1. Home
  2. Explore
  3. About the University
  4. Academic Affairs
  5. Teaching and Learning
  6. Guidance
  7. Assessment & Feedback
  8. Assessment Types, Methods & Alignment

Teaching & Learning

Assessment Types, Methods & Alignment

Selecting Assessment Types and Methods

Effective assessment design begins with clarity about what students are expected to learn and how that learning should be evidenced, before selecting assessment methods or types. This page distinguishes between assessment types, which describe the purpose and role of assessment in relation to learning, and assessment methods, which describe how students demonstrate their learning. 

Table with two cells offering definitions of 'Assessment Type' and 'Assessment Method'

The information below provides a range of assessment methods to help you explore options and identify approaches appropriate to your context. It introduces the assessment method categories used in TU Dublin’s programme and module catalogue (Akari), alongside a compendium of assessment methods co-created with TU Dublin students. Together, these provide examples of different ways students can demonstrate their learning and a common framework for describing assessment, rather than an exhaustive list of possibilities. Assessment tasks may vary significantly in form and design within and across categories, depending on the specific learning context and intended outcomes.

The page also offers guidance on selecting assessment methods that are fit for purpose and appropriate to your context. It explores how assessment can be 'constructively aligned' with intended learning outcomes and informed by principles of good assessment practice, while considering factors such as authenticity, inclusivity, generative AI resilience and integration, and 'practicability' (workload and feasibility).

Note: View the processes for making changes to approved modules at TU Dublin, including amending assessment methods.


Reflect:

As you read through this page, use a current assessment as a reference point. Consider how well the assessment method(s) provide valid evidence of the intended learning outcomes and support the assessment's purpose. You might also reflect on whether alternative approaches could offer different opportunities for students to demonstrate their learning.

Note: Coherence between outcomes, learning activities, and assessment types and methods is known as 'constructive alignment', a principle we will return to below.


 

Before selecting an assessment method, it is important to first identify the type of assessment you are designing. Assessment types describe the purpose of assessment in relation to learning. In other words, they help answer questions such as:
  • Why am I assessing?
  • What role should this assessment play in the learning process?
  • When should the assessment occur?
Starting with purpose helps ensure that the assessment method is chosen for the right reason. Once you are clear about why you are assessing, you can make more informed decisions about how students will demonstrate their learning.

The table below outlines some common assessment types, including summative and formative assessment, assessment of, for, and as learning, and self- and peer-assessment. The descriptions focus on the purpose of each assessment type and when it is typically used, helping you consider which approach best supports your intended learning outcomes and educational goals.

Reviewing this table, use a current assessment as a reference point and consider:

  • Why are you assessing?
  • When does the assessment take place in the learning process?
  • What do you want students to learn from the assessment experience?
  • Which assessment type(s) best matches that purpose

 

Note: While these assessment types are presented separately for clarity, they are not always distinct in practice. A single assessment activity can serve multiple purposes and may incorporate features of more than one assessment type. For example, self-assessment is often used to support assessment as learning by developing students' capacity for reflection and self-regulation, while formative assessment typically has a strong emphasis on assessment for learning through the use of feedback to inform future learning. Rather than viewing these categories as mutually exclusive, it may be more useful to consider which purposes are most strongly represented within a particular assessment design.

 

Tablet outlining different types of assessment including why and when they are typically used

Beyond the approaches listed in this table, assessment literature describes a range of other assessment types. Here are some of the more common ones:

Diagnostic Assessment

Ipsative Assessment

Synoptic Assessment
Diagnostic assessment is used before teaching begins to understand what learners already know, where they may need help, and how learning can best support them. Ipsative assessment is used throughout learning to understand how learners are progressing over time, how their current performance compares with their previous performance, and how they can continue to improve. Synoptic assessment focuses on whether learners can draw together and apply learning from different topics, modules, or areas of study. The emphasis is on integration, synthesis, and making connections.
e.g. Pre-module questionnaires and quizzes, prerequisite skills assessments, knowledge checks.   e.g. Learning portfolios and journals, draft-to-final artefact comparisons, personal learning contracts and progress reviews. e.g. Capstone projects and dissertations, integrated projects. practical or performance assessments (essentially any assessment that requires learners to bring together and apply learning from different parts of a course)


 

Read our guidance on Assessment Of, For, and AS Learning here.

