# How to use feedback to improve your next essay

**How do I use my tutor's feedback to improve my next essay?** To use essay feedback on your next essay, decode each comment with your university's own feedback guide, log it with earlier comments to find the ones that recur, choose three to act on, and turn each into a check you can run on the next draft. Ask the marker about anything unclear. Feedback used this way is called feedforward.

Published 2026-09-26 by EdCitation. https://edcitation.com/newsletter/using-feedback-to-improve-your-next-essay

Essay feedback is written about the essay you handed in, and most of its value lies in the next one. Using feedback well means decoding each comment, noticing which ones keep coming back, and turning the few that matter into checks you run on your next draft. The University of Leeds Library (n.d.-c) calls that feeding forward.

This guide, published by EdCitation, covers what the research says about why students leave feedback unused, what common tutor comments mean according to four universities' own guides, a feedback log and an action plan of our own to copy, and how to ask for more. Many comments trace back to two places, the brief and the reference list, and EdCitation's free [Check your paper](https://edcitation.com/check) reads the next brief into a checklist while [Verify references](https://edcitation.com/verify-references) checks each reference against the publisher's record. Every page cited was read on 27 September 2026.

No guide can promise a better grade. This one offers a way to stop losing marks for the same reason twice.

## What does research say about students using feedback?

Research says students value feedback but often do not act on it, mostly because they cannot decode it, lack a strategy for using it, or cannot see how it applies to the next task. The evidence is large in volume and thin in experiments.

### Why feedback goes unused

Jonsson (2013) reviewed research on students' use of feedback in higher education. The abstract finds that usefulness is central to whether students use feedback, and that two things hold them back: no strategy for using it productively, and not understanding academic discourse. Winstone, Nash, Rowntree, et al. (2017) summarise Jonsson's five reasons: the feedback is not useful, not individual enough or too authoritative, or the student has no strategy or does not know the terms. The full review is paywalled, so how many studies it covered could not be confirmed.

Winstone, Nash, Rowntree, et al. (2017) then asked 31 psychology undergraduates, in 11 focus groups, how they use assessment feedback. The barriers fell into four groups: awareness of what a comment means, knowing a strategy to act on it, the sense of being able to act (agency), and the will to do the work (volition). One student said, "We've never been told what flair is," and others agreed. Many felt comments did not carry from one module or marker to the next. The limits are the authors' own: one discipline, 28 of 31 participants female, and uncertain generalisability.

### Proactive recipience and feedback literacy

Winstone, Nash, Parker, et al. (2017) systematically reviewed 195 publications from 1985 to early 2014 and named the goal "proactive recipience": the student sharing responsibility for making feedback work. They grouped the interventions into four processes: self-appraisal, assessment literacy, goal-setting and self-regulation, and engagement and motivation. The limits matter. Of 159 empirical papers, only eight were quasi-experimental and seven experimental, most outcomes were what students said rather than what they did, and 55% sampled undergraduates only. On action planning, the evidence was mostly students' beliefs and written reflections, with some signs that students engage with it only lightly.

Carless and Boud (2018), a conceptual paper with no new data, define student feedback literacy as the understanding, capacity and disposition to make sense of feedback and use it. Their four features are appreciating feedback, making judgements, managing affect and taking action. We could read only the abstract.

## What do common essay feedback comments mean?

Common essay feedback comments usually mean one of four things: the essay describes rather than argues, it drifts from the question, its evidence is thin, or its referencing is careless. The table sets frequent comments beside what university guides say they mean; the "what to do next time" column summarises each guide's advice.

