Feedback is widely regarded as a central feature of effective learning and teaching in higher education due to its potential to improve student learning outcomes, self-regulation, and academic performance (Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Sadler, 1989). Consequently, universities across Australia and Europe invest substantial resources in developing academics’ feedback practices and advancing conceptual models of effective feedback (Boud & Molloy, 2013; Dawson et al., 2019). Despite extensive theoretical and empirical attention, student dissatisfaction with feedback persists, particularly regarding the quality, clarity, and usefulness of the information communicated (Henderson et al., 2019; Price et al., 2011).

A key limitation in existing feedback research is the limited exploration of the information students actually want to receive in feedback. While prior studies have examined timing, modality, and uptake of feedback (Carless & Boud, 2018; Winstone et al., 2017), far less attention has been paid to students’ perspectives on the content of feedback information itself. This gap is especially salient in European higher education contexts, where massification, outcomes-based curricula, and employability agendas place increasing pressure on assessment and feedback practices to demonstrate relevance, transparency, and alignment with graduate capabilities.

Theoretically, this study is grounded in the principle of constructive alignment (Biggs, 1996; Biggs & Tang, 2007), which emphasises coherence between intended learning outcomes, teaching and learning activities, and assessment. Within this framework, feedback occupies a critical curricular space, serving as a mechanism through which students interpret performance standards, judge quality, and regulate future learning (Boud & Molloy, 2013). However, despite the centrality of feedback within constructive alignment, there remains limited empirical understanding of how feedback information—when viewed from students’ perspectives—supports or constrains this alignment.

Existing feedback models provide useful but partial accounts of feedback information. Hattie and Timperley’s (2007) four-level model distinguishes task-level, process-level, self-regulation, and self-level feedback, whereas Sadler (2010) emphasises feedback that identifies strengths, weaknesses, and areas for future improvement. Shute (2007) differentiates between verification and elaboration feedback. Although these frameworks are influential, they are largely theorised from instructional or academic perspectives, with limited empirical grounding in students’ expressed information needs.

To address this gap, the present study explores students’ perspectives on feedback using a qualitative approach. By foregrounding students’ voices, the study seeks to reconceptualise feedback information in ways that strengthen constructive alignment, enhance learning-oriented assessment practices, and address persistent dissatisfaction with feedback in higher education. The findings have relevance beyond the Australian context, offering insights for European universities seeking to align feedback practices with employability, transparency, and student-centred learning agendas.

This study is theoretically grounded in Constructive Alignment (CA), which conceptualises effective teaching and learning as coherence among intended learning outcomes (ILOs), teaching–learning activities, and assessment tasks. Rooted in constructivist learning theory, CA assumes that learners actively construct meaning through engagement with aligned learning experiences (Biggs & Tang, 2011). Extending this model, the present framework positions feedback as a central mediating mechanism that operationalises alignment across curriculum levels, including program learning outcomes, course design, learning activities, and assessment criteria. High-quality feedback is conceptualised as criterion-referenced and formative, explicitly communicating how students’ work demonstrates expected levels of performance against stated outcomes. In doing so, feedback clarifies standards, supports self-regulation, and enables students to monitor and reflect on their learning (Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick, 2006). From a student perspective, feedback is the primary means by which constructive alignment becomes visible and actionable. This framework, therefore, conceptualises feedback not as a supplementary practice but as a core curriculum process that sustains alignment and promotes deeper learning.

This study employed a qualitative descriptive research design to explore university students’ perspectives on the feedback they seek. Qualitative description was considered appropriate given the study’s aim to capture participants’ views in a manner that remains close to their lived experiences and expressed meanings (Kim et al., 2017). Following institutional ethics approval, invitations to participate were circulated across a university campus. Thirty-five students initially expressed interest; 20 completed semi-structured interviews. Participants represented a range of disciplines, including Engineering, Education, Sciences, Mathematics, Business, Social Sciences, and Technology. Students were drawn from different year levels (first year to final year) and age groups, ensuring diversity in academic experience. An interview guide was developed to focus specifically on feedback information, rather than on feedback timing or modality, to maintain conceptual clarity. The guide was piloted with three students to refine the wording and sequencing of questions. Interviews were conducted by the first author, audio recorded, and lasted 20-35 minutes. Data analysis followed Braun and Clarke’s (2022) reflexive thematic analysis. Transcripts were read iteratively to ensure familiarity and accuracy. Initial coding was informed deductively by existing feedback frameworks, particularly Hattie and Timperley’s (2007) levels of feedback, before moving to inductive coding to capture unanticipated themes. Member checking was conducted to enhance credibility (Cohen et al., 2018). Through an iterative analytic process, five overarching themes were identified.

Thematic analysis revealed five dimensions of feedback information that students value. First, students emphasised feedback that connects their performance to future job requirements and employability. Such feedback helped students understand how disciplinary knowledge and skills align with workplace expectations, supporting professional identity development. Second, students valued task-level feedback that clarified their understanding of assessment requirements, identified misconceptions, and explained how marks were awarded. This information helped students interpret performance standards and reduce uncertainty. Third, process-level feedback was highly valued, particularly information about the effectiveness of strategies used to complete tasks and suggestions for alternative approaches. Students reported that this feedback was transferable to future tasks. Fourth, students highlighted the importance of self-regulation feedback, including guidance on goal setting, self-assessment, and action on feedback. This supported students’ capacity to engage productively with feedback over time. Finally, self-level feedback, including praise and affirmation, was valued when directed toward effort, engagement, and improvement, thereby contributing to motivation and persistence. This study extends existing feedback theory by empirically identifying a fifth dimension of feedback information, alignment with future work, alongside established feedback levels. Theoretically, it strengthens the application of constructive alignment by demonstrating how feedback information can make curriculum intentions explicit to students. In practice, the findings provide academics with a student-informed framework for designing feedback that is coherent, meaningful, and actionable. Future research should examine the transferability of these dimensions across European higher education systems and explore their relationship with student engagement and learning outcomes.

Adcroft, A. (2011). The mythology of feedback. Higher Education Research & Development, 30(4), 405–419. Ajjawi, R., Tai, J., Huu Nghia, T. L., Boud, D., Johnson, L., & Patrick, C.-J. (2020). Aligning assessment with the needs of work-integrated learning. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 45(2), 304–316. Alonzo, D., Mirriahi, N., & Davison, C. (2019). Standards-based assessment practices. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(4), 636–652. Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education, 32, 347–364. Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2007). Teaching for quality learning at university. Open University Press. Boud, D., & Molloy, E. (2013). Rethinking models of feedback for learning. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(6), 698–712. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2022). Thematic analysis: A practical guide. Sage. Carless, D., & Boud, D. (2018). Feedback literacy. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(8), 1315–1325. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment. Instructional Science, 18(2), 119–144.