QAA assessment feedback project shows why pre-grade feedback matters
Updated Apr 21, 2026
Assessment feedback often fails at the moment students need it most, when they are deciding what to change next. On 9 April 2026, QAA published Collaborative approaches to assessment feedback in college-based higher education, a Collaborative Enhancement Project reflection from Solihull College and University Centre that tests a simple idea: discuss feedback before the grade is released, a sequencing choice that sits neatly alongside research on brief self-reflection before feedback release. For Student Experience teams, PVCs, and quality professionals, the value is practical. If students can absorb the message before the mark takes over, they are more likely to use it. That addresses the same problem raised in our post on what students think good feedback looks like: feedback only helps when students can process it and act on it.
What has changed in assessment feedback practice
This is not a new regulatory requirement. It is a QAA-hosted enhancement case from one English college-based higher education provider, published through a wider Collaborative Enhancement Project on flexible pathways and transitions. That distinction matters because the value here is not compliance. It is a tested idea that institutions can adapt. The immediate setting was Solihull College and University Centre, where two case study groups focused on transitions from level 4 to level 5. In the Animal Behaviour and Welfare group, staff examined how students understood previous assignment feedback, identified recurring themes, and then changed the delivery model.
The key change was simple. In the second cycle of the project, feedback on the assignment was given verbally before the grade was released. Students also used a template to record what they understood, identify actions for the next assignment, and note anything they wanted to discuss with peers or tutors. The source says this change grew out of conversations with students about why written feedback often went unread: it could feel too long, too complex, badly timed, or too bound up with grade anxiety to absorb properly.
"Receiving feedback before [the] grade means I am more likely to digest it"
The second strand of the project, with a Level 5 Special Educational Needs, Disability and Inclusive Practice group, focused on helping students understand the assessment marking grid and criteria, and the tutor's role in applying them. That matters because the intervention was not only about speed. It was about clarity, confidence, and making feedback easier to use. QAA's page reports that the whole team adopted the verbal-feedback approach for that group, while also noting that smaller class sizes made the format workable.
What this means for institutions
The first implication is about timing. Universities often measure assessment feedback in days returned, but this QAA example points to a better question: when are students most able to use what they are being told? If feedback arrives at the same moment as the grade, some students will focus on the mark and ignore the developmental message. For institutions, that means turnaround targets are necessary but not sufficient, which is exactly why faster feedback policies do not guarantee better NSS results. The earlier QAA assessment literacy toolkit made the same broader point from another angle: students need help understanding what feedback is for, how criteria work, and what to do next.
The second implication is about format. This case does not prove that every module should switch to verbal feedback, and QAA's source is careful enough for us to avoid that leap. The model was adopted in a small-group context, and large modules will need different workflows. Even so, the underlying lesson travels well across UK higher education. Feedback becomes more usable when students have a structured moment to ask questions, reflect on what they have heard, and turn feedback into feedforward for the next task. That is the transferable benefit, even if the format changes by class size or discipline. It fits closely with the sector direction summarised in QAA's March roadshow outcomes, where clearer guidance, earlier dialogue, and more usable feedback were treated as part of the same enhancement problem.
The third implication is evidential. Institutions should not assume that an on-time return means feedback was effective. What matters is whether students understood it, engaged with it, and changed anything because of it. This is where student feedback routes need to become more precise. Module evaluations, assessment focus groups, staff-student committees, and informal course-level comments should help teams distinguish between different problems: feedback that is late, feedback that is vague, feedback that is emotionally hard to open, or feedback that arrives too late in the sequence to matter. That distinction gives teams a better basis for improvement. It is also why earlier in-term routes, such as Westminster's mid-module approach, remain useful alongside end-point surveys.
How student feedback analysis connects
This QAA story also shows why open-text analysis matters. A score can tell you that students are dissatisfied with assessment feedback, but it will not tell you whether the real issue is timing, tone, marking criteria, lack of dialogue, or anxiety around grades. Open comments can. If institutions want to compare those patterns across modules and schools, they need a consistent way to structure the evidence and a clear process for acting on it.
That is where Student Voice Analytics is useful. It helps teams compare recurring themes in assessment-related comments with one reproducible method, while the student comment analysis governance checklist is a practical way to define who reviews those themes, how they are escalated, and what counts as action. The point is not to create another dashboard. It is to show whether assessment feedback is becoming easier for students to understand, trust, and use.
FAQ
Q: What should institutions do now if they want to test this kind of assessment feedback change?
A: Start with modules where students already report that feedback is hard to use, not only where turnaround is slow. Check whether students understand the criteria, open written comments promptly, and still have time to apply the feedback to a later task. Then test one manageable intervention, such as pre-grade discussion, structured reflection prompts, or a short follow-up conversation in a live module.
Q: What is the timeline and scope of the QAA update?
A: QAA published the piece on 9 April 2026. It is a Collaborative Enhancement Project reflection rather than a new regulation or national framework change. The immediate case relates to Solihull College and University Centre, an English college-based higher education provider, with project activity focused on level 4 to 5 transitions. The practical lessons are wider than that setting, but the source itself is a local enhancement example.
Q: What is the broader implication for student voice?
A: The broader implication is that institutions should judge assessment feedback by whether students can use it, not only by whether it was returned on time. Student voice on assessment becomes more valuable when it helps teams redesign timing, format, criteria, and follow-up while the module is still live. That is a more defensible route from feedback to improvement than relying on end-point dissatisfaction alone.
References
[Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education]: "Collaborative approaches to assessment feedback in college-based higher education" Published: 2026-04-09
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