Assessment criteria

Assessment criteria have more than one purpose -  they are intended to help: 

1. The whole academic team in having a consistent understanding of the task set and how it will be assessed.  
2. markers and moderators in awarding grades that fairly reflect what the assignment was designed to assess. 
3. External Examiners in ensuring fairness and consistency in  the assessment process; 
4. students in responding to the task set and in understanding the basis on which their work is assessed. 

A clear outline of specific goals, criteria and standards is needed as part of the structured assessment design, information and guidance for students which more appropriately sets and manages expectations of and for students, (Fielding, 2008; Oyugi 2017; REAP, 2009). This also has a positive impact in terms of reducing assessment anxiety and guesswork. In all cases students need to be clear of what is required of them and what is specifically being assessed, so they should be provided with a very clear assessment brief, guiding narrative on ‘how to achieve a 70+’ and a detailed marking rubric which provide a breakdown of every 10% grading band from 0% through to 100%. 

To prevent confusion, a course team should adopt consistency in the way they refer to the criteria by which assessment decisions are made  

Assessment criteria are context-specific, and describe the qualities of a particular assessment that the assessor will refer to in making a judgement e.g. content, critical analysis, use of argument, presentation.  

Grade descriptors define characteristics of performance at each grade. They may be defined at either the threshold standard - what the learner is expected to do in order to obtain a pass – or as indicators which differentiate levels of achievement (first class, upper/lower second, third, pass etc). In either case, they should be appropriate to the level of study (certificate, intermediate, honours, masters etc).  

Grade descriptors exist in different forms, including: 

• generic descriptors for all undergraduate and postgraduate provision as a whole - for example, the Brunel University Grade Descriptors 
• generic descriptors defined in relation to each level of study (Level 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) - for example, the Liverpool John Moores University Grade Descriptors for written work 
• generic descriptors developed within a subject area - for example, Edinburgh University Grade Descriptors for English Literature,  where grade descriptors are set across key assessment criteria (such as knowledge, argument, language, scholarly apparatus) 
• Also see the examples of subject-based Undergraduate (Appendix 1) and Postgraduate (Appendix 2) grade descriptors developed by the Design Subject Teams in the School of Art, Architecture and Design (AAD) at London Met. 

As highlighted by the Manchester University Framework for Grade Descriptors: “Well-written grading descriptors are an essential tool in helping students to understand the marks that they have been awarded and why they have been awarded them.  They also help inform what students need to do in order to achieve higher marks in future assessment.  The language used in grading criteria therefore needs to be clear, consistent, helpful and unambiguous”.   

The term ‘grading criteria’ - or marking criteria -  should apply to a particular assessment, whereby the specific assessment criteria are defined in relation to different grades.

Drafting assessment criteria involves creating a link between the stated learning outcomes, generic attributes (eg structure or presentation skills), and the specific assessment task. They will enable the students to focus their efforts and also create a starting point for staff discussion around marking standards (Bloxham and Boyd 2007). 

The learning outcomes for a module will describe what a successful student should be able to achieve at the particular level of their course. The assessment criteria for a particular assessment task specify how that achievement will be judged in relation to the assessment undertaken. They specify what qualities or aspects of the submitted work will be assessed and what standards will be applied. They should be available for discussion with students from the start of the module.  

Assessment criteria should be written in a way that makes the basis on which staff will make their judgments explicit to students. They should be discussed with the course or module team so that they are unambiguous. This may form part of a calibration exercise Any differential weightings of different criteria should also be discussed and publicised to the students and those responsible for marking and student support.  

There should be a manageable number of assessment criteria for each assignment, and each criterion should be commented upon when giving feedback. Consideration also needs to be given to the relationship between learning outcomes, assessment methods and assessment criteria.                    

The written assessment criteria should therefore be informed by 

• the learning outcomes of the module 
• the level of the module 
• the generic attributes relating to the subject or discipline-specific modes of communicating and engaging with knowledge. 
• the specific requirements of the assessment task.  

(see also Bloxham and Boyd, 2007; Gosling & Moon, 2002, and Moon, 2002) 

The criteria themselves should then be specified so as to make as explicit as possible what constitutes recognised performance across the range of grades from 0-100%. However, given the different ways in which tutors and students may interpret marking standards and the language of assessment criteria, particularly when dealing with more open ‘non determinate’ assessments it is important that academic staff, markers and students have the opportunity to engage with and actively discuss assessment criteria, and to share their meaning with reference to standards, perhaps through a marking exercise. 

There are two broad approaches to specifying assessment criteria: 

• general grade descriptors in which the characteristics of typical work at each grade are defined, as in Appendix 3. One advantage of presenting assessment criteria in this way is that they provide markers with recognisable prototypes of different levels of students’ work. 
• criteria in the form of a grid in which there is a description of each criterion in terms of the level expected for each grade. In this matrix, the task assessment criteria are explicitly combined with grade descriptors. An example is given in Appendix 4. This format makes explicit that the same criteria are applicable right across the grade range. However, systematic research indicates that different criteria are important at different grades (e.g. Greatorex, 2002). It can also lead to a rather contrived set of descriptions that can sometimes appear clumsy, and that staff sometimes take time to become used to in marking 

It is important in the formulation of assessment criteria to consider what functions they are expected to serve, ie to be a consistent guide for staff and students,  for responding to the task set and to support accurate marking.  

Criteria designed primarily to guide staff in their marking, for example, may be framed in ways that differ from criteria designed mainly to help students understand what is important in their work.  

This is why students need to be supported in developing their understanding of assessment criteria and when possible, contribute to their design.

