If "what students actually need to improve is a “recipe for future action”, and a “series of activities that will move students from their current state to the goal state” "
... then instruct the AI to include in the feedback an explanation of exactly what the student needs to do to improve their work, and a “recipe for future action”, along with a “series of short activities that will move students from their current state of performance to the next, improved level” ...
The more detailed instruction that are given to AI systems, usually, the better outcomes.
Encouraging to see Dylan Wiliam quoted. Undoubtedly most teachers spend too much time writing comments on pupils/students work and those comments make little difference even if they get read. There used to be a fashion for teachers to correct spellings in work. This is probably more linked to marking than assessment although those teachers would then be able to assess which kids could spell particular words more accurately. It certainly didn't make anyone a better speller even if you were required to write the correct spelling out ten times at the end of your work. Ah the joys of 20th century schools. I think it depends hugely on whether your feedback is to do with things like grammar, punctuation etc or style perhaps. As the student says" If I knew how to be more systematic, I would have been more systematic the first time" . The same applies to so many improvements that teachers might suggest.
I was observing once in an FS2/Yr1 class and many examples of the children’s written work had complex comments that patently few of the class could have read or understood. The teacher explained that it was school policy to show that the work had been read and assessed. Accountability to Ofsted too. And the parents liked it.
So if they can produce WWW, EBI and Do It Now comments that are both accurate and insightful, and deliver them alongside a section quoted from the student’s work, using which the student could immediately redraft and improve their work, would that satisfy the requirements for ‘usefulness’, do you think?
I am going to be annoying and say no - because the point of feedback should be to improve the students' thinking / mental model, not to improve the work.
You can argue that improving the work is a first step to improving thinking. But it is possible for a student to spend a lot of time redrafting an essay, fixing all the mistakes...and then to make exactly the same mistakes in their next essay.
Huh. Well I don't find that in the least bit annoying! But I do find it surprising.
So.. following that logic, what do written comments need to do to be in with a chance of improving students' thinking? Or is the implication that it has to be a teacher following on from those comments that is useful to students improving their mental model? In which case, is all feedback 'useless'?
Genuinely keen to get your take on where the line of ‘useful’ is. This narrative on its own makes sense, but I’m not sure I see how it relates to comments if they have to improve the mental model rather than the work. That’s what most comments I’ve ever seen written in the classroom have attempted to do!
If "what students actually need to improve is a “recipe for future action”, and a “series of activities that will move students from their current state to the goal state” "
... then instruct the AI to include in the feedback an explanation of exactly what the student needs to do to improve their work, and a “recipe for future action”, along with a “series of short activities that will move students from their current state of performance to the next, improved level” ...
The more detailed instruction that are given to AI systems, usually, the better outcomes.
Encouraging to see Dylan Wiliam quoted. Undoubtedly most teachers spend too much time writing comments on pupils/students work and those comments make little difference even if they get read. There used to be a fashion for teachers to correct spellings in work. This is probably more linked to marking than assessment although those teachers would then be able to assess which kids could spell particular words more accurately. It certainly didn't make anyone a better speller even if you were required to write the correct spelling out ten times at the end of your work. Ah the joys of 20th century schools. I think it depends hugely on whether your feedback is to do with things like grammar, punctuation etc or style perhaps. As the student says" If I knew how to be more systematic, I would have been more systematic the first time" . The same applies to so many improvements that teachers might suggest.
I was observing once in an FS2/Yr1 class and many examples of the children’s written work had complex comments that patently few of the class could have read or understood. The teacher explained that it was school policy to show that the work had been read and assessed. Accountability to Ofsted too. And the parents liked it.
So if they can produce WWW, EBI and Do It Now comments that are both accurate and insightful, and deliver them alongside a section quoted from the student’s work, using which the student could immediately redraft and improve their work, would that satisfy the requirements for ‘usefulness’, do you think?
Asking for a friend :)
I am going to be annoying and say no - because the point of feedback should be to improve the students' thinking / mental model, not to improve the work.
You can argue that improving the work is a first step to improving thinking. But it is possible for a student to spend a lot of time redrafting an essay, fixing all the mistakes...and then to make exactly the same mistakes in their next essay.
Seem to be just arguing semantics. Couldn’t the EBIs improve students’ thinking?
Huh. Well I don't find that in the least bit annoying! But I do find it surprising.
So.. following that logic, what do written comments need to do to be in with a chance of improving students' thinking? Or is the implication that it has to be a teacher following on from those comments that is useful to students improving their mental model? In which case, is all feedback 'useless'?
This was not meant as a rhetorical question :)
Genuinely keen to get your take on where the line of ‘useful’ is. This narrative on its own makes sense, but I’m not sure I see how it relates to comments if they have to improve the mental model rather than the work. That’s what most comments I’ve ever seen written in the classroom have attempted to do!