Feedback Patterns in Academia

Power shapes candor. Even when we think we’ve flattened hierarchy, others still feel its weight. For years, when I was a full professor, I believed I had created environments of psychological safety and candor. That was particularly important to me, since I collaborated with many people. I cared deeply about these values and thought those around me felt safe enough to tell me, with candor, when something wasn’t working. But after getting fired, I learned that wasn’t always true. Not long after, a former collaborator—a junior colleague—wrote me a note. We had worked together on several projects, and I had always found our relationship positive, even energizing. The note said otherwise. Here’s part of it: “I am sorry that these things are painful to hear, but unfortunately they reflect how I and others have felt about working with you for many years. The hierarchical nature of academia certainly contributes to everyone’s unwillingness to stand up for themselves and say something. I am not saying this to beat on you when you are down, but to make it clear that my earlier message was not just me losing my temper. It was me saying what I have felt for years and never had the courage to say…” She wanted me removed from a paper I felt I had contributed to, and made the case that I was overestimating the value I added to collaborations. She acknowledged that I brought important positive qualities—like enthusiasm for ideas others dismissed—but that I regularly frustrated her by not being more available and by taking too long to respond. It was painful to read, especially because I had seen our work together as creative, collaborative, and warm. And it was painful to realize that her honesty had been withheld for years because of hierarchy and fear. This experience taught me how easily we, as leaders, can misjudge the climates we’ve created. We assume that because we invite openness, people feel safe to be open. But power distorts feedback loops. It’s not enough to say once, “I welcome candor.” This needs to be said repeatedly—and backed with humility and behavior that proves it’s real. Since then, I’ve been trying to live differently. I’m practicing regularly asking questions like: (1) “What’s something I’m doing that makes it harder for you to be fully honest with me?” (2) “What could I do to be a better collaborator, partner, or friend?” (3) “We can only get better if we help each other improve. What’s one thing I’m doing well—and what’s one I need to improve on?” Sometimes the answers sting. But I’ve learned that the moment after you hear something hard is the moment psychological safety is actually built, if you can stay curious and open instead of defensive. I share this story because many leaders I meet believe, as I once did, that they’ve created environments of candor and psychological safety. But most of us haven’t... not fully. And we can’t fix what we can’t see, unless someone trusts us enough to tell us the truth. #candor #learning

A leader I coached was described as "aggressive" by her faculty within her first year. She was baffled. She'd always been direct. Her previous colleagues would have said the same. What she hadn't accounted for: she was following 7 years of a leader known for conflict avoidance. Faculty had grown accustomed to ambiguity, whoever yelled loudest getting their way, and siloed fiefdoms instead of a unified vision. So when she said "I need the committee's decision by end of week," it landed like a fist on the table. Nobody warns you about this: Your leadership style isn't judged in isolation. It's judged relative to whoever came before you. Follow someone passive: normal decisiveness can read as aggressive. Follow someone aggressive: thoughtful deliberation can read as soft. Follow someone charismatic: genuine warmth can read as performance. You haven't changed. But the baseline has. The feedback new leaders get in year one often makes no sense — until you realize people aren't describing you. They're describing the gap. Have you ever gotten feedback about your style that confused you — and only made sense later in context? I write about this every Saturday in The Academic Leader's Playbook — link in the comments. 👇 #AcademicLeadership #HigherEducation #Leadership #LeadershipDevelopment #FacultyDevelopment

