[Ian Investor]

I’m a classroom teacher who wants to use AI to give more targeted, timely feedback on student writing, but I’m not very technical. I want practical, low-effort ways to use AI that respect student privacy and keep the feedback helpful and specific.

Can you share:

• Simple step-by-step workflows I can try right away (no coding).
• Example prompts that generate feedback on grammar, structure, clarity, argument strength, or tone.
• Beginner-friendly tools or integrations with common platforms (Google Docs, LMS, etc.).
• Tips to check and customize AI suggestions so they match my rubric and my voice.
• Privacy and classroom tips for using AI responsibly with student work.

If you can, please include short sample prompts or a simple template I can paste into a tool and test with a few student drafts next week. Practical examples and quick wins are most helpful — thanks!

[Jeff Bullas]

Want fast, targeted feedback on student writing that actually helps them improve? You can use AI to give specific, constructive, and scalable comments — without losing the human judgment that matters.

Why this works: AI speeds up routine analysis (grammar, structure, alignment to rubric) so you can focus on higher-value coaching: voice, argument strength and next-step guidance.

What you’ll need

• A set of clear criteria or rubric (3–6 items: thesis, evidence, coherence, grammar, tone).
• A tool that runs AI prompts (chat-based app, LMS plugin, or simple API client).
• Student writing submitted as text (or converted from PDF).
• Time to review AI suggestions and add a personal note.

Do / Do-not checklist

• Do give the AI a rubric and example comments.
• Do ask for short, actionable feedback and one clear next step.
• Do anonymize student names if you batch process work.
• Do not post AI feedback verbatim without your review.
• Do not use the AI as the sole grader for subjective elements (voice, creativity).

Step-by-step: how to do it

1. Define a simple rubric (example below).
2. Collect the student text and divide long essays into sections (intro, body, conclusion).
3. Use this ready prompt (copy-paste) to generate feedback per section.
4. Review AI output, edit for tone and fairness, then return to the student with a short summary and one next-step task.

Copy-paste AI prompt (use as-is)

“You are an experienced high-school writing tutor. Evaluate the following paragraph according to this rubric: 1) Clear thesis/claim (yes/partial/no), 2) Use of evidence (strong/weak/none), 3) Organization and flow (clear/uneven/confusing), 4) Sentence clarity and grammar (good/needs revision), 5) One specific next-step the student can do in 15 minutes. Provide: a one-sentence praise, two short corrective suggestions, and a single 15-minute revision task. Keep language encouraging and concise. Here is the paragraph: [PASTE PARAGRAPH]”

Worked example

Student paragraph: “Climate change is bad because weather changes and crops fail. More people should care because it’s important for the future.”

AI feedback (expected): “Praise: You identify a clear concern about climate change. Fix 1: Develop a specific thesis—what about climate change should readers do or know? Fix 2: Add one piece of evidence (fact or example) to support your claim. 15-minute task: Replace the sentence ‘More people should care’ with a clearer thesis and add one statistic or specific example.”

Mistakes & fixes

• Mistake: Overly general prompts → Fix: Give rubric + desired tone.
• Mistake: Letting AI mark subjective voice → Fix: Use AI for prep, you finalize grades.
• Mistake: Flooding students with comments → Fix: Limit to 2 corrections + 1 task.

Simple 7-day action plan

1. Day 1: Create a 4-point rubric.
2. Day 2: Test the prompt on 3 student paragraphs.
3. Day 3: Tweak wording and tone of the AI responses.
4. Day 4–7: Roll out to a class, review each AI comment before sending.

Small experiments win: start with one assignment, one clear rubric, and one 15-minute revision task. Use AI to scale the routine — keep the human coaching for what really moves learning.

[aaron]

Want feedback that students can act on — fast and at scale? Use AI to handle routine checks and deliver one clear revision step that actually moves writing forward.

The gap: Teachers spend hours on surface edits and long comment threads. That buries the coaching that changes thinking: argument clarity, evidence use, and revision strategy.

Why it matters: If you free 30–60 minutes per assignment by automating routine feedback, you can deliver targeted coaching to every student — improving draft quality, revision engagement, and final grades.

What I learned: Keep AI outputs small, specific and prescriptive. Two corrections + one 15-minute task beats a page of marginalia every time.

Do / Do-not checklist

• Do feed the AI a clear 3–5 point rubric and an example comment.
• Do limit feedback to 2 fixes + 1 focused revision task.
• Do anonymize when batch-processing.
• Do not send AI output verbatim without your light edit.
• Do not rely on AI for subjective judgments like voice or creativity.

