Tested the hypothesis that reactive aggression (RA) but not proactive aggression (PA) should be associated with heightened attention to rejection, ridicule, and failure cues. In addition to a reaction time measure of selective attention, participants also completed a vignette-based interview regarding their interpretation of ambiguous social situations, and children, parents, and teachers completed questionnaire measures of child aggression and related variables. Consistent with predictions, RA but not PA was related to biased attention for rejection, ridicule, and failure cues. However, contrary to expectation, heightened RA scores were associated with suppressed rather than enhanced attention to such cues. Despite the unexpected direction of this attentional bias, as predicted it was significantly related to the well-established tendency of aggressive children to interpret ambiguous social situations as threatening, which was also uniquely related to RA. Further, the correlation between suppressed attention and RA was fully mediated by interpretation bias.

Tested the hypothesis that reactive aggression (RA) but not proactive aggression (PA) should be associated with heightened attention to rejection, ridicule, and failure cues. In addition to a reaction time measure of selective attention, participants also completed a vignette-based interview regarding their interpretation of ambiguous social situations, and children, parents, and teachers completed questionnaire measures of child aggression and related variables. Consistent with predictions, RA but not PA was related to biased attention for rejection, ridicule, and failure cues. However, contrary to expectation, heightened RA scores were associated with suppressed rather than enhanced attention to such cues. Despite the unexpected direction of this attentional bias, as predicted it was significantly related to the well-established tendency of aggressive children to interpret ambiguous social situations as threatening, which was also uniquely related to RA. Further, the correlation between suppressed attention and RA was fully mediated by interpretation bias.

Summative assessments tend to be viewed as high-stakes episodes by students, directly exposing their capabilities as learners. As such, receiving feedback is likely to evoke a variety of emotions that may interact with cognitive engagement and hence the ability to learn. Our research investigated the emotions experienced by undergraduate students in relation to assessment feedback, exploring if these emotions informed their learning attitudes and behaviours. Respondents were drawn from different years of study and subject/major. A qualitative approach was adopted, using small group, semi-structured interviews and reflective diaries. Data were analysed thematically and they revealed that receiving feedback was inherently emotional for students, permeating their wider learning experience positively and negatively. Many students struggled to receive and act upon negative feedback, especially in early years, when it was often taken personally and linked to a sense of failure. Negative emotional responses tended to reduce students’ motivation, self-confidence, and self-esteem. Some students, especially in later years of study, demonstrated resilience and engagement in response to negative feedback. By contrast, positive feedback evoked intense but fleeting emotions. Positive feedback made students feel cared about, validating their self-worth and increasing their confidence, but it was not always motivational. The paper concludes with recommendations for instructors, highlighting a need to communicate feedback carefully and to develop student and staff feedback literacies.

Summative assessments tend to be viewed as high-stakes episodes by students, directly exposing their capabilities as learners. As such, receiving feedback is likely to evoke a variety of emotions that may interact with cognitive engagement and hence the ability to learn. Our research investigated the emotions experienced by undergraduate students in relation to assessment feedback, exploring if these emotions informed their learning attitudes and behaviours. Respondents were drawn from different years of study and subject/major. A qualitative approach was adopted, using small group, semi-structured interviews and reflective diaries. Data were analysed thematically and they revealed that receiving feedback was inherently emotional for students, permeating their wider learning experience positively and negatively. Many students struggled to receive and act upon negative feedback, especially in early years, when it was often taken personally and linked to a sense of failure. Negative emotional responses tended to reduce students’ motivation, self-confidence, and self-esteem. Some students, especially in later years of study, demonstrated resilience and engagement in response to negative feedback. By contrast, positive feedback evoked intense but fleeting emotions. Positive feedback made students feel cared about, validating their self-worth and increasing their confidence, but it was not always motivational. The paper concludes with recommendations for instructors, highlighting a need to communicate feedback carefully and to develop student and staff feedback literacies.

Assessment feedback should be an integral part of learning in higher education, but students can find this process emotionally and cognitively challenging. Instructors need to consider how to manage students’ responses to feedback so that students feel capable of improving their work and maintaining their wellbeing. In this paper, we examine the role of instructor-student relational feed-forward, enacted as a dialogue relating to ongoing assessment, in dissipating student anxiety, enabling productive learning attitudes and behaviours, and supporting wellbeing. We undertook qualitative data collection within two undergraduate teaching units that were adopting a relational feed-forward intervention over the 2019–2020 academic year. Student responses were elicited via small group, semi-structured interviews and personal reflective diaries, and were analysed inductively using thematic analysis. The results demonstrate that relational feed-forward promotes many elements of student feedback literacy, such as appreciating the purpose and value of feedback, judging work against a rubric, exercising volition and agency to act, and managing affect. Students were keen for instructors to help them manage their emotions related to assessment, believing this would promote their wellbeing. We conclude by exploring academic strategies and pedagogies that position relational instructor feed-forward as an act of care, and we summarize the key characteristics of emotionally resonant relational feed-forward meetings.