Over the past couple of years, colleagues from the Universities of Bristol, Warwick, and Nottingham have been involved in a collaborative project exploring student engagement in history departments. The findings, which are discussed elsewhere on the BILT blog, have been fascinating for us – offering really helpful insights into how and why students choose to engage (or not!) with academic life.
What made this project especially valuable was its co-created nature. We worked with a team of student researchers who not only gathered data but also collaborated with us to interpret our findings and produce some outputs. Their voices shaped every stage of the research process and, ultimately, our understanding of what engagement means in a university context. One of the clearest lessons from this project was that student engagement isn’t about any single ‘thing.’ It’s shaped by lots of complicated, interlinked issues – from timetabling and community, to the ‘vibes’ in a seminar room. Seemingly small parts of the student experience can have a significant knock-on effect.
For example, while the project thought about engagement in a broad and holistic way, some of the most helpful insights came from conversations about assessment and feedback. Students consistently linked the tone and style of feedback to how they felt about their place in the department – and, importantly for us, how they chose to engage with their studies. Students spoke about the emotional weight of receiving feedback that felt ‘sharp’ or ‘angry,’ and how (even if unintentional) this could impact their willingness to attend classes or approach tutors for help. One student noted that they avoided office hours altogether after receiving feedback that felt ‘confrontational,’ while others said that feedback tone influenced which tutors they felt comfortable seeking out for advice and support.
It became clear that feedback is not just an academic process for them. Instead, they talked about it more as a moment of connection – or for some, disconnection – between them and their tutors. They made clear that the words we use and the way we use them, and how we manage this potentially fraught and emotional moment, can either open doors to learning or quietly close them. Building on these insights, our department decided to take a closer look at the feedback we were giving. We conducted a moderation audit across our units, examining a range of comments – the good, the bad, and the good-natured but unintentionally confusing. We used these as part of open discussion in departmental meetings, and as a conversation-starter for some frank exchanges between staff. This process wasn’t about policing tone or criticising colleagues, though, and was more about developing a kind of shared awareness of how our students are experiencing their feedback, and what broader impact this is having on their experience.
Alongside our student researchers, we also created a feedback guidance document designed to encourage colleagues to reflect on their practice. We wanted to encourage staff to think not just about what they were saying (as feedback was already often constructive), but how it might be received. As students were telling us, feedback written with the best intentions can still ‘land’ badly if we’re not careful, which can in turn have consequences for student engagement more broadly.
The guidance we produced sets out a series of general principles, which are modest and practical reminders rooted in what students told us. A few key points include:
- Avoid jokes or sarcasm. However well-intentioned, students often can’t tell when a comment is meant to be light-hearted or when we’re being critical. What feels like a throwaway remark to us can easily come across as a bit biting to them.
- Don’t critique institutional policies within feedback. It doesn’t help students learn and can undermine their confidence in the marking process.
- Be mindful of tone. Feedback that reads as frustrated or disappointed can deter students from coming to see us for help.
- Remember that marks mean different things to different students. A 2:2 can be a real source of pride, while a first-class mark still deserves clear, specific feedback so students understand why they did well.
- Avoid rhetorical questions. Instead, offer direct, actionable guidance.
- Make sure you ‘feed forward’. The ‘three points for improvement’ section shouldn’t simply rehash weaknesses. Instead, frame these as lessons that can support future success.
- Don’t just focus on correct factual errors. It is fine to point these out, but don’t let them dominate. Feedback should help students develop beyond a single assignment.
We also discussed the idea that meaningful feedback doesn’t start or end with the comment we give. Students’ ability to understand and use feedback depends in part on how well we prepare them to receive it and how we work with them to put it into action. To support this, we’ve been encouraging colleagues to integrate feedback-focused activities into their teaching, such as:
- Working through marking criteria together. Some students find the language we use a bit confusing. Spending time unpacking what something like ‘critical analysis’ or ‘structure’ means in context can make a huge difference.
- Peer and self-marking exercises. Asking students to apply criteria to sample essays (or even their own work) helps demystify the process and build their confidence that they do know what we’re looking for.
- Whole-class feedback sessions. Discussing common strengths and areas for development after an assessment encourages reflection and also open conversation – making feedback a shared learning experience rather than a individual issue.
Perhaps the most valuable takeaway from this whole process has been the reminder of how powerful co-creation can be. Working with students as partners and collaborators rather than just participants allowed us insights into our practices that we often don’t get through something like unit feedback. It was great to work with them not only to identify problems, but to think together about what some practical solutions might look like. In Humanities, we plan to work with students as much as possible in the future to develop further guidance around marking criteria and to continue refining our feedback practices. This project has shown us that assessment and feedback aren’t simply administrative tasks, but instead are central to students’ academic and emotional experience at university. The tone of a single comment can shape a student’s sense of whether they’re welcome, and as such their willingness to engage with us.
The work we’ve done so far has been both really challenging and brilliantly rewarding, and it’s helped us to think about the language we use and the way students experience and make use of our feedback. It’s also reminded us that even small changes can have a really big impact on engagement, on the relationship between staff and students, and the learning our students do.
