Topic outline

  • Facilitating feedback on writing

    Prev Next

    Contents:
    • Introduction
    • Principles to maximise benefits of feedback

      • Effective feedback

      • Positive feedback 

      • Phrases for giving feedback

      • Tips for processing feedback

    • Peer feedback and review activities
      • Writer–reader feedback activities
      • Writer–reviewer–editor feedback activity
    • Suggestions for use

    Introduction 


    Giving and receiving feedback is central to successful writing groups, to good writing, and to effective supervision. The feedback cycle also provides the opportunity to model how to give useful academic feedback, effectively training candidates for conferences, peer forums, reviewing/editing work, co-publishing, working with publishers, and future academic roles as supervisors. Giving feedback in groups is useful because students learn to look at text through readers' eyes, and they also see that others are learning and making the same ‘mistakes’ as themselves, so they feel normal and motivated rather than ‘wrong’ and demotivated or avoidant.

    The ability to both give useful feedback and to receive (and maximise the benefits of) feedback are skills that can be developed and honed. In its first part, this section offers a series of dot points that summarise commonly agreed principles about what constitutes effective feedback, and how feedback can be skillfully received. Following this, the second part provides some possible activities for facilitating peer feedback in group settings. 

    Principles to maximise benefits of feedback

    Effective feedback:

    • focuses on the writing, not the writer;
    • is delivered in a spirit of humility;
    • is offered as a point of view;
    • is concise, particularly when delivered in a group context, thereby enabling others to contribute to the conversation;
    • is specific, concrete, constructive, and offers alternatives and solutions wherever possible;
    • involves both negative and positive points, as well as more neutral comments (neutral points can include general reactions, first impressions, thoughts about how a draft has changed from a previous draft, areas of agreement and disagreement with other feedback and your reasons for this, and a description of what you took from the text, all of which give the writer a sense of how the text has been received or what the reader understood from the text);
    • is grounded in the knowledge that one's feedback, when delivered thoughtfully, is valid and useful;
    • is ultimately grounded in an acceptance that the writer will weigh up the comments and make up their own mind;
    • focuses upon substantive issues in the writing for the most part;
    • points out minor editorial and other similar issues once or twice, allowing the writer to correct for themselves thereafter;
    • offers solutions or alternatives as suggestions rather than instructions.

    Positive feedback

    Positive feedback is as important as critical feedback because it:

    • builds confidence;
    • encourages the writer to keep going;
    • helps the writer to see what is working for the reader;
    • helps others to identify and model good examples.

    Phrases for giving feedback

    • I really liked ... you might consider adding a bit about ... to explain why ... .
    • I thought ... read well and I understood that your project is about ... .
    • I wonder if you could delete ... on page ... ? There seems to be repetition of the point about ... with the content at ... .
    • Could you try ... ?
    • An explanation of ... might be helpful on page ... to clarify ... .
    • Could you move the section from ... to ... to the ... section of the text? It seems to work there better because ... .
    • I loved the section on ... . Such and such writes about that, would you like the reference?
    • I was impressed by ... I thought it would be good to explain how you dealt with ... ?
    • Your text made me think about ... I thought it might be helpful to include this point in your section on ... .
    • I felt really persuaded by ... in the second section.
    • I think it would make it even better if you ... .

    Less useful feedback:

    • criticises the writer, rather than the writing ('you are not a good writer');
    • is delivered with a superior tone of voice;
    • uses words like 'you need to' and 'you should';
    • delivers the feedback as 'fact' ('this is wrong');
    • is repetitive and long-winded;
    • focuses only on what is wrong so the writer does not learn what worked well or what was understood;
    • is negative and interrogative ('where is this going?');
    • is based on a superficial engagement with the text;
    • does not allow other contributions to the conversation;
    • is vague or general, and leaves the writer with nowhere to go ('this article is not good enough');
    • focuses only on the positive, leaving the writer with nowhere to go ('it's fine');
    • avoids sharing a point of view because the reader feels they have no 'legitimacy' to give feedback ('I have no right to criticise your work');
    • assumes the writer is dependent on your feedback ('you will be too hurt if I critique your work');
    • focuses mostly on side issues and smaller points and does not engage with the substance of the work;
    • presents solutions as mandates.

