Constructing effective feedback messages, either written or verbal, is essential in supporting students and guiding their academic development. This brief guide provides foundational concepts to get you started with constructing feedback.
Functions of Feedback
There are three main functions of feedback (Dunworth & Sanchez 2016).
Relational Dimensions of Feedback
When marking large volumes of assessments, it is easy to focus on the orientational messages and neglect the emotional impact of feedback on the recipient. Overly upsetting feedback can influence students’ self-belief, impacting on their academic motivations and confidence in approaching academic staff for guidance. However, it should be noted that positive feedback is not always motivating, and negative feedback does not always demotivate. The intersection of positive/negative feedback and their impact on motivation, based on Pekrun’s Control Value Theory, is shown below.
Positive Feedback | Negative Feedback | |
Motivating / Activating | Constructive feedback that clearly states a positive achievement. e.g.. “Good application of Bloom’s taxonomy.” | Constructive feedback providing clear instruction as to how or why work could be improved. e.g. “This point would be better placed in the discussion section of your paper.” |
Demotivating / Deactivating | Empty praise, which can have a neutral effect, remove motivation to improve or fail to provide insight into what was done well. e.g. “Nice work.” | Negative feedback that fails to provide insight into how work could be improved or criticises the student rather than the work. e.g. “You missed the point of this task.” |
When giving Feedback
Tip | Examples |
Link feedback to assessment criteria | For example, “The rubric stated that three examples were required. Relying on one example is an inadequate source of evidence.” |
Provide a mix of directive and facilitative feedback | Directive feedback tells the student what they need to do while facilitative feedback asks the student to consider how they can improve their work. Using a mix of both can help students clarify what is expected while engaging in a critical self-reflection. |
Recognise student effort and achievement | Constructive feedback that clearly states a positive achievement can improve student motivation, e.g.. “Good application of Bloom’s taxonomy.” |
Construct a feedback bank of high-quality feedback comments | Creating a collection of feedback comments on common issues can allow you to provide clear, well-structured feedback to more students within the allocated time. |
Don't use empty praise | Instead of saying “Good work,” state what was good about the work, such as “Your response was well structured and supported by quality sources of evidence.” |
Don't over-mark errors | Instead of highlighting or commenting on every instance of poor grammar, provide a summary statement regarding grammar usage throughout. |
Don't use overly complex language | Use simple and clear language pitched to the student’s level of understanding to maximise their ability to comprehend and apply feedback. |
Don't focus criticism on the student | Critical comments should be in reference to the work, not the student. Rather than stating “You have poor expression,” state “This paragraph is poorly structured.” |
Comment banks
Developing a selection of commonly used feedback comments can help markers efficiently provide high-quality feedback. Organising comments into key themes can allow you to quickly provide detailed responses to common issues, offer specific examples of what was expected, and explain where students can obtain further guidance. Comment banks can be shared between markers to improve feedback consistency.
While there may be concerns that pre-written comments lack personalisation, this can be easily overcome by ensuring that pre-formed statements are only used as a basis for feedback. Pre-written comments should be edited to ensure you reference each student’s specific work. Another common concern with comment banks is the time required to create them in the first instance; however, for large courses or repeated use the time savings and quality improvements outweigh this initial time investment (Ross 2022).
References
Carless, D., & Boud, D. (2018). The development of student feedback literacy: enabling uptake of feedback. Assessment and evaluation in higher education, 43(8), 1315-1325. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02602938.2018.1463354
Dunworth, K., & Sanchez, H. S. (2016). Perceptions of quality in staff-student written feedback in higher education: a case study. Teaching in Higher Education, 21(5), 576-589. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13562517.2016.1160219
Ross, P. (2022) Poor feedback and what we can do about it. Transforming Assessment Webinar Series. http://transformingassessment.com/events_7_september_2022.php
Winstone, N.E & Nash R.A. (2016) The Developing Engagement with Feedback Toolkit (DEFT) Higher Education Academy https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/knowledge-hub/developing-engagement-feedback-toolkit-deft
The University of Newcastle acknowledges the traditional custodians of the lands within our footprint areas: Awabakal, Darkinjung, Biripai, Worimi, Wonnarua, and Eora Nations. We also pay respect to the wisdom of our Elders past and present.