article · Discover Education
Education in the postgraduate program is integrally dynamic, which necessitates continuous feedback for the better performance of both students and teachers. However, the effectiveness of feedback shall be considered for the realizations of its supposed effects. This study seeks to evaluate how effective the feedback is within the postgraduate programs of BDU’s School of Educational Sciences, focusing on the perspectives of both teachers and students concerning its impacts on teaching, learning, and research. A qualitative approach employing phenomenology design was used. Using purposive sampling, 6 teachers and 7 students from the postgraduate programs of the school were selected and participated in the study. Data was collected using semi structured interview, and analyzed using thematic and interpretive analysis techniques. This study reveals that feedback is vital for students’ learning, but challenges such as delayed, vague, or superficial feedback hinder its effectiveness. Both teachers and students stress the importance of timely, specific, ongoing, and constructive feedback to support academic progress. Teachers face difficulties in personalizing feedback due to diverse student needs, while students struggle with vague and delayed feedback that negatively impacts their motivation. The study affirmed that feedback is central for the improvement of postgraduate learning though its effectiveness is diminished by delays, vagueness, and lack of personalization. The need for timely, clear, and constructive feedback, which is tailored to individual needs were resonated. The study highpoints the need for targeted training on effective feedback practices and the establishment of regular supervisory check-ins. Implementing these recommendations can strengthen program quality by improving student learning, enhancing research quality, supporting timely completion, and fostering academic identity development.
This page summarises published work. The authoritative version sits with the publisher.
DOI: 10.1007/s44217-026-01768-4
Is something wrong with this record? Report it or request removal.
Discussion
Have you built on this work, tried to replicate it, or seen it applied in practice? Share what you know. Verified researchers and MARATTO™ domain experts can open a discussion, and any member can reply. Contributions are reviewed before they appear.
No discussion yet. Open the first thread.
New to MARATTO™? Create a free account.