Do current assessment methods in management studies work for students?
Published Jan 25, 2024 · Updated Oct 12, 2025
assessment methodsmanagement studiesYes. When briefs are explicit, marking is calibrated and timetabling is coordinated, students report stronger learning and outcomes; where formats and criteria are opaque, the experience deteriorates. Across the UK-wide National Student Survey (NSS), the assessment methods theme skews negative with 28.0% positive, 66.2% negative and 5.8% neutral comments (sentiment index −18.8). Within management studies, overall tone trends positive (≈53.0% positive, 42.7% negative, 4.3% neutral), yet feedback (9.6% share, −18.1) and marking criteria (3.3%, −48.4) remain persistent pressure points. Part-time learners in particular report more negative experiences around assessment timing and format (−24.6). These sector patterns shape the priorities set out below: unambiguous briefs, consistent marking, and assessment schedules that support diverse cohorts.
How do assessment methods shape learning in management studies?
Assessment methods sit at the core of how management students learn, perform and are judged. Programmes that align tasks tightly to learning outcomes and professional practice build capability and confidence. Students respond well to assessments that mirror real business challenges, but they disengage when criteria are ambiguous or formats are poorly explained. Prioritise concise assessment briefs, calibrated marking and a programme-level view of workload so assessment supports, rather than disrupts, learning.
How do students decode assessment briefs, and what needs to change?
Students interpret briefs through the lens of risk. Ambiguity drives strategic behaviour that can miss the intended learning. Staff improve alignment by using plain language, stating purpose, method and weighting upfront, and providing exemplars at grade boundaries. Short text analysis of briefs helps identify complexity and readability issues. Publishing a one-page assessment brief per task and checklist-style rubrics reduces misinterpretation and improves consistency across modules.
Which assessment mix works best for management studies?
A balanced mix of essays, reports, presentations, reflective tasks and applied group work lets students evidence different competencies. In management studies this breadth maps to varied graduate roles, but it requires coordination. Avoid duplicating methods within a term; rotate formats so each module contributes distinct evidence against programme outcomes. Where oral or live components are used, provide asynchronous alternatives and early release of materials so part-time and commuting students can plan.
How should exam structure and timing support different student groups?
Time allowances, format clarity and predictable windows reduce avoidable stress, particularly for students balancing study and work. With part-time learners reporting more negative experiences around assessment timing and format (−24.6), programmes should publish an assessment calendar at the start of the term, avoid deadline bunching and offer early release of briefs. Online exam variants benefit from short orientation activities that let students practise under realistic conditions before stakes are high.
What makes feedback meaningful and actionable?
Students want feedback they can act on before their next submission. In management studies, feedback features prominently in student comments and trends negative (9.6% share, −18.1), so set visible service levels for return times, use structured comments linked to criteria, and offer quick debriefs on cohort strengths and common issues before releasing individual marks. Light-touch peer review and short one-to-one clinics help students translate comments into concrete next steps.
How can we make group work fair and effective?
Group tasks should simulate collaboration without obscuring individual learning. Use clear milestones, contribution tracking and short reflective components. Offer routes to report non-participation and adjust weightings where warranted. A brief orientation on teamwork expectations and conflict resolution reduces friction while keeping the focus on the task rather than process.
What assignment guidelines reduce friction?
Students value explicit marking criteria and worked exemplars. In this subject area, marking criteria draw some of the most negative tone (3.3%, −48.4), so publish grade descriptors that separate criteria and performance levels, align comments to those descriptors, and calibrate expectations across markers using anonymised exemplars. Early clarity lets students focus on analysis and argument rather than guesswork.
How do real-world tasks lift engagement without adding opacity?
Live briefs, simulations and consultancy-style projects increase relevance and engagement when scoped well. Keep the task design bounded, state the decision-maker and context, and specify evidence requirements. Provide short templates or report structures so students demonstrate analysis rather than spend time reverse‑engineering expectations.
Where do marking and weighting feel unfair?
Perceptions of unfairness commonly cluster around unclear weightings, variable standards between markers and heavy tasks with low contribution to the module grade. Address this by publishing weightings on day one, using sample double-marking with spot checks where variance is highest, and providing a short post-assessment debrief that explains how the cohort performed and how moderation worked.
Which support structures sustain assessment success?
Targeted academic skills support, short orientation to assessment formats, and accessible resources smooth the path through diverse assessments. Build accessibility in from the start with alternative formats, captions and plain-language instructions. Personal Tutor routes and careers guidance complement assessment by helping students connect feedback to progression and employability planning.
How does timetabling interact with assessment load?
Timetabling choices strongly shape workload. Coordinate at programme level to avoid clusters of same‑week deadlines and method clashes across modules. Name an owner for timetable changes and communicate updates with short notes on what changed and why. Where possible, align assessment windows with known peak commitments for commuting and working students.
What are the implications for UK HE policy?
Given the NSS pattern for assessment methods is net negative overall while management studies trends positive on balance, improvements concentrate on method clarity, calibration and scheduling. Transparent criteria, predictable timing and brief cohort debriefs are low‑cost changes that improve perceived fairness and performance. Programme teams that implement these consistently should see gains in NSS and, more substantively, in student attainment and wellbeing.
How Student Voice Analytics helps you
- Surfaces where assessment methods, feedback and marking criteria drive sentiment in management studies, with discipline and cohort cuts to pinpoint priority modules.
- Tracks movement over time so programme teams can see which fixes shift tone and where friction persists.
- Provides export‑ready summaries, exemplars and benchmark tables to brief programme boards and quality reviews.
- Supports comparisons by mode, age, domicile and disability to target flexibility, accessibility and orientation where they matter most.
Request a walkthrough
Book a free Student Voice Analytics demo
See all-comment coverage, sector benchmarks, and reporting designed for OfS quality and NSS requirements.
- All-comment coverage with HE-tuned taxonomy and sentiment.
- Versioned outputs with TEF-ready reporting.
- Benchmarks and BI-ready exports for boards and Senate.
UK-hosted · No public LLM APIs · Same-day turnaround
More posts on assessment methods:
- What assessment methods do marketing students say work best?
- Are current assessment methods helping medical students learn?
- What are economics students saying about assessment methods?
- Are biomedical science assessments working for students?