Helping students and all staff involved in a module understand what the assessment criteria are and what they mean can help to promote better student performance. It is not enough merely to produce very explicit assessment criteria and draw them to students’ attention. Active, structured student engagement with the criteria is strongly recommended (e.g., see Bain 2010; Price et al, 2003). 

That type of engagement is increasingly being facilitated in teaching situations, often in the form of workshops where students discuss the assessment criteria and apply them themselves to their own or other students’ assignments (Price et al, 2003).  

The rationale is that if students are enabled within structured teaching sessions to reflect on the qualities specified in the assessment criteria, their ability to demonstrate those qualities will improve, along with their learning and achievement. “Any consideration of a department’s assessment strategies should surely therefore consider at least the inclusion of marking exercises in year one module or modules, as an important part of the students’ skills development” (Rust, 2002, p. 152). 

Aiming to develop all students’ assessment literacy is a key element of the ESJF. Students often have little awareness of what criteria will be applied to their work or may have very confused ideas about what constitutes a good assignment.  

Similarly, research shows that academic staff often have very different beliefs about what makes a good essay, for example. This is one of the reasons why staff should be conscientious to develop their own assessment literacy and work as a team in developing assessment criteria and applying consistent use of language, throughout the assessment process. For example, it ought not to be the case that what one staff member identifies as 'excellent' is called 'good' by another. All staff involved in a programme need to take responsibility for this, both within and between levels.  

Publishing the assessment criteria in course and module handbooks gives students an opportunity to familiarise themselves with the criteria, but this is insufficient to transmit the tacit elements associated with these judgements and key terms e.g. analysis, excellent analysis etc.  

Active, dialogic  opportunities therefore need to be created for developing staff and students' understanding of assessment criteria before, during and after completing assignments (Hill and West 2019), for example by: 

• Pre-task discussion of the assessment task using the criteria (nb avoid ‘briefings’ which are passive). 
• Negotiating and designing assessment criteria. 
• Commenting on plans and drafts by academic staff using criteria. 
• Self and peer assessment applying criteria. 
• Feedback proformas linked to criteria. 
• Sharing assessment rubrics which show how marks will be distributed.  

Any feedback given to students regarding an assessment task should relate to the published criteria. This may be during preparation or after submission.   

The feedback students receive should help them to: 

• Develop their response to the task to align with the assessment criteria  
• understand the reasons for the grade they were awarded 
• appreciate the strengths and areas for attention in the work they submitted 
• improve their performance in the next comparable assignment, where relevant. 

The assessment criteria have a key role in all of those functions. For instance, feedback proformas can be used for structuring feedback so that students receive guidance about their work that relates directly to the assessment criteria. Copies of feedback sheets should be available for external scrutiny. 

• Assessment criteria should be developed alongside the assessment task itself so that the demands of the assessment task on the student are properly understood at the time of designing the assessment. 
• Assessment criteria should address the module learning outcomes, although not necessarily all in a single assignment. Ideally, the language of the module specification’s learning outcomes is student-facing so that the same keywords can be used. 
• It is good practice to co-design assessment tasks and assessment criteria with students, this can remove barriers of confidence and anxiety, leading to better outcomes. If this is not possible, for example, because of PSRB requirements, they should be discussed with students at the start of the programme of learning that leads to the assessment. 
• Rehearsing the use of the assessment criteria with students may help to demystify the process. This could happen through the collaborative assessment by staff and students of an example of student work. 
• Assessment criteria and grade descriptors are not the same thing, are not used for the same purposes and should exist separately.  
• Assessment criteria and grade descriptors should be published to students at the beginning of the programme of study leading to the assessment. 
• Assessment criteria should be specific to the assignment and its level, and useful to the student in guiding them as to what should be submitted. 
• If performance measured against one criterion is more important than others and consequently will carry more weight in determining the mark awarded, this should be stated. 
• Each criterion listed should have feedback/ feedforward to the student after formative or summative assessment, either written or in tutorial. It is advisable therefore to keep the number of criteria manageable both for students and staff. 
• Ideally, the assessment criteria should state what is required to pass, but also indicate what is required to excel. Grade descriptors will state the requirements for achievement across a range of bands, but they will not be specific to the task set, and therefore some explanation of what for example, ‘excellent’ means in the context of the specific task set, is advisable. 
• The use of marking/ feedback proformas is recommended, and these should contain the previously published assessment criteria. This is for the purposes of aiding consistency in marking, providing clarity for the student as to the mark awarded, and also as an assurance of transparency and fairness in the process.

Bain, J. (2010). Integrating student voice: assessment for empowerment. Practitioner Research in Higher Education, 4(1), pp. 14-29. ISSN 1755-1382 

SEEC (2021) SEEC Credit Level Descriptors for Higher Education.

Bloxham, S. and Boyd, P.  (2007). Developing Effective Assessment in Higher Education. Maidenhead: McGraw Hill  

Gosling, D. and Moon, J. (2002). How to use learning outcomes and assessment criteria.  

London: SEEC 

Greatorex, J. (2002). Making accounting examiners’ tacit knowledge more explicit: developing grade descriptors for A Level. Research Papers in Education. 17, 211-226.  

Hill, J. & West, H. (2020) Improving the student learning experience through dialogic feed-forward assessment, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 45:1, 82-97.

Moon, J.  (2002). How to Use Level Descriptors. London: SEEC. 

Price, M. Rust, C. and O’Donovan, B. (2003). Improving students’ learning by developing their understanding of assessment criteria and processes. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education. 28, 147-164.  

Rust, C. (2002). The impact of assessment in student learning: how can the research literature practically help to inform the development of departmental assessment strategies and learner-centred assessment practices? Active Learning in Higher Education. 3(2), 145-158.