Feedback that sounds like you
wrote it
Personalised, rubric-aligned written feedback for every student submission, in your tone, at your standard. You review, adjust, and share. The thinking is done.
Request an institution demo
See how it works →
Used by lecturers across 6 academic domains · Average ease of use rating: 9/10
Good feedback
takes time.
Most students don't
get it.
Writing meaningful feedback for 80 students takes the better part
of a day. Eduface handles the first pass — so you spend your time
on the judgment calls only you can make.
80 students means 80 pieces of feedback
Each one takes 20–45 minutes to write well. That's days of work per
assignment cycle.
Generic feedback doesn't help students improve
When feedback is the same for everyone, students don't know what they
specifically need to do differently.
Feedback that arrives late is feedback wasted
Students have moved on. The assignment is forgotten. The moment to act on
it has passed.
Without Eduface
0
min / student
With Eduface
0
min / student
83% less time spent on first-pass feedback
Based on teacher-reported times across active pilots
AI Feedback
Feedback that actually teaches
Eduface reads submissions, flags specific passages, and
drafts criterion-specific comments — every word reviewed
by you before students see anything.
Eduface · AI Feedback
Feedback
Student submission
Lecturer + AI
"Good choice of theme for the introduction; a next step
would be to explicitly link it to the corresponding
learning objectives for added clarity."
Lecturer + AI
"Using visuals makes concepts concrete; the next step
is to also define each term in writing so the student
fully understands the rubric criteria."
Share with student
01
Inline text analysis
Eduface reads the full submission and flags
specific passages — tied to exact rubric
criteria, not generic rules.
02
AI-generated comments
03
Human approval required
04
Share with student
Feedback styles
Lecturers choose the tone —
the model delivers it
Reflective & Socratic, Constructive & Direct, What Went Well &
Needs Improvement, Supportive & Encouraging — each style
configurable per assignment, consistent at scale.
?
Reflective & Socratic
Nudges deeper thinking
→
Constructive & Direct
Clear, actionable steps
±
What Went Well & Needs
Improvement
Structured dual format
↑
Supportive & Encouraging
Motivates progression
→
Constructive & Direct
Clear, honest and solution-oriented. For lecturers who value efficiency and want students to
improve quickly without sugarcoating.
Assignment
Lab report — Introduction section, BIO 102
Feedback generated
Your introduction lacks a hypothesis statement — add one sentence after the
background that clearly states what you predict and why. The methodology is
described but not justified: explain why you chose each method over
alternatives. Conclusion repeats the introduction rather than interpreting results;
revise to state what the data showed and what it means for the research
question.
Aligned to LO1: Demonstrate scientific writing conventions.
Track skill progression across every draft
Eduface tracks up to 18 skills per student across every draft, so you can see exactly where progress happened and where they still need support.
Critical argumentation
Draft 1 →
81
/100
+39
pts
D1
D2
D3
D4
Final
Use of evidence
Draft 1 →
79
/100
+41
pts
D1
D2
D3
D4
Final
Structure & clarity
Draft 1 →
85
/100
+30
pts
D1
D2
D3
D4
Final
Engagement with sources
Draft 1 →
77
/100
+47
pts
D1
D2
D3
D4
Final
+29pts
Average score improvement
across all tracked skills
12–18
Skills tracked per student
tailored to course
Up to ∞
Feedback loops per assignment
no cap on draft submissions
See what your feedback
could look like
Book a 30-minute demo. We'll show you a live
walkthrough with a rubric from your own faculty if
you share it in advance.
Request an institution demo
Talk to our team →