top of page

Aiming for a Clearer Target: Feedback/Feedforward

My group, consisting of Samantha, Tosha and Mistee decided on a pretty straight forward rubric for grading our publication rough draft. When we reviewed the outline we weren't as useful to each other in the area of feed FORWARD. We mainly gave each other feedback. We wanted to spend more time on giving ideas and less time on micro-managing a rubric also. We are all teachers already so I pulled one out of the vault and the points were tweaked so that we could focus our energies on feedforward.

I was scored 48/50 by one teammate who cited some mechanics issues. 46/50 from one teammate who suggested a better opener and more clarity in my tone which was noted multiple times. I was also scored 44/50 by another teammate. Mechanics and some other syntax issues again suggested. Considering all the tools available for this area that was a bit embarrassing but very welcome because the recommendations were right-on. My average from my teammates was 46/50.

 My areas of strongest suggestion were in the area of content and development of ideas. I needed to cite more examples of what the online components of blended-learning would include. I also needed to expand on what student engagement really entailed by adding blended learning. It was a great perspective. It is amazing how if you continue to just look at your own work over and over you can think you are finished but new eyes ask new questions which absolutely improved the overall quality. I had some confusing and repeating themes also so that was corrected based on feedback.

10/10 recommend collaboration

The rubric was effective for our team because we didn't want to focus too much energy on mechanics since there are so many other tools available online to help in that area. Clarity and coherence are a good area since we all teach different things and its important that we are being clear in our own ideas. Development of the ideas provide a great area for feedforward because you want to understand and see the idea supported but you don't want to take their concept to a completely different place. This rubric is weighted content heavy because there are more opportunities for feedforward in that area. Organization being a category right in the middle of points because is is very desirable that a publication has good flow.

A big takeaway from the rubric was that we typically will still default to mechanics when we review other peoples work. I think we knew we might do this so we didn't use too many points on the rubric but we gave each other quite a bit of feedback about mechanics. I also had to focus on the "big idea" of each piece and turn off my typical editing skills.





Clarity and Coherence


Development of Ideas






Content: Evaluate the completeness and accuracy of the content in the rough draft, including whether all required elements are present and well-developed.

Organization: Assess the structure and coherence of the rough draft, looking at how effectively ideas are presented and how well the document flows from one section to the next.

Clarity and Coherence: Consider the clarity of the writing and the coherence of the ideas presented in the rough draft. Evaluate whether the writing is clear, concise, and easy to understand.

Development of Ideas: Evaluate the depth and thoroughness of the ideas presented in the rough draft, including whether ideas are well-supported with evidence, examples, and details.

Mechanics: Assess the quality of the writing mechanics, including grammar, punctuation, spelling, and sentence structure.

Each section was further broken down into excellent, good, fair and poor with the point values for each.

Another rubric was recommended after I finished using this one that I found to be much more suitable and will likely change for the next version of feedback.

21 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All


bottom of page