Want to improve your feedback skills? Avoid these common feedback mistakes and learn how to give and receive feedback effectively as a language educator.
As language teachers, we often find ourselves navigating one of the most formidable challenges in our profession: the feedback loop that nurtures our learners’ language development. Our learners’ language journey can be significantly hindered by the pervasive mistakes we often make in providing feedback. In this article, I aim to shed light on these common feedback mistakes and empower fellow educators with insights to steer clear of them. As a bonus, I would also offer some tips for giving feedback in relation to these mistakes.
Table of Contents
- Common feedback mistakes: One personal example
- The journey to give effective feedback
- Why Feedback?
- Mistake 1. Only providing a grade for the work as feedback.
- Mistake 2. Making direct value judgement of the work with little other substantiation.
- Mistake 3. Focusing only on positive or negative feedback.
- Mistake 4. Provide exhaustive edits and corrections.
- Mistake 5. Giving exhaustive comments.
- Mistake 6. Giving feedback after learners have already forgotten about the experience.
- Mistake 7. Adopting the unidirectional feedback practice.
- Conclusion
- Recommended Readings
- References
Get real-time updates and BE PART OF THE CONVERSATIONS by joining LEA’s online communities on your favourite platforms! Connect with like-minded language educators and get inspired for your next language lesson.
Common feedback mistakes: One personal example
In my earlier days as a beginning teacher, I could still remember one of my earlier lessons where I attempted to guide students in the learning of metaphorical expressions. I thought my lesson went well, as I guided them through my prepared examples. They seem to have understood my instruction, based on their responses to my questions and the examples they have produced under guidance.
However, as I marked their individual assignments after the lesson, I observed the unevenness in the level of understanding and the ability to use the metaphorical figure of speech accurately. The question then arises: How do I respond and guide them through the marking, so that they can fare better or close the gap subsequently? What should I be communicating to the different groups of students, each exhibiting different levels of answer quality?
With the aim of providing catalytic and transformative feedback, I mustered all my knowledge as exhaustively as possible about metaphors. Applying the principles instilled during my pre-service teacher training (or so I thought), I diligently crafted detailed written feedback for each script, meticulously delineating the core concepts of metaphors and furnishing key illustrative examples to convey the learning points I aimed to impart.
In fact, one could have metaphorically referred to what I did on every single script as a preparation of a banquet of Michelin 5-star dishes where every ingredient can be savoured and appreciated. It took me a whole 3 – 4 hours of intensive work, but I was fairly satisfied with my accomplishment, contemplating about how much of a difference I was going to make.
Unfortunately, my students did not have the tongues of food critics and were not able to taste every carefully prepared ingredient in their script. To be more precise, when I check in with them on their responses to the feedback in a following lesson, most of what I received were blank stares. The volume of questions pertaining to my written feedback eclipsed the small number of questions on metaphors itself. As we worked on a new lesson which leveraged previously learned knowledge of the metaphors, I knew I made a terrible blunder as majority of my students remained lost in the woods.
The journey to give effective feedback
Dear fellow colleagues, I am not sure if you have had experience of such an epic fiasco in your teaching career, which somewhat resets the instruction for a certain unit or content. Notwithstanding that, I appreciated the experience as that made feedback a salient tough nut in my attention, which I will relentlessly seek improvement to crack.
Fortunately, I received wonderful guidance from my colleagues and the readings referred to in this article, one which I do highly recommend: “How to Give to Your Students Effective Feedback” by Dr. Susan M. Brookhart, Professor Emerita in the School of Education at Duquesne University. These really shaped my feedback practices which I can now confidently declare to be significantly better than where I was back then. Still a work in progress, but I am working my way to mastery.
Why Feedback?
In education, feedback is an integral component of teaching and learning, and especially so within the process of formative assessment (some of us may refer to it as “assessment for learning”).
From our standpoint, formative assessment serves as a deliberate process for informing instruction through methods like purposefully gathering and analysing evidence, facilitating informed decisions to adapt future teaching approaches.
