Providing effective and efficient written feedback

Addressing student needs, addressing your own needs

Take a moment to think back to a comment you received on a paper during your studies.

Perhaps it was glowing, or at least constructive, motivating you toward the next paper.

Perhaps, though, it was negative, a comment that not only comes immediately back to mind, but one that you could recite, even years later, verbatim.

Comments like these tend to stick. In conversations with Dalhousie and King’s students working to complete papers, theses, and other degree writing requirements, self-doubt and lack of confidence emerge as blocks to moving forward in academic writing (substantiated in the literature, e.g., Naidoo et al., 2023; Wang et al., 2024). The way feedback is delivered (or received) is not the only influence on writer confidence. Comments that are negative, especially if overly prescriptive or vague, can undermine the goal of the comments (Rabbani & Husain, 2024). In fact, a negative tone may encourage the student to disengage from the feedback entirely. At the same time, simply adding a few positive comments does not effectively address motivation (Hill et al., 2021) and traditional “compliment sandwich” (praise-critique-praise) models may be flawed. Literature (e.g., Ferris, 2018) shows that when writers encounter a negative comment, subsequent constructive and positive comments can be overshadowed and even unseen.

Practical strategies: Small changes that can help set a constructive tone

At first glance, this comment seems reasonable, if vague:

Your introduction was clear, but your argument needs some work.

However, the “but” can negate the positive comment that preceded it.

Consider this slightly altered version:

Your introduction was clear, and you can build on that to strengthen your argument.

The message is similar, but the “and” and “build” maintain the positive and provide information on what needs to be done. Further, adding “the how” clarifies what you are looking for, as the student may not know:

Your introduction was clear, and you can strengthen your argument by doing [x].

Strategies like these take time. Comments must be robust and abundant enough to explain and support the accompanying grade, while providing forward-moving, workable strategies, all without creating overwhelm for the student and for the TA.

Practical strategies: Making enough time to provide robust and abundant comments

Pace your marking by calculating a reasonable time formula (i.e., x number of minutes per paper). Although it may initially feel artificial, this strategy supports equitable distribution of time-per-paper and gets the work done. Base the formula on the hours allotted for your position, total preparation time, and the number of assignments to mark.

That is, before you’ve divided up the time needed to mark each paper, ensure you’ve already accounted for the time you’ll need to become fully familiar with the guidelines, expectations, rubric, and communication with the instructor and other TAs to maintain consistency in marking. Consider doing a quick pre-read of the papers to get an overall sense of the quality, but be willing to re-evaluate your initial impressions on deeper reading. If you’re concerned that knowing the identity of the students will influence your marking, you can set Brightspace to hide names. This prep, along with making notes on your decisions as you go, will reduce interruptions to marking and can be used to improve clarity of future assignments, if it’s your assessment design or one you have input on.

Once you’ve calculated the number of minutes you have to dedicate to each paper and are ready to make comments, consider setting a timer that gives a few moments notice for review before moving to the next paper. Once you have a pattern established, you may find you need the timer less often.

Practical strategies: Getting the marking done

Drawing on writing centre pedagogy and practice, Dr. Margie Clow Bohan, who led the Dalhousie Writing Centre from 2004 to 2020, recommends marking strategies that can pull from other review situations, including professional peer review. After an initial look at the overall structure of the paper, create an opening note that begins with a positive comment that leads to additive and constructive advice moving forward. The note can also help you resist jumping in at the sentence level, which is less helpful to the student, overly time-consuming, and can lead to an “editing trap.” While grammar and punctuation are important, starting at the sentence level can mean missing more substantive concerns. Instead, rely on the assignment guidelines and rubric to help you prioritize your comments. For example, if the rubric weighs the structure of the argument as most important, prioritize giving feedback in this area. Write open-ended questions about the thesis or research question and organizational strategy and question gaps in logic or development of the rest of the paper. Make suggestions and illustrate with examples, but encourage choice.

Effective time savers

As you sit down to mark the papers, open a Word document where you can keep a list of frequently explained points with follow-up links to reliable, trusted sites, like the Dalhousie Libraries’ Quick Style Guides. For errors that do not require individualized comments (like a straightforward grammar or style correction), you can use feedback from your list when another student makes the same error. This strategy will save time for providing more substantive and individualized comments on larger concerns. Always keep in mind that each paper is written by individual, so not all comments are interchangeable.

Markers sometimes wonder whether generative AI can help to speed up the commenting process. Maybe, but be cautious of the assessment task (and the type of GenAI). For example, uploading a student paper in your care to ChatGPT is not okay. Like the use of GenAI in any of your university work, ensure you know exactly what is permitted at your course and department level. Always consult the instructor: use of GenAI in any job or school situation should be transparent at its least, and at best, lead to good, important conversations about its ethical use.

Reviewing your comments

Before returning assignments, ensure you take time to quickly re-read your comments. Critically question what you have written: Will the student know what you mean? Is it a comment they can act on? For example, describing a passage as “vague” is a bit, well, vague. “Awkward” usually means the marker didn’t like something about the writing but doesn’t specify what that is. The phrase “so what?” is sometimes suggested to markers as a way to encourage writers to go into deeper analysis, but be cautious: if you choose to use a phrase like this, make sure you let your students know why you have used it and what it means, to avoid natural misinterpretation. Likewise, if you have used abbreviations or shorthand, which can be a huge time-saver in marking, ensure students have a key to the symbols and phrases you have used.

Finally, while reviewing your comments for clarity and correctness (which is essential), check to ensure your tone matches your intentions: recall that it is never helpful to tear down a writer. Tone is difficult to self-evaluate; if you’re concerned, consider asking the instructor, a fellow TA, or a student-support service at Dalhousie, like the Writing Centre, to read a sample of your feedback.

Benefits to TAs and other reviewers

Like other opportunities for comment and review, such as journal or colleague peer review, giving feedback on others’ papers can enhance our own critical reading and writing skills, and can help us return to our own writing with fresh eyes, better prepared to ask for directed feedback on our own work.

Author bio: Janice Eddington (she/her) is currently the Associate Director, Student Academic Success, who works directly with graduate and undergraduate students by giving feedback on their written work through the Dalhousie Writing Centre. She has also instructed part-time in the Faculty of Science as a part-time ecology instructor, and more recently (2019-22) for Dalhousie’s Integrated Science Program’s Writing in Science. Her background is in education, biology, and science journalism.

References

Ferris, D. (2018). “They said I have a lot to learn”: How teacher feedback influences advanced university students’ views of writing. Journal of Response to Writing, 4 (2), 4-33. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/journalrw/vol4/iss2/2

Hill, J., Berlin, K., Choate, J., Cravens-Brown, L., McKendrick-Calder, L., & Smith, S. (2021). Exploring the emotional responses of undergraduate students to assessment feedback: Implications for instructors. Teaching and Learning Inquiry, 9(1), 294–316. https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.9.1.20

Naidoo, K., Quaynor, L., & Shen, Y. (2023). Doctoral students’ experiences, self-efficacy, and sense of belonging related to academic writing in an online program. Education Sciences, 13(11), 1097. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13111097

Rabbani, L. & Husain, S. (2024). Fostering student engagement with criticism feedback: Importance, contrasting perspectives and key provisions, Frontiers in Education, 9, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1344997

Wang, J., Liardét, C., & Lum, J. (2024). Feeling like an academic writer: An exploration of doctoral students’ struggle for recognition. Studies in Continuing Education, 47(1), 285–301. https://doi.org/10.1080/0158037X.2024.2358006