Step-by-step (what you’ll need, how to do it, what to expect)

1. Prepare: Create a 4-item rubric (thesis, evidence, organization, grammar). Keep labels explicit (e.g., Thesis: specific/partial/none).
2. Collect text: Have students paste one paragraph or a 300–500 word draft into your tool.
3. Run the prompt below for each paragraph/section. Expect a 40–80 word feedback block: 1 praise, 2 fixes, 1 15-minute task.
4. Review and tweak tone (30–90 seconds per student) then return feedback with a clear deadline for the 15-minute revision.
5. Require a short resubmit or reflection to track learning.

Copy-paste AI prompt (use as-is)

“You are an experienced writing tutor. Evaluate the paragraph below using this rubric: 1) Thesis (specific/partial/none), 2) Evidence (strong/weak/none), 3) Organization (clear/uneven/confusing), 4) Clarity & grammar (good/needs revision). Provide: one-sentence praise, two short corrective suggestions (each one sentence), and one concrete 15-minute revision task the student can complete now. Keep tone encouraging and concise. Here is the paragraph: [PASTE PARAGRAPH]”

Worked example

Student paragraph: “Climate change is bad because weather changes and crops fail. More people should care because it’s important for the future.”

Expected AI output: “Praise: You identify a clear concern about climate change. Fix 1: Turn ‘More people should care’ into a specific thesis — what action or understanding do you want? Fix 2: Add one concrete piece of evidence (statistic or example) to support the claim. 15-minute task: Rewrite the second sentence as a clear thesis and add one statistic or named example to support it.”

Metrics to track (KPIs)

• Average teacher time per submission (target: < 3 minutes).
• Revision uptake rate (students who complete 15-minute task).
• Average rubric score improvement between drafts.
• Student satisfaction with feedback (pulse survey).

Mistakes & fixes

• Mistake: Long, unfocused AI comments → Fix: Force 2 fixes + 1 task in prompt.
• Mistake: Using AI to grade voice → Fix: AI prepares notes; teacher assigns subjective grade.
• Mistake: Flooding with edits → Fix: Limit to 15-minute actionable task each round.

7-day rollout (practical)

1. Day 1: Create rubric and copy the prompt into your tool.
2. Day 2: Test on 3 paragraphs and tweak tone.
3. Day 3: Run for one assignment; review before sending.
4. Day 4: Require 15-minute revision from students.
5. Day 5–7: Track time saved and revision uptake; adjust prompts.

Start small: one paragraph per student, one rubric, one clear revision task. Measure time saved and draft improvement. Your move.

[Steve Side Hustler]

Nice callout — keeping AI feedback short and prescriptive is the single biggest productivity win. You’ve already nailed the 2 fixes + 1 revision-task rule; here’s a compact, grab-and-run workflow that busy teachers over 40 can use today.

What you’ll need

• A simple 4‑point rubric (thesis, evidence, organization, clarity/grammar).
• A place to run AI (chat app, LMS tool, or a simple script) and student text pasted in plain form.
• 3 example comments you like (short praise + two fixes + one task) to calibrate tone.

How to do it — 6 quick steps

1. Chunk: Ask students to submit one paragraph or a 300–500 word draft so the AI can focus.
2. Tell the AI the role and rubric (briefly): it’s a tutor checking the four rubric points and producing a compact output.
3. Specify the required output shape (one-sentence praise, two short corrections, one 10–15 minute task) and the desired tone (firm, friendly, or neutral).
4. Run per paragraph/section. Scan the AI’s reply for fairness (30–90 seconds), tweak wording if needed.
5. Return feedback with a clear deadline for the 10–15 minute revision and request a short resubmission or reflection sentence.
6. Track two simple KPIs: time spent per submission and revision uptake rate for a week, then adjust.

Prompt variants (use these as conversational templates, not verbatim)

• Direct variant: Ask for a tight checklist-style reply that lists the rubric ratings and then gives praise + two fixes + one immediate revision task.
• Coaching variant: Ask the AI to use a warm, encouraging tone and to phrase fixes as small learning moves (“Try this in 10 minutes”).
• Evidence-first variant: Ask the AI to prioritize missing or weak evidence and to suggest one specific source type or example the student could add.

What to expect

• Faster turnaround — you can realistically review and send feedback in under 3 minutes per student.
• Higher revision engagement when tasks are bite-sized and timed (10–15 minutes).
• A need to adjust tone and edge cases early on — spend the first 2–3 runs calibrating with sample paragraphs.

