Face-to-Face Feedback
Updated May 28, 2026
Feedback often fails because it is treated as a document rather than a conversation. Staff may write careful comments, but students still leave unsure what the mark means, what standard was expected or what they should do next.
Chalmers, Mowat and Chapman's study of face-to-face feedback is useful because it examines both sides of that gap. Students wanted feedback they could understand and act on. Staff wanted students to engage with the comments rather than only the grade.
What the study shows
First-year students are especially likely to need dialogue. They are entering a new assessment culture, where the standards, terminology and judgement process may be unfamiliar. Written feedback can help, but only if students can decode it.
The paper also shows how easily mistrust can form around marking. Students may assume that one marker is stricter or more generous than another, even when moderation and pro-forma processes are in place. Those processes are often invisible to students, so a face-to-face conversation can help explain how marks were reached.
Students who chose face-to-face feedback did so for several reasons. They expected to understand the topic and the comments better. They wanted to learn more about how marking worked. Some also thought a conversation might give them room to challenge the mark.
That last point matters. Students quickly learned that the meeting was not a negotiation. Instead, the conversation helped staff explain the marking process and redirect attention towards improvement. In that sense, face-to-face feedback can build trust as well as clarify content.
Students also described the format as more empowering. They could ask questions, check interpretations and explore criticism without being left alone with a blunt comment on the page. Negative feedback can feel different when a tutor explains it in context and makes the next step clear.
What universities can do with this
Face-to-face feedback does not need to replace written feedback. The stronger model is often a blend: written comments provide a record, while a short conversation helps students understand and use them.
The format is most valuable at transition points, such as first year, first major assignment, dissertation proposal or early placement work. These are moments when students are still learning the standards and may benefit from being able to ask basic questions without embarrassment.
Staff should also be explicit about the purpose of the meeting. It is not an appeal, a grade bargain or an informal moderation process. It is a chance to understand the mark, the criteria and the steps needed for future work.
At scale, institutions can reserve one-to-one feedback for targeted moments and use group feedback sessions where common issues affect many students. Student comments can help identify where dialogue is most needed: unclear criteria, distrust in marking, weak understanding of standards or recurring confusion about comments.
Limits of the evidence
Face-to-face feedback takes time, and not every assignment can justify individual meetings. It also depends on staff skill. A rushed or defensive conversation may make trust worse. The practical lesson is to use dialogue where it will make feedback more usable, especially when students are new to the assessment culture.
FAQ
Q: Should face-to-face feedback replace written comments?
A: Usually no. Written comments give students a record to return to. The conversation helps them interpret that record and decide what to do next.
Q: Where is face-to-face feedback most useful?
A: It is especially useful for first-year work, complex assessments and situations where students need to understand marking standards more clearly.
Q: How can teams manage workload?
A: Use individual conversations selectively, combine them with group feedback where themes are shared, and focus the meeting on next steps rather than restating every written comment.
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