From our learners’ perspective, formative assessment becomes a two-pronged approach to furnish valuable information and influence motivation. Consequently, our intent is for our learners to become empowered in enhancing their representation of the knowledge and skills to be learned, as well as to develop the dispositions and attitudes we hope for them to acquire. In this process, feedback is one of the most important instruments to achieve this outcome.
The power of effective feedback lies in its ability to drive cognitive and motivational growth among our learners. A sustained move of delivering feedback effectively can then further foster a culture of self-assessment, where our learners continuously experience the modelling of self-assessment processes.
However, the positive impact of feedback lies in the key modifier: “effective”. Not all feedback is made equal. I have shared earlier in my anecdotal example of how feedback can also result in a learning disaster, and that is something I hope all my fellow colleagues can avoid. Let’s move on to explore the common mistakes when it comes to giving feedback.
“Good feedback gives students information they need so they can understand where they are in their learning and what to do next—the cognitive factor. Once they feel they understand what to do and why, most students develop a feeling that they have control over their own learning—the motivational factor.”
Brookhart, 2017
Mistake 1. Only providing a grade for the work as feedback.
In my experience in working with teachers, including that of other subjects, a prevalent practice is returning graded assignments to our learners with just a numerical or letter grade, devoid of any contextual feedback.
For language education, such a practice may manifest during the returning of written assignments, (e.g. essays or grammar exercises); and at times even with oral presentations, where our learners receive a grade slip merely indicating their performance in terms of pronunciation and fluency. Assuming at face value that no prior process has been put in place to help our learners interpret the grade, how should they make sense of it? How does an “A” or “B”, or a “30/50”, or a “45/100” guide their future learning?
I must confess that I was also guilty of such practices. Granted, some assignments were given a grade for institutional purposes (e.g. calculated as a course requirement that counts towards progression or placement) and understandably required. Many times, however, I was also guilty of just placing a grade out of convenience and a naive belief that our learners will implicitly learn it over time.
However, we must also understand that students, and anyone supporting their learning (e.g. parents), would find it challenging to extract any meaningful or actionable insights from the assigned grade. Without a clear understanding of what the grade signifies, the capacity of this “feedback” to drive constructive changes would be limited. You might then wonder: what if, in addition to assigning a grade, we also put in some effort to provide some form of meaningful feedback in description?
Butler and Nisan (1986) conducted a thoughtful and impactful experimental study which investigates the “Effects of no feedback, task-related comments, and grades on intrinsic motivation and performance”. The study suggested that students would probably ignore the comments once they have eyes on the grade. In that sense, having a grade with comments does not make much more of a difference from having solely the grade.
“If a paper is returned with both a grade and a comment, many students will pay attention to the grade and ignore the comment. The grade “trumps” the comment; the student will read a comment that the teacher intended to be descriptive as an explanation of the grade. Descriptive comments have the best chance of being read as descriptive if they are not accompanied by a grade.”
Brookhart, 2017
This is not to surmise that all our learners would disregard the descriptive feedback. Some of them would still process the comments seriously, but majority would only have their eyes on the grade and perceive it as a personal hallmark (or scar). Imagine yourself taking effort to write at least three lines of feedback for a written essay with constructive suggestions on how to improve their writing, and all students process was the “A”, “B” or “C” – rather a futile use of time and energy.
Notwithstanding the earlier arguments, I am a bit cautious here to suggest that grades are completely useless and are to be omitted completely from the feedback you give. Over a longer period, the change in grades on tests assessing similar constructs which are built with strong rigour and reliability does provide pertinent information on progress. If our learners are skilful in observing the links between change in strategies in relation to the change in grades, that is even more useful.
However, if we observe the number of qualifiers put in place to justify the usefulness, we might also want to consider whether this really applies to language learning and in our context of language education.
TIPS:
- Adopt a different strategy in presenting feedback alongside mandatory grades: Reassess our strategy in presenting and conveying feedback if the assignment has to be graded for institutional compliance.
- Only provide descriptive feedback where possible: Giving feedback isn’t definitely has to be a grading exercise. In cases where an assignment does not necessitate grading, we should exercise the flexibility to eliminate grades altogether. Pure descriptive feedback can then perform its magic accordingly.
