Learning to Learn: Developing feedback literacy in first-year undergraduate students 

Summary

Ian Radcliffe

Interviewees

Dr Ian Radcliffe, Senior Teaching Fellow

Overview

Faculty: Engineering
Department: Bioengineering 

Module name: Learning to Learn 
Not a credit-bearing module; delivered as part of the personal tutoring structure 

Programme name: Undergraduate Bioengineering programmes, including: Biomedical Engineering, Molecular Bioengineering, Biomedical Technology Venturing 
Level: 4
Approximate number of students: Approximately 210 students in total - 120 Biomedical Engineering students, 60 Molecular Bioengineering students, 30 Biomedical Technology Venturing students 
Module ECTS: Not a credit-bearing module; delivered as part of the personal tutoring structure 
Module type: n/a

 

Assessment overview

This case study explores a first-year feedback literacy intervention embedded within a broader Learning to Learn programme. It aimed to help students understand, interpret, and act on feedback more effectively through interactive sessions focused on reflection, metacognition, and self-regulation, while also highlighting challenges around attendance, relevance, and curriculum integration. 

Design decisions and practicalities

Context and rationale

The feedback literacy session formed part of the wider Learning to Learn module introduced for first-year undergraduates to prepare them for the demands of later study, especially the transition into second year. The intervention grew out of  MEd  work which suggested that students often lacked the feedback literacy, independent learning strategies, and self-regulation needed to engage effectively with university learning. First year was chosen deliberately because it is a lower-risk stage of the programme, offering space to build habits and strategies before students encounter the greater academic pressure of second year. 
The intervention aimed to help students become more effective independent learners, understand how university learning differs from school, use feedback more effectively, develop metacognitive awareness, reflect on their learning, manage time and planning, and engage ethically with generative AI. Feedback literacy was therefore embedded within a broader developmental approach rather than taught as an isolated topic, and was linked to the personal tutor system to reinforce learning across settings. 

Impact

For students who attended, the intervention appeared valuable, with anecdotal feedback suggesting they could see how the ideas and tools could be applied to their work. Students engaged positively in discussions, and personal tutors also reported that some students continued these conversations in tutor meetings, suggesting some indirect impact beyond the sessions themselves. However, the main limitation was very poor attendance, with numbers dropping sharply after the first session and some groups attracting only a small fraction of expected students. This significantly reduced the intervention’s reach and overall impact. While higher-achieving students were more likely to attend, the available data did not show that attendance itself directly improved grades, so this relationship needs to be interpreted cautiously. 

Intervention

The feedback literacy session within the Learning to Learn sequence introduced first-year students to feedback as a broader process of learning rather than simply written comments on assignments. It aimed to help students understand the role of feedback literacy in becoming independent learners, while also developing metacognitive and reflective skills. Through pair discussion, small-group work, and Mentimeter activities, students explored multiple sources of feedback, including lecturers, peers, online resources, and their own internal responses. 

The session focused particularly on four aspects of feedback literacy: appreciating feedback processes, making judgments, managing emotional responses, and taking action. Students discussed how to evaluate quality using criteria and exemplars, explored emotional reactions to feedback using the Chimp Paradox model, and practised organising responses to feedback through structured action-planning activities. They were also introduced to reflective frameworks and feedback logs, including digital tools such as Trello, to help track recurring themes and monitor improvement over time. The session emphasised active participation and practical application throughout.