👋 Hey PhDs … I’ve been thinking a lot about what actually helps good science happen. When we talk about scientific breakthroughs, we usually focus on the obvious things: technical skills, publications, funding, ambitious questions, new tools, etc. But the environment people are working in every day plays a much bigger role than we tend to admit. Some research groups have a tone to them that you can feel almost immediately: There’s curiosity... People ask questions without worrying about looking foolish... Ideas get discussed, not shut down... Feedback is direct, but not personal... There’s space to figure things out. In those spaces, people tend to take more intellectual risks, stay engaged longer, recover from setbacks faster, and creativity shows up more often. And some environments feel tense, guarded, and high-pressure in a way that makes people cautious instead of curious. I don’t think we say this out loud enough: Fear and criticism might produce short-term output, but they rarely produce sustained creativity. When someone feels respected and supported, they’re more willing to share a half-formed idea, more likely to push through something difficult, and more invested in the collective success of the group, not just their own project. That doesn’t mean expectations are lower. Often they’re higher because people actually want to rise to them. #Gradstudents and #postdocs are learning science, but they’re also learning what leadership looks like. They’re paying attention to how feedback is given. How conflict is handled. Whether mistakes are treated as learning or failure. Whether collaboration feels encouraged or competitive. Those experiences shape how they will lead someday... in academia, industry, or anywhere else they land. So part of building strong scientific culture is found in: - how we respond to a colleague. - how we give feedback. - how we talk about setbacks. - how we include others in problem-solving. It's important to note that NONE of this is separate from scientific excellence. It’s part of what makes sustained, creative science possible in the first place. #HeyPhDs #ResearchCulture #MentorshipMatters #AcademicLife #PhDLife #ScientificLeadership

Too often, offering students feedback is an exercise in compliance. The professor offers feedback, and expects the students to incorporate all of it. (It’s like the professor is giving items on a checklist. The subtext: “do these things and I’ll give you an A.”) But I want my students to think about feedback differently. I want them to be able to cut between different sets of feedback, connecting them to each other and linking them back to their own understanding. With that in mind… Here’s the feedback cycle I’ve designed for my Comp II students at Berkeley. 1️⃣ Self-Assessment Students use their own self-designed rubric to evaluate their own performance. 2️⃣ Peer Assessment Students get feedback and assessment from other students. 3️⃣ Instructor Assessment I’ll offer feedback on the assignment. 4️⃣ AI Assessment Students get feedback from a custom chatbot. I will be incorporating some of Anna Mills’s prompts for the PAIRR framework. 5️⃣ Assessment Assessment (or Reflection) Students apply the different assessments to their own self-assessment. They defend their ultimate edits within the context of their Self-Empowering Writing Process (SEWP).

All the scholarship on assessment and feedback means little if we cannot translate it into practice. This week I am teaching a course in the Graduate Certificate in University Teaching, where I introduce academics to some amazing scholars who help us think more expansively about how feedback and assessment supports learning goals for students. First, I translate scholarship into principles: 1. Feedback is relational practice Elizabeth Molloy shows how trust, dialogue and psychological safety shape whether feedback becomes usable. 2. Feedback is cultural practice David Boud and Joanna Tai highlight how assessment and program cultures build students’ capacity for future learning (sustainable assessment) and evaluative judgement. 3. Feedback is learning practice Naomi Winstone and David Carless demonstrate that students need structured opportunities to interpret and apply feedback (feedback literacies), not just receive it. 4. Feedback is emotional and identity practice Rebecca Olson and Rola Ajjawi show how belonging, vulnerability and identity shape how students respond to feedback (and how feedback shapes identities). Then I translate these principles into my teaching practice: – Embed dialogue and collaboration (professional learning communities model) across the course – Create feedback conversations in class before assessment is due – Add ‘changes I made because of peer feedback’ as part of the graded assessment task – Integrate self-assessment to build evaluative judgement and use this in marking and written feedback process – Dedicate class time to address all assessment questions throughout the semester – Link earlier feedback to later tasks so students can act on it (scaffold assessment tasks) In my Grad Cert class, academics then apply this work to a subject or supervision context they teach. They identify the explicit role feedback will play and design three or four feedback activities to embed across pedagogy and assessment. This is scholarly teaching: translating theory into practice. It is how we unlock the creativity and academic rigour of university teaching. And it is fun!

