# The wise-feedback sentence

Version 1.0, August 2026.

## The sentence

> I am giving you this feedback because I have high standards and I know you can meet them.

That is the whole intervention. It goes at the top of critical written feedback, before the critique, not after it.

## The two parts, and why both are needed

The sentence does two things at once, and dropping either one breaks it.

**It names the standard.** The student learns that the volume of criticism reflects the bar, not their distance below it.

**It attributes the criticism to belief in their capacity.** Without this, critical feedback is ambiguous. The student has to decide whether you are correcting the work or assessing the person, and students who have reason to expect the second reading will take it.

A version that says only "great effort, keep going" does the opposite of what is wanted: it signals a low bar. A version that says only "this does not meet the standard" leaves the attribution open.

## Where it goes in the syllabus

From the EPI 601 (Fall 2026) syllabus, feedback and revision section:

> All feedback on graded work in this course uses wise feedback framing. When you receive comments on your work, they are accompanied by the explicit message: "I am giving you this feedback because I have high standards and I believe you can meet them." This is not a formula; it reflects the genuine belief that every student in this course can grow as an epidemiologic thinker through effort and targeted practice.

Saying it in the syllabus matters more than it looks. If the sentence appears for the first time on a paper you covered in red ink, it reads as a softener. If students were told in week one that this is how feedback works in this course, it reads as the policy it is.

## The three rules

**Do not use it when it is not true.** If you do not believe a particular student can meet the standard, the sentence is a lie and you have larger problems than feedback framing. Do not write it.

**Do not attach it to feedback with nothing actionable in it.** The sentence commits you to having said what specifically to do. Pair it with concrete revision guidance or drop it.

**Do not vary it to sound fresh.** Rewording it each time to avoid repetition converts a stated policy into a stylistic flourish. Use the same sentence.

## Pairing it with a revision opportunity

The sentence asserts that improvement is possible. If nothing in your course lets a student act on that, students will notice the mismatch faster than you will.

From the EPI 601 syllabus:

> After each exam is returned with feedback, students may submit a one-page written correction of their two weakest answers within one week for up to 50% credit recovery on those items. This policy reflects the course's commitment to growth: the goal is to learn the material, not to penalize a single poor performance.

One revisable assignment is enough. It does not have to be the largest one.

## Language for the rest of the feedback

Small consistent choices, used throughout rather than once:

- "not yet" rather than "wrong" where the work is on a path
- "still developing" rather than "weak"
- Name what to do next, not only what went wrong. "Your limitations paragraph names three limitations without saying which way each one biases the estimate" is usable. "Limitations section is superficial" is not.

## Cost

Two minutes to add to a syllabus. Zero marginal minutes per assignment once the sentence is boilerplate at the top of your feedback template. The revision cycle is the part with real cost: roughly one additional grading pass on one assignment per semester.