SOAR

Making the Most of Your Writing Feedback

Giving high-quality feedback on student writing can be a challenge, but these strategies help maximize its impact on your students.

 

By Susan Barber

 

 

Photo: ©Gable Denims/500px

Providing feedback on student writing is one of the most important, most challenging aspects of a teacher’s job. It’s important because feedback is critical to student learning; it’s challenging because of time constraints and the number of students at varying levels in our classes.

Making sure your feedback is specific, ongoing, action-oriented, and reasonable—the SOAR method, a strategy I developed—helps maximize its impact on your students.

Specific

Feedback is often lost on students because it’s too vague. Comments like “great job,” “good writing,” or even “needs better organization” fall flat with students because they’re not tied to specific words, phrases, sentences, or paragraphs in writing.

Feedback falls into two categories: the what and the how. The what of writing deals with content. Specific feedback here includes guiding students if they need more evidence, stronger claims, or further analysis. If they’re writing fiction, you might suggest adding more dialogue for character development or further detail to establish setting.

The how is the writing itself. Specific feedback here can include comments concerning the organization of the information, rhetorical strategies, style, voice, and conventions.

Teachers who teach writing across the curriculum and feel uncomfortable assessing the how can focus their feedback on the what since that is the part of the writing they’ll feel most comfortable assessing.

Ongoing

Fortunately, teachers are slowly breaking away from grading final products only and are offering feedback throughout the different stages of writing. The biggest hindrance to ongoing feedback is time, but narrowing the focus of the feedback can help you meet this challenge.

For example, a science teacher may choose to focus on one particular section of a lab report each time; an English language arts teacher may choose to focus on one particular stage of writing, shifting from one stage to another throughout the course of the year.

Students can take the lead by asking for feedback on a Google doc throughout the writing process. Kaizena allows teachers to leave voice notes on a student paper, making it easy to check in and comment on work during different stages in the process.

Stations with self-guiding questions for reflection can be a great way to allow students to move through the writing process at their own pace, and the teacher can rotate through the stations, addressing small groups of students instead of the whole class.

Action-Oriented

Many teachers fall into the trap of editing student writing by focusing on marking grammar mistakes instead of offering feedback to move students forward in their writing. Helping students take specific steps is key in building a growth mindset in writing—students must see that the action taken can benefit their future writing and not just correct a mistake in the current paper.

Conferring is key when offering action-oriented feedback. I recently sat in the hall conferring with students about college essays. This allowed me time to say things like, “Notice in this paragraph how you begin seven sentences with ‘I’ followed by an action verb. How can you vary some of these sentences so they don’t all sound the same? The content is good, but let’s work on sentence variety.” The student would then offer a suggestion on how to start a sentence differently, and we would further discuss it. The student not only improves this piece but will be more likely to carry these ideas to future writing because the feedback results in an action step.

Teachers are not the only ones who can provide action-oriented feedback—peer editing with specific action-oriented writing suggestions can also move your writers forward.

Reasonable

When a student receives a paper with markings all over it, they can become overwhelmed and discouraged, which often prevents them from taking proper steps for revision or for growth as a writer in general. This can be remedied in several ways.

Select a focus for feedback with each assignment. Sometimes I’ll tell students, “I’ll be offering feedback on transitions in this paper,” or “The focus of feedback for this writing is on the amount of evidence.” I try to give feedback on both the what and the how of writing. This is especially strategic if I’ve given a mini-lesson on an area that I want students to focus on in their writing.

Another successful strategy is giving a Glow and a Grow comment highlighting a specific area that a student did particularly well on and one that needs improvement. Glow and Grow comments both celebrate and challenge student writing. Students refer to past Grow and Glow comments and goals before writing future assignments so they can be reminded of where they are strong, in order to continue doing these things well, and to be aware of areas for growth, in order to push themselves in these areas.

Feedback is more than a grade and should be one of the driving factors in helping students set learning goals and take charge of their own writing and learning. Help students SOAR to success in learning with quality feedback.

Teaching practice

Student surveys are destroying my confidence, says new academic

I’m a new academic and I keep being told that my lectures are boring. Is this really the best way to develop as a teacher?

When I walked into a classroom to deliver my first lecture, early in 2014, I was terrified. Not long out of undergraduate studies myself, I felt like an imposter. Nervousness flooded every inch of my body and, once the lecture had finished, it immediately became a blur in my mind.

It took time for my confidence to grow but I slowly began to have more faith in my teaching. Engaged and responsive students fuelled my enthusiasm and boosted my self-esteem. As I began to understand classroom dynamics, I was able to adapt my lesson plans in response to a particular session or group rather than focusing my energy on making sure I got through every slide and remembered every point. Standing in front of a room of students began to feel normal.

But our mandatory student feedback surveys are crushing that confidence. They report that I seem “inexperienced” and the block that I teach is “uninteresting”.