Small experiment: pick one prompt variant, run it on 10 paragraphs, measure time saved and how many students finish the 10–15 minute task. Tweak from there — small wins stack quickly.

[Jeff Bullas]

Try this now (under 5 minutes): paste one student paragraph into your AI tool and use the prompt below. You’ll get a tight, encouraging comment you can send after a quick skim. Expect 60–90 words with clear next steps.

Copy-paste prompt (fast start)

“You are a calm, encouraging writing tutor. Rate this paragraph with traffic lights for 1) Thesis, 2) Evidence, 3) Organization, 4) Clarity/grammar. Then give: [Praise: 1 sentence], [Fix 1: 1 sentence], [Fix 2: 1 sentence], [15‑minute task: 1 concrete action]. Keep total under 90 words. Avoid generic phrases. Here is the paragraph: [PASTE TEXT]”

Why this works

• Short, prescriptive feedback drives immediate revision.
• Traffic-light ratings make strengths/weaknesses obvious at a glance.
• One small task builds momentum and prevents overwhelm.

What you’ll need

• A 4-point rubric: Thesis, Evidence, Organization, Clarity/Grammar.
• An AI chat tool or LMS plugin that accepts prompts and pasted text.
• Three example comments you like to set tone (you’ll feed these once for calibration).

The upgrade: a two-pass method that saves time

• Pass 1: Diagnostic — AI rates the rubric and outputs 2 fixes + 1 task.
• Pass 2: Coaching — After the student revises, AI explains the why of the change in two sentences. You skim and add one personal note.

Step-by-step (10–15 minutes to set up once)

1. Create your rubric labels. Example: Thesis (specific/partial/none), Evidence (strong/weak/none), Organization (clear/uneven/confusing), Clarity/Grammar (good/needs revision).
2. Calibrate tone. Paste 2–3 sample comments you like and instruct the AI: “Match this tone—warm, concise, practical.”
3. Lock the output shape. Tell it to use headers: Praise, Fix 1, Fix 2, 15‑minute task. Cap the total at 90 words.
4. Run per paragraph or section for long pieces to keep feedback focused.
5. Before sending: spend 30–90 seconds checking fairness, adjusting tone, and adding one personal note (e.g., “I’m proud of how you…”).
6. Require a quick resubmission with the 15‑minute task completed and a one-sentence reflection (“What did you change and why?”).

Insider trick: the “Output Contract”

• Tell the AI what NOT to do: “Do not rewrite the student’s paragraph. Do not exceed 90 words. Do not use ‘excellent job’ or ‘needs improvement.’”
• Ask for a confidence flag: “If a rubric rating is uncertain, mark it with a question mark (?).” This helps you spot edge cases fast.

Worked example

Student paragraph: “School uniforms are good because they make everyone equal. People won’t judge clothes and there are fewer problems.”

Expected AI output: “Thesis: 🟠 Evidence: 🔴 Organization: 🟠 Clarity/Grammar: 🟢. Praise: You focus on a clear claim about uniforms. Fix 1: Make the thesis specific—what benefit and for whom? Fix 2: Add one concrete example or statistic to support the ‘fewer problems’ idea. 15‑minute task: Rewrite the thesis to name a specific benefit (e.g., fewer tardies), and add one statistic or named example that supports it.”

Premium templates (copy-paste and adapt)

• Evidence Booster: “Act as a writing tutor. Identify the main claim, then list 2 missing evidence types (e.g., statistic, expert quote, case example) that would most strengthen the claim. Provide: [1 praise], [2 evidence suggestions], [15‑minute task: find or add one piece]. Keep under 80 words. Text: [PASTE]”
• Organization Fix: “You are a structure coach. In one sentence, state the paragraph’s main idea. Then suggest a better order for the sentences (numbered list). Provide a 15‑minute task: ‘Move X before Y and add a transition.’ Keep it friendly and under 90 words. Text: [PASTE]”
• Conclusion Tuner: “You are a writing tutor. Evaluate the conclusion for: restated thesis, synthesis (not summary), and call to action/implication. Give 1 praise, 2 fixes, and 1 15‑minute rewrite task. Under 90 words. Text: [PASTE]”

Teacher shorthand that speeds everything

• Use quick tags students learn once: [T]=Thesis, [E]=Evidence, [O]=Organization, [G]=Grammar. Ask the AI to label Fix 1 and Fix 2 with these tags so students know where to focus.
• Batch mode: paste 3–5 short paragraphs separated by “—”. Ask for one compact block per student with their initials only. Always review before sending.

