Session Guide — Feedback and Marking

Facilitation notes for presenters and participants

About this guide

Companion notes to lectures/03-feedback.md. For the presenter (running order, timings, activity setup) and participants (what to expect).

The module moves from what assessment is for → what makes feedback effective → evaluating real feedback → rubrics and marking.

Time	Segment	Notes
5 min	Task: Worries and Questions	Sticky notes: feedback + marking questions; hear a few.
~6 min	Purpose of assessment (diagnostic / monitoring / evaluative)
5 min	Discussion: What are your course’s assessments?	Group by shared course; list assessments + feedback purpose.
5 min	Task: Effective Feedback	3 adjectives each → group → PollEverywhere master list.
~10 min	Principles of effective feedback (grouped: does / delivered / builds over time)	Nine principles across three themed slides — narrate the theme, not every bullet.
~3 min	Applying the principles (strengths / development / next steps)
5 min	Discussion: Challenges with feedback	Think-pair-share on the listed challenges.
~5 min	Tips from a convenor; takeaways	The “address the work, not the student” message.
30 min	Evaluating feedback — Code, Essay, Maths (10 min each)	Three parallel activities; see below.
~5 min	What is a rubric? / how rubrics differ (Dawson)	Three essential features + design elements.
10 min	Task: Reading a Rubric	Analyse one of six example rubrics; see below.
~4 min	Scoring strategies for code; wrap-up	Weighted criteria vs autograders; why moderation matters.

Effective Feedback task: the adjectives collected on PollEverywhere become a shared vocabulary — refer back to them during the principles slides.
Principles (3 themed slides): the reframe up front is important — for new tutors who think feedback = harsh critique, stress that feedback is information that helps a learner improve.
Evaluating feedback (30 min): three markers’ feedback shown for the same work in Code / Essay / Maths. Ask: which is most effective, why, and what impact on the student? Pick the discipline(s) closest to your cohort if pressed for time.
Reading a Rubric (10 min): in pairs, pick one of the six example rubrics (four generic incl. a programming rubric; two are ANU computing courses assessing creative, music-themed work). Identify the three essential features (criteria / quality definitions / scoring strategy) and two design choices (generic vs task-specific, analytic vs holistic, number of quality levels). Debrief straight into Scoring strategies for code.

Set up your own PollEverywhere for the adjectives list.
The “Grade Level to Marks” slide is commented out (kept low-level detail out of the room) — un-comment it if a marking-heavy cohort wants the mark-band tip.
Key citations in the deck: Dawson (2017) on rubric design; Messer et al. (2025, ACM TOCE) on why a shared rubric alone doesn’t guarantee consistent marking.

Feedback is information that helps a learner improve, not a verdict — focus on the work, not the student.
A rubric = evaluative criteria + quality definitions + a scoring strategy; being explicit about design choices helps a marking team stay consistent.
A rubric alone isn’t enough — assessor training and moderation matter (Messer et al., 2025).