During the Mechanical Engineering Design Project, I conducted a short, anonymous survey to obtain constructive feedback on the feedback process used throughout the project. I wanted to understand how students experienced the feedback provided on their submissions, how often they implemented it, and what changes might help them make better use of it.
I chose to investigate this aspect of my teaching because feedback is only valuable if students can understand it and use it to improve their work. I was particularly interested in identifying barriers to implementation and determining whether changes to the feedback process could support students more effectively.
Five students completed the survey. Although the response count was small, the results provided useful insight into their experiences. All five respondents rated the feedback as either very useful or extremely useful. They particularly valued feedback that identified errors, explained why something was incorrect and provided clear guidance on how to improve their work.
However, the responses also highlighted a distinction between valuing feedback and consistently implementing it. Students identified time constraints, competing coursework and difficulties understanding how to make recommended changes as barriers. Some also indicated that the structure of subsequent submissions influenced their decisions about which feedback to prioritise.
The responses suggested that students were more likely to act on feedback while working on the next submission. They also highlighted the potential value of earlier feedback, clearer prioritisation of required changes and opportunities to discuss feedback directly with the lecturer.
The survey reinforced my view that providing detailed feedback is only one part of supporting student learning. Students also need sufficient time, clear expectations and opportunities to clarify what is required of them.
An important insight was that the assessment structure itself can influence whether students use feedback. When a previous section is no longer directly assessed, students may prioritise new work over revising earlier work, even when those revisions could improve the overall quality of their project. This suggests that feedback processes and assessment design should be considered together.
The responses also encouraged me to consider how I communicate the relative importance of feedback points. Even when feedback identifies problems accurately, students may benefit from clearer guidance on which changes are essential before the next submission and which can be addressed later.
Based on the feedback, I would like to explore ways to make the feedback process more actionable. Possible improvements include explicitly identifying priority changes, providing feedback earlier where feasible, and creating opportunities for students to discuss comments they do not understand.
I would also consider how subsequent submissions could encourage students to revisit and implement feedback from earlier stages of the project. This could help students recognise feedback as a continuous part of the design process rather than an isolated response to an individual submission.
The survey was a useful reminder that reflective teaching involves investigating not only whether students find a teaching practice useful, but also what enables or prevents them from benefiting from it. In future, I would like to repeat this type of targeted feedback survey and evaluate whether changes to the process lead to improvements in students' use of feedback.