Please Don’t Expose Me: Students’ Perceptions of Psychological Safety During Peer Feedback on Presentations

Psychological safety is a critical, yet often overlooked, determinant of effective learning, particularly in educational settings that involve public performance and peer evaluation. A recent study conducted at King Faisal University (KFU) in Al-Ahsa, Saudi Arabia, has shed light on how undergraduate health students perceive and navigate psychological safety when engaging in peer feedback on oral presentations. The research underscores that the success of such pedagogical approaches hinges not solely on the feedback itself, but on the intricate social dynamics, instructor facilitation, and contextual factors that shape students’ willingness to participate openly and learn constructively.

Introduction: The Delicate Balance of Peer Feedback

In health professions education, peer feedback on oral presentations has become a widely adopted strategy. It is intended to hone students’ evaluative judgment, critical thinking, and communication skills. However, the subjective experience of receiving and giving feedback in front of peers is complex, especially within culturally relational and gender-sensitive environments like Saudi Arabia. In these contexts, public critique may be interpreted not as academic support, but as a form of social exposure, potentially leading to embarrassment and a reluctance to engage. This study, therefore, aimed to explore how undergraduate health students at KFU perceive and negotiate psychological safety during these feedback encounters, identifying the interpersonal, contextual, and instructional factors that render the experience either supportive or exposing.

Background: Defining Psychological Safety in Academia

The concept of psychological safety, originally defined by Amy Edmondson as "a shared belief that the team is safe for interpersonal risk taking," has gained significant traction in educational research. It empowers individuals to voice concerns, admit mistakes, or offer novel ideas without fear of negative repercussions. In higher education, this construct is particularly relevant to classroom discussions, simulations, and small-group learning where social dynamics are paramount and public performance is often linked to assessment. When psychological safety is low, students tend to self-protect, opting for silence, offering only safe responses, or avoiding visibility to minimize social judgment. This dynamic is amplified in activities that blend performance with peer evaluation, forcing students to simultaneously manage academic expectations and their social image.

Peer feedback is lauded for its ability to foster student-centered learning, enhance evaluative judgment, and develop critical thinking. Compared to instructor feedback, it can be more immediate, dialogic, and relatable, as peers often share similar learning struggles and language. This aligns with competency-based curricula that require students to appraise the work of others. However, peer feedback is inherently a social practice. It requires students to engage in public critique and, at times, assign marks that can affect relationships. In collectivist cultures, offering critical feedback to peers can carry relational risks and threaten group harmony. Receiving feedback publicly can trigger concerns about "loss of face" and being perceived as incompetent. These experiences highlight psychological safety as a crucial mediator, determining whether peer feedback serves a developmental purpose or becomes a source of anxiety.

Oral presentations add another layer of vulnerability. Unlike written assignments, presentations are public, time-bound, and highly observable events where mistakes or hesitations are immediately apparent. Performance in such settings is closely tied to a student’s self-presentation, confidence, and sense of belonging. When peer feedback follows immediately after a presentation, students are often in a heightened state of evaluation, making them more sensitive to tone and the source of commentary. Research on social evaluative threat indicates that public comparison can induce anxiety and shame, reducing openness to feedback and the willingness to try again. Therefore, even meticulously designed peer feedback rubrics may fail if the underlying relational climate is not perceived as safe.

While previous research has largely focused on the psychometric properties of peer assessment, fewer studies have delved into the subjective experiences of students. Gaps remain in understanding how students interpret feedback events, considering factors like the speaker, the audience, gender dynamics, social status, language proficiency, and the impact of the classroom’s public nature on perceived safety. This study addresses this gap by foregrounding students’ lived experiences, examining psychological safety not as an assumed background condition but as the central phenomenon.

