How to write feedback that stands up to quality assurance

Feedback on assessed work has to do two jobs at once: tell the learner what to do next, and show an internal verifier, moderator or second marker why you awarded what you awarded. One paragraph of encouragement does neither.

The four-part structure

Every criterion, learning outcome or mark band you comment on can follow the same shape. It reads naturally, and it happens to be exactly what sampling looks for.

Judgement. Met or not met, against the criterion reference. “P2 met.” “Outcome 1.3 not yet met.”
Evidence. Where in the submission. “Your risk assessment table on p.3 identifies four hazards and the control for each.”
Gap, if any. What the criterion asked for that is not there yet.
Next level. What the next grade or band would require of them — the thinking, not the sentence.

On mark-scheme assessments such as GCSE and A Level non-exam assessment, swap “criterion met” for the band and the reason it sits in that band. The rest of the structure is unchanged.

Quote the work, always

A short quotation or a page, slide number or timestamp turns an opinion into a record. It also stops the most common resubmission argument dead, because the learner can see exactly which part of their work you judged.

For non-written evidence, reference it the same way: “at 2:14 in your recorded demonstration”, “slide 6”, “the labelled diagram on your poster”, “during the professional discussion on 14 March”.

Feed forward without writing it for them

The line to hold is between telling a learner what is missing and supplying the missing content. This matters more on internally assessed, externally quality-assured work, where over-direction can invalidate the evidence. Both of these point at the same gap; only one is safe:

Too far

“Add that the main limitation is cost, because the equipment needs replacing every two years.”

About right

“M1 asks you to analyse, not just list. Take two of the factors you have identified and explain how each one affects the outcome, then say which has the bigger effect and why.”

Tone: formal or supportive

Both work. What matters is consistency across the cohort, because learners compare feedback with each other. A formal register suits externally sampled portfolios and HE submissions; a warmer register often lands better with learners who are close to disengaging. Pick per group, not per mood, and keep the judgement and evidence identical either way.

Consistency across a whole class

Mark criterion by criterion across the cohort rather than learner by learner, where the assignment allows it.
Reuse the same phrasing for the same judgement, so grade boundaries read the same to every learner.
Take a break before the last few scripts — fatigue drift is real and moderators spot it.
Keep your comments and the criteria in the same document, so sampling needs one file, not two.

If that is a lot to hold in your head at 9pm, that is the whole reason Mark My Coursework exists: it drafts this structure per criterion, in your chosen tone, and you edit and confirm the grade before anything reaches a learner.