--- title: 'Less is more: Rethinking over-assessment in online postgraduate taught education' url: 'https://jessica.digital/articles/over-assessment-online-pgt' markdown: 'https://jessica.digital/articles/over-assessment-online-pgt.md' date: '2026-10-26' description: 'Online postgraduate programmes were built for people with jobs, families, and limited evenings. Too many of them still assess as if their students had none of those things.' taxonomy: category: - online-education - leadership tag: - assessment - over-assessment - online-pgt - student-experience - academic-governance --- [ All articles](https://jessica.digital/articles) 26 October 2026 8 min read [Online education](https://jessica.digital/articles/category:online-education) [Leadership](https://jessica.digital/articles/category:leadership) # Less is more: Rethinking over-assessment in online postgraduate taught education ![](https://jessica.digital/user/pages/03.articles/over-assessment-online-pgt/featured.jpg) ## On this page *Online postgraduate programmes were built for people with jobs, families, and limited evenings. Too many of them still assess as if their students had none of those things.* Assessment is the single most powerful lever we hold over student learning. It defines the curriculum as students experience it, shaping what they regard as necessary and how they allocate their time and effort (Francis et al., 2026; Jessop, 2023). The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education's (QAA, 2022) guidance on digital and blended pedagogy places assessment at the centre of the online learning journey, linking engagement, academic standards, and the development of skills. Yet the Office for Students' (2022) review of blended learning found that online demands were often set module by module without coordination, leaving some students with more work than they could realistically engage with. In online postgraduate taught (PGT) education, the assessment lever is often pulled far harder than it needs to be. In my role as Director of Academic Practice, and through serving on programme approval and validation panels across institutions ranging from post-92 to Russell Group, I have seen how rarely over-assessment is a deliberate decision. It accumulates. Each module is designed, approved, and revised on its own terms, each carries its own summative tasks, and nobody sets out to give a part-time student a deadline every three weeks for two years. This article argues that over-assessment is now one of the most significant, and most fixable, threats to the online PGT student experience. ## The evidence base: A decade of warnings The sector has known about this problem for more than a decade. The Transforming the Experience of Students through Assessment (TESTA) project audited assessment patterns across UK degree programmes and found extraordinary variation: from 12 summative assessments on one programme to 227 on another (Jessop & Tomas, 2017). Across the sample, students typically encountered around eight times as much summative as formative assessment. That ratio matters. High-summative, low-formative assessment diets reinforce grade orientation and narrow, instrumental approaches to learning (Jessop et al., 2014). Harland et al. (2015) described the result as an "assessment arms race", in which modules compete for students' attention at the expense of deeper engagement. Strong module-level assessments, in other words, do not automatically add up to a coherent programme (Gibbs & Dunbar-Goddet, 2009). Crucially, Jessop et al. (2012) found that quality assurance processes themselves help to produce these patterns. Validation documentation is heavily skewed towards summative assessment, leaving formative and developmental work discretionary rather than designed in. This is uncomfortable for those of us working in academic governance, but it is also an opportunity: if our processes helped to create over-assessment, they can help to undo it. More recent evidence suggests the problem is intensifying rather than receding. The 2025 Student Academic Experience Survey recorded an average of 5.8 summative and 4.1 formative assignments per semester, a notable rise on earlier waves (Neves et al., 2025, as cited in Rowsell, 2025). Commentators have warned that universities risk over-assessing further as they respond to generative AI by layering additional checks onto existing tasks (Rowsell, 2025). Meanwhile, Yu et al. (2023) found that heavier assessment loads were associated with lower pass rates, and that the size of individual assessments was the strongest negative indicator. Jessop (2023) argues that two decades of TESTA evidence now point in the same direction: students gain agency and engagement when programmes assess less, but more coherently. ## Why online PGT students feel it most Online PGT students represent a distinct typology of learner. They are predominantly mature, part-time, and time-poor, balancing professional responsibilities, caring commitments, and personal wellbeing alongside study. In my work developing a self-diagnostic study skills tool for this population, time management consistently emerges as a critical domain of need. For these students, every additional summative point is a fixed date that must be negotiated against a working life. The national data now reflect this pressure. In the 2025 Postgraduate Taught Experience Survey, 16% of PGT students had considered leaving their course, and balancing studies with other commitments has become the most common main reason (Advance