As a language and communication tutor, the need to evaluate written pieces in the draft and final stages is always there. There is the inevitable rush to grade the assignments and then to provide students with as much feedback as possible so that they can address errors in an informed way.

Though there is a debate on the extent to which teacher feedback is helpful in improving the grades of final drafts (Ferris, 2001), a study during 1998/99 amongst a group of English language students in NUS has re-emphasised the importance that these students place on feedback. The study was aimed at tracing the writing development of English language students who were required to write term essays in their selected modules. 79 out of 88 students rated the feedback from tutors as ‘very important’. Though this study was done in the context of a subject that requires much writing, I believe that it is natural for students in other settings to want feedback on assignments done just as much. In the educational setting, feedback is very important as it is meant to be highly evaluative of the person’s performance and capabilities displayed in a piece of work.

In students’ written assignments, feedback generally comes in the form of a grade and where time permits, comments along the margin to provide the students with a better idea of the rationale behind acceptable and not so acceptable answers. Given the many constraints of this evaluative process, it is inevitable that sometimes some students are not satisfied with perhaps insufficient feedback given or the lack of it. In the above-mentioned survey, students were also forthcoming with their suggestions on how feedback can be made more effective. Suggestions include a shorter interval between handing up assignments and getting the teacher’s feedback, more regular consultation sessions, more comments along the margin and using email as another channel of feedback.

These suggestions are not something that tutors do not already know. It would be ideal to consult with each student regularly. However, given the many other demands of the teaching process, besides marking and evaluation, it is not difficult to lapse into negligence in the provision of comprehensive feedback.

Different settings will require different sets of strategies in the management of this problem. However, I have found some of the following methods effective in enhancing the feedback process, though they may still fall short in some ways.

Common mistakes

In any one assignment, there are usually sets of mistakes that are more prevalent amongst students. These may involve the interpretation of question or erroneous conceptualisation of certain subject matter. These common mistakes that require detailed clarification can be dealt with during tutorial sessions where there is opportunity for interaction and discussion. For those who have not committed these errors, it is perhaps a good opportunity to re-confirm that they are right in their understanding of things. Such discussion of common errors would then have provided useful feedback to a good proportion of the students. Also, with the strong support given for the use of NUS’ Integrated Virtual Learning Environment, even the less IT-inclined tutor can use the technology in appropriate ways. For instance, feedback notes can be posted on course websites or even dealt with during chat sessions at stipulated times.

There are also errors which may be common but require less explanation as they may involve violation of rather standard requirements expected of all students in the course (e.g. reference systems). In this instance, it may be helpful to provide as clear guidelines as possible in the initial stages of the course as to the expectations set. Comments along the margin can then quickly refer them to respective portions of such guidelines.

It may be interesting to know that in the study mentioned above, there were no clear majority answers from students surveyed when asked about the effectiveness of such guidelines. For example, some students found that the guidelines provided useful information in the specification of word lengths, while others found them too restrictive (Allison & Wu, 2001). However, what is important is that if clear guidelines were given, there would then be a quick reference for a set of common errors that teachers can refer students to, especially students who have neglected these guidelines for various reasons. Another very important reason for such guidelines concerns the expectations of both learners and markers (Lea & Street, 1999). In many courses, different markers mark students’ essays and expectations differ from marker to marker. Such guidelines represent an effort towards matching the expectations of learners and markers and among the markers themselves to a certain extent, thus minimising the factor of variability in expectations.

Less common mistakes

In many instances, the most satisfactory way to deal with assignment errors is to see each student individually. To get the most out of a time-consuming and tedious process, students should perhaps be given prompts to think about why certain aspects of their answers are unacceptable. The consultation time would then be one where there is two-way communication in the process of trying to understand where the student has gone wrong. For instance, besides the underlining of errors in an essay for a writing course, a weightage can be put beside the error to indicate whether it is in the category of just ‘grammatical error’, ‘grammar + logic error’ or ‘ grammar + logic + rhetorical error’. As these elements are important in the assessment of writing, each of these elements is given a certain weightage—a higher score for a more serious error. Students are then prompted to think about what went wrong especially in those errors with higher scores and they are encouraged to come prepared to suggest alternatives.

Peer review, if appropriately implemented with regards to student abilities, can result in a more dynamic way of talking about errors. The didactic element need not be always from the top as the tutor can facilitate the discussion so that it becomes mutually beneficial to all parties involved.

Basically, feedback is important to students but it is not always possible to provide detailed comments individually. Depending on the nature of the discipline and assignment involved, one has to maximise whatever time that has been allocated to convey necessary feedback.

References

Ferris, D.R. (2001). ‘Teaching Writing for Academic Purposes’. In J. Flowerdew & M. Peacock (Ed.). Research Perspectives on English for Academic Purposes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 298–314.

Allison, D.A. & Wu S.M. (2001). ‘Academic Writing: Whose Expectations?’. RELC Journal. Vol. 32, No. 1, pp. 52–73.

Lea, M.R. & Street, B. (1999) ‘Writing as Academic Literacies: Understanding Textual Practices in Higher Education’. In C.N. Candlin & K. Hyland (Ed.). Writing: Text, Processes and Practices. New York: Addison Wesley Longman.