Methodology: Exploring Lived Experiences

This study employed an interpretive (hermeneutic) phenomenological design, focusing on how undergraduate health and health-related students at King Faisal University make sense of their experiences with peer feedback on oral presentations. The context of King Faisal University’s polyclinics provided a unique setting, characterized by a culturally conservative environment, gender-segregated learning spaces, and a strong emphasis on respect and peer relationships.

Eighteen students participated in semi-structured interviews. Participants had recently delivered oral or case-based presentations followed by peer feedback. The interviews, conducted in private settings to ensure confidentiality, were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and then analyzed using Braun and Clarke’s six-phase reflexive thematic analysis framework. Rigor was maintained through reflexive journaling, peer debriefing, member checking, and a comprehensive audit trail, ensuring a robust and credible exploration of student experiences.

Results: Unpacking the Themes of Safety and Threat

The thematic analysis revealed four interconnected themes that illuminate how students experienced psychological safety during peer feedback on presentations:

1. "Please Don’t Expose Me": Public Feedback as Social Threat

This theme encapsulates students’ deep-seated concern about the social risks associated with receiving feedback in a public forum. The immediacy of the feedback, coupled with the presence of classmates and instructors, amplified feelings of vulnerability. Students described a constant awareness of their social image, fearing ridicule, gossip, or being remembered for their mistakes rather than their overall competence.

• Publicness Amplifies Vulnerability: Feedback delivered immediately after a presentation, in front of the entire class, was perceived as the most perilous. Participants noted that mistakes felt "fresh," and any critique was amplified by the collective gaze. This sense of exposure was particularly heightened in mixed-gender or inter-professional sessions, where social dynamics were less predictable.
• Protecting Face and Peer Image: Students were acutely concerned with maintaining their "face" and peer image. They expressed a desire to avoid appearing weak, unprepared, or linguistically challenged. This led to strategies such as using indirect language, offering minimal suggestions, or providing very soft feedback to peers to avoid reciprocal exposure. Female students, in particular, voiced concerns about being perceived as the person who "embarrasses others," leading them to favor written or instructor-mediated feedback channels.

2. Instructor as Safety Broker

The instructor emerged as a pivotal figure in shaping the psychological safety of feedback sessions. Students consistently looked to the instructor to establish norms, moderate discussions, and protect them from harsh or inappropriate comments.

• Framing and Moderating Feedback: When instructors clearly framed the purpose of feedback (e.g., "focus on the work, not the person," "one strength, one suggestion"), students reported feeling safer to listen and speak. Structured turn-taking and instructor rephrasing of comments helped transform potentially embarrassing moments into actionable learning opportunities.
• Shielding from Harsh Peers: Students relied on instructors to intervene when peer feedback became overly critical, comparative, or personal. In male-dominated groups, where competitiveness could be more overt, instructor mediation was crucial. When instructors did not actively moderate, students perceived the environment as unsafe, leading to defensive reactions or a withdrawal from genuine participation.

3. Relational Calculus in Giving Feedback

The act of giving feedback was not perceived as a neutral exchange of observations but as a complex relational negotiation. Students considered their relationships with peers, their perceived status, and the potential for future interactions before deciding what and how to communicate.

• Feedback Filtered Through Relationships: Students admitted to softening critique for friends or visibly anxious peers, while being more direct with confident classmates. Anticipated future collaborations also influenced the candor of feedback, with many avoiding comments that could create tension. Trust built through prior supportive exchanges licensed more specific and technical feedback.
• Gender and Cultural Sensitivities: Gender norms and cultural expectations significantly influenced feedback practices. Female students, and those providing feedback across gender lines, often preferred private or written channels to avoid public embarrassment. This was particularly relevant in mixed-gender sessions where direct critique risked misinterpretation and social repercussions. Cultural sensitivities also extended to avoiding comments that might highlight language proficiency or accent, focusing instead on task-related aspects of the presentation.

4. Making Peer Feedback Safe and Useful

This theme highlights that students did not reject peer feedback as a concept but were discerning about its delivery. They favored formats that reduced social risk, thereby increasing honesty and receptivity.

