Solid Course Content, but Assessment Policy Undermines Constructive Feedback
I completed the 10-Hour Specialist Course: "Teaching Neurodivergent Students in an EFL Setting." The TEFL Org's curriculum and core reading materials were informative and practical. The syllabus covered essential classroom topics—such as Universal Design for Learning (UDL), sensory adaptations, and tailored classroom management strategies—giving teachers actionable frameworks for inclusive learning. However, the institution's marking and feedback framework has a fundamental pedagogical flaw. When an initial assignment submission is returned due to automated or suspected AI flagging, the institution's official policy—confirmed directly by executive leadership—is to withhold all substantive pedagogical feedback on that first attempt until a resubmission is uploaded. The stated reasoning is that instructors do not provide feedback on work they cannot definitively authenticate as independent. Pedagogically, this creates a counterproductive loop: Students whose work is flagged as structured or polished receive no margin notes or constructive guidance on the subject matter. Students are forced to resubmit blind, guessing which specific instructional concepts need adjustment rather than learning through targeted teacher feedback. Once a second draft is submitted and passed, the educational window to discuss and learn from the initial attempt is completely lost. Good curriculum and clear study modules, but authentic feedback must guide the learning process from day one, not merely appear at the finish line.
Photos





