Diversifying and Aligning Assessment 

A useful way to think about assessment is not only in terms of how effectively it measures learning (its 'validity') but also whether it gives all learners a fair and meaningful opportunity to demonstrate what they know and can do. One approach often suggested to support this is to 'diversify' the types and methods of assessment that we use. Diversifying assessment means using a purposeful range of assessment types and methods within a module or programme. O’Neill and Padden (2021) distinguish between variety and choice as two dimensions of diversification: variety involves increasing the range of assessment methods used, while choice involves providing learners with opportunities to select between two or more different assessments within a module.
When selected purposefully and aligned with intended learning outcomes, a diversified assessment strategy can provide a range of benefits for students, educators, and programmes, including:

A table outlining six proposed benefits of diversifying assessment

 

While diversifying assessment broadens the ways in which students can demonstrate learning, it is also useful to consider how different assessment activities work together to provide a richer picture of achievement. Sometimes described as a layered or ‘Swiss cheese’ approach, this involves students demonstrating their learning through multiple, connected assessments, each providing evidence of different aspects of knowledge, skills, or competence. Rather than relying on a single assessment task, a layered approach combines multiple sources of evidence to create a more complete picture of learning. In addition to strengthening validity, it can support academic integrity and increase resilience to inappropriate uses of generative AI by requiring students to demonstrate learning across different stages, formats, or contexts. Expand the Layered Assessment section below to learn more.

Diversification, however, is not an end in itself. The value of any assessment strategy depends on how effectively it supports and evidences the intended learning outcomes. This is where constructive alignment becomes important. Constructive alignment involves deliberately aligning learning outcomes, teaching and learning activities, and assessment tasks so that students have meaningful opportunities to develop and demonstrate the intended knowledge, skills, and competencies (Biggs & Tang, 2011).

Constructive alignment provides a framework for selecting assessment types and methods purposefully, and ensuring that assessment choices are driven by learning outcomes rather than by variety alone. Expand the Constructive Alignment section below to explore how this approach can support effective assessment design.

'Constructive alignment’, a concept from curriculum design, involves deliberately connecting intended learning outcomes, learning and teaching activities, and assessment, so that students have meaningful opportunities to develop and demonstrate the knowledge, skills, and competencies that matter most. From this perspective, assessment design starts with the learning students are expected to achieve, with assessment types and methods selected to provide appropriate evidence of those outcomes and support valued learning.

The goal is not simply to increase the range of assessment methods or innovate for its own sake, but to make deliberate choices about how students can best demonstrate their learning. Constructive alignment provides an important foundation for these decisions, but should be considered alongside broader principles of good assessment design. As outlined in our LTA Assessment Principles, assessment should be meaningful, educational, developmental, inclusive, trustworthy, and sustainable: supporting important learning, feedback and learner agency; providing equitable opportunities to demonstrate achievement; generating credible evidence; and remaining manageable for students and staff.

Together, constructive alignment and these principles provide a framework for purposeful assessment design, helping programme and module teams consider not only whether assessment aligns with learning outcomes, but also how well it supports meaningful learning, development, inclusion, academic integrity, and a sustainable learning experience.  But coming back to the point:


What is 'Constructive Alignment'?

'In constructive alignment we systematically align the teaching/learning activities, as well as the assessment tasks, to the intended learning outcomes. This is done by requiring the students to engage the learning activities required in the outcomes'  (Biggs and Tang, 2007, p. 11).

In simple terms, constructive alignment means making sure that what students are asked to do in their learning activities and assessments directly supports what they are supposed to learn. When designing assessment, constructive alignment implies that every assessment task should directly measure the intended learning outcomes and require students to demonstrate the knowledge or skills those outcomes describe. In other words, assessments should be purposefully designed to align with and support the learning you want students to achieve. 'Alignment' is a key concept in curriculum and instructional design that refers to the deliberate and coherent connection of learning outcomes, teaching methods, and assessments to facilitate effective student learning.

Constructive alignment is a broad curriculum design approach, informed by constructivist learning theories, that considers the relationship between learning outcomes, teaching and learning activities, assessment, and the overall student learning experience. While all of these elements are important, our focus here is on how constructive alignment can support decisions about assessment types and methods. You can read more about constructive alignment itself in our guidance on Curriculum Design

Reflection:

When reviewing or redesigning assessment, it can be helpful to pause and consider not only whether an assessment aligns with a learning outcome, but whether it is the most appropriate or optimal way for students to demonstrate that learning.

Thinking about the assessment strategy for one of your modules, consider:

  • Are all learning outcomes being assessed appropriately, or are some over- or under-assessed?
  • Do the assessment types and methods provide valid and meaningful evidence of your learning outcomes?
  • Could other assessment types or methods enable students to demonstrate those outcomes more effectively?
  • Do the assessments collectively provide a balanced and comprehensive picture of student achievement?


