Constructive Feedback and Assessment
Constructive Feedback
Feedback should tell the student what is strong and what is weak.
Poor feedback
- “Good”
- “Very Good”
- “Fair”
- “Poor”
- “Excellent”
- A tick mark and a signature
Constructive feedback
- Names a specific strength
- Names a specific weakness
- Tells the student where to improve
Assessment Strategies Beyond Tests
- Observation: watch the student perform
- Performance tasks: produce something real
- Tests: use sparingly, since they push rote learning
Low-Cost Resources
- The classroom itself is a resource
- Natural environment, real objects
- Chart papers are not required for every concept
Each comes with its own common mistake.
Constructive feedback
Most school feedback in many systems looks like this. The student submits work. The teacher writes “Good”, “Very Good”, “Fair”, “Poor”, or “Excellent”. A tick mark and a signature. The work goes back.
Students compare notebooks. Whose has more “Very Goods”? The grading turns into a counting game. Nothing about the work itself is communicated.
This is poor feedback. It tells the student a vague rank and nothing about why. The student does not know what was good. The student does not know what was weak. The next assignment cannot be improved because the previous one did not point at anything to fix.
Constructive feedback names specifics. For a piece of writing, the comment might say:
The student now has a strength to keep and a weakness to fix. The next piece of writing can be better.
For a labeled diagram, the comment might say:
The teacher with authority on feedback has the responsibility to make it constructive. “Good” is faster to write but does not help the student.
Assessment beyond tests
Most schools assess through tests. Government schools rely on weekly and monthly tests. Private schools advertise their testing schedule as a feature: “weekly tests, monthly assessments”. Parents are reassured.
Tests have a place. They are not the only assessment method, and they are not always the best one.
A weekly maths test that gives a student 10 out of 20 does not help the student learn. The student now knows their mark. They do not know which kinds of problems they got wrong, or why. The student with 20 out of 20 is happy. The student with 5 is anxious. Neither learning has been maximized.
Tests also push students toward rote learning. A student who knows that a test is coming memorizes the textbook answers. The mind stores the words. Higher-order thinking, application, and creativity are not tested by most tests, so they are not developed.
Two assessment methods that work better for many topics:
Observation. A child who is good at art is not assessed with a written test. The teacher gives them flowers and a scenery to draw and watches the work. Science equipment is the same. The teacher does not ask the student “how do you handle a microscope?”. The teacher hands them a microscope and watches.
Performance tasks. Instead of testing writing skills with a copybook exercise, ask students to publish a weekly newsletter. Students conduct interviews, gather material, edit, and produce a real newsletter. Their writing improves more from this one project than from a year of copybook tests.
A teacher with authority on assessment uses the right tool for the topic. The right tool is often not a test.
Tests push students toward rote learning, not understanding
A test rewards memorization of textbook answers.
Higher-order thinking, application, and creativity are not tested by most tests, so students do not develop them. Observation and performance tasks reach what tests cannot.
The classroom as a resource
A common student-teacher complaint goes like this: “the school does not give us chart papers, so we cannot use audio-visual aids”. The complaint reveals a misunderstanding of what counts as a resource.
Chart papers are one resource. They are not the only resource. The classroom itself is a major resource. The natural environment around the school is another. Student bodies are another.
A teacher who wants to teach the concept of metals and non-metals can do it without chart papers. The teacher asks students to identify objects in the classroom that contain a metal. The chair frame, the door handle, the window grille. Students walk, touch, look, and discover. The board fills with their list. The teacher draws out the common features. Students arrive at the definition themselves.
This lesson uses no chart papers, no printed posters, and no special equipment. It uses the classroom and the students. It is more memorable than any chart.
A teacher with authority on resources has the responsibility to look for low-cost, high-impact options. Chart papers are nice. The classroom is enough.
Real objects beat printed pictures
For a topic like metals and non-metals, students can identify metal objects in their own classroom: chair frames, door handles, window grilles.
The lesson uses no chart papers and is more memorable than any printed chart.