checkb.tech
DOCS
Guide · Existing feedback-link workflow

Legacy Student Feedback Links

This guide describes the existing read-only feedback-link workflow. Learners using the portal pilot need a school-email account to view assigned work, submit evidence, and read feedback after release.

BY SCRIPT → GENERATE LINK · 5 MIN READ · UPDATED AUG 2026
At a Glance (30-sec summary)KEY TAKEAWAYS
  • Separate access routes: A feedback link is a read-only share route; it is not a learner portal account and cannot be used to submit work.
  • Strict Privacy & GDPR: High-entropy cryptographic tokens ensure learners see only their own criteria feedback—never peer data.
  • Compliant Resubmissions: Surfaces clear criterion gap indications to guide learner revisions without prohibited step-by-step coaching.
Upload evidence→AI advisory check→Triage queue→Write feedback→Export trail

Frictionless feedback delivery for learners

Delivering timely, criterion-referenced feedback is essential for student progress in vocational qualifications. However, traditional feedback methods often involve printing dozens of multi-page sheets or forcing students to navigate complex learning management systems with forgotten passwords.

The existing Student Feedback Links workflow creates a read-only share link from By Script. It does not replace the authenticated learner portal for assigned work and submissions.

Read-only feedback link
EXISTING FLOW
This existing share link only opens its linked feedback page. Portal learners use their school email and password to submit work.
Platform Agnostic
RESPONSIVE
Renders cleanly on smartphones, tablets, Chromebooks, and laptops for frictionless home access.
Strictly Isolated
GDPR SAFE
Each unique cryptographic link exposes only that specific learner's feedback—never the class roster.

The student view, in 15 seconds

What your learner sees when they open their private feedback link:

1Teacher Summative Commentary: High-level feedback written by the BTEC Coordinator, confirming achievements and framing general targets.
2Achieved Criteria (MET): Clearly identifies which specification requirements have been fully demonstrated.
3Areas for Improvement (PARTLY MET / NOT MET): Identifies criteria where evidence was insufficient, without giving exact answers.

Generating & distributing links

This existing feedback-link workflow is read-only and separate from the learner portal. Learners use their school-email account to see allocated work, upload evidence, submit, and read released feedback. To share a legacy feedback link:

  1. Complete your assessment: In By Script, verify criteria chips, resolve open flags, and enter your assessor notes.
  2. Click "Generate Student Link": The modal displays the student's unique access URL.
  3. Share via your centre's platform: Click Copy Link and share via:
    LMS Return
    GOOGLE / TEAMS
    Paste link directly into Google Classroom or Microsoft Teams private comment.
    Direct Email
    EMAIL
    Send the link directly to the student's registered school email address.
    Parent Portal
    PORTAL
    Share URL with parents during progress check-ins or parent-teacher conferences.

Privacy and link handling

checkb.tech takes student data protection seriously:

Security FeatureHow it worksCompliance Benefit
Cryptographic URLsLinks use unguessable, high-entropy unique tokens.Prevents unauthorized crawling or guessing of other student links.
Isolated ScopingA student link renders ONLY that single learner's report.Full GDPR compliance: students cannot view classmate names, grades, or comments.
Read-Only ModeStudents cannot alter feedback, delete flags, or modify marks.Guarantees the integrity of the BTEC Coordinator's official record.

Guiding resubmissions without over-coaching

Pearson BTEC International policies regarding assignment feedback are specific:

Watch out
Pearson Malpractice Regulations: Feedback following a formal assignment submission must record what criteria were achieved and what was not achieved, but must not provide explicit instructions, templates, or model answers telling the student how to achieve the higher grade.

Feedback-link pages can display feedback, but a link does not authenticate a learner or authorize an upload. For portal resubmissions, use the centre-controlled learner account and authorization workflow:

Clear Status Chips
TRANSPARENT
Shows students exactly which criteria codes are Met vs Partly Met so expectations are unmistakable.
General Evidence Scope
FORMATIVE
Highlights the general scope of missing evidence (e.g. 'Evaluation of financial risk absent') without giving solutions.
Independent Revision
PEARSON COMPLIANT
Leaves independent resolution of the brief in the student's hands during authorized resubmissions.

Legacy feedback links and portal releases

The legacy feedback-link route and learner portal have separate access and release behavior. Do not treat a legacy link as an authenticated portal or as a learner submission record.

Follow centre policy when sharing an existing link. Portal learners see released feedback in their authenticated assignment history. For staff re-check procedures, see By Script: Re-uploading Evidence & Resubmissions.

Worked learner scenario: Receiving feedback

Learner Walkthrough — Level 2 Unit 1 Resubmission GuidanceSTUDENT VIEW

Student: Liam Bennett opens his private link on his school tablet after receiving an email notification.

Report Findings:
- P1 & P2: MET.
- P3: PARTLY MET. Note: "Stakeholder groups are listed, but their differing interests and conflicts are not explained."

Learner Action: Liam understands precisely where his gap lies. Working independently during his resubmission window, he researches stakeholder conflict between shareholders and employees, updates Activity 2, and submits his revised report.

Frequently asked questions

Related guides