SRHE Blog

The Society for Research into Higher Education

Tag Archives: feedback


by Leave a comment

Reflecting on five years of feedback research and practice: progress and prospects

by Naomi Winstone and David Carless

Over the past few years, feedback research and practice in higher education have experienced sustained research interest and significant advancements. These developments have been propelled by a deeper understanding of student responses to feedback, the impact of cultural and sociomaterial factors, and the affordances and challenges posed by digital assessment and feedback methods. In 2019, we published a book in the SRHE series titled Designing Effective Feedback Processes in Higher Education: A Learning-Focused Approach. Five years later, we find it pertinent to reflect on the changes in research, practice, and discourse surrounding feedback processes in higher education since the book’s release.

Shifting paradigms in feedback processes

The book aimed to achieve two primary objectives: to present findings from the SRHE-funded ‘feedback cultures’ project and to synthesise evidence on feedback processes that prioritise student learning – what we called learning-focused feedback. This evidence was then translated into practical guidance and stimulus for reflection. A core distinction made in the book was between an ‘old paradigm’, characterized by the one-way transmission of feedback comments from educators to students, and a ‘new paradigm’, which emphasises student learning through active engagement with feedback processes of different forms, including peer feedback, self-feedback and automated feedback.

The impact of recent developments

The past five years have seen seismic shifts affecting feedback processes. The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated the feasibility of alternative approaches to assessment and feedback, debunking many myths about insurmountable constraints. It brought issues of relationality and social presence to the forefront. Additionally, the launch of ChatGPT in November 2022 sparked debates on the distinct value of human involvement in feedback processes. Concurrently, higher education has grappled with sector-wide challenges, such as the devaluation of tuition fees in the UK and the intensification of the consumer-provider relationship.

Significant developments in feedback research and practice

Since 2019, feedback research and practice have evolved significantly. Two developments stand out to us as particularly impactful:

1. The ongoing boom of interest in feedback literacy

Feedback literacy research has become a fast-growing trend within research into feedback in higher education. The basis of feedback literacy is that students need a set of competencies which enable them to make the most of feedback opportunities of different kinds. And for students to develop these competencies, teachers need to design opportunities for students to generate, make sense of and use a variety of feedback inputs from peers, the self, teachers, or automated systems.

Student feedback literacy includes the ability to appreciate and judge the value of feedback inputs of different forms. This attribute remains relevant to both human and non-human feedback exchanges. Sometimes feedback inputs are off-target or inaccurate, so responsibility lies with the learner in using information prudently to move work forward. This is particularly pertinent in terms of inputs or feedback from generative AI (GenAI) to which we turn next. Judging the value and accuracy of GenAI inputs, and deciding what further probing or verifying is needed become important learning strategies.

2. Challenges and affordances of GenAI

The potential impact of technological disruption is often overestimated. However, the advent of ChatGPT and other large language models (LLMs) has undeniably generated both excitement and anxiety. In higher education, while assessment design has been the primary concern, discussions around feedback have also intensified.

Given the escalating and unsustainable costs of teaching in higher education, AI is sometimes seen as a panacea. Providing feedback comments – a time-consuming task for academics – could be outsourced to GenAI, theoretically freeing up time for other activities such as teaching, administration, or research. However, we caution against this approach. The mere provision of feedback comments, regardless of their origin, epitomises an old paradigm practice. As argued in our book, a process-oriented approach to feedback means that comments alone do not constitute feedback; they are merely inputs into a feedback process. Feedback occurs only when students engage with and act upon these comments.

Nevertheless, AI offers potential benefits for new paradigm feedback practices. A potential benefit of GenAI feedback is that it can be provided at a time when students need it. And if GenAI can assist educators in drafting feedback comments, it could free up time for more meaningful engagement with students, such as facilitating the implementation of feedback, supporting peer dialogue, and enhancing evaluative expertise. GenAI can also help students generate feedback on their own work, thereby developing their own evaluative judgement. In short, GenAI may not be harmful to feedback processes if we hold true to the principles of new paradigm learning-focused approaches we presented in our book.

