I have been an academic since 2013, where I started my teaching career while completing my PhD. During that time, I have had the opportunity to mark coursework from undergraduate psychology students, and this is one thing that I still do in my current role. In my role now, however, I have the responsibility of developing the coursework and assessment criteria (alongside marking), meaning that I need to ensure that this is clear to both the students who are completing the assessment and also the team who may be marking it.

Cohorts within psychology can often have hundreds of students, and I have taught up to 400 students at one time in a module. This means that I have had to facilitate marking the coursework of such a large group of students, and I have had to ensure that marking is consistent for all students. This is not always an easy task, as ensuring fairness and consistency across such a large cohort requires careful planning and clear communication of expectations.

The Department for Education has suggested that feedback should be meaningful, manageable, and motivating, and therefore it is one thing that academics should use within their own feedback processes. As an academic, I try to provide feedback in line with the assessment marking criteria, and I will try to use the same terms for both. But ensuring that students truly understand these terms and their implications is another matter altogether.

Research has suggested that when staff develop marking criteria for assessments and provide feedback, we may use words and phrases that students do not understand as much as we do. These terms, such as “critical discussion” and “research synthesis”, need to be written in terms that students can understand and see what they mean. If students cannot fully grasp what these terms require, they may struggle to meet the expectations set by the assessment criteria. This creates a barrier to success that could otherwise be mitigated through clearer communication and better support structures.

I was reading an article that suggested students and lecturers may view different aspects of coursework as the most important, and I believe that this can also influence how a student may perceive the coursework that they are completing. Students often see adding in relevant information and providing an argument as important in essays, whereas lecturers see understanding the topic as one of the key areas. This misalignment in priorities may contribute to students feeling confused or unsure about what is expected of them when completing an assignment.

One reason for this discrepancy in perception could be that students do not actually understand what some of the assessment criteria terms mean, and this is something we need to address as academics. Allowing students to become more confident in understanding assessment criteria, and ultimately feedback, will then ensure that we are providing the right support as academics. Without this understanding, students may be left second-guessing their own work or misinterpreting what is required of them.

To put it simply, we need to support students within their assessment literacy skills. If students can confidently interpret marking criteria and understand what is expected in their assignments, they are more likely to engage effectively with their work and achieve better outcomes.

The term “assessment literacy” refers to whether we can understand the key aspects of an assessment, and this is linked to whether we can understand marking criteria. As a result, the student can then attempt to judge whether their own work meets the criteria. Academics can do this fairly well, as we are often the ones who develop the assessments, but as a student who has not developed the assessment, understanding the assessment and criteria can be more difficult. The challenge then becomes how to bridge this gap and equip students with the tools they need to interpret and engage with assessment criteria effectively.

So how can we help students and support them with their assessment literacy?

• Deconstruct marking criteria. Explain the key words and give examples of what they mean in practice. This allows students to develop a deeper understanding of what is expected in their work.
• Provide explicit guidance. Offer clear explanations of assessment requirements, including clarification of learning outcomes, assessment criteria, and good academic practice.
• Use accessible terminology. Ensure that the language used in assessment rubrics is accessible to students, avoiding overly technical terms where possible or providing explanations alongside them.
• Encourage peer feedback. Ask students to assess each other’s work. This allows them to engage with the marking criteria actively and gain insights into how different approaches meet or fall short of expectations.
• Provide opportunities for students to engage with assessment criteria. Giving students practice in interpreting criteria, through exercises such as self-assessment activities, can help them become more confident in applying these standards to their own work.
• Develop student-centred rubrics. Involve students in the process of developing or revising rubrics using language they understand. A useful approach is framing criteria with ‘I will’ statements to make expectations clearer and more action-oriented.
• Use research-informed assessment approaches. Frameworks such as the EAT framework can help make assessment practices more transparent and ensure that students are fully aware of what is required for success.

Improving assessment literacy requires a collective effort from academics and institutions to provide clearer communication, better resources, and structured opportunities for students to engage with assessment criteria. By doing so, we can create a more supportive and effective learning environment that enables students to perform to the best of their abilities.