Feedback and Loops

In a recent virtual meeting about the importance of instructional feedback, I noted how we often overlook the importance of timely, structured, and contextual feedback in the interest of professional development. Feedback can be powerful.  Feedback can’t be a receipt or takeaway note if the goal is collaboration, dialogue, or any sort of coaching, mentoring, or even observational communication. Feedback can also be problematic when it’s unsolicited or even unwelcome.  In our edusphere, and in my coaching role, it’s important to have a clear vision on effective feedback methods, and the concept of a feedback loop is powerful for meaningful collaboration and communication.

Feedback is often one-directional.  In-game coaching, course feedback forms, or even rubrics are examples of a one-directional feedback source.  A rubric isn’t feedback, at least if it’s delivered as an end-of-project receipt or scorecard.  I’ve never really seen a student pour over the squares in which their work has been scored in order to collect any new information.

A feedback loop is a different story.  A loop isn’t directional; it implies dialogue or conversation.  There’s input and output.  Interestingly, as a musician, it’s critical to avoid feedback loops at all costs, in which inputs and outputs become imbalanced.  That’s the danger zone where one source overwhelms the other.  There’s a clear lesson to be found for administrators, team-members, and instructional coaches!  A balanced, ongoing, and monitored exchange can create a meaningful model for learning and growth.

A loop is cyclical, which can be a good or a bad thing.  A positive loop spirals and strengthens, where a negative loop can reinforce bad habits and damage relationships. If you’ve been teaching long enough, you’ve likely seen or experienced either of these types of feedback loop. 

Whether it’s directional or in a loop, feedback should carry context for if the goal is growth.  Observations shouldn’t be able to be easily misinterpreted, and information and data should be actionable.  Feedback shouldn’t feel transactional.  It should feel informative, whether the news is good or bad.  Sometimes feedback is automatic.  In fact, some of the most immediate changes occur in response to negative feedback, whether it’s a microphone squeal, a dog’s snarl, or a spiraling student.

It’s our job to turn that information into action.  Coders take unsuccessful attempts in stride to debug their programs, musicians move their microphones or shift their levels, and skilled educators adjust their practice to respond and react to the formative feedback in front of them. Mechanisms like forms and surveys collect data or work as a dipstick to capture a moment for a classroom teacher or building administrator. In these instances, real-time feedback can provide real-time adjustment in the form of formative feedback.

Feedback in the form of performance assessments, reviews, or even course grades have big strings attached and are quite different from the types of feedback in formative meetings, brainstorming sessions, or peer observations.  Each type of feedback serves it’s specific purpose, but it’s critical that all parties understand the types of language, criteria, and evaluative measures in place if the feedback has any hope of being effectively applied to practice.