This study examines whether students show greater improvement in written case analyses when given feedback that is either interspersed throughout their written case analyses or presented only as a summary, and whether the benefits of these placements vary across differing levels of student performance in the course. Results from an exploratory field experiment conducted with Canadian accounting students who revised and resubmitted case analyses indicate that the effectiveness of feedback depended on an interaction between its placement and the course performance of students to which it was provided. Lowest-performing students increased the quality of their case responses most when provided with interspersed rather than summary feedback, mid-level students improved more when given summary rather than interspersed feedback, and highest-performing students improved significantly regardless of feedback placement. The primary conclusion from this study is that feedback placement influences how well students at different levels respond, suggesting that teachers should consider students' relative course performance when determining the most appropriate placement for their feedback. We also present evidence of the factors that affect the initial quality of case analyses and which influence students' decisions to revise and resubmit their case analyses.