HE, 2025). Overall satisfaction with course quality reached a record 86%. The problem, then, is not that students dislike what we teach them. It is that the shape of our programmes does not fit the shape of their lives. The wider student population is moving in the same direction. Among full-time undergraduates, 68% now undertake paid work during term time, up from 56% in 2024, while weekly independent study fell from 13.6 to 11.6 hours (Neves et al., 2025). The "working student" is no longer a niche online PGT profile; it is becoming the sector norm. For online learners specifically, time poverty and time-related conflicts have been identified as the main factor behind withdrawal, particularly for part-time, non-traditional students juggling work, family, and health (Xavier et al., 2022). A recent analysis of a fully online postgraduate diploma similarly found high early attrition, with time management among the key factors affecting retention (Tive et al., 2025). ## The costs of over-assessment Over-assessment carries costs across three interlinked groups: - **Students** lose depth. Constant deadlines reward completion over understanding, crowding out the reflective, work-applied learning that professionals enrol for. Reducing assessment volume has been associated with improved wellbeing and lower assessment-related anxiety (Francis et al., 2026). - **Staff** lose time. Marking load scales with the number of summative points, displacing feedback dialogue and curriculum development. - **Institutions** lose students and confidence. Attrition on part-time online programmes is costly, and an assessment regime that cannot be described coherently at programme level is difficult to defend to an external examiner or regulator. It is worth noting that students themselves often prefer multiple smaller assessments, because they spread risk (Pye et al., 2025). Reducing volume is not, therefore, simply a matter of removing tasks. It requires careful redesign so that fewer summative points are supported by meaningful formative practice. ## A governance question, not only a pedagogic one This is where academic governance earns its place. Programme approval and periodic review are the moments when institutions could ask: what is the total assessment burden here, and is each item necessary to evidence a programme learning outcome? Too often, panels review modules one at a time, and the total is never added up. Recent research explains why this pattern persists. Practitioners across seven Australian universities identified three times as many barriers to programme-level assessment planning as enablers; the barriers were structural, while the enablers depended almost entirely on personal relationships and goodwill (Charlton & Newsham-West, 2024). Francis et al. (2026) conclude that the failure to reduce assessment at programme level is primarily architectural rather than cultural. Those of us who design and run approval processes are, in other words, part of the architecture. Drawing on my panel experience, I would propose three questions that every online PGT approval or review should ask: 1. **Volume:** How many summative points does a student encounter across the whole award, and how are they distributed across the calendar? 2. **Alignment:** Which programme learning outcomes are assessed repeatedly, and which are not assessed at all? 3. **Scaffolding:** Where is the formative practice that prepares students for each high-stakes task? ## Looking ahead Less assessment is not lower standards. Done well, it is the precondition for higher ones: more time for feedback, more space for formative practice, and a clearer line of sight between what students do and what the award certifies. As generative AI reshapes what unsupervised coursework can reliably evidence, which is the subject of my next article, the case for assessing less, but better, has only grown stronger. ## References Advance HE. (2025). *Postgraduate Taught Experience Survey 2025*. https://advance-he.org/knowledge-hub/postgraduate-taught-experience-survey-2025/ Charlton, N., & Newsham-West, R. (2024). Enablers and barriers to program-level assessment planning. *Higher Education Research & Development, 43*(5), 1074–1088. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2024.2307933 Francis, N., Birtill, P., Davies, M., Fall, L., Hartley, P., James, R., Rutherford, S., & Tree, D. (2026). Managing the shift to programme-level assessment: Structural barriers, stakeholder experiences and mechanisms of sustained transition. *Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education*. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2026.2724543 Gibbs, G., & Dunbar-Goddet, H. (2009). Characterising programme-level assessment environments that support learning. *Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34*(4), 481–489. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930802071114 Harland, T., McLean, A., Wass, R., Miller, E., & Sim, K. N. (2015). An assessment arms race and its fallout: High-stakes grading and the case for slow scholarship. *Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 40*(4), 528–541. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2014.931927 Jessop, T. (2023). *Student agency and engagement: Transforming assessment and feedback in higher education*. