Educator feedback is one of the most powerful influences on student achievement. Yet research finds a significant gap between what students expect and what institutions deliver.
This gap between expectation and reality often begins with timeliness. In a 2022 study by Gray, Robert, and Walsh from Aston University, for example, highlights a significant disconnect, finding that "80% of university students expect feedback within seven days," and "58% say feedback returned after a fortnight is of no benefit."
But this desire for speed is compounded by a clear demand for substance. It's not just about getting feedback quickly; students also report that they want it to be "personalized, detailed, and actionable" (QAA Scotland). These are all qualities that educators aspire to, but which can be challenging to deliver at scale.
This clear tension between student expectations and institutional constraints risks student trust, engagement, and development.
Addressing the challenge requires action on two fronts: strengthening students’ capacity to engage with feedback in higher education, and enhancing educators’ capacity to deliver it.
The gap between student expectations and feedback reality
The gap between student and institutional expectations comes from both sides of the equation. On one side, students’ prior experiences and consumer-driven outlook shape what they believe feedback should look like. On the other, institutions face structural constraints that limit their ability to deliver the kind of detailed, rapid feedback they aspire to provide.
Transition from school to university
Feedback for high school students establishes their frame of reference, setting expectations that follow students to university. In school, students are accustomed to frequent, direct, personal interactions with teachers. Unfortunately, large cohorts and different assessment models in higher education make these expectations unrealistic.
The student-and-consumer model
Rising tuition fees and focus on ‘transactional outcomes’ (Lowe and Shaw, 2019) in higher education have intensified student expectations. Students feel they are paying for a particular level of service and can experience disappointment when this expectation is not met.
Growing institutional constraints
Universities are operating within growing structural constraints, including larger cohorts, limited staff time, and heavy administrative burden. These realities make it difficult to deliver feedback – at scale – that is timely, personalized, and in-depth.
HEPI's Student Academic Experience Survey 2024 and 2025 gather extensive data from thousands of higher education students annually. They highlight positive trends showing incremental improvements in student satisfaction with feedback quality and clarity.
However, the surveys also identify persistent challenges around timely feedback delivery, personalized comments, and clear communication of grading criteria.
The data suggests universities are making gradual progress but underlines ongoing gaps between student expectations and actual feedback experiences, especially around actionable and personalized feedback.
What do students expect from educator feedback in higher education?
Students expect educator feedback that is:
- Specific: Offering specific actionable guidance for improvement (Holt, Sun, and Davies, 2024)
- Consistent – Consistently aligned to learning outcomes and criteria: (Ibid.)
- Constructive: Phrased in a supportive and respectful manner; actionable (Ibid.)
- Diverse: Uses a range of different formats, including written, recorded, and live (Ibid.)
- Personal: Recognizes their individual work and effort; doesn’t compare them to others (Walker, Oliver, and McKenzie, 2020)
- Timely: Received within a one-to-two week period to be useful (Gray, Riegler, and Walsh, 2022)
- Formative: Provided on drafts (expected by over 70% of students) (Ibid.)
- Forward-focused: Looking at ways to improve rather than focusing on failings (QAA Scotland)
Pedagogically, this aligns with educator goals, which also aim for what Nicol (2010) describes as ‘good written feedback’: ‘understandable, selective, specific, contextualised, nonjudgemental, and timely.’
Practically, however, structural constraints make this level of personalization and promptness unfeasible for many under-pressure institutions. Unfortunately, this can have a negative impact on engagement and outcomes.
What is the impact when educator feedback doesn’t meet student expectations?
When educator feedback fails to align with student expectations, it can cause the following problems.
- Lost developmental value: 74% of students use educator feedback to improve future work (Gray, Riegler, and Walsh, 2022). When student uptake of educator feedback is reduced, they miss developmental opportunities, undermining their progress and outcomes overall.
- Erosion of trust and motivation: Students are demotivated by poor, comparative feedback (Walker, Oliver, and McKenzie, 2020), and poor or unclear feedback can erode student trust and motivation (Stone, 2022).
- Academic integrity risks: When feedback is perceived as poor quality, generic, or unconstructive, students may feel the educator-student bond is broken and be more susceptible to misconduct (Harper Adams University, 2024).
In this context, it’s clear that cultivating effective assessment and feedback practices is a crucial strategy for both pedagogic and institutional success.
How can education leaders improve the feedback process to meet student expectations?
While improving student feedback processes may be desirable for institutions, researchers Carless and Boud (2018) caution that ‘it is unrealistic and ineffective to expect teachers to provide more and more comments to large numbers of learners.’
Manage student expectations
The first step is to manage student expectations of educator feedback. These conversations need to start early, as the transition from school to university can be a catalyst for negative perceptions.
One of the most effective strategies to bridge this gap is to focus on clear and realistic communication. Gray, Riegler, and Walsh (2022) recommend that ‘Course leaders need to identify and communicate from day one what the specific university practices are on turnaround times for summative assessments.’
This proactive communication is key to managing student perceptions. It provides a clear, shared understanding of what "good" feedback looks like within the specific context of a course, which can prevent misunderstandings before they start.
This proactive approach extends to course design itself. For instance, the International Journal of Instruction (2025) recommends that ‘Faculty should design first-year courses with gradual skill-building, regular feedback, diverse methodologies, and real-world connections.’
Foster feedback literacy
Another way to improve student satisfaction is to develop their ‘feedback literacy’ – their ability to understand and use educator feedback effectively.
