QAA roadshow highlights student voice in assessment review

Updated Sep 25, 2026

The latest QAA roadshow account, published on 18 September 2026, describes students helping review assessment practice. For teams analysing survey comments, it prompts a useful question: how will students help shape the response?

What the QAA roadshow describes

QAA describes paid student partners joining a university-wide audit of assessment rubrics at King's College London. York St John described co-creating assessment descriptors with students, students' union officers and staff.

These are reported practices, with outcomes still needing separate evaluation. The account does not establish that adopting either approach will improve another institution's results. QAA's account, Briefs, Rubrics & Descriptors.

What this means for institutions

Our suggestion is to connect an assessment review to a specific question raised in student feedback. For example, ask students to locate the marking criteria for an assignment and explain what they think a criterion requires. Record difficulties finding the information separately from difficulties understanding it. This gives the course team a concrete problem to investigate.

Give participating students a clear role in interpreting the evidence and proposing changes. Explain which decisions they can influence, how their work will be supported and how disagreements will be recorded. Our guide to feedback, representation and student partnership can help teams define those roles. Invite contributions beyond the review group so that participation does not depend entirely on attending a meeting.

Agree how the revised material will be checked before approving it. A possible test is to ask students unfamiliar with the revision to use it for the same task. Record the version, what they found difficult and what the team changed next. Treat this as a local usability check, with its participants and limits documented, rather than proof of an effect on attainment.

How student feedback analysis connects

For open-text analysis, we recommend separating comments about finding criteria, interpreting standards and using feedback on later work. Keep the survey question and collection point attached to the analysis. A comment about feedback arriving too late needs a different investigation from a comment about an unclear marking criterion.

Bring anonymised examples and contrary accounts into the review, alongside the theme counts. Check whose experiences the comments cover before presenting a pattern as widespread. Our NSS open-text analysis methodology explains why comment shares are not estimates of every student's experience. Use the analysis to frame questions for students and staff, then record their decisions and follow-up.

FAQ

Q: What should a university team do now?

A: Choose an assessment concern already raised by students and identify who can investigate it. Agree access, redaction and reporting arrangements before sharing comments; the student comment analysis governance checklist provides practical prompts.

Q: What is the timeline and scope?

A: The event ran from 14 to 18 September 2026, sharing UK practice. The report announces no common implementation deadline.

Q: How should this inform student voice work?

A: Give students a role in interpreting concerns and reviewing proposed changes. Report back on what was agreed, including suggestions that could not be adopted and why. Plan a later check of the experience the change was intended to improve.

References

[QAA]: "Virtual roadshow showcases effective assessment practices across the UK" Published: 2026-09-18