top of page

The Nature of Feedback 

           In college, I have learned that there are two types of essay feedback: trivial and substantial. As a result, I’ve associated these different types of feedback with positivity and negativity because of the way I receive, analyze, and interpret this feedback compared to the work that I produce. Trivial feedback is cheery and delightful to hear, but also mostly hollow. It is also usually coupled with a preferable grade, such as an A or A-. Substantial feedback is blunt and constructive, but also important to hear. This is usually coupled with a less than preferable grade (to me), such as a B or B-.

           I have also learned that there are two types of essays: those that I have invested a great deal of time and effort into and those that I have not. As a Communications Major and Writing and CASC (Community Action and Social Change) double Minor, I have been able to predict which classes and course material come easily to me compared to those classes and course material that have not. Based on those predictions and because some of those classes are based on reflecting and meta-reflecting, I’ve picked up on which classes require more of my energy and time, as opposed to my natural ability and insight. Therefore, the papers that I’ve invested a great deal of time and energy into are the ones coming from the courses that don’t come as naturally to me. The classes involving more nuanced details and perspectives have forced me to exert more energy in order to maintain a grade up to my standards.

         Throughout my college experience, I have written around 90 papers. Out of those papers, I have written 85% either the night before the due date or the morning of the due date. I can count the amount of papers that I put physical and emotional time into on one hand, based on the idea I explained in my previous paragraph. Yet, these have been the only papers where I have received constructive feedback. However, this feedback on these few papers has disturbingly reflected my personality and character. Whereas, the trivial feedback has been bland and not useful, and has presumed more attention to the assignment than I actually have paid. As I’ve progressed through college, I have learned to understand the difference between these two types of feedback, how much more effective (although it is hard to admit) the substantial, and therefore often negative, feedback is, how this realization is a microcosm of my fear of failure, and how the substantial feedback has helped my writing and imagination evolve.

         First, lets look at how I analyze the feedback I receive on a piece of writing. When I turn in a paper, I consider the amount of time and energy I put into the work. Most of the time, as stated before, I find myself falling into a habit of procrastination. Therefore, when I turn in the work, I am simply amazed that I am able to produce something in a short amount of time. When the paper is handed back to me, I first look at the grade. If it is a high grade, I commend myself on my procrastination skills. If it is a lower grade, I justify it by using procrastination as an excuse. Then, I look at the comments and interpret them accordingly. I engage with the comments and consider the conditions under which I wrote the paper. Because most of these papers are a product of procrastination, the comments are ambiguous to me. In my experience, most of these papers have resulted in higher grades, yet more trivial feedback.  For the occasional papers where I do spend weeks giving the work great attention, I read the comments more intensely because I, once again, consider the conditions under which I wrote the paper. I have a higher vested interest in the feedback, and therefore interpret it more deeply, because of my attachment to the work. The feedback I have received on these papers has been more significant, yet more constructive. I tend to receive a lower grade, but the comments have greater value.

         With an understanding of how I analyze feedback (both on the basis of a letter grade and depth and interpretation of commentary), let’s look at examples of trivial feedback. Although I write papers in less than twenty-four hours before the deadline, I have rarely seen a real reason to stop. For the majority of papers in college, I have received adequate and complementary feedback. Of course, there have been tons of papers where this isn’t the case, but I disregard it because that feedback offers constructive criticism for assignments that I didn’t really spend much time on. Unfortunately, because most of these last minute papers receive complimentary feedback, I cannot seem to break this habit of procrastination because there is no reason to. The feedback doesn’t affect me either way: if I procrastinate and “do well” (receive complimentary, yet trivial feedback and a “good” grade), there is no negative reinforcement, thus not pushing me to change. If I procrastinate and do not “do well” (receive more constructive feedback and get a grade below my standards of B+/A-/A), I justify my actions and claim that I didn’t spend a lot of time on the paper. However, the question that remains is whether this is good, successful, and valuable. Clearly if I procrastinate, I’m not putting a lot of energy into a piece of work. Therefore, it is not a true depiction of me as a person because it doesn’t really depict my sense of self or my ability as a writer and thinker. And yet, I do well, so why would I stop? In a way, I am avoiding the opportunity to allow myself to take risk and fail. However, this tendency makes the feedback I receive on these papers irrelevant to me as a writer. I react indifferently to this type of feedback that I receive because it isn’t useful. I interpret the feedback arbitrarily because I justify it in my head either way. I know I am not reaching my full potential when I turn in work that is a result of procrastination, so if it is complimentary feedback, I take it, even if it is rather empty or trivial. If it is more critical and constructive, I dismiss it because I know the paper isn’t my best work. I don’t even allow myself to question if the constructive feedback is reflective of my personality because I disregard the work as subpar.

