Map assessment coverage before adding an assignment

Start with a map, not a new assignment. List each intended learning outcome alongside the tasks learners already complete, the evidence those tasks produce and the criteria used to judge it. Then check whether every outcome has a suitable assessment opportunity and whether repeated tasks serve different purposes.

A map does not prove that an assessment is valid or that every learner has achieved an outcome. It gives the programme team a practical starting point for examining the brief, the marking criteria and the learning journey together.

The QAA’s higher education guidance includes programme-level assessment mapping among practices that support coherent, progressive learning. Ofqual’s qualification design research also discusses the balance between alignment, mastery and efficiency. Neither suggests removing useful assessment simply because an outcome appears more than once. ([qaa.ac.uk](https://www.qaa.ac.uk/en/the-quality-code/2024/advice-and-guidance-2024/quality-code-advice-and-guidance-principle-11))

Gather the documents before the meeting

Bring the current programme and module outcomes, assessment briefs, marking criteria, assessment calendar and any relevant qualification specification. Include formative activities as well as work that contributes to a result. Ask teaching staff and an assessment or quality lead to review the map together; learner feedback can help identify where the workload or purpose of a task is unclear.

For each task, note when it happens, whether it is practice or assessed work, and what learners are actually asked to produce. A topic appearing in teaching materials is not, by itself, an assessment opportunity.

A fictional business course: what the map reveals

Imagine a business course with three outcomes. The team reviews its existing tasks and criteria. All outcomes, tasks and criteria below are fictional; they are not an awarding-body specification.

Learning outcome	Existing task and purpose	Expected evidence and marking criterion	Initial review
LO1: Interpret costs and justify a supplier choice.	Week 3 quote exercise; formative practice.	Short comparison of two quotes. Tutor checks whether the learner identifies and compares relevant costs.	Early supported practice.
LO1	Week 6 draft recommendation; formative feedback.	Draft choice and reasons. Feedback checks the use of cost and service information.	Opportunity to apply feedback before final work.
LO1	Week 9 final recommendation; contributes to the course result.	Written recommendation. Criterion: justify a supplier choice using relevant cost and service evidence.	Clear assessed opportunity; review repetition rather than assuming it is wasteful.
LO2: Evaluate a financial risk and propose a proportionate contingency.	Week 5 budget analysis; contributes to the course result.	Budget with an identified uncertainty. Criterion: identify one financial risk.	Partial coverage: identification alone does not require evaluation or a contingency.
LO3: Communicate a recommendation to a business audience.	Week 10 presentation; contributes to the course result.	Short presentation. Criterion: communicate the recommendation and reasons clearly for the intended audience.	Clear assessed opportunity; check the brief and criterion support the intended standard.

The team has found no clear assessment opportunity for all of LO2. A learner could identify a risk in the budget analysis without evaluating its significance or proposing a response. The supplier recommendation also does not currently ask for those things. The team should inspect the full briefs before confirming the gap, but it should not assume that mentioning risk elsewhere is enough.

Review the gap and the repetition

Before creating another assignment, consider whether an existing task could elicit the missing evidence at the right level. In the example, the team might propose adding a short risk-and-contingency section to the final recommendation:

Identify one financial risk affecting your recommendation. Explain its likely effect and propose a proportionate contingency, giving a reason for your choice.

The team would also need a corresponding criterion that addresses evaluation and the proposed contingency, not just risk identification. Check the expected depth, available information, word limit and marking approach. If the existing task cannot accommodate the outcome fairly, a separate assessment opportunity may still be necessary.

LO1 appears three times, but the activities are not automatically duplicates. The quote exercise introduces the skill, the draft provides feedback and the final recommendation assesses it. Ask what learners can improve between attempts and whether staff can explain that progression. If two tasks really require the same evidence at the same level, with no distinct purpose or required role, the team could explore combining or redesigning them.

Use a reusable mapping table

Copy this structure into a shared document or spreadsheet. Use one row per outcome–task link, so that repeated coverage remains visible.

Outcome and reference	Task, timing and purpose	Evidence learners produce	Criterion or judgement reference	Coverage and action
Insert the full outcome and reference.	Name the task, when it takes place and whether it is formative or contributes to a result.	Describe the response, performance or product required.	Record the relevant criterion or, for practice, what the tutor checks.	Mark as clear, partial or unclear; record the question, owner and next step.

Read the map in both directions: follow each outcome to its evidence and criteria, then inspect each task to see which outcomes it serves. Check that the evidence is sufficient in breadth and depth, that learners have a realistic opportunity to produce it, and that tasks and deadlines are manageable. A task can support more than one outcome, but each claimed link needs a clear basis.

Agree changes before putting them into use

Record the proposed change, its reason, the affected briefs and criteria, the decision-maker and the intended cohort. Check the current awarding-body specification and any required permissions, as well as internal programme approval and quality assurance arrangements, before changing or removing assessed work. Where a task or criterion is prescribed, the team may not be free to amend it. Tell learners and markers about approved changes in good time, and review the map again after delivery.

For the marking stage, EduMark Studio is a workspace that connects evidence, criteria and feedback. The programme team’s map can help clarify those connections before assessors begin their review. ([edumark.ai](https://www.edumark.ai/))