Brief reflection and feedback satisfaction in the 50–59% grade group

Updated Sep 07, 2026

Can reflection before receiving feedback affect satisfaction with it? Susan Sullivan, Millie Gaydon, Sian Panton, Xuan Huy Nguyen and Joanna Richardson tested five brief questions about students’ engagement with study.

What was tested

A pilot randomly allocated 44 students to reflection or control groups before they rated hypothetical feedback. The main study involved real assignments across several disciplines at one UK university, with 117 students retained in the analysis.

In the main study, the reflection questions were sent 24 hours before feedback and grades were released. Students later rated satisfaction with their feedback. Random allocation occurred within cohorts.

The overall main effect of the reflection group was not statistically significant. Students whose assignment grade fell between 50% and 59% reported higher satisfaction after reflection; no significant difference was found for students scoring 60% or above. The study did not measure subsequent attainment gains.

Response was limited: 442 students were invited to the main satisfaction survey. The findings concern the analysed respondents and should not be treated as proof of benefit for every student or assessment. Accessible publisher methods and results support this account, though complete rendered tables were not retrieved.

An editorial application

A teaching team could evaluate a suitable reflection activity while retaining clear, useful feedback and opportunities for discussion. Define the intended outcome in advance: satisfaction, engagement and learning are different measures.

Avoid making the exercise a condition for accessing feedback without considering student needs. A modest local evaluation could examine participation and unintended burdens as well as any benefit.

Reference

Susan Sullivan, Millie Gaydon, Sian Panton, Xuan Huy Nguyen and Joanna Richardson. “Perceptions of feedback: the use of self-reflection to improve student satisfaction.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. DOI: 10.1080/02602938.2025.2572034.

Corrected 7 September 2026: the previous authors, sample and repeated-assignment design were wrong. This revision describes the actual pilot and main study and restricts the reported benefit to the relevant grade group. This is a limited-access review.