    Feedback of this kind can be demoralising and does not assist the writer to move forward. It can also undermine trust and enjoyment within the feedback process.

    Tips for assisting writers to process feedback

    Receiving feedback is as important to the feedback process and to the effectiveness of writing groups (and to supervision) as is the quality of feedback provided. Some remarks with regard to assisting writers to receive feedback are provided below. 

    • Make the most of it—don't waste this opportunity, listen carefully and take notes.
    • Be open—resist the temptation to defend your work, try not to talk too much.
    • Resist the urge to explain—explanations can make it difficult for the reader to separate what the writer tells them from what they have read and can reduce the value of any feedback offered.
    • Respect others opinions—all feedback is useful even if you don't agree with it. Feedback reveals how your work can be read or misread. Considering how others have read your work will enable you to get your point across better next time.
    • Prompt for constructive suggestions—if the feedback is vague or you don't understand, consider asking the reader for more specific information, or reflect back their comments to check you have understood correctly.
    • One comment at a time—in order to avoid being overwhelmed by feedback, sift through the comments then put them aside and work through one at a time.

    Peer feedback and review activities

    Peer review activities can enlarge the range of feedback students receive, and improve their confidence in their own ability to give and receive feedback. In giving feedback to others, students are also encouraged to reflect on their own drafts. Drafts subject to peer review are of higher quality and are easier for supervisors to read. This allows the supervisor to focus on content or on more substantive issues in the writing. Teaching students about giving and receiving feedback also gives supervisors an opportunity to reflect on and refresh their own feedback and peer review strategies.

    Engaging in a peer review process enables students to see the subjective nature of academic judgement and institutional power positions, and the communal or negotiated and relational nature of discipline knowledge. This helps students to move beyond the expectation that supervisors or other academic experts are in possession of a one ‘correct’ way of approaching a problem, or an objective standard. This can improve the supervision relationship as students learn to negotiate texts with supervisors on a more peer-to-peer basis. Peer review encourages students to become more independent in relation to the supervisor.

    Two activities are outlined below, one on writer-reader peer feedback, and one on writer-reviewer-editor peer and supervisor feedback. The first exercise is useful for students whose experience of feedback is limited to an expectation of criticism or praise, or to an assessment from a lecturer. 

    The second exercise is useful in the context of ongoing supervision, including group supervision, or in a taught context in which practice of the steps in cumulative order is possible. The second activity steps students through the peer review process. It is good preparation for publication and reviewing, and encourages students to read their own and others texts more objectively or from a reader’s point of view. In addition to improving writing and facilitating peer networking, the second activity aims to provide insight into how criteria about what is good or acceptable writing within a discipline are reached.

    The activities can be used by small groups or pairs of students working independently, or in collaboration with supervisors or other academic staff. Feedback activities can be organised both virtually or face-to-face or use some combination of both. Students can be asked to provide feedback in writing or orally, reading feedback out aloud, or speaking to it informally.

    1. Writer–reader peer feedback activity (Elbow and Belanoff, 1989)

    In this activity, students are paired off and read each other's texts. The writer in the pair should choose from the feedback options below, and lead the reader in the feedback they would like. Following this, positions are switched. Within the discussion, the focus is on the draft as much as possible. The goal of peer feedback is ultimately to improve the text, not simply the reader’s understanding of it. During the feedback, having asked for the response, the writer should say as little as possible, but listen and perhaps take notes, knowing they will decide what to do with the feedback and therefore do not need to 'defend' the work. The reader or reviewer does not ask the writer questions about the work in order to help the writer to focus on hearing the feedback on what is written.

    Feedback options

    1. Sayback: Ask readers—'Say back to me in your own words what you hear me getting at in my writing.'

    2. Movies of the readers mind: Get readers to tell you frankly what happens inside their heads as they read your words.

    3. Pointing: Ask readers—'Which words or phrases stick in your mind? Which passages or features did you like best? Don't explain why.'