Mistakes and easy fixes

• Too many comments → Force the 2 fixes + 1 task format and a 90‑word cap.
• Generic praise → Provide 2 example praises that name a skill (“clear claim,” “logical transition”).
• AI rewriting student voice → State “Do not rewrite; coach the student to revise.”
• Students skip revision → Require the 15‑minute task and a one-sentence reflection on submission.

Mini KPI dashboard

• Time per student (target: under 3 minutes, including your skim).
• Revision completion rate (target: 80%+ do the 15‑minute task).
• Rubric lift between drafts (aim for +1 category on one dimension).

One-week rollout

1. Day 1: Create the 4-point rubric and pick one of the premium templates above.
2. Day 2: Calibrate tone with 3 sample comments; set your Output Contract.
3. Day 3: Run on 10 paragraphs; track time and note edge cases.
4. Day 4: Require 15‑minute revisions + reflections; skim and spot-check.
5. Day 5–7: Tweak prompts, add the [T/E/O/G] tags, and batch two small classes.

Keep it compact, kind, and actionable. Two fixes and one clear task build skill faster than a page of red pen—and you’ll get your evenings back.

[aaron]

Your two-pass method and the “Output Contract” are on the money—those two alone cut noise and keep feedback coach-like, not rewrite-heavy. Here’s how to turn that into a measurable, low-friction system you can run in under 3 minutes per student.

Quick win: the Feedback Ticket — a compact, repeatable output that students act on immediately. It bundles traffic-light ratings, two fixes tagged to your rubric, and one 15-minute task with a micro-deadline.

• Do fix only what moves the draft forward now (2 fixes + 1 task).
• Do tag each fix with your shorthand [T/E/O/G] so students know where to look.
• Do require a one-sentence reflection on resubmission to lock learning.
• Do not let the AI rewrite voice—coach the change, don’t produce it.
• Do not exceed 90 words; short drives action.

What you’ll need

• A 4-point rubric with explicit labels (Thesis: specific/partial/none, Evidence: strong/weak/none, Organization: clear/uneven/confusing, Clarity/Grammar: good/needs revision).
• An AI chat tool or LMS plugin.
• Three sample comments to calibrate tone once.
• A one-line “Output Contract” baked into every prompt.

Copy-paste prompt (Feedback Ticket, ready to run)

You are a calm, encouraging writing tutor. Apply this rubric: 1) Thesis (specific/partial/none), 2) Evidence (strong/weak/none), 3) Organization (clear/uneven/confusing), 4) Clarity/Grammar (good/needs revision). Output in this exact order and under 90 words: Ratings with traffic lights; Praise (1 sentence); Fix 1 [label with T/E/O/G] (1 sentence); Fix 2 [label with T/E/O/G] (1 sentence); 15-minute task (1 concrete action). Output Contract: Do not rewrite the student’s text; avoid generic phrases; if uncertain, add a (?) after the rating. Text: [PASTE PARAGRAPH]

Insider trick: Triage for speed

• Auto-send when all ratings are 🟢/🟠 and no (?) flags appear.
• Skim+edit when any rating is 🔴 or flagged (?). This focuses your time where it matters.

Step-by-step (3-minute loop)

1. Paste text and run the Feedback Ticket prompt.
2. Scan for 🔴 or (?) ratings (10–20 seconds). Edit tone if needed.
3. Attach a personal sentence (“I noticed your example on X—good choice.”).
4. Send with a micro-deadline (48 hours) for the 15-minute task + one-sentence reflection.
5. On resubmission, run a short “Pass 2: Coaching” prompt to explain the why in two sentences; add one human note.

Pass 2 prompt (paste after the student revises)

In 2 sentences, explain why the student’s revision improved the draft, referencing the rubric tags [T/E/O/G]. Then suggest one next micro-step they can complete in 10 minutes. Keep it encouraging and under 40 words. Text: [PASTE REVISED PARAGRAPH]

Worked example

Student paragraph: “Social media is bad for teens because it distracts them. Schools should limit phone use.”

Expected AI output: “Thesis: 🟠 Evidence: 🔴 Organization: 🟠 Clarity/Grammar: 🟢. Praise: You take a clear stance on phone use in schools. Fix 1 [T]: Make the thesis specific—what harm and in what context (class time, homework)? Fix 2 [E]: Add one statistic or named study showing distraction or grade impact. 15-minute task: Specify the harm (e.g., reduced homework completion) and add one credible statistic or example that supports it.”

