QAA assessment literacy toolkit, aligning expectations to improve student feedback on assessment

Updated Sep 07, 2026

On 12 February 2026, QAA announced an assessment-literacy toolkit from a Collaborative Enhancement Project led by Coventry University. The Time and Effort on Task resource provides separate staff and student guides for planning assessment work. QAA announcement.

What the project reported

The three-step guidance addresses prior knowledge and skills, breaking an assignment into tasks, and connecting those tasks with marking criteria and learning outcomes.

Project lead Dr Christina Magkoufopoulou reported that almost 40% of students were unfamiliar with the term assessment literacy, while 90% of academic staff wanted to develop their own understanding. In the initial evaluation, 85% of students and 84% of staff said they could apply the toolkit to learning or teaching.

Those are the project’s reported perceptions. The announcement does not supply enough methodological detail to generalise the percentages to all students or staff, or to establish a causal improvement in marks or satisfaction. The toolkit is a practical resource, not a new regulatory requirement. Project description and evaluation statement.

A small local trial

Our suggestion is to begin with one assessment where students have raised questions about expectations or workload. Ask students to describe the steps they think the assignment requires, then compare that account with the intended task and criteria. Use the discussion to identify where explanation or support is missing.

If you trial the toolkit, record what was used and invite feedback from participants. A comment such as “I can apply this” is a useful account of perceived usefulness; it is a different outcome from demonstrated learning or a reduced attainment gap. Choose an evaluation question that matches the conclusion you want to draw.

When reviewing existing comments, separate unclear instructions, assessment criteria, workload and feedback usefulness. Avoid assuming they all share the same cause or remedy. The student feedback analysis glossary and comment governance checklist can support that interpretation work.

Correction, 7 September 2026: corrected “over 90%” and “over 85%” to the announcement’s 90% and 85%, and clarified what staff wanted to understand. Removed an inaccurately shortened quotation and unsupported claims of demonstrated effectiveness.