HomeBlogFeedback Implementing Effective Feedback Practices: Strategy 2by Aaron TrockiJune 27, 2025 Share: Section NavigationSkip section navigationIn this sectionBlog Home AI and Engaged Learning Assessment of Learning Capstone Experiences CEL News CEL Retrospectives CEL Reviews Collaborative Projects and Assignments Community-Based Learning Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity ePortfolio Feedback First-Year Experiences Global Learning Health Sciences High Impact Practices Immersive Learning Internships Learning Communities Mentoring Relationships Online Education Place-Based Learning Professional and Continuing Education Publishing SoTL Reflection and Metacognition Relationships Residential Learning Communities Service-Learning Signature Work Student Leadership Student-Faculty Partnership Studying EL Supporting Neurodivergent and Physically Disabled Students Undergraduate Research Work-Integrated Learning Writing Transfer in and beyond the University Style Guide for Posts to the Center for Engaged Learning Blog In part one of this two-part blog, I revisited results from my students who completed the feedback literacy behavior scale (Dawson et al. 2023). I identified two areas in which students demonstrated room for improvement: (1) seeking feedback information; and (2) using feedback information. With these needs in mind, I shared a resource called How to Give Good Peer Feedback that I retrieved from the City University of New York School of Professional Studies OpenLab. During class, we discussed how to adapt recommendations from this resource to feedback practices related to learning demands in our undergraduate calculus course. I named the first feedback-promoting strategy setting feedback expectations for students in your specific course. The language of “specific course” accounts for particular student learning needs regarding feedback literacy and the content of a course. The purpose of this post is to share another feedback-promoting strategy I used in class this semester and a helpful framework that supports the implementation of this strategy. Strategy 2: Anchoring Feedback Practices to Student Learning Outcomes I call this second feedback-promoting strategy anchoring feedback practices to student learning outcomes. For students to give, receive, and learn from feedback, they must understand exactly what they are asked to demonstrate in the courses they take. Providing students with specific learning outcomes will offer clarity and support their efforts to demonstrate evidence of their learning. So, what do quality learning outcomes look like? In Wood’s (2021) chapter on learning outcomes, he cites Adelman’s (2015) work, To Imagine a Verb. Adelman recommends that learning outcomes contain “operational verbs that can be observed in an external context and are subject to judgement” (Adelman 2015, 7). With this requirement in mind, Adelson dismisses verbs such as “understand,” “develop,” “realize,” and “extend.” Wood (2021) provides additional guidance for writing learning outcomes by suggesting to use the SMART Framework. SMART Learning Outcomes The SMART framework was first published by Doran (1981) in an article in Management Review. His framework has been adapted and used across many disciplines. Wood presents the SMART criteria for writing learning outcomes as the framework below: Specific: Exactly what is it that we want here? Measurable: Can we measure or even see “understanding”? No, but we are all familiar with things that are measurable and with student work products to which rubrics can be applied. Action-oriented: What will students do (think verb) or produce that will demonstrate their achievement of the outcome? Reasonable: Is the expectation commensurate with the course/degree level? Time-bound: When will we assess this outcome—end of the week, end of the course, end of the program? (Wood 2021, 54–55) Applying the SMART Framework in Calculus I applied this framework in writing learning outcomes for each of the three learning units in this semester. The first learning unit included content that provided a foundation for differential calculus and formally introduced and defined derivative. The list of learning outcomes for the first learning unit are as follows. Students will be able to… …utilize function notation …calculate the slope of a line …write the equation of a line …estimate average velocity …calculate average velocity …estimate instantaneous velocity …calculate instantaneous velocity …explain analytical representations of secant slope …explain analytical representations of tangent slope …evaluate limits numerically, graphically, and analytically …evaluate limits at infinity … explain the meaning and application of the Intermediate Value Theorem …apply the definition of continuity …apply the definition of differentiable …find derivatives by using the definition of derivative …find derivatives by applying basic derivative rules …sketch the graph of a derivative function While this collection of learning outcomes is in no way perfect, I attempted to adhere to the five SMART steps when writing them: Specific: I started the writing process by considering what exactly it is that I would like to see students demonstrate. Measurable: I then thought about students’ evidence of learning that could be measured or compare to a rubric. For most assessment items, I offer partial credit related to demonstrating learning outcomes. For example, under the learning outcome, “find derivatives by applying basic derivative rules” I give partial credit if the student used the correct rule but had an algebraic error when simplifying the result of applying that derivative rule. Action-oriented: I used action verbs and kept the advice of Adelson (2015) in mind to avoid verbs such as “understand,” “develop,” “realize,” and “extend.” Reasonable: I made the learning outcomes reasonable as the outcomes matched the difficulty of concepts and topics addressed in our textbook, homework, and in-class work. Time-bound: Finally, the learning outcomes were time-bound and contained in one learning unit and the associated test for that unit. After students completed the test, I graded it and provided written feedback on problems where they did not receive full credit. I also posted an answer key with the learning outcomes listed next to each question and answer. In this way I attempted to anchor my feedback practices to student learning outcomes and make learning demands explicit from the beginning to the end of our learning unit. I then allowed students to correct their tests for some partial credit. My students seemed to appreciate and learn from my feedback practices. I inferred that the experience in this first learning unit assisted students with navigating their plans for success and using feedback through the remainder of the semester. Connecting Classroom Practice to Career Readiness Writing and using learning outcomes also made me think about expectations for performance in post-college professions. I suspect that employers would base job performance on action-oriented items. For instance, a competent software developer must create and update software that consistently meets users’ needs. This action-oriented demand goes beyond just realizing that software should meet users’ needs. Are we as college faculty setting our students up for success in navigating the demands of their future professions? What learning outcomes do you use in the courses you teach? How are these shared with your students? Promoting feedback literacy and using the SMART criteria for writing learning outcomes has helped me think about these questions more critically and begin to adjust my teaching practices accordingly. References Adelman, Charles. 2015. To Imagine a Verb: The Language and Syntax of Learning Outcomes Statements. Occasional Paper No. 24. University of Illinois and Indiana University, National Institute of Learning Outcomes Assessment (NILOA). City University of New York School of Professional Studies (CUNY SPS) OpenLab. 2025. “How to Give Good Peer Feedback.” April 1, 2025. https://openlab.sps.cuny.edu/knowledge-bank/how-to-give-good-peer-review-feedback/. Dawson, Phillip, Zi Yan, Anastasiya Lipnevich, Joanna Tai, David Boud, and Paige Mahoney. 2023. “Measuring What Learners Do in Feedback: The Feedback Literacy Behaviour Scale.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2023.2240983. Doran, G. T. 1981. “There’s a S.M.A.R.T. Way to Write Management’s Goals and Objectives.” Management Review 70: 35–36. Wood, Stephen. “Learning Outcomes: Engaging Students, Staff, and Faculty.” In Advancing Assessment for Student Success: Supporting Learning by Creating Connections Across Assessment, Teaching, Curriculum, and Cocurriculum in Collaboration with Our Colleagues and Our Students, by Amy Driscoll, Stephen Wood, Daniel Shapiro, and Nancy Graff. 1st ed. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003442899. About the Author Aaron Trocki is an Associate Professor of Mathematics at Elon University. He is the CEL Scholar for 2023–2025 and is focusing on models of assessment and feedback outside of traditional grading assumptions and approaches. How to Cite This Post Trocki, Aaron. 2025. “Implementing Effective Feedback Practices: Strategy 2.” Center for Engaged Learning (blog), Elon University. June 20, 2025. https://www.centerforengagedlearning.org/implementing-effective-feedback-practices-strategy-2.