The point about inexperience is accurate, of course; some of the staff I teach alongside have taught for 20 years, while I have taught for 20 hours (over two and a half years of PhD research). What’s more, those 20 hours have been passed my way in bits and pieces, spread across numerous courses and year groups, meaning that I rarely have long enough to learn student names or get used to a group dynamic. In terms of content, I have little control over what I teach and I am often called upon at the last minute, with little time to prepare.

I have always jumped at the opportunity to gain teaching experience. I know that it is essential if I am to secure an academic post after my PhD – otherwise I am unlikely to be even considered for roles that involve teaching. I also relish the opportunity to share my knowledge and enthusiasm for my subject. I want to inspire students in the same way that my lecturers inspired me.

Perhaps I’m just not cut out to teach. I have often asked myself this. But observations and feedback on my teaching practice from academics and fellow PhD researchers (from both within and outside of my discipline) have always been positive, encouraging and constructive. So what is happening with the student feedback?

Perhaps the issue is not with feedback from students, but with the way feedback is collected and used. I often teach on courses taught by up to five members of staff: each tutor teaches a segment of the course, which are all linked by a common theme. But the student feedback surveys do not take this fragmented structure into account. Instead, students are asked to respond to broad questions about the course as a whole: “What did you enjoy?” and “What could be improved?”.

I don’t blame the students for the negative feedback. In my department, these surveys are distributed in the final 10 minutes of a 50-minute lecture. I don’t think this set-up is conducive to thorough contemplation: they’re already eager to get away and may not be inclined to put in the effort to provide useful feedback.

Add to this the well-reported problem of gender bias in student evaluations and the value of these surveys disintegrates further. Are students reacting to the fact that I am a woman, as well as a young one?

Rather than encouraging young researchers to improve their practice, negative feedback from students at this very early stage can have a detrimental, demotivating effect. But as university students become consumers, more emphasis is placed on consumer responses and demands. So, rather than being guided through the early stages of teaching, PhD students are being exposed early on to the bruising student-consumer market.

Institutions should question how useful this feedback can really be to their long-term academic success. Perhaps student feedback is just a waste of everyone’s time – as well as putting PhD students off university teaching careers.

Feedback

Hacking Feedback: Seeking And Receiving Feedback From Students

 

By Sean McComb 

One of my favorite education books is The Courage to Teach. In that text, Parker Palmer explores teaching as a daily exercise in vulnerability. As teachers, we expose ourselves, and often the content we love, to an at-times unforgiving world. Difficult students, dud lessons, doubting colleagues, short-sighted initiatives, all exacerbated by the challenges of our lives outside the classroom, can eventually harden a teacher. And that skepticism can make it a lot harder to take the risks necessary to get better.

So finding the courage to continue to care deeply, to continue to seek feedback, can be challenging. But I’ve found, as scary as it may be, that student feedback has been an important catalyst for reflecting on and improving my practice. Hearing directly from students also aligns with my own deepest motivations. More than test scores, or my desire to introduce students to great novels and great questions, I teach so that students feel someone believes in them and they feel empowered to learn, grow, and succeed. Measuring success on that mission requires hearing directly from students.

Student Survey

My first venture into gaining feedback from students took the form of an end-of-course survey. To select the questions, I drew on Kathleen Cushman’s Fires in the Bathroom and my own curiosities. The students’ feedback was helpful. I didn’t have to guess how they felt the course went; they were able to tell me. I was impressed by the specificity with which students could recall individual lessons and incidences from class, and the value of their suggestions for improvement. It was wonderful food for thought as a reflective practitioner.

I had students respond anonymously, so they could be more honest, but this year I’ll give students the opportunity to provide their name. I hope that knowing the source can help me contextualize the feedback for specific responders, but I also want to offer anonymity if they prefer.

About half the questions were open response and the other half asked students to respond with their level of agreement across a likert scale. It’s no surprise that I gained much more actionable feedback from the open response items. The levels of agreement provided a good snapshot, but I was left wanting. For the outlier students in either direction, I wanted to know why. What was it that made a positive or negative difference for that individual?

The survey was definitely a step in the right direction, but reading them in June was also a little sad. I could make changes for the next group, but I was left thinking, what if I had known earlier? What if I had known and been able to engage in conversations about alternatives?

Student-Led Focus Groups

My desire for more of a conversation — a back-and-forth exchange of perspectives with students — led me to the decision to have students lead a focus group on my instruction and debrief the feedback with me.

Toward the end of the first quarter, knowing I would be out for the next class, I briefed my classes on the plan. I told them that I was interested in hearing from them about how class was going, that I wanted to keep improving and become a better teacher for them, and that their thoughtful input was vital. Then I asked for volunteers to lead conversations with their classmates the next day, when I would be out. I spoke briefly with the volunteers and answered questions about the process: I directed them to collect student-responses, look for trends in the conversations, and during their conversations push for suggestions and solutions from their peers.