- Use language teaching approaches which are built with gradeless assessment: In language classrooms, approaches such as process writing or task-based learning can help in taking the grading impulse out of the recipe. It’s critical that we develop processes and structures that provides a natural context to facilitate constructive feedback flows, so that practices are aligned organically.
Mistake 2. Making direct value judgement of the work with little other substantiation.
As a student myself back then, such feedback was also quite common. They can come in the following forms: “Great job!”, “Nice work”, “Some room for improvement”, “Fair”, and so on. Upon deeper reflection, it becomes apparent how closely these resemble the solo grade mentioned earlier.
These reductionist evaluative statements, as a means of providing feedback, offer little in the way of substantive information. In fact, they can often be more perplexing than grades, assuming grades are grounded in some form of objective criteria (even if our learners may not have fully grasped them), whereas expressions like “fair” and “good job” can be as subjectively interpreted as one’s imagination permits.
To be fair, not all value judgements are meaningless. Perhaps the intention was just to give our learners a pat on the shoulder to acknowledge the effort. Nonetheless, categorising such a value judgment as “effective feedback” might constitute an exaggeration if it is the ONLY feedback documented on the paper. It probably cannot make the difference we hope to aim.
Note that this also extends to verbal feedback. Comments such as “great presentation”, “decent speech” or “incorrect” provide scant insight into the nature of the completed task.
Furthermore, we need to be cautious of the subtle messaging sent by value judgements: that the next step for improvement is to adjust to the value system of the person giving the feedback. To put it simply, our learners become expected to strive towards meeting our expectations, which may often be nebulous and subjective, rather than adhering to a set of objective criteria.
In the long run, this approach is not helpful in nurturing self-directed and self-regulating learners. Within the context of language learning, this essentially translates to the expectation that our learners need to conform to our preferences in listening, speaking, reading, and writing. How is this meaningful and empowering?
TIPS:
- Emphasise clear and measurable learning objectives: Clearly define what our learners are expected to achieve and provide specific criteria for assessment. This shifts the focus from subjective opinions to measurable outcomes for them. Using specific examples, or even multiple examples, to substantiate our value judgements (if really necessary) in relation to the learning objectives.
- Utilise rubrics or scoring guides: Develop detailed rubrics that outline specific criteria and performance levels for each assessment task. This helps standardise evaluation and provides transparency in the grading process. In that sense, anything that is “good” or “bad” are delineated within the framework of the rubrics or scoring guides.
- Encourage self-reflection and self-assessment in our learners: Foster a culture of self-reflection and self-assessment among our learners. Provide opportunities for them to evaluate their own work against established criteria, encouraging critical thinking and metalinguistic skills. This promotes ownership of their learning and facilitates our move away from making inconsequential value judgements.
Join our mailing list!
Receive insights and EXCLUSIVE resources on language education in a monthly newsletter, fresh into your inbox. No Fees, No Spam, so No Worries!
Mistake 3. Focusing only on positive or negative feedback.
Somewhat related to the previous mistake, is whether positive feedback is definitely effective feedback. This could also be a cultural challenge, where we purposefully package our feedback in a positive tone in some cultures. Additionally, it is important to recognise that research has not consistently demonstrated negative feedback as universally detrimental to motivation, nor has it established that positive feedback invariably yields positive outcomes.
Let me share an anecdote here. On a family visit to Melbourne, Australia, my wife’s cousin shared his observations regarding his daughter’s progress in swimming lessons. He described the swimming coach as an exceedingly optimistic individual who had been consistently offering encouragement and showering his daughter with copious positive feedback, even in instances where there was minimal observable improvement.
My wife’s cousin, who was present to witness this scenario, vividly recounted the palpable positive energy emanating from the coach as he delivered lines like: “That was such a wonderful stroke!”, “You did great! So amazing that is!”, “Thumbs up for you! You are superb today!”.
A year had passed since the commencement of these lessons, and his third-grade daughter could scarcely manage to swim a mere metre without the aid of floating support. What was particularly puzzling was that, despite the abundance of positive remarks that one might expect to bolster her motivation for the lessons, the daughter displayed a notable lack of enthusiasm for swimming, primarily attributable to her sense of stagnation in skill development.
