Teaching · Practical guide
Draft Formative Feedback That Leads to a Useful Revision
Formative feedback is useful when it helps a learner improve subsequent work. AI can propose comments, but a teacher must check that each comment follows from the response and criteria. This lesson turns an inaccurate fictional answer into focused feedback and a revision task.
Start with the task and criteria
Provide the assignment question and success criteria before the response. Without them, an assistant may praise style when the task assesses reasoning, or criticise missing detail that was never required. State what the learner is expected to show and which aspects are outside the task.
Distinguish feedback from a final judgement. A formative comment identifies a current strength or gap and suggests a next action. It should not invent a grade, predict future performance or label the learner’s ability. Carnegie Mellon’s learning principles connect targeted feedback with goal-directed practice; the practical workflow here is an illustrative way of applying that idea.
For an initial practice exercise, use a fictional response and a public or teacher-created criterion list. Real submissions can contain personal data, original student work or protected assessment content. Follow institutional rules and approved account arrangements before sending such material to a service. Deleting a name alone does not establish that sharing is permitted.
Use evidence, interpretation and action
A useful comment has three distinguishable parts. Evidence identifies the passage being discussed. Interpretation explains how it relates to a criterion. Action tells the learner what to do next. When these are merged into “be clearer,” the learner must guess both the problem and the remedy.
Ask the model to quote a short relevant passage for each proposed comment. Verify that the words occur in the response and that the comment accurately describes them. A model can misquote, overlook a correct step or identify an error that is not present. A quotation is a checking aid, not proof that the interpretation is valid.
Limit the first feedback round to the most consequential gap. Five paragraphs of advice can obscure the one change needed to improve the answer. Choose a manageable next task and explain why it matters. Include a specific strength when there is evidence for one; do not manufacture praise merely to fill a template.
Worked example: feedback on a percentage explanation
Task: “Of 50 test records, 5 fail validation. Calculate the failure percentage and explain your method.” Criteria: identify the part and total; calculate the percentage; explain the calculation. Fictional response: “Five records fail, so the failure percentage is 5%. I used the failed records to get the answer.”
Evidence-based strength: the response identifies the failed-record count as 5. Gap: the phrase “failure percentage is 5%” treats that count as a percentage without comparing it with the total. Independent calculation gives 5 ÷ 50 × 100 = 10%. The denominator must represent all 50 records in this scenario.
A focused comment is: “You correctly identified 5 failed records. In ‘the failure percentage is 5%,’ the count has been used as a percentage. Write failed/total first, then multiply by 100. Revise the answer to show 5/50 × 100 and explain what 50 represents.” This asks for an observable revision rather than simply saying “check your maths.”
Example revised response: “The failure percentage is 5 ÷ 50 × 100 = 10%. I divide the 5 failed records by all 50 records to find the failed share, then multiply by 100 to express it as a percentage.” The revision meets all three criteria. It does not explain why records failed, because the task and data do not provide that information.
A follow-up task uses 9 failures out of 60 records. The checked answer is 15%. Asking for this new calculation tests whether the learner can apply the feedback beyond copying the corrected sentence.
Review tone and protect the learner’s agency
Comment on the work, not a supposed personal trait. “The denominator is missing” describes the response. “You are careless” makes an unsupported judgement about the learner. Similarly, polished writing is not evidence of understanding, and an unusual phrasing pattern is not proof of misconduct.
Avoid rewriting the entire submission when the purpose is to help the learner revise. A full replacement can conceal which steps the learner can now perform. Offer a cue, a partial structure or one worked parallel example, depending on the support needed. The learner should still make a meaningful change and explain it.
Keep the teacher’s decision visible. Review the comments before release, remove unsupported claims and adapt the language to the intended audience. If the response is ambiguous, ask a clarifying question rather than confidently marking an assumed meaning. Never send generated feedback automatically as part of this practice workflow.
Practice: verify and improve feedback in 20 minutes
Minutes 0–4: choose two criteria and write a fictional response. Use this example if needed: “12 of 80 places are booked, therefore 12% are booked.” Minutes 4–9: draft one strength, one gap and one next action. Minutes 9–14: verify the quoted evidence and calculate the answer independently. Minutes 14–20: write a possible revision and a fresh follow-up question.
Example answer: “You identified the booked count as 12. To express it as a percentage, compare it with all 80 places: 12/80 × 100 = 15%. Add that calculation and explain why 80 is the denominator.” This focuses on the missing relationship rather than criticising the person.
A revised response is: “15% of places are booked because 12 of the 80 available places are booked.” A follow-up with 18 of 120 also gives 15%; the learner should show the new ratio rather than reuse the number without reasoning. If the follow-up remains incorrect, return to identifying part and whole before adding more complicated examples.
Self-review: does every comment refer to actual evidence? Is the advice aligned with the stated criteria? Does the next step require the learner to act and explain? Save the verified comments and the resulting revision separately so you can see what the feedback was intended to change.
Reusable prompt
Select and copy this template, or customise your own using the free builder.
Draft formative feedback for this fictional practice response. Task: [task]. Criteria: [criteria]. Response: [text]. Give one evidenced strength, one priority gap and one achievable next action. Quote the relevant short passage accurately. Do not infer ability, motivation or misconduct, assign a final grade, or invent missing evidence. Provide a parallel follow-up task with its answer separately. I will verify and adapt the comments before use.Open the prompt builder →
Pause · Think · Check
Test your understanding
Choose one answer per question, then check your reasoning. This is practice; scores are not saved.