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429347962 Jessop, T., El Hakim, Y., & Gibbs, G. (2014). The whole is greater than the sum of its parts: A large-scale study of students' learning in response to different programme assessment patterns. *Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39*(1), 73–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2013.792108 Jessop, T., McNab, N., & Gubby, L. (2012). Mind the gap: An analysis of how quality assurance processes influence programme assessment patterns. *Active Learning in Higher Education, 13*(2), 143–154. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787412441285 Jessop, T., & Tomas, C. (2017). The implications of programme assessment patterns for student learning. *Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42*(6), 990–999. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2016.1217501 Neves, J., Freeman, J., Stephenson, R., & Rowan, A. (2025). *Student Academic Experience Survey 2025*. Advance HE & Higher Education Policy Institute. https://www.hepi.ac.uk/reports/student-academic-experience-survey-2025/ Office for Students. (2022). *Blended learning review: Panel report*. https://www.officeforstudents.org.uk/media/7626/blended-learning-review-panel-report.pdf Pye, R. E., Gnagi, L. K., Chuah, A. B. Q., & Chung, K. L. (2025). High stakes in the assessment arms race: A mixed-methods analysis of reducing assessment in an undergraduate psychology programme. *Psychology Learning & Teaching, 24*(2), 195–213. https://doi.org/10.1177/14757257251336295 Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. (2022). *Assessment in digital and blended pedagogy* (Hallmarks of Success playbook). https://www.membershipresources.qaa.ac.uk/docs/membership-resources/teaching-learning-and-assessment/hallmarks-of-success-assessment-in-digital-and-blended-pedagogy.pdf Rowsell, J. (2025, June 23). Universities "at risk of over-assessing" in response to AI. *Times Higher Education*. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/node/737471 Tive, D., Moodley, K., & Van Ryneveld, L. (2025). Examining the trends and patterns of student retention in a fully online postgraduate diploma programme. *Journal of African Education and Traditional Learning Systems, 6*(3), 197–217. https://doi.org/10.31920/2633-2930/2025/v6n3a11 Xavier, M., Meneses, J., & Fiuza, P. J. (2022). Dropout, stopout, and time challenges in open online higher education: A qualitative study of the first-year student experience. *Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning*. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680513.2022.2160236 Yu, D., Swanepoel, C., Sims, D., & Anciano, F. (2023). Do assessment loads affect student academic success? An investigation at an economics department at the undergraduate level. *South African Journal of Higher Education, 37*(5), 237–259. https://doi.org/10.20853/37-5-5397 ## Tags [Assessment](https://jessica.digital/articles/tag:assessment) [Over assessment](https://jessica.digital/articles/tag:over-assessment) [Online PGT](https://jessica.digital/articles/tag:online-pgt) [Student experience](https://jessica.digital/articles/tag:student-experience) [Academic governance](https://jessica.digital/articles/tag:academic-governance) ## Related articles 21 Jul 2026 [Leadership](https://jessica.digital/articles/category:leadership) ### [Navigating leadership, identity, and innovation in Higher Education's third space](https://jessica.digital/articles/third-space-leadership) Higher education’s 'third space' is the vital, hybrid intersection where academic strategy, digital technology, and operational infrastructure meet. Drawing on reflective frameworks and interdisciplinary leadership, this article examines how boundary-spanning practitioners navigate cultural friction, preserve pedagogical rigour, and guide institutions through digital transformation and Generative AI. [Third space](https://jessica.digital/articles/tag:third-space) [Academic governance](https://jessica.digital/articles/tag:academic-governance) [Generative AI](https://jessica.digital/articles/tag:generative-ai) 19 Jun 2026 [Online education](https://jessica.digital/articles/category:online-education) ### [Celebrating a milestone: Fellowship of the Staff and Educational Development Association (FSEDA)](https://jessica.digital/articles/fseda-fellowship) Discover what it takes to navigate change, bridge institutional gaps, and drive student success in the evolving world of online learning. This look into achieving Fellowship of the Staff and Educational Development Association (FSEDA) explores strategic academic practice, the "third space" of higher education, and inclusive design for global student cohorts. [FSEDA](https://jessica.digital/articles/tag:fseda) [Professional recognition](https://jessica.digital/articles/tag:professional-recognition) [Third space](https://jessica.digital/articles/tag:third-space) 4 Feb 2025 [Information systems](https://jessica.digital/articles/category:information-systems) ### [Chequing for edge cases in digital automation](https://jessica.digital/articles/chequing-edge-cases) Writing a cheque after six years highlighted how universities' digitalisation often overlooks edge cases. Technology should enhance, not replace, human interaction, ensuring flexibility for diverse needs. [Digitalisation](https://jessica.digital/articles/tag:digitalisation) [Edge cases](https://jessica.digital/articles/tag:edge-cases) [Inclusive design](https://jessica.digital/articles/tag:inclusive-design) --- ## Navigation - Parent: [Articles](https://jessica.digital/articles.md) - Next: [Navigating leadership, identity, and innovation in Higher Education's third space](https://jessica.digital/articles/third-space-leadership.md)