As a teacher trainer and Director of Academics, I feel strongly that Peer Feedback in Simulation Lessons are where teachers truly Evolve! In my experience, the most powerful professional growth does not happen in large conferences or one-time workshops. It happens in a room full of teachers. Observing. Reflecting. Refining. Simulation lessons — whether micro-teaching, demo classes, or role-play sessions — create a safe space for practice. But the real transformation begins when peer feedback enters the room. Here’s what I have consistently observed: 🔹 Teachers become more reflective. They begin to notice their tone, pacing, questioning patterns, and clarity of instructions. 🔹 Blind spots surface gently. Colleagues often see what we cannot — transitions, learner engagement gaps, missed differentiation. 🔹 Emotional intelligence deepens. Giving feedback builds empathy. Receiving feedback builds resilience. 🔹 Professional culture shifts. Classrooms stop being isolated islands. Best practices travel faster. Research from the Education Endowment Foundation reinforces that structured feedback significantly improves teaching quality. And the work of John Hattie reminds us that feedback remains one of the highest-impact influences on learning. But beyond research, the truth is simple: When teachers learn from teachers, schools evolve. Peer feedback in simulation lessons does not just refine delivery — it reshapes mindset. From “I taught the lesson.” To “I designed an experience.” And that shift changes everything. Do share in comments how you feel about peer feedback ? #InstructionalLeadership #TeacherDevelopment #PeerFeedback #ProfessionalLearning #SchoolLeadership #ReflectivePractice #MicroTeaching #EducationExcellence

Turning Student Complaints into Teaching Opportunities In any educational institution that truly respects its teaching staff, students’ complaints about teaching styles should never be kept secret or used to undermine a teacher’s effort. Complaints, when handled constructively, are invaluable pieces of information. If used properly, they can significantly improve teaching quality and classroom experiences. Once a class shares its concerns with an administrator, it should be the administrator’s duty to inform the teacher. But this must be done carefully. - The first step is to communicate the feedback exactly as received — no exaggeration, no overstatement. - Be specific: when gathering complaints, ask students clear questions about what exactly they’d like to see improved. - Look for patterns or recurring themes. When many students raise the same issue, it signals that the feedback is valid and needs attention. After sharing the feedback, administrators should encourage the teacher to reflect, propose realistic solutions, and try new approaches. A follow-up conversation later can help assess how things have improved and what still needs support. Finally, always thank the teacher for taking the feedback seriously and for striving to meet students’ needs. Handled well, student complaints aren’t threats—they’re opportunities for growth, collaboration, and better learning outcomes for everyone.

Supervision is pedagogy, not project management (Yes — I mean it, and here’s why that shift matters for every supervisor and every student.) ⸻ I used to treat supervision like running a project: Gantt charts, deadlines, “deliverables.” But over time I realised that a thesis is not a project you hand off — it’s a learning journey. If we don’t supervise pedagogically, we lose the student’s growth, identity, and agency. Here’s what I now believe — and practice — when I supervise (Masters, PhD, part-time, full-time). Each line below could transform one student’s trajectory: 1. “What are you learning?” Before we talk about data, methods, or chapters, we begin by asking what the student wants/needs to learn (skills, critique, theorising, identity). This becomes our compass. 2. Scaffold research thinking, not micro-manage tasks. Instead of “Do X by March,” I guide them to ask better questions, build arcs of reasoning, see the logic behind decisions — like a method teacher, not a taskmaster. 3. Feedback as a conversation, not a mark sheet. I return drafts with questions, counter-narratives, suggestions — not just “you must fix these 10 items.” I want the student to wrestle with why, not just how. 4. Model vulnerability & uncertainty. I sometimes share my own doubts, rejections, or shifts in approach. Academia isn’t monolithic — showing that helps students see research as human, not infallible. 5. Mind the “irrational spaces.” The emotional, identity, crisis, doubt — these aren’t glitches. They are intrinsic to research. Making space for them helps supervision stay humane. (Yes, supervision is partly psychosocial.) 6. Adjust pace & rhythm per student’s life. A full-time PhD has different rhythms than a part-time or working student. We co-design micro-milestones, buffer for real life, and celebrate small wins. 7. Teach the “why behind the what.” Instead of telling “This section is weak,” I try: “Here’s why the structure falters, and how you might rethink the logic arc.” That way the student internalises reasoning, not just form. ⸻ If supervision is pedagogy, here’s what changes: • We stop scheduling checkboxes and start cultivating minds. • We treat grad students as emerging scholars, not passive executors. • We shift from “completions at all costs” to rigour + growth + care. • We teach them not just to survive a thesis, but to become researchers #PhD #Masters #GraduateEducation #AcademicSupervision #Pedagogy #ResearchCulture #HigherEd #SupervisionPractice #Mentorship #AcademicGrowth #ResearchSupervision