“If students are given positive comments purely to encourage and motivate them to engage in further study, or as a reward for the effort they have put in (there is an argument that effort rather than achievement should be rewarded) then they could get a false sense of achievement and false sense of their understanding of the subject.”
Irons & Elkington (2022)
Positive feedback without actual reference to reality, with little call for action that leads to real improvement, provides little for progress in the learners. While the earlier example of my wife’s cousin might be an extreme, positive feedback that is obviously sugar-coated can even be counter-productive as learners know that the feedback is ingenuine and may attribute that to insincerity in the teacher. How should we then maintain positivity without losing genuineness?
Positive feedback without actual reference to reality, with little call for action that leads to real improvement, provides little for progress in our learners. Giving positive feedback is not the same as giving feedback positively. While the earlier example of my wife’s cousin might be an extreme, positive feedback that is obviously sugar-coated can even be counter-productive as our learners know that the feedback is ingenuine and may attribute that to us being insincere.
On the flip side, veering to the other extreme is not advisable either. Consider this scenario of a violin teacher appraising a student’s performance: the student delivers a flawless rendition of Pachelbel’s Canon in D, one which could have earned praise from many. Regrettably, the only feedback conveyed to the student pertains to this minor lapse. From our perspective, how is such feedback not disheartening?
There may be some of us that misconstrued sole negative feedback as constructive criticism. Theoretically, constructive criticism is characterised by its clarity, actionable insights, and its potential benefits for the recipient. It is not fixated solely on identifying shortcomings. Indeed, more often than not, constructive criticism is conveyed with a positive tone and is complemented by positive feedback.
In the heart of it all, feedback should have an organic mix of positive and negative feedback that are meaningful and impactful. Our learners are more discerning than we think and they do want to improve their performance. The last thing we want is that feedback becomes a formal ritual that our learners do not appreciate as feedback receivers.
TIPS:
- Be mindful to stay genuine: Reflect on our instinctive response, especially if we do give a lot of verbal feedback (e.g. not to be articulating strengths when they are not there, claiming work to be good when it is not). There is no constant need to keep saying “great speech/presentation”.
- Pay attention to both strengths and areas for improvement relevant to the task at hand: Be it the context of oracy tasks (e.g. speech, presentations) or literacy tasks (e.g. reading comprehension, email writing), make sure that we are focusing in recognising related strengths and areas for improvement. The key is to achieve balance in evidence collection.
- Use the “sandwich” model in providing both feedback: Start the feedback with a positive statement that has actual evidence in the observation. Following that, we can provide the observations on 1 – 2 critical areas and give specific directions which the students could or should work on for greatest effect for improvement (corrective feedback or criticism in the middle). As a conclusion, we then explore the options that can lead to improvement and express the confidence that the student can improve (feed-forward and end on a positive note).
- ADDITIONAL NOTE: There is criticism on the sandwich method that it may dilute the corrective feedback, such that students only receive the praise at the start. However, this can be mitigated if the “praise” is an actual recognition of strength based on reality, and not just a value-judgement or sugar-coated positivity.
Mistake 4. Provide exhaustive edits and corrections.
Do you recall a time when you have received a written assignment full of edits and corrections? How did you feel as a student?
I must openly admit that I have, at times, been guilty of engaging in such a practice. I view it as my duty to meticulously identify and annotate every error within a piece of work: grammatical errors, inappropriate word choices, spelling inaccuracies, or lacklustre expressions – every linguistic aspect within reach is subject to revision.
My obsession for correcting extends even to elements that might appear irrelevant to the immediate learning objectives, such as the rectification of writing errors within the context of a reading task. Sometimes I even pride myself in the ability to provide alternatives to the errors as modelling.
However, a whole script painted in red is just too glaring to receive any attention on the details. This very concern was voiced by one of my students, who openly expressed this sentiment during one of my lessons.
This practice tends to manifest among some of us when evaluating written assignments, irrespective of whether they entail continuous compositions or straightforward grammar exercises. When it comes to oracy, we might not be that uptight to mark out every single point for improvement.