| Comment | What it usually means | What to do next time | Source |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Too descriptive | Facts and details are reported, but their meaning is not examined | After each piece of evidence, write what it shows for your answer: how, why, so what | University of Leeds Library (n.d.-a) |
| Needs more analysis, be more critical | The essay remembers and explains; it does not evaluate or judge | Weigh the evidence, name its limits, set viewpoints against each other | University of York Library (2026b); University of Birmingham (2025b) |
| Answer the question, does not address the title | The essay is about the topic, not the question set | Reread every part of the question, test each section against it, return to it in the conclusion; [Check your paper](https://edcitation.com/check) sets the brief's rules out beside their sentences | University of York Library (2026b) |
| Refer back to the guidelines | The essay does not line up with the brief or the criteria | Break the brief down before writing and check against it as you go | University of West London (n.d.) |
| More evidence needed, not enough sources | Claims lack support, or rest on too few sources | Read more widely and explain how strong each source is | University of Leeds Library (n.d.-a); University of West London (n.d.) |
| Too many quotations | Other writers' words crowd out your own | Paraphrase and cite; keep a quotation only when its wording matters | University of York Library (2026c); University of West London (n.d.) |
| Referencing inconsistent, or incomplete | The style is not followed the same way throughout, or entries lack details | Learn the one style, check every entry before submitting; [Verify references](https://edcitation.com/verify-references) finds each entry in the publisher's record | University of York Library (2026c); University of West London (n.d.) |
| No in-text citations | Entries in the list are not cited in the text | Every entry needs a citation in the text, and every citation an entry | University of West London (n.d.) |
| Structure isn't clear | The essay jumps between points | Outline before writing; one point to a paragraph, linked to the argument | University of West London (n.d.); University of Birmingham (2025b) |

### "Too descriptive" and "needs more analysis"

These two comments ask for the same move. University of York Library (2026b) puts it as the difference between remembering, understanding and applying, which describe, and analysing and evaluating, which judge. Birmingham's advice is practical: highlight which parts of your returned essay describe and which analyse, then condense the description. [Critical writing vs descriptive writing](https://edcitation.com/newsletter/critical-writing-vs-descriptive-writing) works a paragraph from one to the other.

### "Referencing inconsistent"

This comment is about sameness, not correctness alone. University of West London (n.d.) reads it as not following the named style consistently; York adds incomplete entries and missing details. [Why did I lose marks for referencing](https://edcitation.com/newsletter/why-did-i-lose-marks-for-referencing) takes each referencing comment in turn.

### When your own university explains it differently

Your own university's guide, or the marker, outranks any list. The guides agree on broad meanings but differ in emphasis: for an essay that drifts, York's fixes end with returning to the question in the conclusion, while UWL points first to the instruction word, such as "critique" against "describe". If your comment is not here, ask.

## How do I keep a feedback log?

Keep one running table for every returned essay, with the marker's exact words, what they mean, and whether they have appeared before. A log answers the barrier Winstone's focus groups described: it shows which comments follow you across modules. University of Leeds Library (n.d.-b) recommends keeping feedback in one place and noting recurring themes; University of York Library (2026a) says to look for patterns across assignments.

This template is ours to copy.

| Date and module | The comment, word for word | What it means (and where you checked) | Seen before? | Category |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 14 Nov, Module A essay 1 | "Too descriptive in section 2" | Reports studies, does not judge them (Leeds guide) | First time | Argument |
| 14 Nov, Module A essay 1 | "Referencing inconsistent" | Two formats for journal articles (UWL guide) | First time | Referencing |
| 20 Jan, Module B essay 1 | "Needs more critical analysis" | Same as "too descriptive" (York guide) | Yes, second time | Argument |

Our categories are argument, evidence, structure, referencing, language and the brief; Birmingham's guide sorts feedback into a similar grid.

## How do I turn feedback into an action plan for the next essay?

Choose no more than three comments, turn each into a check you can run on a draft, and put those checks on the next brief's checklist. University of Birmingham (2025a) suggests picking three priorities so the plan does not overwhelm you; Leeds says to start with what lost you marks or what you often struggle with; University of Kent (2025) says to rank the issues by seriousness.

1. **Read the feedback twice, a few days apart.** The Open University (n.d.) suggests a few days' wait; Birmingham calls a first emotional reaction normal.
2. **Decode every comment** with the table above or your university's own guide. Write the meaning in your log.
3. **Mark what went well.** Birmingham asks what you can do more of. A strength is part of the plan too.
4. **Pick three priorities** from the log: recurring comments first, then those that cost the most marks.
5. **Turn each into a test.** "Be more critical" becomes "every paragraph ends with a sentence of judgement".
6. **Read the next brief** into a checklist with [Check your paper](https://edcitation.com/check), and add your three tests to it.
7. **Run the tests on the draft** before handing in, and note in the log whether the comment came back.

