by Rachel Will

How does one provide useful feedback in an age of information saturation? Going into the Fall 2016 semester, I knew my primary TA responsibilities were to provide feedback to the weekly and bi-weekly writing assignments for the students enrolled in the course. The class size was small, which is usually amenable to more individualized attention to each student. However, the stakes for writing assignments in the course were low, the pace of the class was fast, and there was little time for individual consultation. Despite these constraints, I wanted to be able to provide students with useful feedback to improve their writing, but I questioned how to make my feedback effective given the structure of the course. When the semester began, I immediately noticed the delicate balance between handling my personal workload, the sheer volume of grading for my class, and my desire to provide useful feedback. Though this balance remained somewhat tenuous throughout the semester, I ultimately struck a balance between providing critical writing feedback, work responsibilities outside the course, and improving my own writing through the process of being a writing coach.

Though I have provided writing guidance to students in previous years, the format of my TA assignment this semester was quite different. As such, I had to navigate a learning curve, or perhaps more accurately, a teaching curve. In my prior experience teaching, I was the instructor of record for physical geography classes. The class sizes were small, so I was able to provide individualized feedback in person to each of my students. As a WIP TA, the class size was also small, but aside from a few “5-minute teach” presentations, office hours, and availability before and after class, I had very little one-on-one interaction with students. As I am used to conveying feedback in person, I had to strategize how to provide equally effective commentary, feedback, and personal assistance primarily via the Internet.

Everyone is busy, and I had the sense that the students in my course were particularly busy. In addition to the volume of writing the students had to produce each week, the students also had weekly quizzes and reading assignments, and an individual research and presentation project for the class, in addition to the requirements for the rest of their honors courses. The writing assignments I provided feedback for were all low-stakes, and I was instructed to give an 100 or a zero for participation credit. As students received the same participation grades whether they put a lot or a little effort into an assignment, how could I provide comments via ELC that would motivate students to improve their writing? This question constantly nagged me, particularly considering the students’ inundated schedules.

Acknowledging the challenges of providing critical feedback online, considering my own time constraints, and knowing that I would have to motivate students to care about improving their writing beyond grade motivation, I thought I knew just what to do. At the beginning of the semester, I decided that despite my own time constraints, I would remain true to my desire to be a dedicated instructor who puts 110% into my duties. I read each of my students’ papers extremely carefully, sometimes twice. I proceeded by providing detailed comments on each of the areas of that the student could pay more attention to. I told stories, used analogies, and described several tools and strategies the students could employ. I also discussed each of the strong elements of the papers, and detailed why these elements were so important. I also tried to pick up on the students’ interests and provided resources that might be useful for their next research assignment. I tried to strike a balance between constructive criticism (with tools and ideas for how to move forward), praise and encouragement, and inspiration.

Providing typed commentary in this way was exhausting. Sometimes I wondered if I was putting more effort into providing helpful feedback than the students had spent actually writing the assignments. I realized that I was attempting to translate the in-person feedback I had provided to students in the past. Using anecdotes, providing tools, picking up on student interests, and bridging that with class material had been really successful in one-on-one feedback sessions. However, I quickly realized that this method did not work with online commentary for several reasons. For one, it is much easier to provide all of this feedback verbally in a relatively short amount of time. Trying to organize all of this information—and provide enough additional context to make up for the fact that this feedback is virtual—takes a lot of additional time. I also realized that for a busy student, getting a full page of commentary for each assignment is overwhelming—especially considering their busy schedules. No one, myself included, had time for this method of “coaching.” Additionally, even without time constraints, I don’t think this was the most effective mechanism for providing online commentary.

Moving forward, I tailored my comments to be shorter and less overwhelming for the students. As an added perk, this method was also less overwhelming for me. For each assignment, I concentrated on the same one or two elements for every student. If possible, I would bridge this feedback with the most recent 5-minute teaches I had given. One week, I coached students on their introductions and thesis statements, and in another, I focused on proper citations and providing useful examples. Universally addressing 1 or 2 concepts for all students each week seemed to be more effective for myself and for my students. I was still providing constructive feedback, but in a way that students could more easily concentrate on improving these 1 or 2 elements for the next assignment. Even though I was focusing on the same concepts for each student, I felt that I was covering topics that every writer can improve on, regardless of skill level.

Further into the semester, I felt I had a better handle on balancing time constraints for my own work and for the course. Though I found the aforementioned “concept-based” commenting style effective, I slightly shifted my approach once more. Rather than addressing the same elements for each student, I tailored my comments to one or two elements per individual student. At this point in the semester, I was much more familiar with each student’s interests, writing styles, strengths, and common mistakes. As such, I could provide tailored feedback on 1 or 2 concepts that each student still needed help with. I felt this method of feedback was still amenable to my time, my students’ time, and also provided the most useful “coaching” to each student.

Though I still find one-on-one, in person feedback to be the most effective, I do believe I effectively learned to cater my role as a writing coach to fit the parameters of the course. This experience, including the skills I learned in the WIPP course, certainly added tools to my repertoire as an instructor and also as a writer. Additionally, I have seen many of my students’ writing improve throughout the semester. This is particularly rewarding considering that I started the semester with many uncertainties regarding about how to effectively provide feedback online. Though there is always a learning curve, or a teaching curve, with every semester and every teaching assignment, but I was able to find a writing coaching method that fit both my students’ needs and my own.

Rachel Will is a third year PhD student in Geography and Integrative Conservation. Her research focuses on political ecology, urban ecology, and urban planning to understand how social and ecological inequalities are produced and and addressed. Her current research focuses on the Atlanta BeltLine. Rachel received her Bachelors and Masters degrees in Geography from Kent State University.