More gain less pain: essay marking and whole-class feedback in Psychology

I’ve written before about a general approach to lean marking in my subject; as I noted there I don’t think there’s anything revolutionary in my approach and it’s something that has taken a while to develop. One of the strategies outlined was the use of whole-class feedback (WCF) which I want to elaborate upon further here – what does it actually look like?

Some words of caution first. While WCF can be both time efficient and powerful for students, it needs careful thought about how to deliver it effectively. Students can find this approach uncomfortable if they don’t feel like they are getting the personalised help they need. Moving away from individual written comments is fine as long as students are getting something that is actually helping them move forward. As Daisy Christodoulou notes: “One risk is that you simply replace unhelpful individual written comments with unhelpful whole-class written comments”

Similarly, the use of standard templates is something that needs consideration. Having a clear format that is the same each time may be really helpful for students, particularly as it becomes part of their routine. But this only works if the format is genuinely appropriate every time, and I worry that it could lead to teachers ‘retrofitting’ the feedback to fit the template, rather than responding to what the students have actually produced. WCF is something I do use a lot but haven’t found that a standard template or format works especially well for me – it sort of depends on the work really. 

A key principle here is that I’m usually only intending to give each student one specific piece of feedback to work on. When students receive multiple bits of feedback it can be overwhelming or at least confusing – students don’t know what to prioritise or where to start. Research suggests students may simply ignore up to two-thirds of feedback comments and so I’d rather go for a 100 % hit rate where every single student responds to the feedback they receive. For me this also helps build self-efficacy and motivation – they start to see feedback as useful and can identify tangible improvements in their work, and so are more likely to respond positively to feedback in the future. 

My process for marking work looks like this:

I always start by reading through each answer and identifying key issues that might need addressing – I’ll make notes on a post-it or scrap of paper as I go. Typically what I read will lead me to one of three approaches:

1. If a particular theme emerges that’s common across all/most then I’ll use that as the focus for feedback
2. Sometimes there’s a few consistent issues that occur across a class which means I might then decide to use marking codes
3. Sometimes there’s little in common enough across answers to use WCF effectively so I’ll take a different tack

How each one works in practice:

(1) Single common theme. I’ll explain the issue to the class and, if it hinges on a particularly misconception or misunderstanding, take a few minutes to reteach the main idea. I pick out a few examples from different students’ answers and show these to highlight the issues (usually typed to anonymise although I could use visualiser instead as long as relationship with class is right). Then I’ll give a model of what they should be aiming for and then give them an opportunity to redraft/add to their own answer. If possible/appropriate/we have time then I might get them to apply the same idea to a new context to give them more practice.

For example, I recently set my year 12 students an essay to evaluate Social Identity Theory (SIT) as an explanation of prejudice. While there were some individual issues, I quickly noted that every single student had made a comparison with an alternative theory – Realistic Conflict Theory (RCT). However, none of them had done this well, with the common issues being that they simply presented RCT as an alternative view without any actual evaluation, or suggested RCT as better in some way because it included the idea of competition which SIT doesn’t (this doesn’t make sense – SIT was developed following RCT and has greater explanatory power precisely because it doesn’t suggest that prejudice arises only where there is competition for resources between groups – it can explain prejudice in a much wider range of contexts). While there were other areas of their answers that needed attention, I chose this specific point because it’s something that students will need to do well in lots of different areas of the course and so it’s worth spending time on – improving the student not just the work. So after reading their answers and noting this, I put together a couple of slides to reteach the comparison point and identify different misconceptions in their answers:

In the slide on the right, there are three common misconceptions from student answers in the grey boxes, with a model framework for a better version in the bottom right white box.

Once I’d gone through this, I asked students to identify where they’d included this comparison in their own answers, note what was wrong with it, and then write a new version using my framework as a scaffold if required. Stronger students were also given the option of adding a counter-argument for further challenge. I was able to circulate and give live feedback on this as they completed it.

(2) Multiple common issues. If there’s not a single common theme there are usually a handful which cover everyone in the class. Some might have several present in their answer but again I’m keen that they only have to deal with one thing at a time. I will write out a list of the main issues and number each one or assign a letter code. Then I go back to each answer and choose which issue I think is most relevant for the student to address – either the thing they’ve made the worst mess of or the thing I think will improve their answer the most – and write the code/number in the margin. Then I’ll write up the codes onto a doc or slide to show them in class, ideally with an action and example of what they need to do to make it better. Students have to find the relevant part of their work and then improve it. Again, if time/appropriate they might get the opportunity to apply the same improvement in a different context (not always relevant if the issue is highly context-specific).

Here is an example in response to students writing an answer on the study by Loftus & Palmer (1974) looking at the effects of leading questions on eyewitness testimony:

Here is a different example with just codes highlighted (students had written an essay on drug treatments for offenders):

(3) Multiple separate issues. In this instance WCF is unlikely to help as each student needs more specific, individualised feedback. I think it’s this situation that can cause major problems where teachers are too wedded to WCF in principle rather than genuinely responding to what students need (I know I have been guilty of this in the past). In my initial reading I’ll note the thing(s) I think they need to address and scribble these down on a post-it note. This means I can make specific notes, using shorthand, that only I need to understand.

Then I’ll choose the most important thing I want them to work on – the bit they’ll get feedback on – and highlight/asterisk that particular section in their answer. I don’t bother writing the actual comment on their work as a) it’s often hard to get across in writing – often in a small space in the margin – the precise nuance of what I want them to understand and b) they often struggle to read my writing – partly because of the lack of space – and have to ask me what it says anyway. 

Then I’ll plan something for the lesson I want to give feedback in which gives them a decent chunk of time for some independent work; during this time I’ll go round the class and have one-to-one conversations with each student and discuss the feedback. I expect them to write down the main idea in their own words (this lets me check what they’ve understood rather than just whether they say ‘yes I understand’ to something I’ve said/written) and, if appropriate to the lesson, get them to address the issue there and then (if that’s going to cut into the lesson time too much I might set as homework instead).

It’s taken a while for me to move from writing multiple comments on each piece of work to the approaches I’ve outlined here (not least as it goes against the grain of the school in which I work – although we’re making progress there too!), but I’m pleased with how the process is working now in terms of reducing my workload and having more meaningful impact. Although I still have to take time to read and consider each answer, the process of writing a set of class notes is a massive time-saver. Finding the time to get them to respond to feedback is still by far the biggest challenge since the pressure to cover the curriculum is always hanging over us. This can be offloaded as a homework task in some instances but there are times when lesson time is the only real way to ensure that students have fully understood their feedback and acted upon it appropriately. I’m sure there’s more I can do to refine this further – I’d welcome your feedback!