This article outlines a methodology for characterising features of programme-level assessment environments so that the relationship between features of the assessment environment and students' learning response can be studied. The methodology was developed through the detailed case study of nine undergraduate degree programmes: one in each of three contrasting discipline areas in each of three contrasting universities. Each case study involved examination of course documentation, interviews with academics and interviews with students, following which each degree programme was coded in relation to a range of features of the assessment environment, such as the proportion of marks derived from examinations and the volume and timeliness of feedback on assignments. Programmes were found to differ profoundly in terms of variables that are known to have implications for student-learning processes. They also differed widely in the extent to which they illustrated the application of conventional wisdom about curriculum design, embodied in national quality assurance guidelines and the Bologna Agreement. Programmes were found to have either a high volume of summative assessment or a high volume of formative-only assessment, but never both at the same time. Programmes also differed in the mechanisms used to make goals and standards clear, having either highly explicit curriculum design or high volumes of written and oral feedback, but never both at the same time. The findings suggest that there are distinctive programme-level assessment environments that operate in quite different ways despite all programmes studied being subject to the same quality assurance code of practice. (Contains 1 figure and 3 tables.)