Over the last few years, universities have found themselves navigating rapid change in assessment. New technologies, changing student expectations, accessibility requirements and the emergence of generative AI have all prompted institutions to think carefully about how their assessment systems support teaching and learning. For a sector that is probably still picking up pieces from the Covid years, it demonstrates a need for agility (and perhaps a break!).

Keeping up

As a Learning Technologies Manager, my concerns are (in order), my team, our students, our teaching staff and the question ‘are our learning platforms working for them?’ Of course, there is never a simple answer, what might meet our needs perfectly well one year, may cause untold problems the next. Particularly when dealing with the rapid pace of change in capabilities or commercial decisions of vendors, vs the relative glacial pace at which UKHE operates. So naturally, we are always looking at how we can improve processes to allow to us to be more agile.

Whilst sector leading when it was rolled out, the demands on our end-to-end submission process have evolved, considerably. Requiring us to peel back layer upon layer of dependency, where a number of our assessment processes had become closely linked to the functionality available within Turnitin. Therefore, in 2022 (yep!) we started to think about redesigning our assessment processes to reduce dependency on any single supplier.

Fast forward to 2026 and the substantive work has been done. We have moved assessment submission, marking and feedback fully into Canvas, while retaining the option to use similarity checking where required. From the 2026/27 academic year, students will submit work, receive feedback and engage with assessments through a single platform, creating a simpler and more consistent experience. There is more to do of course, but there always will be.

For students, the benefits are straightforward. Rather than moving between multiple systems, assessment activity takes place in one place. Feedback is easier to find, processes are more consistent across modules and accessibility is much improved. The goal here was not simply to replace one technology with another, but to reduce unnecessary complexity in the student journey.

For staff, again, less to navigate, more reliability during assessment periods and platforms that meet their evolving needs. However, change is always hard and everyone is time poor, so getting to grips with new ways of working take time. That said, the response has been overwhelming, I don’t recall a time where we’ve had so much engagement and dialogue about our assessment processes, this is only a good thing. This is entirely down to a meticulously planned and well executed project led by Faye and George, in close partnership with our colleagues in the Faculties and in IT Services, a really impressive effort.

Less glacial and more mountain goat

Higher education is operating in an environment where educational technologies are evolving quickly, far quicker than our institutions can. Recent sector discussions around AI, data privacy and supplier terms and conditions have highlighted the importance of universities understanding and managing their own digital ecosystem.

Earlier this year, concerns were raised across the sector regarding proposed changes to Turnitin’s End User Licence Agreement (opens in a new tab) relating to AI processing of student submissions. We worked alongside colleagues in IT Services and Data Protection to assess the implications and monitor developments. 

Whilst the sector debate of Summer 2026, has created a great deal of conversation (opens in new tab). One lesson here is not that any one supplier is good or bad. Rather, it is that universities need to be more agile.

By separating submission, marking and feedback from plagiarism and similarity checking, we are creating a more agile assessment environment. Similarity checking (currently provided by Turnitin) remains available where academically appropriate, but the University’s core assessment processes are no longer tied to an ‘assessment adjacent’ service. This gives us the necessary agility to respond to future changes in the technology landscape, including developments to products, policies and sector expectations.

Most importantly, this change reflects a broader shift in how we think about educational technology. Good assessment is not defined by a particular platform. It is defined by clear expectations, meaningful feedback, accessibility, academic integrity and a positive student experience. Technology should support those aims, not dictate them.

Are our learning platforms working for our students and staff? Watch this space.