Is feedback in liberal arts studies working for students?
By Student Voice Analytics
feedbackliberal arts (non-specific)Mostly not. Across the National Student Survey (NSS) open‑text, feedback attracts 57.3% negative sentiment (index −10.2). Within liberal arts (non‑specific), students repeatedly highlight choice and clarity: Module choice and variety account for 16.2% of comments, yet the feedback topic itself represents 5.5% with a strongly negative index of −35.9. In sector terms, the feedback category aggregates student views about usefulness, timeliness and clarity of assessment comments, while the liberal arts CAH groups interdisciplinary programmes that sit within the UK’s subject taxonomy. Those signals shape the story here: reset timeliness, standardise expectations, and design feedback so it drives next steps.
Feedback forms an important cornerstone in the field of liberal arts education. It's a tool through which students can engage and understand their academic progress and areas for growth. However, this area faces distinct pedagogical challenges. Effective feedback can dramatically enhance a student's intellectual development and success by involving them in the learning process. By harnessing tools such as student surveys, staff can analyse student experiences and refine teaching strategies. Additionally, text analysis offers efficient ways to examine student feedback so the student voice is heard and acted upon. These mechanisms shape individual academic journeys and the broader educational landscape in liberal arts.
Why does feedback often feel inadequate?
One of the most significant hurdles in liberal arts courses is feedback that lacks specificity or actionable advice. Vague or overly critical comments demotivate students and stall progress. It is not enough to flag mistakes; staff should reference the marking criteria directly and provide feed‑forward steps that students can use in their next submission. Generic comments that don't engage with the individual student's work leave students unsure how to advance. Student surveys expose these gaps and point to changes that improve satisfaction. Requiring concise rubrics with annotated exemplars, and asking tutors to provide two or three concrete next actions, makes feedback more usable and fair across a cohort.
Why does feedback arrive too late to help?
A common barrier to effective learning in liberal arts is delayed feedback. Many institutions aim to adhere to a four-week timeframe for returning assessed work, but this isn't always achieved. The lag between submission and feedback leaves students unable to move forward with clarity. Staff should publish and track a feedback service level by assessment type, and ensure students know when and how they will receive comments. Prompt feedback with specific feed‑forward lets students apply learning to subsequent assignments and exams, improving confidence and performance. Managing the feedback workflow is therefore central to a supportive educational environment.
How can we reduce inconsistent marking?
Variations in marking and feedback across staff undermine trust in assessment. Even with standardised schemes, disparities occur, especially where judgement is interpretive. Programme teams can run short calibration sprints using shared samples, add spot checks on feedback quality (specificity, actionability, alignment to criteria), and refresh guidance on applying marking criteria to typical liberal arts tasks. Open discussions about criteria, exemplars at grade bands, and routine second‑marker dialogue all contribute to a more unified approach.
Where are the feedback opportunities across modules?
Courses that rely heavily on final exams restrict feedback opportunities. Without intermediate assessment points, students lack timely guidance to adjust their approach. Introducing staged tasks, mini‑assessments, reflective seminars and brief dialogic feedback sessions during teaching weeks provides iterative touchpoints. These approaches, widely used in part‑time provision, translate well to full‑time cohorts and allow students to engage with strengths and weaknesses while there is time to improve.
What makes guidance in feedback concrete and actionable?
Students frequently report comments that name issues but do not specify what to do next. Staff can adopt a structured feedback model that links remarks to the marking criteria, highlights two strengths and two priorities, and includes a short plan for improvement with signposts to resources. Checklist‑style rubrics and annotated exemplars reduce ambiguity and turn feedback into a substantive learning tool.
How should staff handle disagreements with assessment?
Disagreement with grades is common in interpretive disciplines. Transparency about criteria and standards, plus opportunities to discuss decisions, helps restore confidence. Short meetings to walk through the assessment brief, marking criteria and exemplars can align expectations. An accessible queries route and clear explanations of review processes reassure students that assessment is fair and consistent.
What does a valued feedback experience look like?
Detailed in‑text comments tailored to the student's argument, balanced with strengths and targeted advice, support academic growth. When feedback references criteria and offers concrete feed‑forward actions, students perceive assessments as part of an ongoing learning cycle rather than a final judgment. This dialogic approach fosters an engaged, reflective learner and strengthens the relationship between students and staff.
How does feedback in liberal arts compare with other courses?
Subjects with continuous assessment tend to provide more frequent, targeted feedback. In liberal arts, where interpretation and critical thinking dominate, feedback often addresses broader themes and can be harder to apply without exemplars or criteria‑mapping. Aligning feedback practices with the discipline’s interpretive character, while keeping timeliness and specificity at the core, narrows this gap.
Why do psychology‑style modules draw criticism for feedback?
Students often experience brief and generic comments in these modules, which feel disconnected from their work. Training that encourages concrete, criteria‑referenced advice and dialogue about feedback can improve perceived fairness and usefulness. Regular opportunities to discuss comments deepen understanding and re‑engage students with the learning process.
What should liberal arts programmes change next?
Target the basics and make them visible: define a feedback SLA at assessment type level, monitor on‑time rates, and include structured feed‑forward in every return. Calibrate marking with shared samples and exemplars to reduce inconsistency. Create more formative checkpoints and short dialogic sessions within modules. Strengthen organisation and communications so students know what changed and why, and close the loop each term with concise “you said, we did” updates. These steps address the negative tone around assessment comments in liberal arts and improve the student experience.
How Student Voice Analytics helps you
- Turns NSS open‑text into trackable metrics for feedback and related assessment topics across liberal arts, with drill‑downs by cohort and programme.
- Benchmarks tone and topics against CAH areas and demographics so you can prioritise where sentiment is weakest and adopt approaches from stronger segments.
- Surfaces action patterns that work in liberal arts, including structured feed‑forward, exemplars and calibration, with export‑ready summaries for module teams and boards.
- Evidences change over time with like‑for‑like comparisons and concise updates you can share with students and committees.
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 liberal arts (non-specific) student views: