Contextual Background
The Master’s Project (MAP) is the final assessment for postgraduate programmes within the Fashion Business School at London College of Fashion. Students are required to produce a 17,000-word dissertation or business report. A key challenge is supporting students to develop viable research projects from initial ideas to clearly defined research questions, aims and objectives during the early stages of the research process.
Evaluation
Many students initially struggle to narrow their research interests into a focused and feasible research topic. This difficulty is often compounded by unfamiliarity with academic research conventions and uncertainty about identifying a meaningful research gap relevant to both academic and industry contexts.
To support students during the early stages of the project, I provide lectures explaining how research topics, research questions, and aims and objectives are developed, including examples of successful previous projects. Students are also offered one-to-one tutorials, where they can discuss their ideas and receive personalised feedback. Additional drop-in sessions provide opportunities for clarification and further guidance. Written feedback is provided following tutorials so that students have a clear set of actions to guide their next steps. I also organise writing retreat sessions, where students can reflect on feedback and immediately apply revisions to their work.
These strategies have helped many students refine their projects. However, I have observed that some students still struggle to translate feedback into concrete improvements in their research design. This suggests that while feedback is being provided, additional support may be needed to help students interpret and apply feedback more effectively.
Moving Forward
Reflecting on this experience has highlighted the importance of ensuring that feedback is not only provided but also actively used by students to improve their work. While individual tutorials and written comments offer personalised guidance, students sometimes find it difficult to interpret feedback independently or prioritise the most important revisions.
One strategy I plan to strengthen is encouraging students to engage more actively with feedback as part of an iterative learning process. Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick (2006) argue that effective feedback should support students’ capacity for self-regulation, enabling them to monitor and improve their own work. In practice, this could involve asking students to summarise the feedback they receive and outline the actions they plan to take before their next tutorial. Such reflective responses may help students engage more deeply with feedback rather than viewing it simply as instructions from the tutor.
Another area for development is integrating peer feedback opportunities within the research development process. Research suggests that peer dialogue can help students clarify their thinking and gain alternative perspectives on their work (Boud and Molloy, 2013). Introducing structured peer discussions, such as small group sessions where students present their research questions and receive feedback from peers, may help students identify potential gaps or weaknesses in their research proposals earlier in the process.
In addition, the concept of constructive alignment highlights the importance of ensuring that teaching activities, feedback processes and assessment tasks are closely connected (Biggs and Tang, 2011). Applying this principle more explicitly could involve designing formative checkpoints throughout the project development stage. For example, students might submit short proposals or literature review outlines for feedback before progressing to later stages of the research process.
Some aspects of these approaches have already been trialled informally during writing retreats, where students discuss their progress and share challenges with peers. These sessions appear to encourage more open discussion about research difficulties while also allowing students to act on feedback immediately. However, time constraints and varying levels of student preparedness can limit the depth of these exchanges.
Overall, this reflection emphasises that effective feedback involves more than providing written comments. Creating opportunities for dialogue, peer engagement, and iterative feedback processes may help students better understand how to refine their research ideas and develop stronger final projects.
Action Plan
| Action | Timeline | Purpose |
| Introduce structured student feedback reflection before tutorials | Next teaching cycle | Encourage deeper engagement with feedback |
| Integrate peer feedback discussions on research proposals | Next block | Provide multiple perspectives on research ideas |
| Introduce formative proposal checkpoints | Immediate implementation | Strengthen alignment between feedback and assessment |
| Continue writing retreat sessions with guided reflection tasks | Ongoing | Support iterative development of research projects |
References
Biggs, J. and Tang, C. (2011) Teaching for Quality Learning at University. 4th edn. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Boud, D. and Molloy, E. (2013) Feedback in Higher and Professional Education: Understanding It and Doing It Well. London: Routledge.
Nicol, D. and Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006) ‘Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice’, Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), pp. 199–218.