A multi-method case study of student and instructor well-being in assessment

Summative assessment is a pervasive feature of post-secondary learning environments that shapes not only how learning is evaluated but also how students and instructors experience well-being in the classroom context. Within classroom settings, routine assessment practices often function as controlled, consequential, and relationally distant events that may undermine basic psychological needs and students’ sense of well-being. Guided by self-determination theory, this multi-method instrumental embedded case study examined how collaboratively redesigning classroom assessment using autonomy-supportive principles reshaped the dynamics of assessment to improve student and instructor well-being within a single undergraduate course. The case was bounded by two offerings of the course and involved a collaborative process in which assessments were revised to align with established quality guidelines and need-supportive features. This process created a naturally occurring comparison across two course offerings in which one cohort of students ( n = 23) completed the original assessments and a subsequent cohort ( n = 42) engaged with the redesigned versions. Students in both cohorts completed surveys assessing perceptions of assessment quality, well-being, and success, while the instructor participated in three interviews documenting her lived experience of assessment. Students engaging with the redesigned assessments reported lower anxiety and stronger perceptions of fairness and need satisfaction, while the instructor described reduced emotional burden and greater alignment between assessment practices and pedagogical values. These findings illustrate that within a specific learning context, redesigning assessment practices to intentionally support basic psychological needs created a shift that meaningfully improved student and instructor well-being.