Looking ahead: future directions in feedback research and practice

What might the next five years hold for feedback research and practice? Feedback literacy is likely to remain a key research theme because without feedback literacy it is difficult for both teachers and students to derive benefits and satisfaction from feedback processes. The potential and pitfalls of GenAI as a feedback source is likely to be a heavily populated research field. Methodologically, we anticipate a shift towards more longitudinal studies and a greater focus on behavioural outcomes, acknowledging the complexity of feedback impacts. These can be investigated over long-term durations as well as short-term ones because the benefits of complex, higher-order feedback often take time to accrue. As researchers, we are privileged to be part of a dynamic international community, working within a rapidly evolving policy and practice landscape. The field abounds with questions, challenges, and opportunities for exploration. We are excited to see what developments the future holds.

Naomi Winstone is a cognitive psychologist specialising in the processing and impact of instructional feedback, and the influence of dominant discourses of assessment and feedback in policy and practice on the positioning of educators and students in feedback processes. Naomi is Professor of Educational Psychology and Director of the Surrey Institute of Education at the University of Surrey, UK. She is also an Honorary Professor in the Centre for Research in Assessment and Digital Learning (CRADLE) at Deakin University, Australia. Naomi is a Principal Fellow of the Higher Education Academy and a UK National Teaching Fellow.

David Carless works as a Professor at the Faculty of Education, University of Hong Kong, and is Head of the Academic Unit SCAPE (Social Contexts and Policies in Education). He is one of the pioneers of feedback literacy research and is listed as a top 0.1% cited researcher in the Stanford top 2% list for social sciences. His books include Designing effective feedback processes in higher education: A learning-focused approach, by Winstone and Carless, 2019 published by Routledge. He was the winner of a University Outstanding Teaching Award in 2016. The latest details of his work are on his website: https://davidcarless.edu.hku.hk/.


by Leave a comment

My Marking Life: The Role of Emotional Labour in delivering Audio Feedback to HE Students

by Samantha Wilkinson

Feedback has been heralded the most significant single influence on student learning and achievement (Gibbs and Simpson, 2004). Despite this, students critique feedback for being unfit for purpose, considering that it does not help them clarify things they do not understand (Voelkel and Mello, 2014).

Despite written feedback being the norm in Higher Education, the literature highlights the benefit of audio feedback. King et al (2008) contend that audio feedback is often evaluated by students as being ‘richer’ than other forms of feedback.

Whilst there is a growing body of literature evaluating audio feedback from the perspective of students, the experiences of academics providing audio feedback have been explored less (Ekinsmyth, 2010). Sarcona et al (2020) is a notable exception, exploring the instructor perspective, albeit briefly. The authors share how some lecturers in their study found it quick and easy to provide audio feedback, and that they valued the ability to indicate the tone of their feedback. Other lecturers, however, stated how they had to type the notes first to remember what they wanted to say, and then record these for the audio feedback, and thus were doing twice as much work.

Whilst the affectual impact of feedback on students has been well documented in the literature (eg McFarlane and Wakeman, 2011), there is little in the academic literature on the affectual impact of the feedback process on markers (Henderson-Brooks, 2021). Whilst not specifically related to audio feedback, Spaeth (2018) is an exception, articulating that emotional labour is a performance when educators seek to balance the promotion of student learning (care) with the pressures for efficiency and quality control (time). Spaeth (2018) argues that there is a lack of attention directed towards the emotional investment on the part of colleagues when providing feedback.

Here, I bring my voice to this less explored side by exploring audio feedback as a performance of emotional labour, based on my experience of trialling of audio feedback as a means of providing feedback to university students through Turnitin on the Virtual Learning Environment. This trial was initiated by colleagues at a departmental level as a possible means of addressing the National Student Survey category of ‘perception of fairness’ in relation to feedback. I decided to reflect on my experience of providing audio feedback as part of a reflective practice module ‘FLEX’ that I was undertaking at the time whilst working towards my Masters in Higher Education.

When providing audio feedback, I felt more confident in the mark and feedback I awarded students, when compared to written feedback. I felt my feedback was less likely to be misinterpreted. This is because, when providing audio feedback, I simultaneously scrolled down the script, using it as an oral catalyst. I considered my audio feedback included more examples than conventional written feedback to illustrate points I made. This overcomes some perceived weaknesses of written feedback: that it is detached from the students’ work (McFarlane and Wakeman, 2011).