    4. What’s Almost Said or Implied: Ask readers—'What's almost said, implied, hovering around the edges? What would you like to hear more about?'

    5. Voice, point of view, attitude toward the reader, language, diction, syntax: Ask readers to describe each of these features or dimensions of your writing.

    6. Center of gravity: Ask readers—'What do you sense as the source of energy, the focal point, the seedbed, the generative center for this piece [not necessarily the main point]?'

    7. Believing and doubting: Ask readers—'Believe (or pretend to believe) everything I have written. Be my ally and tell me what you see. Give me more ideas and perceptions to help my case. Then doubt everything and tell me what you see. What arguments can be made against what I say?'

    Writer–reviewer–editor feedback activity (Bruffee, 1985)

    Writer 1ST cycle

    1. Before the meeting, the student writes a draft.
    2. The student writes a descriptive outline of their own draft, describing what each paragraph says, and how each paragraph or section functions in the draft as a whole.
    3. The student writer gives draft to another student.

    Reviewer 2nd cycle

    1. Second student provides feedback on the draft at a later time before meeting.
    2. Feedback can be provided in two parts. The first provides a description of the core messages of the text, to show that the reviewer has closely read the draft and understands its form and content. The second provides an evaluation and response to the substantive issues in the paper. This can be provided in written form modelled after a professional peer review. Here the emphasis should be on making suggestions for improvement.
    3. The two students meet and compare descriptive outlines and discuss the reasons for the differences and how the text can be improved.
    4. The writer can then revise the draft before submitting to the supervisor.
    5. The supervisor can then offer feedback on the draft as well as on the second student’s feedback on the draft.

    Editor 3rd cycle

    1. Another layer can be added by asking a third student to read the draft and the response from the critic. The third student acts as mediator, much like an editor, who reads both perspectives and writes a critique of the original paper and responses to it. The editor may mediate between the two, responding to and evaluating the skills of both writer and critic, becoming a third voice in the conversation.
    2. The third cycle can end with a final writer response, enabling the writer to have the last word. The writer says what they will choose from among the criticism offered. This helps students to be less defensive in receiving feedback because they understand they are the final arbiters in the draft. It also highlights their own role as critic of the critic, and to reflect on what is useful within criticism.
    3. Supervisors or facilitators can then offer feedback to writers, critics and editors about how they responded to and influenced one another.

    Suggestions for using the above material

    • The discussion of principles for maximising feedback opportunities above could be used as pre-reading or as a backdrop to guide facilitation of discussions with candidates about feedback. 
    • Candidates can be encouraged to share their own experience of feedback both personally and observationally to draw out some of the key aspects involved in making the most of feedback opportunities. 
    • Or use parts of the resource as pre-reading or background for a group norms discussion activity in which candidates decide together what principles will inform their writing group. This is important not only in teaching feedback skills, but in ensuring writers feel safe to share writing and to receive feedback. Draw up a list of agreed points and circulate to everyone after the meeting to check all are in agreement. These can then be confirmed in the next group meeting and be used as a touchpoint when needed during writing group discussions. NB: Referring back to agreed 'norms' is rarely required other than perhaps informally, but the activity itself can prevent negative group dynamics altogether. 
    • Within discussions draw out points that highlight the importance of feedback in the writing process, and useful and less useful strategies in feedback. 
    • Ask participants to reflect on the centrality of feedback in supervision, the publication process and in the accumulation of discipline knowledge.
    • Engage candidates in one of the suggested activities before, during and after writing retreats or other collective writing activities.
    • Ask candidates to reflect on what they learned from the activity/discussion, and what they would like to adopt moving forward within supervision, writing groups or within the publication process. 

    References

    Elbow, P. and P. Belanoff (1989), Sharing and Responding, New York, Random, pp. 64–67 

    K. Bruffee (1985), A Short Course in Writing, Boston, Little, in M. Holt (1992). ‘The value of peer criticism’, College Composition and Communication 43, pp. 384–392.



    Prev Next