Write assignment instructions that connect the task with its purpose and criteria
Draft clear instructor-side assignment instructions by aligning purpose, required work and criteria, with an original fictional prompt repair.
About 5 min read · Allow extra time for the practical checks
Tell students what they are being asked to produce, why the work matters for their learning and how its quality will be judged. Then check that those parts describe the same assignment. A clear task can still mislead students if its assessment criteria reward something the instructions never ask them to do.
Use the approved course requirements and applicable review process. This guide helps instructors draft ordinary written instructions. It does not change an existing assessment, approve a grading scheme or supply permission for a tool or form of assistance. Students completing an assignment should follow their actual brief and ask the instructor about unresolved requirements.
Make the intended work visible
Start with the learning you intend the task to develop, the material students will use and the work they will submit. Separate an activity from a product: reading two passages is a step; a written comparison may be the deliverable. Name both when students need both to understand the assignment.
Ohio State University’s transparent-assignment guidance, checked on 3 November 2026, explains Mary-Ann Winkelmes’s TILT framework through purpose, tasks and criteria for success. It asks instructors to clarify the learning, steps and qualities of a successful submission. The TILT transparent-methods page, also checked on 3 November, recommends discussing learning goals and criteria before students begin. The original example below applies those general distinctions; it does not reproduce either source’s template or assignment.
Do not describe a broad benefit without connecting it to the actual work. “Develop critical thinking” leaves students guessing about what they will practise. If the task concerns comparing two documents, explain which comparison decisions matter and why students are making them.
Test an original fictional instruction set
The assignment, passages and proposed instructions below are invented teaching material. They describe no actual course, student submission or approved assessment.
Imagine a course exercise using two prepared descriptions of a community garden. One description emphasises the layout of planting areas; the other emphasises how volunteers organise work. The instructor intends students to compare the descriptions’ priorities using passages supplied in a labelled packet. The exercise does not ask them to investigate the garden or recommend changes to its management.
An initial prompt says:
Discuss the community garden. Use evidence and be analytical.
The wording does not tell students which material to examine, what comparison to make or what to produce. A more usable draft could say:
Compare what the two supplied descriptions emphasise about the community garden. Write a commentary organised around the priorities you identify, using specific passages from both descriptions to explain your comparison. Distinguish what each description states from your interpretation. This exercise practises comparing representations of the same subject; it does not require new field research or a management recommendation.
The instructor would still need to supply the actual submission details and criteria through the course’s required format. This paragraph is a worked example of task wording, not a complete assignment ready to issue.
| Intended element in the fictional plan | What the instructions should make clear | Mismatch to repair |
|---|---|---|
| Compare descriptive priorities | Examine both supplied accounts of the same subject | Asking only for a general account of the garden |
| Support the comparison | Select relevant passages from each description | Rewarding unsupported impressions as evidence |
| Explain interpretation | Connect passage details to a stated comparison | Treating a list of quotations as sufficient analysis |
| Produce a commentary | Identify the required product | Quietly grading an unrequested management proposal |
Describe quality alongside completion
Check that the criteria identify qualities of the intended work. “Uses both texts” may show coverage but does not by itself establish a reasoned comparison. For the fictional task, an instructor could look for relevant passage selection and an explanation of how the details support the comparison, within the criteria actually adopted for the exercise.
Keep administrative requirements distinguishable from intellectual criteria. A file format tells students how to submit; it does not explain what makes an argument convincing. Both may matter, but students should not need to infer one from the other.
If examples are used, explain what they illustrate. Avoid presenting one model as the only acceptable argument when the assignment permits different supported interpretations. Use material you are permitted to share and follow the applicable process for any student work.
Check the instructions from the student’s position
Ask a colleague to read the proposed instructions and describe the task back to you. Can they identify the product, material, purpose and criteria without drawing on your private planning notes? Repair contradictory wording before circulation and follow the course’s process for changes or clarification.
For the learner’s perspective, the assignment-brief guide shows how students turn instructions into a plan. The rubric-checking guide shows how readers look for evidence against stated criteria. Use those perspectives to check whether the instructions you write enable the work you intend to assess.