As you reflect, remember that constructive alignment is not about matching individual assessments to learning outcomes in a mechanical way. Rather, it involves considering how the assessment strategy as a whole supports meaningful learning and provides credible evidence that students have achieved the intended outcomes.

Misalignment Between Outcomes and Assessment

Your reflection may have highlighted potential areas of misalignment between learning outcomes and assessment. This can arise when the assessment strategy does not adequately enable students to demonstrate, or lecturers to accurately evaluate, achievement of the intended learning outcomes. Some common examples include:

  • The learning outcomes require learners to analyse, evaluate, or create, but the assessment tasks primarily test factual recall or reproduction of information.
  • An assessment task measures a narrow subset of the learning outcomes, leaving some important knowledge, skills, or competencies unassessed.
  • The learning outcomes emphasise practical or applied skills, but assessment relies exclusively on written examinations or essays.
  • Learners are expected to work collaboratively to complete an assessment task, but teamwork, collaboration, or group-working skills are not explicitly referenced in the learning outcomes.
  • Assessment places considerable emphasis on presentation, design, or technical skills that are not reflected in the learning outcomes or assessment criteria.
  • The assessment strategy includes multiple tasks that repeatedly assess the same outcome, while other outcomes receive little or no assessment attention.
Note: Misalignment is not always obvious. It can arise when assessment methods, assessment criteria, task design, or the overall assessment strategy place emphasis on learning that differs from, or only partially reflects, the intended learning outcomes. Identifying and addressing these mismatches is a key step in designing assessments that provide valid, meaningful, and equitable evidence of student learning.

Misalignment of Assessments and 'Teaching and Learning Activities'

It is worth remembering that misalignment is not always a problem of assessment tasks failing to match learning outcomes. Constructive alignment emphasises the relationship between learning outcomes, teaching and learning activities, and assessment, reminding us that students need meaningful opportunities to develop the knowledge, skills, and competencies that assessment subsequently asks them to demonstrate.

In practice, misalignment can occur when learners are assessed on forms of performance that they have had limited opportunity to develop, practise, or receive feedback on during the module. For example, students may be expected to undertake critical evaluation, professional judgement, collaboration, or authentic problem-solving in assessment, despite most learning activities focusing on content transmission or knowledge acquisition.

When considering the alignment of your assessment strategy, it can be helpful to look beyond the assessment tasks themselves and consider the broader learning experience. Constructive alignment reminds us that assessment is only one part of a connected system. Students are more likely to succeed when learning activities, opportunities for practice, feedback, and assessment all work together to support the development of the intended learning outcomes.

Reflection

Thinking about a the same module, consider the following:

  • How well do the teaching, learning activities, and assessment work together to support achievement of the learning outcomes?
  • Do students have sufficient opportunities to develop and practise the knowledge, skills, and competencies that assessment requires them to demonstrate?
  • Are the teaching and learning activities (for example, lectures, discussions, workshops, labs, tutorials, projects, practice exercises, or other learning tasks students undertake) aligned with the kinds of thinking, performance, or application expected in the assessments?
  • Where do students receive feedback, guidance, or opportunities to improve before summative assessment?

Reliability requires that assessment of the same learning by different modes should render similar outcomes (Bloxham & Boyd, 2007, 38)


Reliability is an important consideration when reviewing or redesigning assessment practices. If you are exploring alternative assessment methods for a module, you may wish to consider:

  • What learning are you trying to assess? Is the new assessment method measuring the same learning outcomes as the existing method?
  • Are there features of the new format that could introduce unintended variation in student performance?
  • If student performance changes under the new assessment method, how will you establish whether this is due to learning differences or the assessment approach itself?

 

A layered assessment strategy is an approach in which multiple, connected assessment activities are deliberately designed to build on one another and collectively provide evidence of learning. One could argue that while diversification is about broadening the range of assessment, 'layering' is about connecting them. In a 2024 discussion about securing assessment tasks 'against AI misuse' in the 'AI in Education Podcast' (Bowen & Fleming, 2024) Phil Dawson, of the Centre of Research in Assessment and Digital Learning (CRADLE) at Deakin University, introduced the idea of the 'Swiss Cheese model' as one way of layering assessment types and methods to create multiple sources of evidence of learning, making assessment more 'resilient' to inappropriate uses of generative AI.

An AI-resilient assessment strategy is one that can generate valid evidence of learner achievement and uphold academic integrity even when learners have access to AI tools. The ‘Swiss Cheese’ model starts from the premise that no single assessment method is entirely ‘immune to' or secure against AI. Instead, it advocates using multiple, connected assessment activities to create several sources of evidence of learning, making the overall assessment strategy more 'resilient' to inappropriate uses of AI.

