Read a term’s worth of student feedback, find the right adviser, or get a course ready for Monday. Try the decisions behind seven campus jobs.
Four comments mention clarity, including requests for earlier rubrics and clearer participation criteria.
Seven short replays, drawn in code from the same fictional records as the previews. Pick a job, or let them run.
Each comment is read, tagged with a theme and counted. The term review stays a draft until a person signs it off.
Try it with the sample survey ↓The catalogue is searched first. The answer is written from the records it found, and each claim points back to one.
Open the catalogue →A student names where they want to go. They get an exercise, a practice case and a person to talk to, and save what they choose to a plan.
Open career pathways →The editor gets a headline, a standfirst and the finding it rests on. The paper’s limits come with it, before faculty review.
Open the editorial brief →The abstract is read against your framework. The suggestion comes with a confidence score, and a reviewer makes the decision.
Review the sample paper →Two handbook editions are compared. The new elective is marked, with the page it came from.
Compare programmes →Course materials are checked against your guidelines. Each gap names its fix, and the course is ready when all three pass.
Inspect the course checks →You have twelve survey comments and a programme meeting on Friday. Choose a theme, check what students wrote, and take one action to the meeting.
Four of the twelve comments mention course clarity. Students liked the case work, but some wanted to see the assessment rubric before the final project.
“The examples were useful, but the assessment rubric could be clearer.”
Turn insights into a reviewable next step. Actions below are sample suggestions, not real assignments.
Explore seven sample workspaces for higher education. Each preview uses fictional records and opens without an account.
Turn student feedback into decisions that matter. Standardize survey exports, discover recurring themes, review the evidence, and prepare reports with people in control.
A grounded search experience for research, courses, faculty, events, and institutional resources.
Guide students and alumni to the right resources, advisers, and next steps without replacing human guidance.
Help communications teams surface research themes and create grounded editorial briefs and story ideas.
Classify papers and teaching cases against your own frameworks with confidence indicators and review workflows.
Compare peer-school curricula, track meaningful changes, and support curriculum planning with sourced evidence.
Check course materials against institutional guidelines, surface gaps, and guide teams through readiness reviews.
Solutions are presented as a connected portfolio. Deployment scope and supported integrations are confirmed with each institution.
Schools already have surveys, research, course materials, and helpful people. But finding the signal often means chasing files, reconciling exports, and redoing work.
Find a simpler way ↗A considered process built around institutional context, the right workflows, and review by the people who know them best.
Bring in the right content or survey export. Keep the source visible, so insights can be checked against actual records.
FeedbackAI example: a sample survey exportSet the programmes, categories, rules, and workflows that reflect how your institution operates.
Institution-specific configuration is the platform goalInspect supporting evidence, validate outputs, and decide what to approve or share with your team.
Not automatic publicationHigher education teams work with important information. Our product approach puts grounded outputs, controlled access, and human review at the center.
FeedbackAI's workflow separates computed metrics from AI-assisted text theming, and routes drafts through review before export. It is designed to help staff assess the evidence, not replace judgment.
Earlier project implementations use role-based access, redacted logs, and restrictions on identifiable data entering feedback analytics. Policies and data processing terms are deployment-specific; no certification is implied.
Relevant custom-project workflows have used survey exports, Microsoft Entra ID, Canvas, and content sources. A reusable multi-school connector layer is part of the platform roadmap; confirm connectors for each pilot.
Where applicable, workflows should connect findings to source material, keep deterministic measurements separate from generated text, and make uncertainties visible to reviewers.
We care about measurable improvements. These are the outcomes we propose to evaluate with pilot partners.
Compare effort from survey export to draft report, including the time required for staff review and corrections.
Check quantitative accuracy, theme consistency, and how easily reviewers can trace conclusions back to comments.
Observe whether recurring issues lead to clearer owners, documented decisions, and timely next steps.
Explore FeedbackAI in an interactive sample environment, or discuss a Termways solution for your institution.