Why feedback and grade justification matter in higher education

Assessment is not just about assigning a number. It is a pivotal moment for learning, trust, and quality assurance. Two practices; providing feedback on exams and justifying grades, are essential for universities committed to student success and academic integrity. 

Feedback is a driver of learning and engagement 

Research consistently shows that feedback is one of the most powerful influences on student achievement. John Hattie’s synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses places feedback among the top factors affecting learning, with an average effect size of around 0.48, well above the hinge point of 0.40 that signals meaningful impact (Hattie, Visible Learning). More recent work by Wisniewski et al. (2020) confirms that feedback improves performance when it is timely, specific, and actionable. 

But feedback is more than a mechanism for correcting errors. It builds what Carless and Boud (2018) call “feedback literacy”, the ability of students to interpret comments, make evaluative judgements, and act on advice. This skill is fundamental for lifelong learning and professional development. When feedback is linked to published criteria, it also enhances transparency and trust, aligning with the European Standards and Guidelines (ESG) for Quality Assurance and the UK Quality Code, both of which emphasize student-centered assessment. 

Effective feedback does more than explain what went wrong; it points forward. Feedforward comments help students understand how to improve in future tasks, making assessment a springboard for progression rather than a dead end. Structured, rubric-based feedback further supports consistency across markers and cohorts, reducing variability and perceived bias. This is not only good pedagogy, it is good quality assurance. 

Grade justification is beyond compliance

Grade justification is often viewed as a bureaucratic requirement, but its value extends far beyond compliance. In many jurisdictions, including Norway, students have a legal right to request an explanation for their grade (“begrunnelse”), typically within one week of publication, with institutions expected to respond within two weeks. Meeting this obligation is essential for transparency and due process. 

Providing a clear rationale for a grade strengthens fairness and defensibility. It shows how the student’s work maps to published criteria, reinforcing trust in the assessment process. A well-written justification also doubles as feedback, helping students understand their performance and identify areas for improvement. For institutions, documented justifications create an audit trail that reduces the risk of appeals and supports external quality reviews; key requirements under ESG and national codes. 

Grade justification also benefits educators and institutions internally writing to criteria promotes consistency across markets and supports moderation practices. Structured justifications can feed analytics for programmed enhancement, highlighting patterns in performance, and informing curriculum development. In short, justification is not just about explaining the past. It is about improving the future. 

How WISEflow supports feedback and compliance at scale 

Delivering high-quality feedback and grade justifications at scale can be challenging especially during peak assessment periods. This is where technology makes a difference. WISEflow is designed to support universities in meeting these demands without compromising academic integrity. 

Equally important, WISEflow supports diverse feedback methods; from inline annotations and rubric-based comments to holistic summaries and audio feedback. This flexibility empowers assessors to choose the most effective approach for their discipline and context, while giving students feedback in formats that enhance engagement and understanding. Freedom and flexibility are not luxuries – they are essential for creating a student-centered assessment experience. 

Our platform also looks ahead to the future, introducing AI-assisted capabilities that help educators work smarter, not harder. With human-in-the-loop workflows, assessors remain in control while AI drafts feedback and grade justifications aligned to rubrics, marking guidelines, and the student's specific submission. This saves time, ensures consistency, and creates a transparent audit trail for compliance. Combined with analytics that monitor quality and turnaround times, these tools will enable institutions to scale feedback without sacrificing academic ownership or integrity. 

When selecting an exam platform, universities should look for solutions that combine scalability, compliance, and pedagogical flexibility. A system that can handle large volumes of assessments while supporting varied feedback practices across multiple exam and assessment formats ensures that quality is not sacrificed for efficiency. WISEflow delivers exactly that. A secure, privacy and GDPR compliant, and adaptable environment that helps institutions uphold standards, learn from them, and improve learning outcomes. 

Feedback and justification as opportunities

Feedback and grade justification are not administrative burdens; they are opportunities to enhance learning, uphold fairness, and strengthen quality assurance. By embedding these practices into assessment design and leveraging technology to support them, universities can meet regulatory requirements, improve student experience, and build trust in their academic standards. 

Ready to take the next step? 

Explore how WISEflow can help your institution deliver feedback and grade justification at scale. And discover how our upcoming AI capabilities will transform assessment workflows. Reach out to us and learn how we support compliance, learning, and flexibility for both students and assessors. 

References 

• Hattie, J. (2009). Visible Learning: A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement. 

• Wisniewski, B., Zierer, K., & Hattie, J. (2020). The Power of Feedback Revisited: A Meta-Analysis of Educational Feedback Research. 

• Carless, D., & Boud, D. (2018). The Development of Student Feedback Literacy: Enabling Uptake of Feedback. 

• European Standards and Guidelines (ENQA). 

• UK Quality Code for Higher Education. 

• Norwegian Universities and Colleges Act (Universitets- og høyskoleloven) – Right to Grade Explanation.