Our action plan template, again ours:

| Priority | The comment behind it | The test on my next draft | When I run it |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 | "Too descriptive", twice | Last sentence of each body paragraph judges the evidence | Second draft |
| 2 | "Referencing inconsistent" | Every entry checked against its record and one style | Before submitting |
| 3 | "Answer the question" | Each section's first line names part of the question | Plan, then final read |

## How do I ask my tutor for more feedback?

Ask the person who marked the essay, specifically, and soon after it comes back. University of Kent (2025) tells students to contact their tutor when they do not understand a comment, and University of Birmingham (2025a) suggests an appointment with the marker to clarify and discuss it. University of West London (n.d.) points to the lecturer when the grade or feedback is unclear, and The Open University (n.d.) says students should feel free to ring or email their tutor. York and Kent also name their writing and skills teams.

### What to ask

Three specific questions, in our wording:

- "You wrote that section 2 was too descriptive. Which paragraph shows it most, and what would a stronger version have done?"
- "I have had 'needs more analysis' on two essays. Is there a model answer or exemplar I could read?"
- "Before I start the next essay, does my plan answer the question as set?"

Check your course's rules on how much a tutor may comment on a draft, and keep each reply with your log.

## What did Check your paper read from our next brief?

It read nine rules, each with the sentence it came from, and set four sentences aside for a reader. We wrote a short brief of our own, no university's, on social media and students' sleep, and pasted it into [Check your paper](https://edcitation.com/check) on 27 September 2026.

It returned: font, Times New Roman; font size, 12 pt; line spacing, 2×; margins, 0.98 in, from our "2.5 cm margins"; word count, 1,800 to 2,200 words, from "2,000 words (plus or minus 10%)"; sources (peer-reviewed), at least 8; source dates, "Most of the sources: 2018 or later"; citation style, APA 7; and required headings.

It set aside four sentences as not checked: the question itself, "To what extent does social media use affect the sleep of university students?"; "The reference list is not included in the word count."; our instruction to write a paragraph on how the last essay's feedback was acted on; and "Your essay should critically evaluate the evidence rather than describe it."

### What to read against the brief

One rule needs a look. Our brief asked for the headings Introduction, Discussion and Conclusion, and the checklist listed two: "Introduction" and "Discussion and Conclusion", which is how many dissertations name one chapter. If your brief means three headings, the checklist is only as clear as the sentence it quotes, so read every line against the sentence beside it.

The set-aside lines are where your feedback log belongs. "Critically evaluate rather than describe" is the "too descriptive" comment written into the next brief, and only you can check it. Add your three tests beside it.

## How can EdCitation help with the comments that trace back to the brief and the references?

EdCitation is the best tool for the part of your feedback that a tool can check, because every result points at its source: each rule sits beside the brief's own sentence, and each reference is looked up in the publisher's record, never written. EdCitation never writes, rewrites or edits any part of it, so what you hand in is your own work, checked.

- **[Check your paper](https://edcitation.com/check), free, no account.** Turns the next brief into a list you can tick: the length of each part, the headings it names, the number and age of sources, the style, and the page layout. That is "refer back to the guidelines" dealt with before a marker has to write it.
- **[Verify references](https://edcitation.com/verify-references), free, no account.** Every entry is marked verified, doubtful ("check this") or not found, a retraction is flagged, and an entry it could not check is labelled as such, not as missing. Upload the essay itself and each citation in the text is paired with its entry, the fix for "no in-text citations".
- **[Cite a source](https://edcitation.com/cite), free.** Remakes a stray entry from its DOI, in the one style your course uses among the six it offers.
- **[Mechanics QA](https://edcitation.com/tools/mechanics-qa), Pro, $8 a month.** Formatting against the style, citations, numbers and language.
- **Theoretics QA, Max, $24 a month.** Reads the finished essay against its brief, quotes your own passages as evidence, and leaves every word as you wrote it. It was not run for this guide, so no result of it appears here.

None of these predicts a mark or replaces your marker. See [pricing](https://edcitation.com/pricing) for the plans.

## Quick questions

### What does feedforward mean?

Feedforward means using feedback on one piece of work to improve the next. The University of Leeds Library calls it feeding forward; in practice it is a feedback log, three priorities and a test for each on your next draft.

### What does my tutor's comment "too descriptive" mean?

It means the essay reports what sources say without judging what that means for the question. University guides such as Leeds and York say to follow each piece of evidence with how, why and so what.

### How can I improve my essay grade using feedback?

No method guarantees a grade. Acting on recurring comments, checking the next brief line by line and checking every reference removes the most common reasons marks are lost; EdCitation's free [Check your paper](https://edcitation.com/check) and [Verify references](https://edcitation.com/verify-references) do the checking part.