            For example, I started my final paper for my SW 305: Introduction to Community Organizing course at 3 A.M. the morning that it was due. I wrote for an hour, went to bed, woke up at 8:30 A.M., and finished it at 9:56 A.M. (three minutes before it was due.) I received an A on the essay and the following feedback:

“Nice job! I like the critical reflection on the sticker activity and the discussion of agency as a critical point of building and moving a community to change. I think this is a very interesting notion about choice…and how community, especially for CASC [Community Action and Social Change Minor], requires commitment and agency on the part of people to make and build a community. Really important point that I hope you can continue to develop over the class…”

           Although nice to hear, this feedback didn’t affect me either way. I knew this paper was a product of severe procrastination, yet this was the result. So it proved to be invaluable because it didn’t reflect my real potential or effort.

           Another example is a final paper I wrote for my IGR Facilitation Training course. I wrote this fourteen-page paper the day before it was due and received the following feedback:

“I’m really hearing in this paper how committed you are to preparation and planning. This is really excellent…excellent reflections, as usual it is clear that you really are absorbing and working with your experiences and conversations.”

           Again, I couldn’t take this feedback seriously because the commentary did not reflect the effort I put into this assignment, so it didn’t mean anything. Feedback like this, in general, gets lumped together with most of the other feedback I’ve received throughout my time at this University. It isn’t memorable because it isn’t accurate.

            Now, let’s look at the substantial feedback. There have been two stark instances when substantial feedback on a paper has reflected my personality that stick out in my mind. Perhaps these papers have been so memorable because, unlike most of my other papers in college, I have invested a lot more time and effort into these pieces. I had taken time working on them, visiting my professors’ office hours, writing and re-writing drafts, and reading them over spastically. Yet, I had received feedback that was less positive than I had been used to. Although constructive, this feedback had been harsher because it accurately depicted my personality.

            It makes sense: I put all of my energy, and therefore myself, into a piece of writing, and receive real feedback that accurately portrays who I am because these papers are the most real version of me. I don’t think this feedback has magically transmitted an understanding of my personality, but I think I have interpreted this feedback more intensely because of my connection to the pieces. I internalize the feedback because I feel so hurt, and then, almost as a form of projection, I try to make connections and draw insight between the feedback and how it reflects whom I am.

            For example, it took me weeks to write my final paper for my Communications 362 class. We were tasked with coming up with our own theory about the media and then asked to prove it. I met with my GSI multiple times, with one time lasting four hours. I rewrote the entire paper after that meeting. Needless to say, I spent a lot of time working on this paper, but I was excited about my theory. Because it was our final paper, I never received a grade back. I only received a grade for the class on my transcript. As one of the only students that actively participated, read, did all of the work, and aced the other papers in this class, I should have received an A. However, I did not. I came to the conclusion that it could have only been because of this paper. I emailed the GSI to ask for a breakdown of my paper, but didn’t hear back for months. Finally, he wrote me back, saying the following:

“I didn't include initially comments on your final paper, but I have added a few comments now to explore where your paper could use improvement. In summary, your paper nicely displays the hinged model and describes your artifact. However, it also tends to jump to conclusions without taking the time to set up your argument that leads to those conclusions. This is the most important part of the paper, since that is the analysis part of it all. I do want to say that you do have a great way of seeing the big picture and making connections with abstract thoughts - just remember to slow down your analysis to make an idea more tangible to the reader so we know how your analysis is progressing from one step to the next - otherwise, it relies too much on assumptions and not a logical flow / connection. This final paper was a large part of your grade.”

            When I read this email, I was in shock. Although this feedback wasn’t horrible, it was definitely constructive and not what I was used to reading from my professors. In so many different aspects of my life (school, the professional world, and my personal life), I had been told that I don’t pay enough attention to detail. And here was this criticism, written out, about the way I write. As a person, I do a great job of understanding the larger picture or conceptual idea, but when it comes to the step-by-step process, I lose the ability to explain details. With any initiative that I’ve started through my various student organizations, I have received the same feedback. Clearly, it can be seen that there is a connection between my writing and how it reflects who I am and how my mind works. This paper was a more accurate representation of me because I spent a lot of time putting it together, as opposed to throwing words on a page the night before a due date. Therefore, the feedback more accurately portrayed not only my writing, but also my personality because I allowed myself to get invested in the assignment. Essentially, I allowed myself the opportunity to fail by taking risks and avoiding my tendency to procrastinate.  

