This research aimed to investigate undergraduate students’ understanding and experiences of feedback in Chinese higher education. Specifically, it sought to explore students’ perceptions of both teacher and student roles in the feedback process, as well as their responses to feedback.

The research questions are as follows:

How do students perceive the role of the lecturer/teacher in the feedback process?

How do students perceive their role in the feedback process?

How do students respond to feedback?

The conceptualisation of feedback in higher education has undergone a significant transformation from a traditional to a contemporary paradigm (Winstone & Carless, 2020). Traditionally, feedback was viewed through a behaviourist lens, characterized by a one-way transmission of information where teachers served as expert deliverers and students as passive receivers of corrective information. However, this understanding has evolved substantially into a more dynamic, contemporary paradigm grounded in social constructivist learning theory. In this modern conception, feedback is understood as an interactive, dialogic process where students actively engage in sense-making and generating information about their learning (Carless, 2017). This shift has redefined the roles of both teachers and students: teachers have transformed from mere information providers to dialogic partners who facilitate learning conversations, while students have become active agents who generate, process, and act upon feedback to enhance their learning (Nicol, 2010). As Lipnevich and Panadero (2022) articulate, effective feedback now encompasses information about students' current state, their learning goals, and strategies for improvement, with an emphasis on active student processing and implementation. This contemporary understanding recognizes feedback not as a product but as a process that involves multiple agents and requires student engagement for meaningful learning outcomes.

This study is grounded in Carless and Boud’s (2018) framework of student feedback literacy, which emphasises students’ active role in the feedback process as seekers, generators, and users of information. The framework comprises four interrelated features that enable students to make sense of and utilise feedback effectively:

Appreciating feedback: Students understand their active role in feedback processes and recognise its value for learning improvement. They demonstrate a willingness to seek, generate, and receive feedback from various sources with a growth mindset.

Making judgments: Students develop the capacity to make informed evaluations about their own work and others’ work. This involves understanding assessment criteria, recognizing quality work, and engaging productively in peer feedback processes to develop evaluative capabilities.

Managing affect: Students learn to handle emotions associated with feedback constructively, treating both positive and negative feedback as opportunities for improvement. They develop strategies to manage emotional responses and maintain a proactive approach to seeking feedback.

Taking action: As the crucial final step, students implement strategies to act upon feedback for improvement. They draw insights from various feedback experiences, including rubric understanding, exemplar analysis, and peer feedback, to develop a repertoire of strategies for continuous improvement.

This framework places students at the centre of the feedback process while acknowledging teachers’ vital role in developing students’ feedback literacy through curriculum design and appropriate learning opportunities. The development of these four interconnected features enables students to engage meaningfully with feedback and enhance their learning strategies.

This study employed an interpretive qualitative approach to investigate undergraduate students’ understanding and experiences of feedback in Chinese higher education. The research was conducted at a comprehensive university in east western China, involving 18 undergraduate students from different year levels (one to three) across multiple disciplines. Data were collected through multiple methods over a ten-month period, including three rounds of semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions. The initial interviews were conducted online with 18 participants, incorporating the mind maps to explore students’ understanding of feedback. Follow-up interviews were conducted face-to-face, where participants brought recent assignments with teacher feedback to discuss their responses to specific feedback examples. The final round of interviews was conducted with 16 participants, involving a comparison of new and initial mind maps to examine changes in feedback understanding over time. Following the individual interviews, four focus groups were conducted, each comprising three students from different year levels. These 60-minute sessions facilitated cross-year discussions about effective feedback practices and student-teacher roles in the feedback process. All interviews and focus groups were conducted in Chinese, audio-recorded, and subsequently translated into English for analysis. The combination of individual interviews, mind maps, and focus groups provided rich data about students’ understanding and experiences of feedback across their academic journey. All interviews and focus group discussions were analysed through a combination of inductive and deductive approaches, guided by Carless and Boud's (2018) feedback literacy framework. Initial analysis involved line-by-line coding to identify emerging themes, followed by the development of broader categories. NVivo 12 software was used to manage and organize the data. The analysis process involved multiple rounds of coding and theme refinement, with regular peer debriefing sessions to enhance interpretive validity. Several strategies were employed to ensure research trustworthiness. Data triangulation and method triangulation were achieved through multiple data collection methods and sources. Member checking was conducted with participants to verify the accuracy of interview transcripts and initial interpretations. All translations were independently verified by two bilingual researchers to ensure accuracy. An audit trail was maintained throughout the research process to document key decisions and analytical procedures. The study received ethical approval from the University of Auckland Ethics Committee. All participants provided informed consent and were assured of confidentiality through the use of pseudonyms. Participants were informed of their right to withdraw from the study at any time, and all data were stored securely in accordance with institutional guidelines.

This study revealed three key findings about Chinese undergraduate students’ engagement with feedback processes. First, students viewed teachers as primary feedback providers due to their expertise. However, this perception evolved as students progressed through their studies, with some developing more sophisticated understandings of feedback as a dialogic process rather than simple information transmission. Second, students demonstrated multiple roles in their feedback engagement, transitioning from passive recipients to active participants. While initially focused on receiving and implementing teacher feedback, many students gradually developed proactive approaches, including seeking feedback from various sources, engaging in peer feedback, and generating self-feedback. This transition was particularly evident among upper-year students who showed increased confidence in their feedback literacy. Third, students exhibited strategic patterns in feedback-seeking behaviors, approaching peers for immediate support while consulting teachers for complex academic issues. Some students, particularly in later years, developed self-feedback capabilities, demonstrating growing confidence in evaluating their own work. These findings contribute to the understanding of student feedback literacy development in higher education. They suggest that students’ engagement with feedback is not static but evolves throughout their academic journey, influenced by their growing experience and the learning context. The implications highlight the importance of creating opportunities for students to develop feedback literacy through various channels, including peer feedback and self-evaluation. This research has significant practical implications for both students and educators.

Carless, D. (2017). Feedback as Dialogue. In: Peters, M.A. (eds) Encyclopedia of Educational Philosophy and Theory. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-588-4_389 Carless, D., & Boud, D. (2018). The development of student feedback literacy: enabling uptake of feedback. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(8), 1315–1325. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1463354 Nicol, D. (2010). From monologue to dialogue: improving written feedback processes in mass higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), 501–517. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602931003786559 Panadero, E., & Lipnevich, A. A. (2022). A review of feedback models and typologies: Towards an integrative model of feedback elements. Educational Research Review, 35, 100416-. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2021.100416 Winstone, N. E., & Carless, D. (2020). Designing effective feedback processes in higher education : a learning-focused approach (1st ed.). Routledge, an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group.