• Quiet/Anonymous Channels Enable Honesty: Feedback channels that removed the audience or disguised the source, such as written comments collected by the instructor, online forms, or synthesized feedback, were highly valued. These "quiet" routes allowed for greater specificity and directness without fear of social repercussions. Students reported learning more from these formats because they could process comments privately and in detail.
• Growth-Oriented Framing Encourages Engagement: Critique was more readily accepted when explicitly linked to professional development, clinical standards, or upcoming assessments. Framing feedback as "training for clinical presentations" or "preparation for workplace expectations" reframed corrective comments from personal attacks to legitimate guidance. The "positive first, suggestion next" approach was frequently cited as a safe and effective pattern.

Discussion: Navigating the Social Landscape of Learning

The study’s findings underscore that peer feedback on oral presentations is experienced as a socially negotiated event, not merely a pedagogical transaction. Students’ primary concern, "please don’t expose me," directly reflects the need for psychological safety, a condition that shields them from fear of embarrassment or punishment within a group setting. In the context of Saudi universities, this exposure extends beyond academic correction to encompass relational and reputational damage. This explains why students may exhibit defensiveness or superficial engagement, as they are primarily safeguarding their social capital within a cohort they will continue to interact with.

The perceived vulnerability associated with public critique, particularly in culturally relational settings, suggests that the traditional model of immediate, oral peer feedback may not be universally effective. The study highlights the critical role of the instructor as a "safety broker." By framing the feedback session, moderating discussions, and rephrasing comments, instructors can create an environment where students feel safe to be honest and receptive. This challenges the notion that reducing teacher presence inherently enhances peer learning; in fact, unmoderated sessions may increase perceived risk.

The "relational calculus" in giving feedback, where students consider interpersonal histories and future interactions, adds a crucial layer to understanding peer assessment. This intentional filtering of feedback, especially in gender-sensitive contexts, means that the quality of feedback is influenced by social dynamics as much as by students’ assessment literacy. The preference for anonymous or written feedback in certain situations underscores the need for flexible feedback designs that accommodate cultural norms and minimize social risk.

Ultimately, the study demonstrates that psychological safety is not about avoiding critique but about structuring it in a way that is both academically rigorous and dignity-preserving. Quiet or semi-anonymous channels, combined with growth-oriented framing, enable more honest feedback and democratize participation, allowing less dominant students to contribute.

Implications for Practice and Future Research

The findings have significant implications for nursing education and other health professions programs. Educators should consider implementing a two-stage feedback model: initial, brief, and moderated public comments, followed by more detailed, anonymous, or written feedback synthesized by the instructor. Establishing clear framing for feedback sessions, emphasizing critique of the work rather than the person, and training instructors in comment rephrasing are essential pedagogical skills.

Furthermore, integrating feedback literacy into undergraduate curricula is crucial, teaching students how to provide and receive feedback constructively, behaviorally, and with cultural sensitivity. In mixed-gender or inter-professional settings, enhanced facilitation and the strategic use of written feedback channels can ensure inclusivity and prevent dominance by certain groups.

Future research could explore the long-term impact of psychologically safe feedback environments on students’ professional development and their ability to provide constructive feedback in real clinical teams. Investigating these dynamics in coeducational or more individualistic cultural contexts would also provide valuable comparative insights.

Conclusion: Fostering a Culture of Safe and Effective Feedback

Peer feedback on oral presentations holds immense potential for fostering critical thinking and communication skills among health science students. However, its efficacy is inextricably linked to the establishment of psychological safety. Students perceive feedback not just for its academic merit but for its social cost. By understanding and actively addressing students’ concerns about public exposure, leveraging the instructor’s role as a safety broker, and employing feedback formats that respect cultural and gender sensitivities, educational institutions can cultivate environments where learning thrives, and future healthcare professionals are better equipped for the collaborative and feedback-rich demands of their careers.