Picture a live presentation scenario where one of our learners is actively addressing our class, and we find ourselves interrupting continually to rectify errors; or in another, where we provide a comprehensive report detailing all necessary corrections once the presentation concludes. Disregarding the issue of “face”, the cognitive overload will be so overwhelming that our presenting learner would probably just discount many of our points, if not all.
Beyond all these, Moss and Brookhart (2019) highlighted the cognitive implications that come with such an approach: when all mistakes are edited and corrected, we have inadvertently completed all the thinking and processing for our learners, leaving them deprived of the opportunity to figure things out by themselves.
Assuming that our learners do diligently provide a revised submission based on the corrections, they would probably lack the understanding on why the revised version is better. In this case, our learners our learners overlook a valuable opportunity to link the learning points along with the corrections, which has the potential to enhance their future learning experiences.
Based on my experience, and at a more fundamental level, some of our learners would just be turned off once they see the “sea of blood” on their paper. You might then wonder: what if I provided clear comments on every single correction I suggested, such as the analysis of the grammatical error or the reason why another word might be a better choice? This leads us to one of the most common mistakes when giving feedback as a teacher.
TIPS:
- Prioritise holistic assessment: Instead of focusing solely on errors which generally comes from a deficit mindset, we could consider the overall quality and coherence of our learners’ work. Create a culture where we assess the effectiveness of their communication rather than getting ourselves caught up in nitpicking language mistakes habitually (which can be construed as unhealthily prescriptive).
- Encourage self-assessment and reflection: Provide our learners with opportunities to evaluate their own work and identify areas for improvement. This allows them to take ownership of their language development and reduces the need for extensive corrections from ourselves.
- Promote peer feedback and collaboration: Encourage our learners to work together and provide feedback to each other. Peer review can be an effective way to reduce the likelihood of excessive corrections and promote a supportive learning environment where our learners actively help one another. Through reviewing peers’ work, our learners can also reflect on their own responses to the task at hand.
Mistake 5. Giving exhaustive comments.
Akin to the practice of editing and correcting every single mistake, providing comments exhaustively to the maximum of one’s capacity can sometimes be the hallmark of responsible teachers. This basically means that the those among us aiming perfection would actively scrutinise and respond to every single detail in the submitted work.
For instance, we give recognition to every strength we can identify and encourage our learners to continue the good work; we also conscientiously shed light on every single weakness we can surface, and offer not just one, but sometimes multiple suggestions, all the while delivering steadfast encouragement to inspire perseverance in learning.
In my personal example shared at the start of this article, I also abided by this code and took pride in impressing upon my students that I care for their effort, and that I would reciprocate exponentially to let them maximise the opportunity in every piece of work to achieve progress in all means possible. To be fair, my students did receive the message of care and effort.
However, beyond that, they received little. And I have to emphasise one more point: this is a recipe for burnout if teachers abide by this code in their practice on a long term – akin to the obsession with perfectionism. And that was exactly what I experienced within my first year of teaching.
Other than the workload issue, we also need to be mindful how an ocean of comments can be as confusing as a sea of corrections/edits. The key issue lies in the cognitive load imposed upon our learners as they strive to process the provided feedback.
Leveraging the context of a narrative essay writing, imagine that our learners have to process the following in a single episode of feedback:
- why the essay is well done in general;
- recognising that the essay structure works and why that is so;
- how a few selected lines are exemplary of figurative expressions;
- how certain words could be substituted with better ones and why;
- why plot re-organisation might convey deeper meanings to the theme;
- and say, seven steps the students could take in moving forward.
The sheer volume of information that our learners can effectively process, resulting in tangible actions for improvement, proves to be overwhelmingly excessive. To wrap up here, when we intend to offer constructive feedback, it need not necessarily imply the turning of every stone; delicacies are usually consumed and savoured in sparingly sufficient amounts.
TIPS:
- Strive for the optimal amount of feedback: Use the following questions to guide ourselves in considering the amount of feedback to be given to our learners – What are their learning profiles?; How ready are they in processing the feedback that you are giving them?; What are the different types of feedback they can better respond to?; and what are the actionable points and what are not?. While not easily attainable, remember the Goldilocks Principle at the back of our mind and be willing to experiment to get hold of the “just right” amount.