            Another example of this trend can been seen in my Communications 317 class. For one of our first assignments, we had to write a “statement of purpose.” The goal was to “pitch” ourselves to our classmates, convey our purpose and goals in life, and explain why we would make a good team member for our big class project. I wrote about how I have a passion for empowering others to build relationships across varying backgrounds. This was the feedback I received throughout the paper:

“Intriguing…but almost too overreaching. Again, the objective is to present yourself as a great teammate for this project. Could you pick one or two ideas and support them with specific professional or personal reasoning...extremely high purpose…very high purpose.”

            Here, my professor was essentially telling me that my purpose in life is way to high. To me, this was incredibly constructive feedback, as I felt he wasn’t commenting about my writing, but who I am as a person. However, he only knew based on what I wrote. So clearly, the feedback affected me because I saw some truth to it. If it weren’t true, I wouldn’t have been so affected by it. This hadn’t been the first time I received feedback like this, but I definitely wasn’t expecting it. Again, in this example, my professor uncovered qualities about me as a person that were clearly evident through my writing – something my papers with positive feedback failed to do.

            In both of these examples, the substantial feedback revolved around changing qualities as a person, whereas the trivial feedback focused solely on my writing. Throughout college, I rarely granted myself the ability to interpret substantial feedback because of my procrastination. In a way, I avoided this substantial feedback for fear of what it might say. I never gave myself an adequate opportunity to fail and face that constructive criticism. And then when I reviewed the feedback that I rarely allowed myself to receive, I interpreted it as a mirror of personality flaws. However, with this recent awareness of this trend of substantial feedback, I now have the chance to interpret the feedback in a different way than I had been able to interpret the trivial feedback. I now understand that I have a much higher stake in the feedback because it is more accurate and has the opportunity to help facilitate my growth.

           Although I cannot say it has affected my progress yet, this realization has affected the way I think about my imagination and myself. It has also attributed to the evolution of not only who I am, but also how that version of me is reflected in my writing. Unfortunately, I also cannot tell how this will affect me in the future, in terms of changing my ways, but it has made me reconsider my writing. It has also made me consider how I want to move forward with my work ethic, so I don’t waste my professor’s time grading my work and my time reading it, and also so I can apply this feedback to my writing and evidently, my life.

 

 

 

The Nature of Feedback: Annotated Bibliography

 

Berlin, Sara. “Final Paper: Reflection from Training.” UC 320.001: Intergroup Dialogue Facilitation Training. University of Michigan. April 21, 2014.

 

This paper was written as my final assignment for my UC 320 course. It consists of twelve pages of a personal assessment from the semester. This was a self-reflective paper that thoroughly examined my thoughts, ideas, learning, experiences, and competencies in intergroup relations, facilitation, and issues of social justice. I was also tasked with writing about my strengths as a facilitator. The grade issued aimed to reflect my ability to honestly self-reflect about my own learning. I used this essay as an example of writing where I received positive feedback. I quoted parts of the feedback to further my argument that the positive feedback I’ve received on assignments throughout college haven’t furthered my growth as much as assignments where I’ve received negative feedback.

 

Berlin, Sara. “Final Paper: Takeaways and Core Concepts of CASC.” SW 305.001: Theories and Practices for Community Action and Social Change. University of Michigan. April 23, 2013.

 

This paper was written as my final assignment for my SW 305 course. It outlined my key takeaways from the semester in six pages. The prompt had the class draw from class assignments and readings to write a paper about specific lessons learned and takeaways gained regarding the core concepts and practices of CASC (Community Action and Social Change). I used this essay as an example of a piece of writing where I received positive, yet useless feedback. In my writer’s evolution essay, I quote the feedback that I received on this piece of work and use it to further my claim that positive feedback is unhelpful because it is not constructive or growth inducing. 

 

Berlin, Sara. “FOMO and its manifestation through Facebook.” Comm.362.001: Digital Media Foundations. University of Michigan. April 26, 2014.

