Face-to-Face Feedback
Updated Mar 11, 2026
A lot of feedback never changes the next piece of student work. Tutors can spend hours writing comments that students still cannot use.
Research has long shown a gap between the quality of feedback tutors believe they are giving and the usefulness of that feedback as students experience it, a gap explored in the disconnect on what makes good feedback. When comments are misunderstood or too general, students are left unsure what is expected of them.
This problem is especially acute in the first year, when students are moving from school or another setting into an environment where expectations, standards, and even ideas of "what good looks like" are different. Useful feedback matters most at this stage because it helps students decode the new environment faster. At the same time, tutors often feel that students focus on the mark rather than the feedback. One study found that only 10% of students sought feedback, and they usually did so after receiving a lower grade than they expected.
Students also often assume that different members of staff mark differently. Many want a particular marker because they believe that person will be more generous. This belief has been observed even among first-year students with no prior experience of the markers involved. In other words, the assumption spreads socially, while the pro-forma and moderation processes designed to ensure consistency remain largely invisible to students.
Growing class sizes make the problem harder. As cohorts expand, the relationship between academics and students can feel more distant and transactional. Two-way feedback offers a practical response because it turns feedback into a conversation rather than a one-sided document, which is also the logic behind feedback and feedforward in UK higher education.
One study gave students a choice between a one-to-one feedback session and standard written feedback. Students who chose face-to-face feedback said they did so because:
- They expected a better understanding of the topics covered and of the feedback itself
- They wanted to know more about how marking worked
- They thought a face-to-face conversation might give them more room to challenge a mark
The final point is uncomfortable, but revealing. Students reported that they soon realised they could not barter for a higher mark. Instead, the dialogue gave staff an opportunity to explain the rigour of the marking process, reduce suspicion, and weaken the belief that one marker is naturally more favourable than another.
Students also described face-to-face feedback as more empowering. The conversations helped them become "self-regulated learners", much like formative assessment designed to support self-regulated learning, because they could ask questions about comments they did not understand and leave with a clearer sense of how to improve next time. They also learned more about the intellectual priorities of their discipline, directly from the people assessing their work. That is especially valuable for first-year students, who are still learning how higher education works.
The format also changed how students received negative feedback. Critical comments on paper or on screen can feel blunt, especially when students care deeply about the work they have produced. In conversation, weaker sections could be explained, explored, and clarified. Students reported that this made them "feel less dumb", which is not a trivial outcome when confidence shapes whether feedback gets used at all.
Staff benefited too. Students felt the feedback was more personal, while tutors no longer felt they were responding to an anonymous pile of scripts. That makes it easier to offer knowledge, context, and reassurance that rarely fit into written comments or marking grids alone. For institutions trying to improve feedback quality, the lesson is clear: when students can ask questions, feedback becomes more useful, more trusted, and more likely to shape future work.
FAQ
Q: How do tutors perceive the usefulness of their own feedback compared to students' perceptions, and why is there a discrepancy?
A: Tutors often judge feedback by the detail they provide. Students judge it by whether it helps them understand what to improve next. That mismatch creates the gap. When comments are too abstract, too dense, or disconnected from assessment expectations, students can see feedback as unhelpful even when staff have invested a great deal of time in writing it. A stronger student voice approach asks not just whether feedback was written, but whether students could use it.
Q: What specific challenges do first-year students face regarding feedback, and how does this affect their academic transition?
A: First-year students are learning new academic standards, unfamiliar marking criteria, and a different level of independence. Without clear feedback, they can struggle to see what strong work looks like or how to improve. Useful feedback eases that transition because it translates expectations into concrete next steps. Listening to student voice helps institutions see where first-year students are still confused and where extra explanation is needed.
Q: What are the potential benefits of two-way feedback sessions, and how do they contribute to the academic growth of students?
A: Two-way feedback sessions let students ask questions, test their understanding, and hear directly how their work was judged. That makes feedback more actionable. These conversations can also build trust in the marking process, correct misconceptions about fairness, and help students take more ownership of improvement. In short, face-to-face dialogue can turn feedback from a static record into part of the learning process.
References
[Source Paper] Chalmers, Charlotte, Mowat, Elaine, and Chapman, Maggie. "Marking and Providing Feedback Face-to-face: Staff and Student Perspectives." Active Learning in Higher Education 19.1 (2018): 35-45,
DOI: 10.1177/1469787417721363
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
Related Entries
- Audio and Video Feedback in Online Learning Environments
- Feedback and Feedforward in UK Higher Education
- The disconnect on what makes good feedback
- Staff-student partnerships to enhance assessment literacy
- Exploring student experience of formative assessment