Timely, targeted and effective feedback
Last week we talked again about evaluation, but also about the importance of feedback. We also established the difference between immediate feedback and post-mortem feedback. But how do you provide such feedback? The answer is all the more difficult given that marking papers is particularly time-consuming. So how can feedback be provided, if not in real time, then at least in such a way as to avoid the famous autopsy feedback arriving too late?
We could answer this question in a development that would take up the next 110 bulletins, but let’s confine ourselves to proposing three recommendations.
The first is quite simple, and we mentioned it earlier. The feedback comes too late because the paper has been marked and the mark overwrites the commentary in that the student’s reaction does not allow him or her to be receptive to the feedback. So, by eliminating the mark or at least deferring it, you give feedback back its power, that of warning the student that certain corrections need to be made, because that’s often the problem: the student doesn’t realise she or he’s made a mistake until it’s too late when it’s pointed out to her/him. From this point of view, a correction or re-explanation can be suggested after an assessment. The copies are then handed in and the students are given time to correct any mistakes by completing the work in green (scenario suggested in the book Différencier son enseignement au collège et au lycée written by Frédéric Bablon). Students can also be given the opportunity to repeat the same work several times, to improve it and thus make progress (the number of assignments can then be reduced to emphasise quality rather than quantity).
In Faire collectif pour apprendre, Laurent Reynaud proposes an assessment based on a simple colour code, with no commentary. This forces students to look for and help each other understand their mistakes:
“While the students who have a green circle on their paper don’t worry, the others work hard to understand their colour and improve their work. They turn to their classmates who have a colour higher than theirs or open their binders. They don’t have notes on their work, so they have to interact with each other to compare their own work with that of others.”
The author suggests other examples of collaboration. For example, students’ work can be critiqued by students. It is vital to define what criticism is and to ensure that it is constructive. To this end, we propose a typology of feedback:
| Destructive feedback | Positive feedback | Constructive feedback |
| “It’s worthless, it’s rubbish, I don’t get it at all”. | “It was great, you’re great, you’ve done a lot of work. | “You explained it very well, but I didn’t understand everything. You could give more examples and answer our questions.” |
According to Catlin Tucker (The Complete guide to blended learning), effective feedback is timely, focused, and actionable.
- The first problem with traditional feedback is that teachers often take student work home to give feedback. It is not something they typically do with the students in class. It is not timely.
- Second, traditional feedback often focuses on minutia. You should identify one aspect of the student’s performance and provide feedback on that single element and not overwhelm students with too many comments. That way, students can focus on making that specific improvement or adjustment.
- Finally, teachers traditionally provide feedback on finished products, so there is no incentive for students to do anything with that feedback.
In short, the aim is to give feedback in class, not at home, on work that is in progress and not yet finished. The time devoted to this feedback is limited and must be targeted. The teacher then makes a choice. He or she focuses on one aspect of the work to be improved and makes it clear that the teacher is not trying to correct all the mistakes, but is instead identifying a point where progress can be made.