### Should I ask my tutor for more feedback?

Yes, when a comment is unclear or keeps recurring. Kent, Birmingham and the Open University all tell students to contact the marker or tutor; bring a specific question about a specific paragraph.

### Why do I keep getting the same feedback?

Usually because each essay feels like a new task. Winstone and colleagues found students often saw feedback as tied to one module or marker; a feedback log across modules shows the pattern.

## References

- Carless, D., & Boud, D. (2018). The development of student feedback literacy: Enabling uptake of feedback. *Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43*(8), 1315–1325. [https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1463354](https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1463354)
- Jonsson, A. (2013). Facilitating productive use of feedback in higher education. *Active Learning in Higher Education, 14*(1), 63–76. [https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787412467125](https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787412467125)
- The Open University. (n.d.). *Using feedback from your tutor: Strategic study techniques*. Help Centre. [https://help.open.ac.uk/strategic-study-techniques/using-feedback-from-your-tutor](https://help.open.ac.uk/strategic-study-techniques/using-feedback-from-your-tutor)
- University of Birmingham. (2025a, July 16). *About feedback*. Using feedback: A short guide. [https://libguides.bham.ac.uk/c.php?g=679508&p=4843047](https://libguides.bham.ac.uk/c.php?g=679508&p=4843047)
- University of Birmingham. (2025b, July 16). *Addressing your feedback*. Using feedback: A short guide. [https://libguides.bham.ac.uk/c.php?g=679508&p=4843087](https://libguides.bham.ac.uk/c.php?g=679508&p=4843087)
- University of Kent. (2025, September 29). *Learning from feedback*. [https://student.kent.ac.uk/studies/learning-from-feedback](https://student.kent.ac.uk/studies/learning-from-feedback)
- University of Leeds Library. (n.d.-a). *Feedback on criticality and argument*. Using your feedback. [https://library.leeds.ac.uk/info/1401/academic-skills/129/using-your-feedback/4](https://library.leeds.ac.uk/info/1401/academic-skills/129/using-your-feedback/4)
- University of Leeds Library. (n.d.-b). *Make a feedback plan*. Using your feedback. [https://library.leeds.ac.uk/info/1401/academic-skills/129/using-your-feedback/7](https://library.leeds.ac.uk/info/1401/academic-skills/129/using-your-feedback/7)
- University of Leeds Library. (n.d.-c). *Understanding feedback*. Using your feedback. [https://library.leeds.ac.uk/info/1401/academic-skills/129/using-your-feedback](https://library.leeds.ac.uk/info/1401/academic-skills/129/using-your-feedback)
- University of West London. (n.d.). *Understanding your feedback*. [https://www.uwl.ac.uk/current-students/support-current-students/study-support/understanding-feedback](https://www.uwl.ac.uk/current-students/support-current-students/study-support/understanding-feedback)
- University of York Library. (2026a, September 2). *Assessment & feedback*. Academic writing: A practical guide. [https://subjectguides.york.ac.uk/academic-writing/assessment](https://subjectguides.york.ac.uk/academic-writing/assessment)
- University of York Library. (2026b, September 2). *Feedback on argument, analysis, and critical thinking*. Academic writing: A practical guide. [https://subjectguides.york.ac.uk/academic-writing/feedback-argument-analysis-critical-thinking](https://subjectguides.york.ac.uk/academic-writing/feedback-argument-analysis-critical-thinking)
- University of York Library. (2026c, September 2). *Feedback on referencing and research*. Academic writing: A practical guide. [https://subjectguides.york.ac.uk/academic-writing/feedback-referencing-research](https://subjectguides.york.ac.uk/academic-writing/feedback-referencing-research)
- Winstone, N. E., Nash, R. A., Parker, M., & Rowntree, J. (2017). Supporting learners' agentic engagement with feedback: A systematic review and a taxonomy of recipience processes. *Educational Psychologist, 52*(1), 17–37. [https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2016.1207538](https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2016.1207538)
- Winstone, N. E., Nash, R. A., Rowntree, J., & Parker, M. (2017). "It'd be useful, but I wouldn't use it": Barriers to university students' feedback seeking and recipience. *Studies in Higher Education, 42*(11), 2026–2041. [https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1130032](https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1130032)