TITLE: Bias, the Brain, and Student Evaluations of Teaching Author Deborah J. Merritt explores how student evaluations of teaching (SETs) are influenced by unconscious biases, particularly those related to race and gender. Drawing from personal experiences and empirical studies, Merritt highlights how faculty of color—especially women—receive disproportionately negative evaluations compared to their white male counterparts, even when teaching styles and course content are similar. 1.The article argues that these biases are not always overt or intentional. Instead, they often stem from students’ instinctive reactions to nonverbal cues and social stereotypes. For example, behaviors such as tone of voice, proximity, or eye contact may be interpreted differently depending on the instructor’s race or gender. Merritt emphasizes that these evaluations are frequently used in high-stakes decisions like tenure, promotion, and salary, despite their unreliability and susceptibility to bias. Implications for Women and Faculty of Color Research confirms that women and faculty of color consistently receive lower SET scores than white male instructors, even when all other variables—course content, delivery, and structure—are held constant. 2. This has several troubling implications: Career Advancement Barriers: Because SETs are often used in hiring, tenure, and promotion decisions, biased evaluations can hinder the career progression of women and faculty of color. This perpetuates underrepresentation in leadership and tenured positions. Double Standards and Role Incongruity: Women are often evaluated based on both professional competence and gendered expectations (e.g., being nurturing or accommodating). Faculty of color may also face scrutiny based on perceived deviations from dominant cultural norms, such as accents or communication styles. Emotional and Professional Toll: Repeated exposure to biased feedback can lead to feelings of isolation, frustration, and burnout. It also discourages diverse pedagogical approaches and authentic engagement in the classroom. Structural Inequity: The reliance on SETs reinforces systemic inequities in academia. Quantitative evaluations, in particular, obscure perceptual biases and give a false sense of objectivity. Merritt and other scholars advocate for a reevaluation of how teaching effectiveness is measured. Alternatives include: Holistic assessments that incorporate peer reviews, teaching portfolios, and student learning outcomes. Bias training for students and faculty to raise awareness of unconscious prejudice. Institutional accountability to ensure that evaluation systems do not perpetuate discrimination. LINK: https://lnkd.in/gShtqgWs

On handling Academic Criticism! I was 1.5 year into my Ph.D. when I submitted my draft synopsis for my guide's approval. Although I was expecting some minor suggestions, but what came to me was a full redlined version, endless comments & suggestions with the concluding line being 'Almost whole of it needs re-working'. This was demotivating & frustrating after 6 months of effort. Only when I started re-working on it, I realized that what a remarkable difference her suggestions made to my work. The feedback that my supervisor and my research committee gave me at various stages still stays with me whenever I attempt any academic writing. As long as you are in Ph.D/ research., you will be facing academic critique on your drafts, final submissions from your professors and peers. But certainly, taking feedback and criticism at every stage of your work can be overwhelming and painful. Here's what I learnt from my own journey and those of my peers on managing academic feedback. 📒Be very clear with expectations: Know what your supervisor and research committee expect from you, read their works, be clear with academic/department/university guidelines in terms of style & structure of writing and formatting. This will help you avoid ' I wish I knew this earlier' moment. 📒 Don't give any emotional response to any feedback: Remember the feedback is about your work and not about You! 📒Whether in front of your guide or panel, try to avoid confrontation: Do speak your mind because ultimately, it's your work and you have every right to defend it. But don't let defending your ideas turn into confrontation. After a point, just take note of the feedback. You can ponder over it and discuss it with your guide/panel later. Confrontation adds more to stress than feedback itself. 📒 Don't start re-working on your draft as soon as you receive feedback: Give yourself some cooling down period to be able to review feedback objectively. Give yourself a mental break. 📒Acknowledge that feedback is part of every stage of your academic journey: It will help you look at it more objectively. There is going to be back & forth. No escape from it. 📒 Focus on the Facts: The most meaningful critique can come from someone probably you don’t like or hate too much. Assess the feedback by the quality and not by the source. 📒 Learn to differentiate meaningful critique from toxic criticism: In academic fraternity, it is expected to deliver feedback in a manner that is respectful and meaningful. Anything different conveys more about the person who is giving feedback than yourself. So, don’t lose sanity and sleep over it. ‘Extract the best, leave the rest’! #research #phdlife