 

This paper was written as my final assignment for my Comm. 362 course. It consists of 13 pages and an original hinged cultural-technology-organizational model, which revolved around an argument about the negative affects of Facebook and other people’s happiness. Using course concepts and an extensive list of outside resources, I had to originate, develop, and argue my claim. I use this paper and its feedback as an example of negative, yet constructive feedback I received that mirrored my characteristics and personality. I quoted parts of the feedback that I received to further support my argument that negative feedback has had more truth to it, as well as the possibility to change my imagination and the way I view myself as a writer.

 

Berlin, Sara. “Full of Poison, One Good Vein.” English 425: Advanced Essay Writing. University of Michigan. Dec. 17,2014.

 

This paper was written for my final Upper Level Writing English class. It was the only piece of writing I produced all semester, but I spent the entire semester revising it. The paper was about my relationship with my uncle, family dynamics, and how disease affects families. It combined reflective writing with narrative non-fiction, so I used it help structure my Writer’s Evolution essay. I also used it as an example of how I should restructure my new drafts and how the revision process should work.

 

Berlin, Sara. “Just One Hug.” English 325: The Art of the Essay. University of Michigan. Oct. 28, 2013.

 

This paper was written for my English 325 Upper Level Writing class. It was the first paper I wrote for this course, so there was a big learning curve. I wrote about the idea of companionship, intertwined with the story of a family friend and my reflections on her life, as well as my relationship with her. This paper proved to not only act as an inspiration for this essay, but also for my final Capstone project. I used this paper as an example of a piece of writing I invested a lot of time in, but received negative feedback. I didn’t end up including it in my final paper, but it provided a good launching off point for the essay.

 

Berlin, Sara. “Personal Creative Strategy.” Comm. 317: Designing Persuasive Communications. University of Michigan. Sept. 10, 2014.

 

This paper was written for my Comm. 317 course. The assignment was to create a personal creative strategy that featured our story, niche, and voice. We were supposed to “sell” ourselves to our classmates and outline a statement of purpose for our future. I wrote my statement of purpose and received negative feedback from my professor. I used this paper to further my argument about the applicability of feedback from a writing assignment to flaws in personality. I quoted parts of my professor’s comments to support my thesis.

 

Berlin, Sara. “Statement of Tutoring Philosophy.” Writing 300: Seminar in Peer Tutoring. University of Michigan. Nov. 19, 2012.

 

This statement was written as my final paper for my Writing 300 class, which focused on preparing me to become a tutor at the Sweetland Writing Center. The paper encompassed the ideas surrounding my passion for writing, why I write, and the meaning behind writing and becoming a tutor. I used this paper to understand how I felt about writing my sophomore year, as well as how I transformed as a writer. This paper was also used as a benchmark for my writing and how it evolved over the years. I was able to reflect back on this statement and compare it to my evolution as a writer since then.

 

Berlin, Sara. “The Little Redheaded Girl.” English 325: The Art of the Essay. University of Michigan. Nov. 6, 2013.

 

This paper was written as my second essay in one of my Upper Level Writing Requirements. I wrote a narrative personal essay about my identity as a redhead, using reflective writing and short non-fictions stories about different moments in my life where my red hair had been my sole identity. I used this paper as inspiration for structuring my Writer’s Evolution. It combines the elements of reflection and narrative non-fiction, similar to the way my Writer’s Evolution essay does.

 

Berlin, Sara. “WIW.” Writing 220: Introduction to the Minor in Writing. University of Michigan. Feb. 9, 2014.

 

This paper was written as the first part of my Minor in Writing gateway portfolio. We were tasked with modifying the answer to “why do you write?” from previous semesters. I used my original version of “Why I Write” and remixed it, using new media platforms, such as Twitter, in order to create an understanding of why I write in 140 character tweets. I used this project to see how my writing changed and the meaning of writing changed from freshman year to junior year, and then compared it to my thoughts today. It provided a great benchmark for my transformation as a writer over the last four years. 

 

Berlin, Sara. “Why I Write.” Eng. 125.049: Walking the Ground, Writing the Life. University of Michigan. Sept. 13, 2011.

 

This paper was written for my English 125 class. We were tasked with writing our own variation of “Why I Write” after we read Why I Write by Terry Tempest Williams. It was my first assignment as an undergraduate student and tried to capture what writing meant to me at the time. I tried to match William’s tone, structure, and syntax in my version. It also required a lot of reflection about what writing meant to me up to that specific point. I used this writing assignment to compare how I felt about writing then and now. It helped me gauge how I’ve changed as a writer over the last four years and how my relationship with writing has evolved dramatically. 

 

 

bottom of page