- Start with regular feedback using 3 points: For a start, we can simply do a 3-pointer feedback as base for “optimality”. For every event of feedback, keep to the limit of 3 main points to be conveyed, and calibrate that accordingly based on the answers to the questions above.
- Focus on key areas relevant to targeted learning objectives: Instead of providing exhaustive comments on every aspect of the language, prioritise specific areas that require improvement or demonstrate a particular strength. This targeted approach allows for more focused feedback and ensures that students can easily identify the key areas they need to work on.
Mistake 6. Giving feedback after learners have already forgotten about the experience.
I know time is always a challenging factor for educators – or virtually almost everyone. That being said, the time factor is the key to one of the most common mistakes we make when giving feedback. Just visualise this scenario: during our own annual performance review, our direct supervisor relates to us a few examples where we have not performed to expectations (not to insinuate that all bosses are like that [Boss if you are reading this I am not referring to you!!]) – that took place several months ago! How would we respond to that?
Essentially, feedback should ideally be provided in a timely manner. This principle stems from the basic premise that our learners still hold a vivid memory of their decisions and actions within the learning tasks, enabling them to establish meaningful connections with the feedback provided. This is especially critical in language learning where progress depends on the our learners’ ability to relate and connect bits of learning experiences over time.
When feedback is delayed until the point that our learners have already forgotten their specific actions or responses during the learning experience, it becomes difficult for them to see any significant relationship or relevance between the feedback given and their prior performance. In fact, they might have formulated certain strategies in the interim between that earlier assignment and their present learning endeavours, rendering our delayed feedback redundant.
Concerning the time factor, there are two additional guiding principles to bear in mind. The first principle relates to the key modifier of “timely”, instead of “immediate” feedback. Imagine our learners delivering a speech, and we constantly interject with feedback; such an approach tends to hinder rather than aid their progress.
Second, experts advise that optimal feedback ideally falls within the 24- to 48-hour timeframe. This expectation can pose a considerable challenge for many of us who are managing a substantial number of learners. I stress “where plausible” in such cases, while also emphasising this is precisely where we want to actively explore the potential of technology to alleviate some of our challenges.
TIPS:
- Use technology: Leverage technology tools such as online platforms, marking software, or educational applications to streamline our assessment processes. These tools often provide features that allow for faster grading and automated feedback that can be fine-tuned to our personal preferences, ensuring that our learners receive timely responses.
- Utilise peer assessment: Incorporate peer assessment strategically into our grading process, enabling our learners to provide feedback to one another as part of a learning process. This not only lightens our workload but also encourages our learners to engage in collaborative learning and receive feedback from multiple perspectives promptly.
- Frontload feedback preparations: If feedback is essential after submissions or completion of work by our learners, then we would always be subject to some form of urgency from time to time as we complete learning units. However, if part of those feedback can be prepared as part of lesson planning (e.g. rubrics), we would be better positioned to provide timely feedback later on. Not to mention, we can also leverage the organizational capabilities – aka the power of our team members to work together in preparations.
Mistake 7. Adopting the unidirectional feedback practice.
Feedback is actually an important platform for dialogue between us and our learners in reviewing their progress, using the current task at hand as evidence. When we strip away our learners’ agency and participation from this dialogue, reducing feedback to a unidirectional process, it should not astonish us if some of them become disoriented or lack motivation to act upon the feedback.
If we revisit our primary objectives in language education, I am largely confident that one of them is to develop our learners as effective communicators in our target language. To achieve this, our learners should be engaged actively in the learning and evaluation process. This allows space for clarification, questioning, and discussion which can aid learning and reinforcement of knowledge.
A balanced feedback model, where both the teachers and learners contribute actively, would also provide the additional merits of fostering critical thinking and stronger language and metalinguistic awareness (i.e. our learners reflecting on their use of the target language).
Also, when the feedback giver (us) has the opportunity to peep into the metacognitive processes of the feedback recipients, we gain crucial insights into our learners’ understanding. From there, we can facilitate them in tailoring their language learning strategies or languaging behaviours, thereby enhancing the overall learning experience.
