contingency windows, and asynchronous options help maintain parity. Remote learning sentiment among medical technology students tends to sit near neutral, but clarity about the format and purpose of online tasks determines perceived fairness.

How can placement assessments feel fair and consistent?

Placement assessments determine practical progress, yet concerns often arise regarding fairness when coursework compresses or assessment schedules slip. Transparent, standardised marking schemes and shared rubrics minimise variability and make criteria accessible. Multiple assessors, or at least targeted double-marking, protect consistency. Timely, developmental feedback—especially mid-placement—allows students to adjust and evidence competence. Treating placements as a designed service strengthens already positive perceptions: capacity planning with hosts, clear expectations, documented supervision, and a short post-cycle debrief on what worked and what to change.

Where do students perceive subjectivity and bias in grading, and how do we reduce it?

A common issue raised by students revolves around subjectivity and possible bias, particularly with essays and internal marking grids that vary in interpretation among assessors. When tasks require critical analysis and judgement, inconsistent application of criteria can lead to discrepancies in grades. The involvement of external assessors in clinical assessments adds another layer of variation if expectations are not aligned. Programmes reduce these perceptions by publishing detailed rubrics, using annotated exemplars, and running quick marker calibration with anonymised samples at grade boundaries. Recording moderation notes and communicating how criteria are applied increases transparency, making grading feel more equitable.

What can programmes learn by comparing assessment approaches across providers?

Comparative analysis shows substantial variation in word counts, opportunities for personal interpretation, and the balance between academic and practical assessment. Differences can stimulate innovation, but also lead to student confusion when expectations change between modules or years. Programme-level coordination to balance assessment types and avoid clashes strengthens student confidence. Practical skills assessments—structured OSCE-style stations, device operation logs, and portfolio evidence—support readiness for professional challenges and reflect the applied emphasis students value. Publishing a single assessment calendar and providing consistent marking criteria across modules reduce operational noise that frequently undermines otherwise strong teaching.

What should medical technology teams change now?

Students tell us that relevance, transparency and coordination shape their assessment experience. Sector-wide, sentiment on assessment methods is predominantly negative, and in medical technology the pattern is similar whenever criteria are opaque or scheduling is unstable. The priorities are straightforward: design authentic tasks that reflect clinical workflows; issue concise briefs and checklist rubrics; calibrate markers and communicate moderation; coordinate deadlines at programme level; and provide predictable support. Doing so improves both perceived fairness and learning, and aligns assessment with the applied competencies graduates need.

How Student Voice Analytics helps you

• Pinpoints where assessment method issues concentrate by discipline, demographics and cohort, including medical technology, so teams can act where they will move sentiment most.
• Tracks sentiment over time and surfaces concise, anonymised summaries you can share with programme and module teams.
• Supports like-for-like comparisons by subject mix and cohort profile, with export-ready tables for boards and quality reviews.
• Shows “you said, we did” progress on placements, scheduling, organisation, communications and assessment, helping you evidence change to students and quality processes.

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:

• Are current assessment methods helping medical students learn?
• Do biology students want different assessment methods?
• What do business and management students say about assessment?
• Do history students benefit when assessment methods are clearer and feedback is faster?

More posts on medical technology student views:

• Are medical technology students satisfied with their teaching staff?
• What do medical technology students want from their course content?
• What kind of support helps medical technology students succeed?
• What do medical technology students need from teaching delivery?