SOAR Feedback Method¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · 1 claim (1 for) · 2 studies (2 quant-synthesis), q4 · 2 of 2 report an effect size

Description¶

The SOAR method is a quality framework for feedback on student writing: feedback should be Specific (tied to concrete features of the text, not global impressions), Ongoing (delivered across drafts rather than as a single terminal event), Action-Oriented (telling the writer what to do next, not just what is wrong), and Reasonable (limited in scope to what the writer can act on in one revision cycle). It operationalizes formative assessment research into a checklist instructors can apply to every round of comments.

Design Implications¶

SOAR aligns with the finding that feedback is most effective when it addresses the task and the processes for improving it, rather than the self Feedback is most effective at task and process levels. [+S]. Vague praise ("good job") and global criticism ("unclear") give the writer nothing to act on; specific, actionable comments paired with a manageable revision scope convert feedback into observable changes in the next draft Action-oriented feedback improves revision quality. [+M].

Context¶

Requirements¶

• Clear criteria for quality writing, ideally shared with students as a rubric so feedback language maps onto known goals
• A multi-draft assignment structure that gives feedback somewhere to land — a single-draft assignment cannot be "ongoing"
• Instructor time budgeted for targeted comments on a limited number of issues per draft, prioritized by impact on the writer's next revision

Constraints¶

• Feedback given after final submission produces almost no learning gain, since the writer never acts on it [-S] — the "ongoing" component is not optional
• Overloading a draft with every possible correction exceeds what a writer can process; comments beyond roughly three to five priority issues are typically ignored [~M]
• Grades delivered alongside comments reduce the attention paid to the comments themselves [-M] — students focus on the score; delay or separate grade release where possible
• Feedback on surface features (grammar, mechanics) crowds out higher-order revision when writers have limited revision time [~M]

Implementation Variability¶

• Peer-mediated SOAR: students apply the four criteria to each other's drafts using a comment protocol, which also builds evaluative judgment [+M]
• Audio or screencast feedback: same criteria delivered verbally; some evidence of stronger perceived rapport and comprehension [+W]
• Automated partial delivery: tools (e.g., grammar checkers, rubric-based comment banks) handle surface-level specificity, freeing instructor comments for higher-order, action-oriented guidance

Target Learners¶

• Developing writers in secondary and postsecondary contexts, who lack the internal criteria to interpret vague comments Feedback is most effective at task and process levels. [+S]
• Multilingual writers, who benefit disproportionately from specific, actionable comments over global judgments [+W]
• Less effective for advanced writers with strong self-editing skills, who may find itemized comments constraining [~W]

Target Learning Goals¶

• Revision skill: learning to diagnose and improve one's own drafts
• Evaluative judgment: internalizing quality criteria through repeated, criterion-referenced feedback cycles
• Writing quality: measurable improvement across drafts on targeted dimensions

Instructions¶

1. Set criteria first. Share the rubric or success criteria before drafting so feedback terms are predictable (Assessment for Learning).
2. Be Specific. Point to exact sentences, moves, or passages — quote the text — rather than characterizing the whole piece.
3. Be Action-Oriented. Phrase each comment as a next step ("combine these two sentences to show the causal link") rather than a verdict ("awkward").
4. Be Reasonable. Limit comments to the two or three issues with the highest payoff for this writer at this stage; defer the rest.
5. Be Ongoing. Return feedback before the next draft is due, and check whether prior comments were acted on in the revision (Formative Assessment).

Claims¶

Related Strategies¶

• Action-Oriented Feedback — the "A" in SOAR, elaborated as a standalone technique
• Rubric-Based Assessment — supplies the shared criteria that make feedback specific and reasonable
• Peer Feedback Protocols — scales ongoing feedback between drafts while building student evaluative skill

Examples¶

• Writing-across-the-curriculum programs (e.g., Michigan State's The Writing Center @ MSU) train faculty to give limited, draft-cycle comments rather than terminal corrections — SOAR in institutional form.
• Turnitin Feedback Studio supports ongoing draft cycles with inline, anchored comments tied to rubric criteria, enabling specific and criterion-referenced feedback at scale.
• A first-year composition course using two required drafts: instructor comments on draft one are capped at three revision priorities drawn from the shared rubric, and the revision memo requires students to state how each comment was addressed.

Key Sources¶

• Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. doi:10.3102/003465430298487
• Brookhart, S. M. (2017). How to give effective feedback to your students (2nd ed.). ASCD.
• Wiliam, D. (2011). Embedded formative assessment. Solution Tree Press.
• Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 445–476. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.445
• Butler, R. (1988). Enhancing and undermining intrinsic motivation: The effects of task-involving and ego-involving evaluation on interest and performance. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 58(1), 1–14. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.1988.tb00874.x