Formative in the Field: How Pass/Fail Grading Reduced Assessment
Workload
Assessment overview
This case study describes the redesign of a first-year geoscience fieldwork module to improve safety, sustainability, accessibility, student wellbeing, and the quality of assessment and feedback. The module moved from a single intensive overseas trip to two shorter UK-based residential trips and shifted from fully summative coursework to a pass/fail model with formative field-based tasks. This created more space for personalised feedback, reduced workload pressures for both students and staff, and modernised the curriculum to reflect current geoscience priorities. The case study also reflects on implementation challenges, staff workload, positive student responses, and the continuing development of the redesigned module.
Change overview
In 2025–262025–26, the module was restructured from a single longer trip in southern Spain to two shorter UK-based residential trips: a two-day trip to Dorset and a seven-day trip to Cornwall. This change was driven by several factors, including health and safety concerns such as heat exposure and wildfire risk, the environmental impact of international travel, a desire to make use of classic British geology locations, and an opportunity to modernise the curriculum while reducing the intensity of fieldwork for students.
The redesign also created space to rethink assessment and feedback. Previously, the module relied on multiple summative assessments completed and marked during the trip itself, creating very high workloads for both staff and students and leaving little time for students to reflect on or act on feedback. In the new model, the module moved to pass/fail assessment of core competencies, supported by asynchronous online preparation, spring-term workshops, and formative field-based tasks. These include mapping, sedimentary logging, structural interpretation, field notebook work, and a new group synthesis project presented as a poster.
A key benefit of the redesign is that it allows more meaningful and personalised feedback. Students now receive written and verbal formative feedback during the trip and structured written feedback on field notebooks afterwards. Spreading fieldwork across two trips also improves flexibility, accessibility, and wellbeing, while the new groupwork element better reflects authentic geoscience practice. Overall, the redesigned module retains the core learning outcomes of field skills development while making the experience safer, more sustainable, more inclusive, and more educationally effective.
Design decisions and practicalities
The redesign addressed several interconnected issues: high student workload, heavy staff marking demands, intense assessment scheduling, and limited opportunities for timely, meaningful feedback. Moving the fieldtrip to the UK
also responded to concerns around safety, sustainability, and the environmental impact of international travel. The case for change was informed largely by staff experience, including long-term observations that recent cohorts appeared less prepared for fieldwork and that programme enrolment had shifted towards routes with less prior field exposure. Student feedback from previous years reinforced these concerns, with repeated comments about stress, exhaustion, and insufficient preparation for core field tasks such as cross-sections and sedimentary logs. Together, these factors highlighted the need for a redesigned model that reduced intensity, improved preparation, and created better conditions for learning and feedback.
The redesign required a substantial initial investment of staff time for reconnaissance visits, curriculum and activity design, field guide preparation, and complex logistical planning across four separate UK trips. While this increased administrative burden, especially for a small number of staff, it also created opportunities to involve a wider range of colleagues in field teaching and may help build longer-term capacity in the department. Concerns that pass/fail assessment might reduce student engagement were not borne out; all students met the required competency standards, and the new structure appears to have reduced workload pressure while maintaining learning outcomes. Student feedback was strongly positive, with high levels of satisfaction with workload, feedback, and wellbeing support during fieldwork. Future development will focus on clarifying pass standards through rubrics and further refining the field exercises.