In terms of my perceived drawbacks of audio feedback, whilst some academics have found audio feedback to be quicker to produce than written feedback, I found audio feedback was more time-consuming than traditional means; a mistake in the middle of a recording meant the whole recording had to be redone. I toyed with the idea of keeping mistakes in, thinking they would make me appear more human. However, I decided to restart the recording to appear professional. This desire to craft a performance of professionalism may be related to my positionality as a fairly young, female, academic with feelings of imposter syndrome.

I work on compressed hours, working longer hours Monday-Thursday. Working in this way, I have always undertaken feedback outside of core hours, in the evening, due to the relative flexibility of providing feedback (in comparison to needing to be in person at specific times for teaching). I typically have no issue with this. However, providing audio feedback requires a different environment in comparison to providing written feedback:

Providing audio feedback in the evenings when my husband is trying to get our two children to sleep, and with two dogs excitedly scampering around is stressful. I take myself off to the bedroom and sit in bed with my dressing gown on, for comfort. Then I suddenly think how horrified students may be if they knew this was the reality of providing audio feedback. I feel like I should be sitting at my desk in a suit! I know they can’t see me when providing audio feedback, but I feel how I dress may be perceived to reflect how seriously I am taking it. (Reflective diary)                     

I work in an open plan office, with only a few private and non-soundproof pods, so providing audio feedback in the workspace is not easy. Discussing her ‘marking life’, Henderson-Brooks (2021:113) notes the need to get the perfect environment to mark in: “so, I get the chocolates (carrots nowadays), sharpen the pens (warm the screen nowadays), and warn my friends and relatives (no change nowadays) – it is marking time”. Related to this, I would always have a cup of tea (and Diet Coke) to hand, along with chocolate and crisps, to ‘treat’ myself, and make the experience more enjoyable.

When providing feedback, I felt pressure not only to make the right kind of comments, but also in the ‘correct’ tone, as I reflect below:

I feel a need to be constantly 100% enthusiastic. I am worried if I sound tired students may think I was not concentrating enough marking their assessment; if I sound low mood that I am disappointed with them; or sounding too positive that it does not match their mark. (Reflective diary)

I found it emotionally exhausting having to perform the perfect degree of enthusiasm, which I individually tailored to each student and their mark. This is confounded by the fact that I have an autoimmune disease and associated chronic fatigue which means I get very tired and have little energy. Consequently, performing my words / voice / tone is particularly onerous, as is sitting for long periods of time when providing feedback. Similarly, Ekinsmyth (2010) says that colleagues in her study felt a need to be careful about the words used in, and the tone of, audio feedback. This was exemplified when a student had done particularly well, or had not passed the assignment.

Emotions are key to the often considered mundane task of providing assignment feedback to students (Henderson-Brooks, 2021).  I have highlighted worries and anxieties when providing audio feedback, related to the emotional labour required in performing the ‘correct’ tone; saying appropriate words; and creating an appropriate environment and atmosphere for delivering audio feedback. I recommend that university colleagues wishing to provide audio feedback to students should:

  1. Publicise to students the purpose of audio feedback so they are more familiar with what to expect and how to get the most out of this mode of feedback. This may alleviate some of the worries of colleagues regarding how to perform for students when providing audio feedback.
  2. Deliver a presentation to colleagues with tips on how to successfully provide audio feedback. This may reduce the worries of colleagues who are unfamiliar with this mode of feedback.
  3. Undertake further research on the embodied, emotional and affective experiences of academics providing audio feedback, to bring to the fore the underexplored voices of assessors, and assist in elevating the status of audio feedback beyond being considered a mere administrative task.

Samantha Wilkinson is a Senior Lecturer in Childhood and Youth Studies at Manchester Metropolitan University. She is a Doctoral College Departmental Lead for PhDs in Education. Prior to this, she was a Lecturer in Human Geography at the same institution. Her research has made contributions regarding the centrality of care, friendship, intra and inter-generational relationships to young people’s lives. She is also passionate about using autoethnography to bring to the fore her experiences in academia, which others may be able to relate to. Twitter handle:@samanthawilko