A scenario

Imagine this: You, a university lecturer, are invigilating an exam. Students are focused on their question papers, scribbling away. With a little time left, a hand is raised.

‘Would you read my answers and give me some feedback?’ a student asks.

So, you sit down beside them, adding comments to their answer sheet, highlighting inaccuracies, and suggesting improvements.

The didactic feedback fallacy

You are probably thinking such a situation is absurd and would never happen. Except that it does.

A study in Wales more than two decades ago found that over three-quarters of academics surveyed altered the structure of coursework before submission, while more than 90 per cent corrected grammar, punctuation and spelling (Mansell et al., 2002). While the study is dated, anecdotal evidence suggests such practices remain widespread.

There are understandable reasons for using these passive and didactic approaches. First, we want students to succeed – leaving them to struggle feels uncomfortable to us. Second, we may see it as an opportunity to support the development of their writing skills, guiding them towards better grammar and greater clarity. Third, students often want to be told what to do.

‘If students rely on our input, they may progress without addressing their deficits, whether in subject knowledge or written communication.’

Yet, these arguments are flawed and encourage passive learning. Let’s examine each in turn.

First, a key purpose of assessment is to evaluate students’ skills and knowledge. Intervening before submission undermines this process. If students rely on our input, they may progress without addressing their deficits, whether in subject knowledge or written communication. Their confidence in working independently will suffer. Worse, they might advance into courses or careers that are not well suited to them, missing crucial opportunities for growth.

Second, there are more effective ways to develop academic skills than reading and commenting on work before submission. Approaches that promote active learning and peer support are far more beneficial.

Third, while students may appreciate direct feedback (see for example Court, 2014), that alone is not a sound pedagogical rationale. Simply making changes in response to corrections is not an engaging or stimulating exercise. A more valuable approach is to encourage students to work collaboratively, think critically, and solve problems actively. There is even evidence suggesting that the very feedback students desire may hinder their engagement with learning.

Consider a study by Say et al. (2024). Using a crossover design, they ran two modules twice, each time subtly altering the feedback approach. Students completed a multiple-choice test before seminars, with marks contributing to their summative grades. The study compared the effects of providing feedback versus withholding it.

When feedback was given, students were significantly less likely to engage in online discussions and scored lower marks. Rather than enhancing engagement and learning, the feedback appeared to have the opposite effect. If this holds true for pre-seminar assessments, why would our reading and commenting on work before submission be any different?

Interestingly, students did appreciate receiving feedback. However, they are thoughtful and adaptable. If we explain the importance of fostering independence – along with the benefits of developing lifelong learning skills without reliance on affirmation – they may recognise the value of dynamic approaches that encourage exploration rather than passive instruction, whether formative or summative.

Conclusions

Providing directive feedback on students’ work for summative assessment promotes passive learning. Let’s shift away from a model where we act as experts with all the answers and instead become facilitators of inquiry. Let’s ask questions, probe and challenge. Let’s direct students to books and search engines, encourage collaboration, and promote discussion. Ultimately, they are responsible for their submissions. Learning becomes exciting and empowering when we cultivate confidence and step back.

What Do You Think?

Do you find yourself commenting on students’ work and providing feedback individually? Do you see a role for feeding back on individual work, whether formative or summative? If so, do the ideas in this blog post challenge your approach? We’d love to hear your thoughts.

References

Court, K. (2014). Tutor feedback on draft essays: Developing students’ academic writing and subject knowledge. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 38(3), 327–345. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2012.706806

Mansell, I., Bennett, G., Torrance, C., & Fairbairn, G. (2002). The role of the nurse lecturer in the supervision of students’ essays, projects and assignments: Results of an all Wales questionnaire survey. Nurse Education Today, 22(7), 511–517. https://doi.org/10.1054/nedt.2002.0763

Say, R., Visentin, D., Saunders, A., Atherton, I., Carr, A., & King, C. (2024). Where less is more: Limited feedback in formative online multiple‐choice tests improves student self‐regulation. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 40(1), 89–103. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12868