TIPS:
- Emphasise two-way communication: We should actively engage in dialogues with our learners to provide feedback that is both constructive and encouraging. This approach allows for a better understanding of our learners’ needs and fosters a supportive learning environment. Also, it promotes a culture of dialogue where our learners would be conditioned to always respond to our feedback.
- Establish clear guidelines for constructive dialogue processes: Provide detailed instructions to our learners on how to respond to feedback that is focused on improvement. Emphasise the importance of active listening and open-mindedness during dialogues. And of course, we should model the way.
- Celebrate diverse perspectives in classroom discussion: Encourage our learners to share their diverse perspectives on a wide range of topics and create an inclusive environment where all viewpoints are respected and valued. This will stimulate dialogues and promote a deeper understanding of different ideas and cultural backgrounds. When our learners are conditioned to such conversations, they are more predisposed to engaging in open dialogues on assessment.
Making a difference in language education, one sip at a time. Support my work with a coffee?
Conclusion
As an important disclaimer, the practices I have raised in amplifying all the common mistakes in giving feedback are not suggested to be categorically ineffective. What I am trying to present here, with reference to practice and research, is that they tend to be less effective and sometimes unsustainable.
We have sailed around the tip of the iceberg of feedback practices hitherto. Built on that, I have also illustrated some tips to address the iceberg (pun intended!). However, that is not all that can be shared – there are many other tips that does not relate to mistakes per se, and can either improve efficiency or have larger effects on cognitive and/or motivational dimensions.
Beyond all these, feedback is part of a larger concept of formative assessment and that can take another complete thesis to address (for example, the requirement of a supportive culture, other factors that may affect the effectiveness of feedback even when it is well-done). Formative assessment is not a group isolated episodes or just simply a few quarterly exercises. As a longer term exercise, there are many themes that can be extended, which I would also explore in future articles.
Thank you for reading! If you like what you are reading, do subscribe to our mailing list to receive updated resources and tips for language educators. Please also feel free to provide us any feedback or suggestions on content that you would like covered.
Recommended Readings
- Bartlett, J. (2015). Outstanding Assessment for Learning in the Classroom. Abingdon UK: Routledge.
- Brookhart, S.M. (2017). How to Give to Your Students Effective Feedback. Alexandria USA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
- Butler, R., & Nisan, M. (1986). Effects of no feedback, task-related comments, and grades on intrinsic motivation and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(3), 210–216.
- Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. DOI: 10.3102/003465430298487.
- Irons, A., & Elkington, S. (2022). Enhancing Learning through Formative Assessment and Feedback. Abingdon UK: Routledge.
- Moss, C.M., & Brookhart, S.M. (2019). Advancing Formative Assessment in Every Classroom: A Guide for Instructional Leaders. Alexandria USA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
- Wiggins, G. (2012). Seven Keys to Effective Feedback. ASCD.
References
Bartlett, J. (2015). Outstanding Assessment for Learning in the Classroom. Abingdon UK: Routledge.
Brookhart, S.M. (2017). How to Give to Your Students Effective Feedback. Alexandria USA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Butler, R., & Nisan, M. (1986). Effects of no feedback, task-related comments, and grades on intrinsic motivation and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(3), 210–216.
Fong., C.J., Patall, E.A., Vasquez, A.C., & Stautberg, S. (2019). A Meta-Analysis of Negative Feedback on Intrinsic Motivation. Educational Psychology Review, 31, 121–162.
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. DOI: 10.3102/003465430298487.
Haines, C. (2021). Assessing Students’ Written Work: Marking essays and reports. Abingdon UK: Routledge.
Irons, A., & Elkington, S. (2022). Enhancing Learning through Formative Assessment and Feedback. Abingdon UK: Routledge.
McConlogue, T. (2020). Assessment and Feedback in Higher Education: A Guide for Teachers. London UK: UCL Press.
Moss, C.M., & Brookhart, S.M. (2019). Advancing Formative Assessment in Every Classroom: A Guide for Instructional Leaders. Alexandria USA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Wiggins, G. (2012). Seven Keys to Effective Feedback. ASCD.
