What should English studies fix first in feedback?
By Student Voice Analytics
feedbackEnglish studies (non-specific)Prioritise timeliness and consistency. In the National Student Survey (NSS), Feedback comments skew negative overall, with 57.3% negative and a sentiment index of −10.2, and tone is most challenging among young and full‑time cohorts (−15.8 and −16.1). English studies, within the discipline taxonomy used for sector benchmarking, sits slightly positive in its wider area (+2.2), so the fastest gains come from protecting what works while guaranteeing prompt returns and calibrated marking across modules.
Is delayed feedback the first issue to fix?
One of the primary concerns for students in English studies is the delayed return of feedback on assignments. Such delays hamper students' ability to learn and improve, because they do not receive timely insights into their work. Timeliness and usefulness underpin effective learning: slow turnaround breaks the link between assessment and subsequent tasks. Publish a feedback service‑level expectation by assessment type and track on‑time rates at programme and module level.
Staff should evaluate current mechanisms, drawing on student voice surveys to understand how delays affect them. Use digital platforms to streamline annotation and structured comments, and add short feed‑forward notes indicating what to do next. Instead of handwritten commentary, concise marginal notes or templates within a digital platform reduce marking time while maintaining quality. Institutions should address turnaround operationally and strategically so the feedback loop supports iterative learning, reflection, and improvement.
How do we reduce inconsistency in grading and feedback quality?
Students often voice concerns about inconsistencies in grading and the quality of feedback they receive in English studies. Personalised feedback helps, but variable standards across markers erode trust. Establish common marking criteria and exemplars, and make them visible in the assessment brief. Run brief calibration sprints (shared marking of samples) before major assessment points and add spot checks on specificity, actionability, and alignment to criteria.
Ensuring consistency in how work is assessed and feedback is given sustains fairness. Training and regular workshops align approaches among staff. Making the criteria and expected standards transparent to students reduces misunderstandings and supports a more confident approach to tasks.
How do we level up tutor engagement so support is consistent?
The level of investment tutors show affects progression and satisfaction. Where tutor engagement dips, students receive less specific feedback and can feel unsure how to improve. Programme leaders should lift practice from provision that tends to score better in feedback tone, such as staged feedback, dialogic sessions, and checklists commonly used in part‑time contexts, and adapt them for large, full‑time cohorts.
Workshops and continuous professional development can align teaching methods and expectations so students receive actionable feedback at predictable points. Use digital tools to make feedback more efficient without sacrificing detail, and schedule brief, structured dialogue opportunities in high‑volume modules.
Are marking criteria specific enough to guide students?
Unclear marking criteria weaken performance and raise anxiety. Concise rubrics with annotated exemplars help students understand standards and apply feedback to the next task. Staff should design and communicate detailed, comprehensible criteria within the assessment brief and on digital learning platforms. Align comments to criteria and add feed‑forward so students can see precisely how to improve. Short calibration and periodic moderation ensure criteria are applied consistently.
How does slow return of marks disrupt students' time management?
Slow return of marks disrupts planning in programmes where iterative drafting, close reading, and revision are central. When students do not know the outcome of a submission, they misallocate time and delay starting subsequent work. Use digital tools to accelerate marking while maintaining individualised comments, and align return dates to assessment schedules so students can act on feedback within the module.
Close the loop visibly. Share brief “you said → we did” updates each term on on‑time performance and any changes to feedback formats, so students see progress and plan with confidence.
When does one‑to‑one interaction make the biggest difference?
Individual interactions are most effective when they focus on feed‑forward and interpretation of criteria for upcoming tasks. Scheduled consultations and simple online booking systems enable targeted support without over‑engineering contact. Offer flexible opportunities so students opt in when they need specific advice, while maintaining independence for those who prefer it. This balance respects diverse learning preferences and strengthens the feedback culture across the cohort.
How Student Voice Analytics helps you
Student Voice Analytics translates NSS open‑text into actionable insight for Feedback in English studies. It tracks sentiment and topics over time by cohort and subject, enables drill‑downs to programme and module, and supports calibration by surfacing where tone and turnaround are weakest. Like‑for‑like comparisons across the Common Academic Hierarchy help you evidence improvement against the right peer group. Exportable, anonymised summaries make it straightforward to brief module teams, monitor on‑time rates, and evaluate whether structured feed‑forward and exemplars are landing with your cohort.
Request a walkthrough
Book a Student Voice Analytics demo
See all-comment coverage, sector benchmarks, and governance packs designed for OfS quality and NSS requirements.
-
All-comment coverage with HE-tuned taxonomy and sentiment.
-
Versioned outputs with TEF-ready governance packs.
-
Benchmarks and BI-ready exports for boards and Senate.
More posts on feedback:
More posts on English studies (non-specific) student views: