eddo
← Back to Community Resources

WSST Workshop resource: Personalized feedback

by Raymond Adijanto

Instructions

  1. Run the prompt, and read the output
  2. Open your preferred AI tool
  3. Copy the prompt and the provided answer key, and copy the student response of your choice

Resources

Inputs for generating personalized feedback on student writing.

Resource drive link

##Context

You are a teacher evaluating a CER (Claim, Evidence, Reasoning) assessment. Read the student response below and provide feedback. Identify strengths in the writing and make suggestions for improvement. Make specific connections between student writing and the answer key provided. 

##Instructions

1. Evaluate reasoning responses based on the look-fors below:

Includes logic statements that link the claim, evidence and science concepts (for example, using words like “because”, “therefore”, etc).

Uses correct science concepts (laws, theories, mechanisms) to justify the relationship.

Clearly explains the cause-and-effect link between claim and evidence.

2. When writing feedback, write directly to the student, citing specific but accurate strengths from their writing and pointing out ways to better organize and connect their writing. (i.e. "You provided strong evidence for... by stating that...") Use only verbatim examples from the student's writing. DO NOT MAKE ANYTHING UP. 

3. Avoid providing strengths if the student response does not reflect student knowledge. 

4. The student is in "learning mode" so use suggestions to elicit their understanding or probe deeper using guiding questions, but don't solve the explanation for them (i.e. Socratic style). Use clear and concise language and an encouraging, supportive tone. 

5. Write it in the language and vocabulary that an 8th grader can understand. Avoid using scientific jargon. 

6. Select up to 3 strengths and 3 suggestions that are the most, providing more feedback around reasoning.

##Input

The answer key is provided in a Word file attached. The Student instruction is also in the answer key document. 

The student response is in the Excel file attached.
Student Instruction: 

Question 1a. Do all solid objects deform during a collision? Claim

Question 1b: Evidence

Question 1c: Reasoning

Answer key:

Question 1a: Claim

+The claim directly answers the scientific question.

+The claim is clear and specific, reflecting student knowledge of key concepts.

Question 1b: Evidence

+Provides relevant evidence.

+Evidence clearly cited with enough information to show student knowledge of key concepts.

Examples of evidence possible:

1 - A moving car collided with a stationary car, causing visible damage.

2 - A moving golf club hit a golf ball, and the ball squished on impact.

3  - A moving baseball hit a stationary bat; the ball squished and the bat bent slightly.

4  - A mirror shifted the laser reflection when force was applied or a ball hit it.

 5 - A cement beam bent when pressure was applied by a plunger or machine.

(Question 1a and Question 1b total: 8 points)

8 points: All three are included and thorough.

7 points: 2 of the 3 are included OR information is solid but missing key concepts or evidence.

6 points: 2 of the 3 are included AND information is solid but missing key concepts or evidence.

5 points: Claim, evidence and/or concepts are incomplete, inaccurate, or demonstrate major misconceptions.

4 points: Claim, evidence, and concepts have been attempted but there is not enough information to make an accurate assessment of student knowledge.

0 points: Nothing in this section has been completed.

Question 1c: Reasoning
+Includes logic statements that link the claim, evidence and science concepts (for example, using words like “because”, “therefore”, etc).
+Uses correct science concepts (laws, theories, mechanisms) to justify the relationship.
+Clearly explains the cause-and-effect link between claim and evidence.

(Question 1c total: 8 points)

0 points: Reasoning has not been attempted.

8 points: Includes logic statements that link the claim, evidence and science concepts (including words such as "because...", "therefore...") that clearly demonstrates logical reasoning.

7 points: Includes a logic statement that links the claim, evidence and concepts, and is beginning to demonstrate logical reasoning.

6 points: Attempts to include a logic statement that links the evidence to the claim but does not adequately link the evidence to the claim.

5 points: Restates evidence or claim and does not include a logic statement that links the evidence to the claim.

4 points: Reasoning has been attempted but there is not enough information to make an accurate assessment of student knowledge.

Question 1a. Do all solid objects deform during a collision? Claim:
All solid objects deform during collision

Question 1b. Evidence:
Baseball & bat, golf club & ball, moving cars

Question 1c. Reasoning:
When they hit a baseball with the bat, the baseball indented a little, and the bat started to vibrate. When they hit a golf ball with a club, all the balls got dented, and when the 2 cars hit each other, they both smashed into each other and dented.

Workshop Takeaways

INSIGHT 01

Students understand more that their writing reveals

🎯 COACHING MOVE

Before marking a response incomplete, try prompting the student verbally – their spoken explanation often exceeds what they wrote.

💬 BRING TO YOUR PLC

Are we assessing what students know, or how well they write about what they know?

INSIGHT 02

The same misconception showed up across the whole class

🎯 COACHING MOVE

When a misconception is class-wide, it’s a curriculum signal- not a student problem. Consider revisiting the anchor phenomenon before moving on

💬 BRING TO YOUR PLC

If most students share the same gap, what does that tell us about how the concept was introduced?

INSIGHT 03

Strong evidence, weak reasoning – consistency

🎯 COACHING MOVE

Students could identify what happened but struggled to explain why. Try adding one sentence stem to your next prompt: “This matters because…”

💬 BRING TO YOUR PLC

How are we explicitly teaching the difference between evidence and reasoning in our OpenSciEd units?

Want to see what this looks like built into your workflow?

We’re working with a small group of OpenSciEd teachers to bring AI-assisted feedback into real classrooms. You’d be in early – and your experience shapes what we build next.

Join the pilot
See how Wauwatosa is doing this work.

Their instructional coach Rachel shares what changed when teachers could finally see past the writing to what students actually understood.

Watch & read their story ->
Who is Eddo?

Meet the Presidential Award-winning science teacher who built Eddo and why 20 years in the classroom led him here.

Read about us ->