Feedback Conversations

Get Started. It's Free
or sign up with your email address
Feedback Conversations by Mind Map: Feedback Conversations

1. What would you seek to communicate verbally?

1.1. I would communicate the general issues that I found in the draft

1.2. I would discuss the comments with them if something is not clear, or they would like to understand further

1.3. I would be surer to answer any questions the student asks and encourage them to take notes on thos comments.

1.4. I'd want to find positive things to say, and reassure the student that revising and editing is part of the process, so they don't feel overwhelmed by whatever work remains.

1.4.1. I agree that the verbal feedback should be quite positive at the beginning and the end. The middle part of the conversation is when I would get in to the areas of improvement.

1.5. To be honest I find verbally communicating all the written feedback points, and expanding and explaining is really helpful to students. A lot of my students are not good at reading written feedback, or they scan over it and don't actually understand it. I think have the verbal feedback also provides the student with the opportunity to ask any direct questions.

1.5.1. I agree with this point - I definitely think it is worth sitting down with them and going through feedback as a lot of the time they have clarifying questions.

1.5.1.1. I also agree with this point. They have a tendency to forget verbal feedback anyway - so verbal and written focusing on the same info would be useful

1.6. I would use this time to clarify the the comments made, praise the best aspects and answer questions asked by the student.

1.7. I'd start with the positives, appreciate the good work, then more in to the inquiry based questions or ask for feedback, and open the floor to the student to discuss whatever.

1.8. I would ask them to justify and explain decisions they have taken. I'd ensure they had a good undertanding of the topic they are investigating

1.8.1. I agree with this, and I would specify that the student should explain their investigation to people who are not supervisors nor students in psychology but family members or friends because if they do not understand what their topic and explanation, then it means it needs to be improved.

2. What would you write down on a separate response sheet?

2.1. I usually write down a summary of comments (probably the ones shared verbally) at the end of the draft, so they can keep track of them. And they can write notes next to any points discussed.

2.2. General questions/issues followed by a criterion by criterion list of guiding questions.

2.2.1. I would probably format this so that the student had space to write notes to respond to each of the questions.

2.2.2. I think I missed this the first time around,b but I like the idea of grouping the comments I have by Criteria.

2.3. Agree - I think my response sheet would be directly linked to the wording used in the assessment criteria.

2.3.1. Yes, the more tailored/structured feedback can be to the rubric, the more effective it is. As long as the strands are put into the students own language or exemplified clearly.

2.4. Highlight parts of the criterion and add guiding questions to help the student to identify where their response is weakest

2.4.1. I think that using the criterion strands in combination with guiding questions would be a great thing to include on a separate response sheet.

2.5. I owuld perhaps write down key questions about parts of the EE that are vague and ask them to clarify them.

3. What actions would you undertake if for example you feel there are some major weaknesses in the draft?

3.1. I would usually set up a meeting with the student to discuss their progress, understanding, challenges.

3.1.1. I would ask the student first as well, figure out if they are aware of their own weaknesses in whatever they're done. Most of the time, the problem is solved - then and there. Also informing the EEC or sitting with them and the student in a meeting

3.2. If it is a case of lack of effort, then I refer the issue to our principle and decide whether to call student into a formal meeting or e-mail the parents.

3.3. I would schedule a meeting/confer with the EE Coordinator to discuss a remediation plan, especially if this occurs past a deadline.

3.4. I would schedule a meeting with the student to discuss the problems with the draft, and would also inform the DP coordinator to ensure they are aware. I would provide both written and verbal feedback.

3.5. I would arrange a meeting with the individual student and provide detailed written and verbal feedback. I would also keep the EE coordinator in the loop.

3.5.1. I think the meeting with the student is essential. Sometimes I have students with accommodations because they struggle with planning. I try to help them do their outline by asking them questions, so they have a better idea of what they have done and what they should do to improve it.

3.6. I er on the side of caution generally and get the coordinator and parent involved early in the process. The Draft stage is quite late for significant weaknesses to be overcome. A push may be needed.

3.6.1. I agree! At this point I would schedule a meeting with the student first but let them know that we are going to enlist the help of the EE coordinator and their parents.

3.7. I would schedule a meeting with the student to discuss this but I would keep my DP coordinator informed of the conversation/outcomes as I may need to lean on them for support.

4. How could you deal with common errors found in the first draft amongst many students?

4.1. I think I would present the students with the list of common errors, and invite them to reflect on how successful they have been in avoiding these common issues.

4.1.1. Using a list of common errors makes so much sense!

4.1.1.1. I agree - I think a list of common errors would be very useful. I wonder if there is something already out there.

4.1.1.1.1. I think the examiners give guidance on common errors year-by-year. I'm just not sure how to access it or if we even can independently.

4.2. We also try to incorporate them in their research classes pre-emptively or review them if it is a common issue in the cohort.

4.2.1. Having a vertically articulated plan for teaching research skills is something I've been working on.

4.3. I highlight the issues noted in the Subject Specific Criteria and the Score Reports and ask the students to pay attention to these as they re-read their paper.

4.4. so because i'm also the EEC I have a meeting of the end of the year with all the teachers supervising EEs and figure out whatever the overlapping errors are and include them in the research classes for the new academic year.

4.5. I wonder if you could ask the students to check for spelling or grammar errors by running it through Grammarly?

4.6. I usually have a common errors document but this could also be done as a presentation for them.

4.6.1. That is a great idea, i would love to see that document!

4.6.1.1. I sometimes use what other teachers share in groups on social media. you can find good presentations that you can adapt to your group. The presentations show how to structure the EE and give some examples. They also mention some common errors.

4.6.2. I always create an overall feedback document for the IA too! It's really useful, I also use the examiner's report to inform this document.

5. What elements would you want to include on a final submission checklist?

5.1. I think the checklist would include the general elements of each criterion and more detailed checklist of presentation requirements.

5.1.1. This is a sensible plan. This might be more useful for a student if some specific examples are provided. Perhaps excerpts from stong EE

5.2. Specific elements of presentation, including RQ, MLA/APA/Chicago references & headings, Bibliography, word count

5.3. Our checklist is broken down into a number of subheadings, but some key features include structure and layout, correct referencing. As well as referring to the RQ consistently in the intro, the essay and conclusion.

5.3.1. Also - conclusions after each section, including all the arguments in the main conclusion

5.4. I would have the presentation aspects broken down, word count, research question and key elements e.g. the introduction, body & conclusion.

5.5. I recently created a checklist for the IA and my students really found it useful. I would like to create one for the EE. As mentioned by others, it would include a lot of presentation elements but could also include reference to the criterion strands.

5.6. Presentation for sure

5.7. Layout, referencing, content page, conclusion, Correct RQ, viva

5.7.1. yes - definitely referencin, layout, contents, word count etc. The things that are easily checked!

6. I would highlight the skills they demonstrated well. Going through the rubrics to highlight how they are meeting each criteria and then also remarking on areas of improvement based on the rubrics

6.1. I like the idea of using the rubric to give them feedback. I tend to use it too. I also use the checklist which is often more comprehensible to them to know what is missing and what should be added in their EE.

7. I ususally pose my responses as questions that lead the student into questioning their own writing and approach. Generally, I try to give two positive comments for every negative comment so tha the stedent doesn't feel overwhelmed.

8. Would you focus on few skills or give them comprehensive feedback? Sometimes I fele the line between too much and too little diffcult to navigate

9. I agree with this.

10. I agree with this - speak to the EE coordinator, possibly let the Head of Sixth form know too, so they are aware, and call in the student for a formal meeting