Students use assessment feedback better when universities create space for questions
Updated May 23, 2026
Assessment feedback often fails before students even start acting on it. They may not know what a comment means, how to use it in the next assignment, or where to ask for help without feeling exposed. That is why Rebecca K. Pike, Sheila L. Amici-Dargan, Xintong Huang and Rose Murray's Student Engagement in Higher Education Journal paper, "The feedback cafe: Creating opportunities for dialogue between students and staff regarding assessment and feedback", matters for universities using student feedback to improve assessment and feedback practice. It treats feedback literacy as a practical student voice problem, not only a marking problem.
Context and research question
Many universities already know that students want better assessment feedback. The harder question is what "better" means in practice. Often, the issue is not only turnaround time or comment quality. It is that students receive feedback without a clear opportunity to interpret it, question it, or work out how to use it. That is one reason staff-student partnerships in assessment can matter so much. Feedback becomes more useful when students have a credible route into dialogue rather than being left alone with a written comment.
Pike and colleagues examine that problem through a UK case study of a "Feedback Cafe" initiative co-developed with students and run over three years at one higher education institution. The model was deliberately simple: a drop-in stall, staffed by educators and student partners, where students could ask questions about assessment and feedback. To evaluate how students experienced it, the authors surveyed two cohorts of Year 1 to 4 undergraduates, 767 students in 2021-22 and 729 students in 2022-23, gathering both quantitative and qualitative data. They then used thematic analysis on open-text responses. For UK Student Experience and Quality teams, the research question is highly practical: can a low-pressure, low-workload dialogue model help students engage with feedback more effectively?
Key findings
The paper starts from a familiar institutional problem: feedback practices often break down because of workload pressure, low student engagement, and weak assessment literacy. That framing matters because it shifts the discussion away from a simple staff-versus-students argument. The issue is not only whether feedback is written well. It is whether students have enough support to interpret and act on it once it arrives.
The Feedback Cafe addressed that gap by creating a regular place where students could ask questions about assessments and use feedback more effectively. This is a modest intervention, but a strategically useful one. Instead of assuming students will decode comments on their own, the initiative gave them a routine space to clarify expectations, interpret feedback, and think about feed-forward.
The authors describe one of the strongest practical advantages clearly:
"generalizable to any subject and provides students with opportunities for two-way dialogue with relatively low staff workload"
The survey and open-text findings suggest that usefulness, attendance barriers, and improvement ideas all need to be analysed together. That is important for UK teams. A support offer can be well designed in principle and still miss students in practice if its format, visibility, timing, or perceived value are off. The fact that barriers to attendance and suggestions for improvement emerged strongly enough to be reported in the abstract is a reminder that feedback support needs service design, not just good intentions.
The most transferable insight is that dialogue does not have to mean a high-cost intervention. The paper argues that the Feedback Cafe can work across subjects while keeping staff workload manageable. For institutions under pressure to improve the assessment and feedback experience without creating another large process, that is a useful finding. Small, repeatable spaces for feedback interpretation may do more than another generic reminder telling students to "engage with feedback".
Practical implications
For UK higher education teams, the first implication is to treat feedback interpretation as part of the assessment service, not as something students should manage alone. If students need to ask what a comment means, how to improve, or how to apply feedback to the next task, the institution should provide an obvious route for that conversation. A drop-in model, scheduled question clinic, or embedded feedback desk can reduce friction without requiring every query to become a formal meeting. The benefit is that more students can turn comments into action rather than leaving feedback unused.
Second, universities should collect open-text evidence on how students try to use feedback, not only whether they say they value it. This paper is especially useful because it included qualitative comments alongside survey data. That is the right instinct. If students say a feedback-support initiative helped, ask what helped. If they did not attend, ask why not. A structured approach such as our NSS open-text analysis methodology makes it easier to separate issues of timing, awareness, confidence, access, and feedback quality. The takeaway is more precise improvement work.
Third, institutions should design low-pressure dialogue around the points in the term when students actually need it. Feedback support works best when it sits close to assessment deadlines, feedback release, or preparation for the next assignment, rather than as a generic resource hidden elsewhere. Combined with the discipline of closing the loop in student voice initiatives, this gives universities a more credible way to show students that questions about assessment lead to visible changes in support. The benefit is stronger trust in the feedback process itself.
Finally, universities should analyse these comments as an operational evidence stream, not just a one-off project evaluation. If students repeatedly describe the same barriers to using feedback, that pattern belongs in school and programme improvement discussions. Student Voice Analytics fits naturally here because it helps teams group recurring comments about assessment guidance, clarity, usefulness, and support-seeking across modules and cohorts. The payoff is a clearer route from student voice to assessment improvement.
FAQ
Q: How could a university pilot something like a Feedback Cafe without creating a large new workload?
A: Start small in one assessment-heavy school or department. Run a short drop-in session near feedback release or before the next submission point, and staff it with one academic colleague plus a trained student partner if possible. Then ask one or two targeted questions afterwards about what students needed help with and what stopped others attending. The aim is not to launch a major service immediately, but to test whether a simple dialogue space improves feedback uptake.
Q: What are the methodological limits of this study?
A: This is a single-institution case study of one intervention, so it should not be treated as a sector benchmark or a causal proof that the same format will work everywhere. Its strength lies in the mixed-methods design and the scale of the student survey response across two academic years, combined with thematic analysis of open-text comments. UK teams should read it as strong implementation evidence about feedback support design, then test similar questions in their own local data.
Q: What does this change about student voice work more broadly?
A: It reinforces that useful student voice is not only about collecting ratings on assessment and feedback. It is also about understanding whether students know how to use the feedback they receive, where they get stuck, and what kind of dialogue helps them move forward. When institutions listen for those details, feedback becomes easier to improve and easier for students to trust.
References
[Paper Source]: Rebecca K. Pike, Sheila L. Amici-Dargan, Xintong Huang and Rose Murray "The feedback cafe: Creating opportunities for dialogue between students and staff regarding assessment and feedback" DOI: 10.66561/sehej.v7i2.1366
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