Expectations not in the assessment brief can feel like an unfair reason for a lower grade. Yet the brief may not contain every marking detail. Learning outcomes, a rubric, module guidance and clarifications shared before submission can also explain what a lecturer expected. The first step is to identify whether the feedback applies a published criterion or introduces a requirement you could not reasonably have known about.
To organise your review, compare the feedback with the published nursing marking criteria and identify the exact point needing clarification. Our feedback action-table workflow can help separate a requested improvement from an expectation you cannot locate in the brief.
This guide is for UK nursing students reviewing an already marked assignment. It explains how to ask for a criterion-based explanation and decide whether a formal review is appropriate. University rules vary, so check your own institution’s procedures and deadlines.
Check all the assessment documents
Place the feedback beside the brief, marking rubric, learning outcomes, module handbook and any class-wide clarification issued before the deadline. Note the version and date of each document. A short brief may say “critically evaluate” without spelling out every element of critical writing. A request to compare evidence, assess limitations or justify a clinical judgement may therefore follow from the task.
By contrast, a direction to use one named theory, source, model or section heading may be a new requirement if it appeared nowhere in the published materials. The distinction depends on the exact wording and context. The Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) says assessment criteria should align with learning outcomes, and feedback should relate to those criteria. See our separate guide to planning from a nursing assignment brief for the steps to take before submission.
Was the lecturer giving an example or applying a rule?
Feedback such as “NICE guidance could have strengthened this discussion” may illustrate an evidence gap. It is different from “marks were deducted because you did not cite this particular NICE guideline” when no specific guideline was required. Similarly, “be more critical” might describe a weakness under an evaluation criterion, while “you had to use Theory X” needs a traceable source in the assessment instructions.
Do not assume that every suggestion caused the grade. A marker may use one missing example to explain a broader weakness. Ask which criterion was affected, how much weight it carried and what the work actually demonstrated. That makes the discussion more precise than arguing that the grade simply feels too low.
Ask for a written explanation
Contact the lecturer courteously and quote the exact feedback point. A focused message could say:
Thank you for the feedback. The comments say I should have included [specific element]. I have checked the brief, learning outcomes, rubric and guidance available before submission but cannot find this requirement. Could you explain which published criterion it relates to, how its absence affected the mark and what a stronger response to that criterion would have shown?
The lecturer may show how the comment follows from a broader criterion. If the answer refers to expectations not in the assessment brief or other pre-submission guidance, keep that explanation. Save the original documents, marked work and correspondence in date order.
Decide whether the concern is about judgement or process
Disagreeing with a marker’s academic assessment is different from identifying a possible problem in how the published criteria were applied. An academic appeal may concern an assessment outcome, but universities usually have specific permitted grounds and time limits. In England and Wales, the Office of the Independent Adjudicator (OIA) can examine aspects of the process but normally cannot replace a marker’s academic judgement with its own.
If a substantial deduction appears to depend on an undisclosed rule, ask the module leader, programme team or students’ union advice service which route applies. It may be an informal marking query, an academic appeal or a complaint about the communication of assessment requirements. Check the deadline at once. A request for clarification may not pause it.
Build a clear evidence record
A short, documented account is stronger than a long expression of disappointment. Gather the brief and rubric available before submission, relevant announcements, your submitted work, the feedback and the lecturer’s response. Then write one paragraph identifying the requirement, where the feedback says it affected the grade and why you believe it was not communicated.
For example: “The feedback states that Theory X was compulsory and marks were deducted for omitting it. The brief, rubric, learning outcomes and class guidance did not name Theory X. I request a review of whether the published criteria were applied.” Avoid alleging bias without evidence. Ask for the remedy permitted by the university’s process rather than demanding a particular mark.
Frequently asked questions
Can a lecturer expect something not written word for word in the brief?
Yes. A published criterion such as critical evaluation can require comparison, limitations and a reasoned judgement without listing every example. A narrowly specified compulsory theory or format is different. Ask where and when it was communicated.
Can I appeal because I believe the work deserved more marks?
Usually, disagreement alone is not enough. Check your university’s appeal grounds and identify an evidence-backed issue with the marking process or published criteria. The OIA distinguishes academic judgement from matters it can examine about process.
Should I wait for the lecturer’s reply before checking appeal rules?
No. Seek clarification, but check the formal deadline immediately. Ask a students’ union adviser or university casework team how to preserve your position if time is short.
Conclusion
When a lower grade appears to reflect expectations not in the assessment brief, compare the feedback with every document students received before submission. Ask the lecturer to identify the criterion and explain its effect on the mark. If a substantial requirement truly was undisclosed, use the university’s review procedure with a focused evidence record.
References and further guidance
- Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) (2018) UK Quality Code: Advice and Guidance – Assessment.
- Office of the Independent Adjudicator (OIA) (2022) What is an academic appeal?
- Office of the Independent Adjudicator (OIA) (2022) Complaints we can and cannot review.
