The Bread of Feedback

I realise my last post may have appeared a little mean spirited. It was originally longer but I decided to post it in two parts – hopefully this one will redress the balance.

Recently I came across a pedagogic ‘tool’ known as a “Feedback Sandwich” in which feedback is framed - or more accurately one might say ‘bookended’ - by positive observations about what a student did well. In this way the student gets to hear supportive comments about what is really working as well as what requires further attention. This strikes me as a very sound form of providing feedback: by emphasising the positive but ensuring that critical elements are not overlooked. No doubt part of the reason I like this idea is because, in many ways, it’s exactly what I already strive to do with feedback. I was surprised though, when I decided to look up Feedback Sandwich on Google and the 3rd link out of thousands specifically advised against it:

“Praise (Bread)

‘Feedback’ (Meat)

Praise (Bread)

This approach is not to help us the recipient feel good – it is to soften the message for the giver. We all learn very quickly that when ‘good’ stuff is mentioned we know that “here come the message” – we hear the criticism and are so busy focused on the negative that we do not hear the follow on good stuff. This is not helped as the ‘good stuff’ is usually so fluffy that it is meaningless.”

Now, I would agree wholeheartedly with this, if only its characterisation of a feedback sandwich correlated in the least with my own. The above description is, in fact, what I would think of as a “Praise Sandwich”. Yes I know the filling is feedback so, in a sense I’m wrong, but it has always struck me as strange that sandwiches are described by the filling only and very rarely mention the type of bread used. For me the bread is just as important as the filling. So, here’s my idea of a Feedback Sandwich set between two freshly baked crusty slices:

Positive comment (Encouragement)
What needs attention and how to fix it
Positive comment (Encouragement)

It might seem as though I'm splitting hairs here but if my last post about the drawbacks of praise - specifically its low information value - are to be taken seriously, then praise sandwiches (otherwise known as "sugar coated criticism") would seem a poor substitute for the more information laden, and presumably more wholesome, variety of feedback that comprises feedback sandwiches. You see, praise is in many ways terminal (ie: it comes at the end of something) whereas encouragement is part of a process. Praise is also hierarchical (ie it's always bestowed upon someone: a child, an employee etc), unlike compliments or congratulations, that have no implicit hierarchy and can be offered across divides of authority without transgressing unspoken boundaries of power and influence.

When we start to see learning as an ongoing process, that never ends until we do, we might also notice that praise is a rather backward looking creature with a tendency to rest on its laurels. Encouragement, on the other hand, looks to the future with a glint in it's eye and a determination to strive for improvement.

“Teachers who encourage students create an environment in which students do not have to fear continuous evaluation, where they can make mistakes and learn from them, and where they do not always need to strive to meet someone else's standard of excellence. Most students thrive in encouraging environments where they receive specific feedback and have the opportunity to evaluate their own behavior and work. Encouragement fosters autonomy, positive self-esteem, a willingness to explore, and acceptance of self and others.” -Hitz and Driscoll

Critical Tact or Punitive Feedback?

Jenny Holzer, Abuse of Power comes as no Surprise with Ladypink, 1983

“The real question as to whether someone is a good or bad educator is simply this: Has this person developed a sense of tact?” –Johann Friedrich Herbart, 1802

Most teachers will be familiar with the situation where a student complains about feedback they've had from another member of staff. Most of these complaints concern confusing or de-motivating criticisms which have been made about their work. I don't think we need to take such expressions of dissatisfaction as an excuse to go on a witch hunt, but I do think it’s important not to dismiss them. It is only when we fully appreciate the power of critical feedback, not just to motivate, but to confound, confuse, de-motivate and on occasion to entirely alienate, that we are likely to realise just how important it is that teachers use critical feedback intelligently and tactfully.

Many teachers, and even some students for that matter, believe that harsh criticism is sometimes justified, but why might this be the case? Whilst students might benefit, to some extent, from becoming a little more thick-skinned regarding criticism, since in the ‘professional’ field art critics are frequently far more scathing than art teachers, it might nonetheless be worth taking a moment to consider exactly how people become thick-skinned in the first place. Practically all teachers and students who advocate harsh criticism are confident individuals already, who feel able to absorb criticism and thereby profit by it. However, there remain a substantial number of students who are a good deal less confident and, not surprisingly, these students also tend to be a good deal less vocal about valuing harsh criticism. The truth is, you don’t make a more confident individual by undermining their confidence. Confidence has to come first, then you can think about being more firm with criticism. This is where tact comes in. Tact is the ability to accurately judge a student’s level of confidence and pitch criticism appropriately so that the level of challenge becomes neither stressful nor boring and confidence is promoted rather than crushed.

“A tactful person is able as it were to read the inner life of the other person.” -Max van Manen

Art teachers can be an opinionated bunch at the best of times and for similar reasons we also tend to be very passionate about what we believe. But these strongly held beliefs also mean that we’re inclined to hold powerful allegiances to our chosen media, genres, styles and approaches to art making and are equally dismissive or even vehemently opposed to media, genres, styles and approaches which we see as outmoded, superficial, mannered, clumsy etc. However, any criticism that derives from such beliefs, as inspiring and persuasive as it may be, can never be anything more than partial at best, and at worst simply perpetuates the values of the teacher.

“The true teacher defends his pupils against his own personal influence.”
-Amos Bronson Alcott

There are numerous circumstances in the teaching of fine art that call for critical feedback. Sometimes students produce work which entirely misses the point of a project or is founded upon naive conceptions due to lack of awareness or critical engagement. Work may be conceptually or technically flawed, it may be ethically questionable, vague or formally overwrought. At times, it appears as though a particular student may have simply chosen the wrong course of study and lacks the awareness, confidence or resources to remedy the situation on their own. And then there are students who are disengaged, lazy or offhand with work and who attempt to cut corners or, worse still, to pull the wool over their teacher's eyes by evading classes and/or trying to verbally embellish their work etc.

All of the above are situations where students might be seen to be falling short in one respect or another but it’s crucial for teachers to be able to clearly distinguish between such issues of engagement, perceive their underlying causes and, as much as possible, rise above personal preferences in responding to them. If someone is genuinely trying to manipulate a situation, then it’s pretty clear that they should be made aware that this is an unacceptable way of proceeding. However, if a student is simply naive, mistaken, insecure or misinformed, but is nonetheless engaging in good faith, then it is the teacher’s duty to constructively support them, encourage their engagement and to invite critical discussion about what is not working, rather than assuming a wall of unquestionable authority and backing this up through kinds of criticism that are practically indistinguishable from punitive feedback.

"In this direction he must, if he is an educator, be able to judge what attitudes are actually conducive to continued growth and what are detrimental. He must, in addition, have that sympathetic understanding of individuals as individuals which gives him an idea of what is actually going on in the minds of those who are learning.” -John Dewey