Co-designed assessment: what postgraduate students wanted to change

Updated Nov 08, 2026

Students’ requests to change assessment can reveal a practical design problem: when feedback arrives, how a group is formed or whose contribution is recognised. A study by Sandra Flynn and Dave Gatrell follows a postgraduate project management cohort at an Irish university as students and their module leader redesigned a group assessment. It connects the opportunity to influence the design with students’ accounts of using it.

The question behind the redesign

The researchers asked how the process of co-designing an assessment, and the assessment produced, affected postgraduate engagement. They analysed an anonymous student survey and an interview with the module leader through Activity Theory, examining how tasks, rules, tools and relationships worked together.

The starting point was an earlier assessment built around group presentations. Students and their lecturer identified issues with preparation time, peer feedback, group choice and recognition of individual contributions. Volunteer student partners then helped shape the next module’s assessment.

What students described

Having influence was part of the experience. Student co-designers valued contributing ideas and understanding other perspectives. Their accounts connected the redesign with feeling heard and seeing earlier concerns addressed. Students who had not joined the design group also described valuing their peers’ involvement.

A draft created a point at which feedback could be used. The revised design introduced a draft recorded presentation before the final submission. Students helped negotiate how drafting, giving feedback and responding to it would contribute to assessment. They described using comments during the work, rather than only hearing a judgement after it was finished.

Choice of group and choice of topic were different questions. Some students valued researching a theme that matched their interests or experience. Others described joining friends, missing their preferred group or finding the allocation process difficult. The accounts show why a comment about group work needs to retain the particular choice or obstacle the student is describing.

Peer feedback needed a manageable and meaningful task. Students valued receiving different perspectives and identifying improvements. They also described the effort of evaluating many individual contributions, declining concentration and uncertainty about judging topics they had not studied in depth. Some comments focused on presentation features rather than subject content. These findings give a course team specific parts of the feedback process to review.

The authors proposed a further design with two groups studying each theme. Students could review peers working on familiar content while learning from presentations on other themes. That was a proposed next iteration of the assessment.

Reading assessment comments for a useful next step

Our practical recommendation is to separate participation in design from experience of the resulting task. Ask what students could influence, what was changed and how the new arrangement worked for them. The student-partnership pathway helps define that decision and the role students have within it.

When comments concern peer feedback, distinguish its timing, workload and subject focus. A request for fewer reviews is different from a request for better guidance on judging content. Keep praise for useful comments alongside requests to change the review process, using the analysis glossary to retain topic and judgement separately.

Bring the assignment, peer-review instructions and timetable into the conversation. Agree one change with the module team and ask students to review it against the original concern. The assessment and feedback pathway provides further readings for that discussion.

FAQ

Q: What did students help redesign?

A: A group assessment in a postgraduate project management programme, including a draft presentation, peer feedback and how those activities contributed to assessment.

Q: What should a team look for in comments about peer feedback?

A: Whether comments concern receiving guidance in time, the number of reviews, confidence in judging the topic or recognition of individual contributions. Each points to a different design question.

Q: How could students take part in the next review?

A: Give them a defined decision, such as the peer-review task or allocation process. Review the relevant comments and instructions together, then explain which proposal will be adopted and when it will be checked.

References

Flynn, S. and Gatrell, D. (2026). Supporting postgraduate students’ engagement: an Activity Theory analysis of the impact of a co-designed assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. Published online 11 April 2026. Paper and DOI; complete paper in the University of Limerick repository.