Diagram using slices of Swiss Cheese to illustrate a layered approach to AI-resilient assessment

 

The ‘Swiss Cheese’ approach to layered assessment draws on a model from safety and risk management, where multiple layers of defence work together to reduce the likelihood that a gap or weakness in any single layer will result in failure. Applied to assessment, the key idea is that, rather than searching for a single ‘AI-proof’ assessment, we take a more pragmatic approach: assessing learners’ knowledge, skills, and competencies multiple times and in different ways. By layering assessment methods, the vulnerabilities of one method can be offset by the strengths of others, reducing the risk that AI can bypass genuine learning. In the illustration above, each layer represents a different assessment activity, and each ‘hole’ represents its particular vulnerabilities. Together, the layers provide stronger assurance of learning and academic integrity than relying on a single assessment task.

For example,  instead of a single, high-stakes written assignment, students might develop a project through a sequence of connected assessment tasks, such as a proposal, a written submission, and an oral presentation or defence. Additional elements, including draft submissions, peer feedback activities, or reflective commentaries, could provide further evidence of the learning process. Together, these components may both create a richer picture of student achievement and mitigate against the risks of ai-supported academic misconduct. 

 

Reflection:

Think about a module assessment strategy that you would like to review. Using the lens of the 'Swiss Cheese' model, consider how your choice of assessment types and methods can work together to provide multiple, complementary sources of evidence of learning and reduce reliance on any single assessment method. Consider the following questions:

  • What types and methods of assessment are you currently using, and what does each tell you about what students have learned?
  • Are any important learning outcomes, knowledge, skills, or competencies being assessed only once, or in only one way?
  • What are the ‘holes’ in your assessment methods? For example, where might students be able to bypass demonstrating their own learning through inappropriate use of Gen AI?
  • Could you combine different assessment types and methods so that the strengths of one help to address the weaknesses of another? What might this look like?

Important: As you consider a layered approach, also reflect on what is practical and proportionate. What combination of assessment activities can you realistically design, support, mark, and moderate, and what will be manageable for students to complete?

This guidance page emphasised the importance of starting with the purpose of assessment and considering which assessment type or types best serve that purpose in your context. We have also explored the importance of constructive alignment with intended learning outcomes, purposeful diversification of assessment across modules and programmes, and layered approaches that can strengthen assessment and build resilience to inappropriate uses of generative AI.  With these foundations in place, the next step is to focus on assessment methods: the specific forms through which students demonstrate their learning and achievement of learning outcomes. Importantly, there is rarely a single 'correct' assessment method. Different methods offer different strengths, opportunities, and challenges depending on what is being assessed and the context in which learning takes place. And. as we have seen, each has its own specific vulnerabilities where questions of academic misconduct and AI-substitution are concerned. 

The table below presents the assessment method categories used in TU Dublin's programme and module catalogue (Akari). These categories provide a shared language and common framework for describing assessment across programmes and modules, supporting consistency in curriculum design and documentation. They should not, however, be viewed as an exhaustive list of assessment possibilities. Assessment methods can be designed and adapted in many different ways within and across categories, and innovative approaches may combine elements of multiple methods to create assessment experiences that are appropriate to the intended learning outcomes, discipline, and learning context.
Below this table, you will also find a compendium of assessment methods developed at TU Dublin that provides a student-informed perspective on assessment design. Co-created with TU Dublin NTUTORR Student Champions, it showcases a wide range of assessment methods, including alternatives to more traditional approaches, and explores the purpose, benefits, challenges, and practical considerations associated with each.
As you review the assessment method categories, consider:

  • Which methods might provide the most valid and appropriate means for students to demonstrate achievement of the intended learning outcomes?
  • How well might each method support constructive alignment between the learning outcomes, learning activities, and assessment task?
  • Are there opportunities to diversify assessment methods across your modules to broaden the range of skills, capabilities, and forms of achievement that students can demonstrate?
  • What other methods might you use to support assessment that is authentic, meaningful, and relevant to disciplinary or professional practice? 
  • How resilient are your current assessment methods to AI-substitution and misconduct, and what permutation (or layering) of methods  could provide stronger assurance of learning and academic integrity?

A table detailing categories of Assessment Methods from TU Dublin's PMC

TU Dublin/NTUTORR Compendium of Assessment Methods

 

Developed by TU Dublin NTUTORR Student Champions, this compendium provides valuable student perspectives on a wide range of assessment methods and their use in practice. Explore the resource to gain insights into the benefits, challenges, and design considerations associated with different approaches to assessment.

 

Cover of NTUTORR TU Dublin Compendium of Assessment Methods

 

 

 

Navigation

What is Assessment?
Authentic Assessment
Assessment Guidance Home