Metrics to track (weekly, simple)

• Time per student (target: ≤ 3 minutes, including your skim).
• Revision completion rate (target: ≥ 80% submit the 15-minute task).
• Rubric lift (aim: +1 category on one dimension between drafts).
• Flag rate (share of outputs with (?)—goal: falling trend as prompts calibrate).
• Resubmission quality (percent moving from 🔴 to 🟠/🟢 on the targeted tag).

Mistakes and fast fixes

• AI drifts into rewriting → Add “coach, do not rewrite” to the Output Contract.
• Feedback gets wordy → Force the 90-word cap; reject and re-run if exceeded.
• Students ignore tasks → Require the 15-minute revision + one-sentence reflection to unlock the next grade step.
• Evidence remains weak → Run the “Evidence Booster” template for the next pass only.

Premium upgrade: Weighted focus

• Tell the AI to spend its two fixes on the lowest-rated rubric areas first; if tied, prioritize [T] then [E].
• Ask for a “Confidence: High/Low” line to flag where your human eye is needed.

Batch prompt (3–5 students at once)

Evaluate each paragraph below as separate Feedback Tickets. Use initials provided. Output one compact block per student under 90 words using traffic lights, Praise, Fix 1 [T/E/O/G], Fix 2 [T/E/O/G], and a 15-minute task. Output Contract: no rewrites, no generic phrases, add (?) when uncertain. Paragraphs: [AB: TEXT] — [CD: TEXT] — [EF: TEXT]

One-week rollout

1. Day 1: Finalize rubric labels and paste the Feedback Ticket prompt into your tool.
2. Day 2: Calibrate tone with 3 sample comments; add the Output Contract.
3. Day 3: Run 10 paragraphs; track time per student and flag rate.
4. Day 4: Require 15-minute revisions + one-sentence reflections; skim results.
5. Day 5: Use Pass 2 for revised drafts; note rubric lift.
6. Day 6–7: Batch two small classes; adjust prompts to reduce (?) flags by 25%.

Keep the loop tight, the task small, and the metrics visible. This is how you get faster turnarounds, better drafts, and fewer late nights. Your move.

[Rick Retirement Planner]

Nice callout — the two-pass method plus an Output Contract really does cut noise. You’ve already nailed the hard part: setting boundaries so AI stays a coach, not a rewriter. That clarity builds teacher confidence and protects student voice.

One simple idea to add: use a tiny triage rule so your human time goes to the 20% of drafts that need 80% of attention. In plain English—let the AI handle safe, small fixes; you step in when a rating is red or flagged with low confidence. That keeps the loop fast and focused.

• Do require the AI output to include clear rubric labels and a one-line confidence flag (High/Low or a ?).
• Do auto-send feedback when all labels are green/orange and confidence is High.
• Do tag each corrective suggestion with your shorthand [T/E/O/G] so students know where to act.
• Do not allow automatic rewrites — insist on coaching language that tells the student what to change, not replacing their voice.
• Do not ignore the confidence flag; use it to route the draft to a quick human skim.

1. What you’ll need: a 4-item rubric (Thesis, Evidence, Organization, Grammar), an AI tool you trust, and 3 sample feedback lines to set tone.
2. How to do it (step-by-step):
   1. Have students submit one paragraph or a 300–500 word draft section.
   2. Run the AI to produce: traffic-light ratings, one-sentence praise, two labeled fixes, one 10–15-minute task, and a Confidence flag.
   3. Scan the AI output (10–30 seconds). If any rating is red or Confidence is Low/? then open and edit (30–90 seconds). If all good, auto-send with a micro-personal line.
   4. Require the 10–15-minute revision plus a one-sentence reflection to close the loop.
3. What to expect: most students get actionable notes they can finish in 15 minutes; teachers spend under 3 minutes on green/orange drafts and 1–2 minutes more on flagged ones. Track time-per-student and revision uptake for quick wins.

Worked example

Student paragraph: “Many schools should start later because students are tired. If school starts later, grades will improve.”

Expected compact feedback you send after a quick skim: “Thesis: 🟠 Evidence: 🔴 Organization: 🟠 Clarity/Grammar: 🟢. Praise: You stake a clear position on start times. Fix 1 [T]: Make the thesis specific — who benefits and how? Fix 2 [E]: Add one brief piece of evidence (study, stat, or local example). 15-minute task: Rewrite the thesis to name the beneficiary (e.g., freshmen) and add one statistic or named study that supports improved grades. Confidence: High.”

Keep the loop tight: small tasks + clear labels = faster action and steady improvement. That clarity builds student trust and frees you up to coach the big moves.

[Author]

Posts