According to Carless and Boud (2018), student feedback literacy is ‘the understandings, capacities and dispositions needed to make sense of information and use it to enhance work or learning strategies’.
Carless and Boud specify that this literacy involves multiple components, including:
- ‘An understanding of what feedback is and how it can be managed effectively’
- ‘Capacities and dispositions to make productive use of feedback’
- ‘An appreciation of the roles of teachers and themselves in these processes’
While student feedback literacy does not aim to ‘absolve’ institutions of their responsibility to provide actionable feedback, it recognises the responsibility of students to engage with feedback effectively.
Institutions could consider running short workshops or guided peer discussions to build this skill in students.
Balance timeliness with other metrics
While Gray, Robert, and Walsh (2022) found that students have high expectations around the timeliness of feedback, and that timeliness impacts its usefulness to them, the QAA Scotland found that students care more about the quality and format of feedback, noting that ‘While students do want to receive feedback quickly, feedback that is useful and which can be used in future assessments or exams is deemed most valuable. Investment in detailed, high-quality feedback which provides a fair appraisal of a student’s work and engages with them as individuals, is valued.’
That suggests that institutional policies should seek to balance acceptable feedback windows with the time taken to provide detailed and impactful feedback. However, the QAA Scotland acknowledges this ‘signifies a potential tension for teachers.’
Introduce formative and informal feedback
Formative assessment and feedback loops in the writing process give students regular low-stakes opportunities to receive and engage with feedback. With students looking for timely feedback to inform ongoing learning, formative assessment can be faster and therefore more developmentally valuable.
This type of feedback is also broader than many students realize. As Gray, Riegler, and Walsh (2022) note, ‘Formative feedback occurs at multiple points and is often speedier: examples include in-class solutions, personal tutorials, casual conversations walking across campus, and even email responses.’
Evidence also suggests that feedback doesn’t have to be formal to be valued by students. In a small study of student nominations for teaching awards at Winchester University, Lowe and Shaw found that: ‘Students often perceive feedback in a literal sense, with many staff nominated based on their informal email responses rather than the formal assignment feedback.’ (2019)
Set standards for feedback tone
Troy, Moua, and Van Boekel (2024) highlight the importance of feedback tone on students’ engagement with it, finding that ‘wise’ feedback – constructive, respectful, and clearly communicated – builds student trust and promotes better uptake.
Faculty may benefit from guidance or training on feedback delivery, particularly when providing critical or corrective comments.
Their research emphasizes that effective feedback not only builds strong relationships but also relies on them: educators must balance critique with sensitivity to maintain student engagement and positive connections.
Modernize feedback processes
Time-pressured educators want to provide high-quality, personalized feedback but are often constrained by manual assessment processes. In large cohorts, these limit the time available for personalized feedback provision.
Modern, digital assessment solutions streamline feedback processes through features like reusable rubrics and comment banks. This reduces administrative burden and frees faculty to focus on providing the specific, tailored, actionable guidance that students are asking for.
Not only that, but digital solutions enable more diverse feedback approaches, which students indicate they value. For example, the QAA Scotland finds students appreciate audio and video feedback, which can accelerate and humanize feedback processes, as well as support diverse learning styles.
Take action on educator feedback with Turnitin
Student expectations for feedback are clear: timely, actionable, and personalized. Meeting them isn’t optional—it drives engagement, learning, and trust.
By prioritizing feedback literacy, clear communication, and modern assessment tools, education leaders can turn feedback into a strategic advantage.
Discover how Turnitin’s grading and assessment tools make delivering meaningful feedback faster, smarter, and more impactful.
References
- Carless, D., & Boud, D. (2018). The development of student feedback literacy: enabling uptake of feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education.
- Gray, R., Riegler, S., & Walsh, C. (2022). Students' feedback experiences and expectations pre- and post-university entry.
- Harper Adams University. (2024). Academic Integrity and Academic Misconduct: A Guide for Students and Tutors.
- Higher Education Policy Institute. (2024). Student Academic Experience Survey 2024.
- Higher Education Policy Institute. (2025). Student Academic Experience Survey 2025.
- Holt, D., Sun, X., & Davies, B. (2024). Assessment Feedback: What Do Students Want and Need?. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice.
- Lowe, T., & Shaw, R. (2019). Student Perceptions of the 'Best' Feedback Practices: An Evaluation of Student-Led Teaching Award Nominations at a Higher Education Institution.
- Nicol, D. (2010). From monologue to dialogue: improving written feedback processes in mass higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education.
- Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education Scotland. (2018). Focus on: Feedback from assessment. What does Student-Led Teaching Award nomination data tell us about student perceptions of ‘good’ feedback?
- Šeben Zaťková, T., Seberini, A., & Tokovska, M. (2025). First Year University Life: Expectations Versus Reality. International Journal of Instruction.
- Stone, A. (2022). Student Perceptions of Academic Integrity: A Qualitative Study of Understanding, Consequences, and Impact. Education Sciences.
- Troy, A., Moua, H., & Van Boekel, M. (2024). Wise feedback and trust in higher education: A quantitative and qualitative exploration of undergraduate students' experiences with critical feedback. Psychology in the Schools.
- Walker, R., Oliver, R., & McKenzie, R. (2020). Interviews with secondary school students: Perceptions of feedback. Issues In Educational Research.