QAA college feedback case: discussion before grades and clearer criteria

Updated Sep 07, 2026

A 9 April 2026 QAA-hosted reflection describes work at Solihull College and University Centre on students’ use of assessment feedback. It brings together staff and student accounts from two case-study groups focused on transitions from level 4 to level 5. QAA project reflection.

Keep the two strands distinct

In Animal Behaviour and Welfare, students first reviewed earlier assignment feedback. A later cycle provided verbal feedback before grades, with a template for understanding comments and planning the next assignment. Participants described appreciating the discussion, and the author says the team adopted the approach for that small class.

A separate Special Educational Needs, Disability and Inclusive Practice group worked on understanding marking criteria and the tutor’s role. The source does not say that this second group had already adopted the first group’s verbal-feedback model. The accounts describe experiences rather than a controlled test of anxiety, attainment or feedback use. Staff and student reflections.

Test the problem before choosing a format

Our recommendation is to ask what prevents students from using feedback in a particular module. They may need clearer criteria, a chance to ask a question, or a relevant opportunity to apply advice. Those possibilities call for different changes.

If testing a discussion before grade release, explain the sequence and preserve access to written feedback where needed. Check whether the format works for students who cannot attend a particular session or who need more time to process information. The small-class example does not establish a workable staffing model for every course.

Agree how the change will be reviewed. Ask students to identify a specific next step from their feedback and revisit whether they could use it. Separate their perceptions of the experience from any claim about grades or learning gains, and record other changes to the assessment.

Use the comment governance checklist to document who reviews the evidence and how limitations will be reported.

Correction and update, 7 September 2026: corrected the conflation of the two groups, attributed the reported experiences and removed a general claim that the intervention reduces anxiety or improves outcomes.