I left the substitute with a half-sheet to give students to complete before beginning their other tasks. It had the following questions:

• What is something that’s been going well for you in this class?
• What is something that hasn’t been going well for you?
• Has there been a time in class when you felt disrespected? What happened? How could it have been handled differently?
• Have you found anything about this class frustrating? Can you think of a way that it could be improved?
• Do you feel that you are becoming a better learner in this class? Explain.

I left directions to allow the student-leaders, halfway through the period, to group up and lead conversations around these questions. The student-leaders led their conversations and collected their peers’ responses. A few days after my return, we met during a lunch period to discuss their feedback.

The conversation was extraordinary. That’s not to say that it was all positive. There were a lot of positives, and there were questions, there were challenges, and there were moments of surprise, when I could have and should have been better, that were disappointing. It was honest. It was real. And it was invaluable towards helping me become a better teacher. Thankfully, Teaching Channel was in the house to capture it, so video snippets will soon be available.

What was, perhaps, most impressive was the maturity and insight with which the students handled the conversation. They were nuanced in delivering feedback from the many and the few. They were sensitive to competing pressures. And as I explained my reasoning and choices, they were understanding, but still pushed me to seek solutions. A few times I was truly at a loss for how to address an issue, and they were creative and stepped in to provide solutions that I have since put into action. I shudder to think about what it would be like if the class train kept rolling down the tracks without me having this insight into the student experience the student-led focus group strategy offered.

Not to be overlooked is the importance of modeling. One student noted the impact of my simply being open and asking for feedback from the students, and what that said to them about continuing to learn and grow.

Do you tap students to gain feedback on your instruction and classroom environment? What strategies do you use? Could you implement a survey or focus-group into your practice?

Sean McComb teaches English at Patapsco High School and Center for the Arts in the Baltimore County Public Schools System. Sean also supports the development of teaching and learning for Baltimore County’s STAT Initiative. He is affiliated with the Maryland Writing Project, NCTE, Learning Forward, National Network of State Teachers of the Year, and ISTE. Sean is the 2014 National Teacher of the Year and a Teaching Channel Laureate. Connect with him on Twitter: @Mr_McComb.

Faculty Development

ESCOLA BAHIANA DE MEDICINA E SAÚDE PÚBLICA

Programa de Pós Graduação em Medicina e Saúde Humana

IÊDA MARIA BARBOSA ALELUIA

IMPLANTAÇÃO E AVALIAÇÃO DO IMPACTO DE UM PROGRAMA DE DESENVOLVIMENTO DOCENTE PARA UTILIZAÇÃO DO MINI CEX NA GRADUAÇÃO EM MEDICINA

Trabalho de Tese, com objetivo de obtenção de título de doutor, na curso de pós-graduação em Medicina e Saúde Humana da Escola Bahiana de Medicina e Saúde Pública, na área de Educação em Saúde.

Orientador: Prof. Dr. Mário de Seixas Rocha

 

RESUMO

Introdução: Desenvolvimento docente é compreendido como importante componente na educação médica, ao visar à melhoria no processo de ensino-aprendizagem; e existe a necessidade de melhor avaliação do impacto desses programas na prática docente. Este estudo visou à avaliação deste impacto. Métodos:Trata-se de um estudo de intervenção, com metodologia qualitativa-quantitativa e com duração de dois anos. Foram realizadas duas oficinas sobre mini Cex e feedback; os professores(14) responderam pré e pós testes sobre conhecimento do assunto, encaminharam relatórios de uso do instrumento e participaram de um Grupo Focal ao final de cada ano do estudo; os estudantes (200) do 5º semestre de medicina responderam questionários avaliando as competências dos professores, antes e depois das oficinas e também participaram de um Grupo Focal ao final de cada ano.  Os dados quantitativos foram analisados utilizando os testes de Kruskal-Wallis e Wilcoxon, com o programa estatístico SPSS 17.0, considerando como estatisticamente significante p<0,05. Os dados qualitativos foram avaliados pela análise de conteúdo. Resultados:159/200 alunos, divididos em 14 turmas práticas, responderam os questionários em 2013 sobre as competências do professor ideal e do real e 145/200 em 2014. Houve percepção de mudança nos professores, pelos estudantes, nas competências de flexibilidade, afetividade, comunicação e avaliação. A análise das falas dos estudantes mostrou a imagem que fazem do professor como detentor de conhecimento e facilitador, além de reconhecer o valor do feedback na formação. Os professores (10/14) reconheceram o valor positivo do programa de desenvolvimento para melhoria de sua prática. Houve incremento no cognitivo, evidenciado pelos escores dos pré e pós testes. Foi identificada, nas falas dos docentes, a reflexão sobre a práxis docente e o valor do mini Cex enquanto avaliação formativa. Conclusão: Conclui-se que houve impacto positivo do programa na prática docente, além da evidência da necessidade de estímulo constante para manutenção das modficações. 

Palavras chave: Desenvolvimento docente. mini Cex. Feedback. Prática docente. Educação Médica.