Revisiting my grading practice came from a great desire: to optimize my correction for the students, but also for myself. My fervour and enthusiasm as a CEGEP literature teacher were beginning to crumble under the weight of piles of corrections, year after year.
Written feedback, audio feedback, video feedback, the juxtaposition of methods: I read, I consulted, I tried, each time inhabited by the renewed hope of finding the magic solution to the burden that correction can become, and to the lack of tangible progress made by students who received copies riddled with comments, each as technovative as the next.
One day, a friend working in francization with an adult clientele told me about her method: correcting students as they write, verbally and in the spur of the moment. For her, it was the most effective way of getting her students to learn French.
Then, life gave me a newborn baby to cherish. Chance events were looming: I no longer wanted to spend my weekends and evenings correcting. From here on, I would correct assignments in front of my students, offering them simultaneous feedback.
Simultaneous correction and feedback
I’m starting my 4th year of the practice I call “simultaneous correction and feedback,” and I have to say it’s paying off. All evaluations, with the exception of the finals, are now corrected in front of the students in individual meetings. The groups I see are unanimous every session: they like it, and it helps them. And I no longer mark on weekends or evenings.
Correction meetings take place by appointment, ideally within 0 to 7 days after the evaluation, which means that feedback can be given very quickly. A student who has just handed in their copy at the end of the evaluation session can meet with me one-on-one to receive feedback on their copy, which I read for the 1st time in front of them and correct verbally.
Types of assignments
As a literature teacher, I have to correct assignments of a similar nature: outlines, paragraphs and complete essays. However, the concept of simultaneous feedback is certainly transferable to any other form of evaluation.
The nature of evaluations in literature also means that I choose not to correct the whole assignment in the presence of the student; I split my correction into 2 parts:
- First, in front of the student, I correct the content (ideas, evidence, structure, etc.) and offer feedback.
- Then, I correct French language quality, alone with my reference materials.
Type of feedback
It goes without saying that during correction meetings, the vast majority of comments on assignments are made orally. Students are encouraged to take notes to retain information they feel is important, or to record the meeting.
On the other hand, when I make a comment whose understanding and retention I consider paramount, I find it particularly interesting to invite the student to rephrase my feedback in writing: “How could I write this on your copy so that you understand my comment?”, “How would you write it down?”, “Where should I write it on your copy?”
As I read through the assignment, I complete my evaluation grid, verbalizing my thoughts on the student’s work. This way, students know what they did well and what they need to improve—a kind of explicit instruction of copy editing.
When I first tried the simultaneous correction and feedback method, I didn’t give any number grades. The students knew whether or not they passed each of my criteria and why, but I withheld the grade, which I established once I was alone. Today, a few changes to the grading rubric in my evaluation grid have led me to be comfortable giving them a numerical result. This way, students leave my office with a partial mark, out of 70, which concerns only what was discussed at our meeting, i.e. the content of their assignment. The remaining 30 points are reserved for language quality, which I mark on my own.
Time allocated to correction and feedback
The time allowed for each meeting depends on the nature of the evaluation, the number of students to be evaluated, the time available to me and my speed of execution. Depending on the context, I hold individual meetings ranging from 5 to 15 or even 20 minutes.
To make simultaneous feedback possible, in my case, it’s imperative that I hold meetings during my class time. If I have an evaluation in week 4, the week 5 class time will be used (in whole or in part) for correction and feedback.
For each evaluation, I also schedule correction time outside class time so that I can meet with all students. Nonetheless, this time is still less than for more traditional marking (done outside class time and alone). It’s more a question of reorganizing my schedule than “saving” correction time. The act of evaluating essentially takes the same amount of time, but this time is managed differently since it includes feedback in the presence of the student, part of which takes place during class time.
The relevance of simultaneous correction and feedback
Students’ self-efficacy
It’s fairly unanimous: students greatly appreciate the simultaneous correction and feedback. Their self-efficacy is increased. Students feel they can improve. This increases their motivation and engagement. It also allows us to establish a pedagogical relationship.
Moreover, these meetings allow me to give a lot of feedback in a short space of time, and even to rephrase a comment when a student doesn’t quite grasp it. It’s also an opportunity to suggest that the student write down the comment so that they do understand it.
Finally, thanks to this way of marking, the student receives feedback fairly quickly. The student remembers what they wrote and why they wrote it, which is not always the case otherwise. This way of giving feedback on students’ copies in a calm, relaxed atmosphere makes sense for them.
