Advance HE's cartoon project shows how student feedback can improve teaching materials
Updated Aug 21, 2026
Student feedback can do more than judge teaching after a module has finished. It can improve the materials while they are still being developed. On 19 August 2026, Advance HE published Cartoon creation centre: co-creating visual pedagogies across disciplines. The practice article describes academics and students designing analogy-based cartoons together, then testing and refining them through surveys, comments and classroom observation. For Student Experience teams, quality professionals and PVCs, the useful development is the method. Put student voice inside the teaching-design cycle, then keep the evidence specific enough to show what should change.
What has changed in student feedback for teaching pilots
Advance HE's article brings together examples from the Cartoon Creation Centre, an interdisciplinary network that uses workshops, brainstorming and collaborative feedback to turn teaching stories into visual resources. In one data analysis module, Dr Aruneema Mahabir used student feedback to refine a cartoon explaining Type I and Type II errors. Students first encountered the concepts through a conventional lecture and table. In a follow-up seminar, 64 per cent correctly identified a Type I error and 57 per cent identified a Type II error.
Six weeks later, the cartoon was introduced and followed by a short survey. Sixty-two per cent of students reported a good understanding of the two errors, while 86 per cent said the cartoon improved their understanding. Qualitative comments added the explanation missing from those figures: students who identified as visual learners said the relatable scenarios and imagery made the distinction clearer than text-heavy definitions. These measures answer different questions, so the results should not be treated as a simple before-and-after gain. Their value lies in combining a performance check, self-report and comments rather than relying on one headline number.
"With collaboration, feedback and a well-designed analogy, complex concepts can become easier for students to understand and remember."
The article also links to a June 2026 University of Lincoln study of co-designed cartoons. Its survey of 60 undergraduates found that exposure to the cartoons was associated with 1.55 more correct answers out of nine, a 17.2 per cent improvement in cumulative performance. However, the authors describe the evidence as preliminary: the effective analytical sample was 21, the work took place at one UK university with mostly home students, and it measured only short-term outcomes. The practical signal is promising, but it is a case for careful local testing rather than immediate institution-wide claims.
What this means for institutions
First, teaching pilots need an evaluation design before they need a success story. The Advance HE example separates several questions that universities often blur together: whether students understood a concept, whether they believed a resource helped, and why they found it useful. A quality team can apply the same discipline to other teaching innovations by agreeing a small number of outcome measures, collecting an open comment, and recording participation and timing. The benefit is an evidence trail that shows both what happened and how students experienced it.
Second, feedback should arrive early enough to change the next version. Mahabir refined the draft through student comments, while the wider network used collaborative review to improve other materials. That approach aligns with research showing why end-of-unit surveys can miss the moment for useful change. For institutions, the practical step is to place a short check-in at the point when course teams can still revise an example, activity or explanation for the current or next cohort.
Third, small pilots need proportionate claims. An 86 per cent self-reported result can be useful without proving that a resource will work across subjects, cohorts or student groups. Teams should retain the question wording, response count, timing and open comments, then repeat the measure when the resource is used again. If a pilot expands, compare results by context and look for contrary comments as well as positive themes. This keeps co-creation connected to evaluation rather than turning a promising classroom example into a universal conclusion.
How student feedback analysis connects
Open comments matter here because they explain the mechanism behind a score. A rating can show that students found a cartoon helpful. Comments can show whether the benefit came from the analogy, visual sequence, language, humour or chance to discuss the concept. They can also surface confusion or accessibility concerns hidden by an average. A clear student comment analysis governance checklist helps teams decide who will review those comments and how small groups will be protected. It also keeps each finding linked to a design change.
Manual review may be enough for one small pilot. When the same approach moves across modules and cohorts, a reproducible method becomes more useful. Student Voice Analytics can help institutions compare open-text themes consistently while keeping the original comments traceable. The analysis should support academic judgement, not replace it: course teams and students still need to decide whether a finding warrants a change and test whether the next version works better.
FAQ
Q: What should institutions do now if they want to evaluate a teaching pilot with student feedback?
A: Define the intended learning change before the pilot starts. Use one or two structured measures, add an open question asking what helped or hindered understanding, record who responded and when, and agree who will act on the findings. Repeat the same core measures when the material is used again so the team can distinguish a one-off reaction from a recurring pattern.
Q: What is the timeline and scope of the Advance HE development?
A: Advance HE published the practice article on 19 August 2026. It describes an interdisciplinary teaching network, a data analysis module example and ongoing computer science work at Queen's University Belfast. The linked University of Lincoln study was published online on 2 June 2026. This is UK higher education practice evidence, not a regulatory change or an implementation requirement.
Q: What is the broader implication for student voice?
A: Student voice can be part of teaching design as well as retrospective evaluation. Students can help create a resource, test it and explain why it does or does not work. Institutions still need to distinguish participation from proof of impact, but bringing students into the design cycle makes feedback more timely and gives course teams a clearer route from comment to change.
References
[Advance HE]: "Cartoon creation centre: co-creating visual pedagogies across disciplines" Published: 2026-08-19
[Cogent Education]: "Digital storytelling in economics education: the use of analogy-based cartoons to improve student performance" Published: 2026-06-02
Request a walkthrough
Book a free Student Voice Analytics demo
See all-comment coverage, sector benchmarks, and reporting designed for OfS quality and NSS requirements.
- All-comment coverage with HE-tuned taxonomy and sentiment.
- Versioned outputs with TEF-ready reporting.
- Benchmarks and BI-ready exports for boards and Senate.
UK-hosted · No public LLM APIs · Same-day turnaround