Examples
These are before/after examples that reflect the three-section structure. The examples display combined output. The Faculty Wizard displays each section individually as well.
Examples are illustrative; always use professional judgment. Please note that examples include some stream-of-thought writing that includes misspellings to represent the kind of quick input one can enter while assessing written, video, or audio components of work.
Example 1: Missing required elements + call to action
Private grading notes (before)
found the intro and conclusion and identified them well enoguh, misidentified the type of essay though as descriptie instead of expository, remind them to review definitions to ensure writing is correctly classified, also the theme description is too vague but at least it is mentioned so thats helpful
Professional feedback (after)
The submission accurately identifies the introduction and conclusion sections of the essay and includes a mention of the theme. The submission misidentifies the essay type as descriptive rather than expository. The theme description requires further specificity. For future work, review the definitions of essay types to ensure accurate classification. A more specific description of the theme would strengthen the analysis.
Example 2: Vague claims from an analysis
Private grading notes (before)
results accurately go over charts and so the basic meaning is there but then statements are made that dont come from any sort of support by the analysis, more like thoughts and pondering ratther than things learned from the analysis
Professional feedback (after)
The submission accurately describes the charts and presents the basic meaning of the data visualizations. The submission contains statements that are not supported by the analysis. For future work, ensure that all statements in the results section are directly supported by the analysis presented.
Example 3: Tone softening/regularization (fact-focused to avoid disputes)
Private grading notes (before)
This is sloppy. The methodology section is all over the place and they don't define variables. It's hard to follow and reads like a draft.
Professional feedback (after)
The submission includes an attempt to meet the stated requirements. The methodology section lacks clear organization and does not contain definitions of key variables. For future work, clearly define all variables and organize the methodology section in a logical, sequential manner.
Example 4: No action request
Private grading notes (before)
they introduce themselves as needed, explain the coding environment, run most of the code but the code does not match the code they provided as an attachment exactly so without alignment it cannot be logically assessed, no action
Professional feedback (after)
The submission includes an appropriate introduction and explanation of the coding environment, and presents executed code. The executed code does not align with the code provided in the attachment, preventing logical assessment of the work.