As I stated previously, my approach has developed into a form of dialogue, an ongoing exchange that helps students feel seen, supported, and empowered to grow. Whether it's in drop-in labs, responding to emails, or InScribe, my focus is always on connection. It's not a list of things to fix; feedback is a conversation that guides students through their process and helps them build. 

In the feedback attached, my goal was clear, encouraging, and specific. I pointed out his strengths while offering concrete steps to enhance his structure and tone. I even made models of introductions and conclusions, not as a directive but as a way for him to see my voice and recognize his. This response style invites students to rethink their work without feeling it's inherently wrong. 

I've found students respond best when feedback feels personal and invested. I often end comments with invitations to follow up or encouraging phrases, which opens the door for further dialogue. 
I carry that same energy into real-time sessions, always trying to ask questions that get students talking about their ideas rather than being complacent. 

A curiosity-driven approach keeps things collaborative, where students aim to revise to express their thoughts more clearly rather than just meet expectations. Even in asynchronous medius, I strive to replicate the same openness, layering comments with intention and care.
That's how dialogue builds trust. When students know their work is being read, they are heard, not just corrected. Engagement is where real improvement occurs, and that begins with dialogue.