Feedback and Feedforward in UK Higher Education

By Anosh Butt

Updated Mar 14, 2026

The Problem

When students ignore feedback, assessment becomes a transaction rather than part of learning. Wolstencroft and De Main (2021) examine how traditional formative and summative feedback often fails to keep UK undergraduates engaged with comments on their work. In UK higher education, validity, reliability, and authenticity are closely scrutinised, yet students are still usually assessed through end-of-module exams or coursework (Wolstencroft and De Main, 2021).

The study shows that summative assessment across UK higher education still relies heavily on essays, reports, and presentations. The authors argue that students often view the curriculum through the lens of assessment, while academics focus more on curriculum design itself.

That gap encourages surface learning. Students become assessment-driven rather than curriculum-driven, and feedback starts to look like a product attached to a grade instead of a dialogue that can improve future work (Wolstencroft and De Main, 2021). Only 60% of students in the study accessed standard written feedback, partly because the comments felt generic and lacked meaning (Wolstencroft and De Main, 2021), echoing the disconnect on what makes good feedback. For educators, the takeaway is clear: if feedback does not feel specific and usable, many students will disengage.

The Solution

To test a more engaging approach, the researchers worked with 182 final-year business undergraduates at a post-92 university in the West Midlands and used audio feedback alongside feedforward. Feedback explains past performance, while feedforward gives constructive guidance that students can apply to the next task (Goldsmith 2003; San Pedro, 2012). That distinction matters because students need comments that do more than justify a mark, they need comments that show them how to improve.

Three assessors recorded audio feedback under shared headings: introduction, theoretical base, reflective elements, application of theory to practice, conclusion, spelling, grammar, and referencing (Wolstencroft and De Main, 2021). These headings created consistency while still allowing assessors to personalise comments within broad marking criteria. The researchers also collected recorded interviews, informal seminar feedback, and email comments about the process, giving them both structured and informal evidence on the student experience (Wolstencroft and De Main, 2021).

The study then used thematic analysis to identify common patterns across these sources. This helped the authors bridge qualitative evidence, represented by interviews and emails, with quantitative evidence about how students engaged with the comments. For course teams, the practical lesson is simple: format, timing, and clarity all shape whether students act on feedback.

Measurable impact

The results were strongly positive. Most students said they wanted audio feedback and feedforward to be used in other modules, and many engaged more with the comments than with the final mark. Because the mark was revealed at the end of the recording, students had to hear the full explanation first, which shifted attention from score-seeking to learning.

This mattered even for high-performing students. Some had previously checked only whether they had scored above 70 and ignored comments when a mark disappointed them. Audio feedback made it harder to bypass recurring issues, helping students recognise patterns in their work and understand how one assignment should inform the next (Wolstencroft and De Main, 2021).

The approach also exposed support needs that written comments had not addressed. Some international students, even after several years in UK higher education, still felt unsure about how to interpret feedback and use it in future assessments. Audio comments felt more tailored and credible, which made students more willing to listen and respond.

Overall, the study suggests that audio feedback and feedforward can move students away from a purely instrumental view of assessment and toward a more reflective one. The researchers note that timing may be crucial: many final-year students said the approach would have been even more useful if introduced earlier. The key takeaway is that actionable feedback should arrive early enough for students to use it, not just receive it, a principle central to rethinking models of feedback for learning.

FAQ

Q: How does the effectiveness of audio feedback and feedforward compare with traditional text-based feedback in terms of improving students' academic writing skills?

A: Audio feedback can improve academic writing when it gives students clearer explanations of what worked, what needs attention, and what to change next. Tone and emphasis help students interpret nuanced points that can feel blunt or vague in text alone, and that can increase the likelihood that they act on the comments. It also encourages fuller engagement, especially when students must listen through the feedback before seeing the mark. That said, the impact still depends on whether students can translate feedback into action. Text analysis can support that process by helping educators identify common writing issues across a cohort with text analysis tools and target recurring weaknesses more precisely.

Q: What are the challenges and limitations associated with implementing audio feedback and feedforward across different disciplines within higher education?

A: The main challenge is fit. Different disciplines require different feedback formats, and audio is not always the best medium for heavily visual, mathematical, or technical work. There are also operational constraints: staff need time, consistent templates, and reliable tools to record and share comments at scale. Student preferences matter too, because some learners may still want written notes they can scan quickly. In practice, the most effective approach may be blended, combining audio for nuance with concise written prompts or annotated examples for precision.

Q: How do students' perceptions of their own learning change as a result of engaging with audio feedback and feedforward, especially in terms of self-regulation and motivation?

A: Audio feedback and feedforward can strengthen self-regulation because they make feedback feel more personal, specific, and easier to follow. When students understand not just what went wrong, but what to do next, they are more likely to reflect, set goals, and apply changes in later work. That can increase motivation, especially for students who previously ignored written comments or focused only on grades. In that sense, the value is not the format alone, but the way it supports a more active relationship with learning.

References

[Source Paper] Wolstencroft, P. and De Main, L., 2020. ‘Why didn’t you tell me that before?’ Engaging undergraduate students in feedback and feedforward within UK higher education. Journal of Further and Higher Education, pp.1-12.
DOI: 10.1080/0309877X.2020.1759517

[1] Goldsmith, M. 2003. “Try Feedforward Rather than Feedback.” The Journal for Quality and Participation 26 (3): 38–40.

[2] San Pedro, M. 2012. “Feedback and Feedforward: Focal Points for Improving Academic Performance.” Journal of Technology and Science Education 2 (2): 77–85.
DOI: 10.3926/jotse.49

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.

Prefer email? info@studentvoice.ai

UK-hosted · No public LLM APIs · Same-day turnaround