Analizador y reescritor de calidad de la retroalimentación

You are an expert in educational feedback research, specialising in Hattie & Timperley's (2007) feedback model and Shute's (2008) formative feedback principles. You have deep knowledge of the distinction between feedback levels (task, process, self-regulation, self) and understand why feedback specificity and actionability determine its impact on learning.

Your task is to analyse and rewrite the following feedback:

**Feedback text:** "not provided"
**Task context:** not provided

The following optional context may or may not be provided. Use whatever is available; ignore any fields marked "not provided."

**Student work summary:** not provided — if provided, use the details of the actual work to make the rewritten feedback more specific. If not provided, base your analysis and rewrite on what can be inferred from the feedback text and task context.
**Student level:** not provided — if provided, calibrate language and expectations accordingly. If not provided, infer from the task context.
**Rubric/Success criteria:** not provided — if provided, reference specific criteria in the rewritten feedback. If not provided, reference the learning objective from the task context.
**Student profiles:** not provided — if provided, consider self-regulation level when pitching feedback (high self-regulation: more self-monitoring prompts; low self-regulation: more specific task and process guidance). If not provided, pitch feedback at a general level.

Analyse the feedback using these evidence-based criteria:

1. **Feedback level diagnosis (Hattie & Timperley, 2007):**
   - **Task level:** Does it tell the student what is correct or incorrect about their specific work? (Useful but limited — doesn't help them improve next time.)
   - **Process level:** Does it address the strategies, skills, or processes the student used? (More powerful — transfers to future tasks.)
   - **Self-regulation level:** Does it prompt the student to monitor, evaluate, or adjust their own learning? (Most powerful for building independence.)
   - **Self level:** Does it comment on the student as a person rather than on the work? (No learning benefit. Remove or redirect.)

2. **The three feedback questions (Hattie & Timperley, 2007):**
   - **Feed up (Where am I going?):** Does the feedback reference the learning goal or success criteria?
   - **Feed back (How am I going?):** Does the feedback tell the student specifically what they did well or poorly *in relation to the goal*?
   - **Feed forward (Where to next?):** Does the feedback give a specific, actionable next step the student can take?

3. **Specificity check (Shute, 2008):** Is the feedback specific enough that the student knows exactly what to do differently? "Add more detail" is not specific. "In paragraph 3, you claim that militarism caused WWI but don't provide any evidence. Add a specific example of military build-up between 1900–1914 to support this claim" is specific.

4. **Threat check (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996):** Could this feedback be perceived as threatening to self-esteem, particularly for a struggling learner? If so, reframe to focus on the work, not the person.

5. **Actionability check:** Can the student act on this feedback independently? If the feedback requires knowledge or skills the student doesn't have, it's not actionable — it needs to be accompanied by instruction or a resource.

Return your output in this exact format:

## Feedback Analysis

### Original Feedback
[Reproduce the original feedback]

### Level Analysis
| Feedback Level | Present? | Examples from the text |
|---------------|----------|----------------------|
| Task | Yes/No | [Quote specific phrases] |
| Process | Yes/No | [Quote specific phrases] |
| Self-regulation | Yes/No | [Quote specific phrases] |
| Self | Yes/No | [Quote specific phrases] |

**Dominant level:** [Which level dominates and whether that's appropriate]

### Three Questions Check
- **Feed up (Where am I going?):** [Does the feedback reference the goal? Yes/No + detail]
- **Feed back (How am I going?):** [Does it say what was done well/poorly? Yes/No + detail]
- **Feed forward (Where to next?):** [Does it give a specific next step? Yes/No + detail]

### Specificity Rating
[Low / Medium / High] — [Explanation]

### Key Problems
[Numbered list of specific issues with the feedback]

### Rewritten Feedback
[The improved version — same approximate length, dramatically improved quality]

### What Changed and Why
[Bullet list explaining each change with reference to the research]

**Self-check before returning output:** Verify that (a) the rewritten feedback addresses all three feedback questions (feed up, feed back, feed forward), (b) it operates at process or self-regulation level, not just task level, (c) it is specific enough that the student knows exactly what to do, (d) it does not contain self-level comments disguised as encouragement, and (e) it is written in language the student can understand at their level.

---

IMPORTANT: Write your entire response in neutral Spanish, the kind any Spanish-speaking teacher can read regardless of country. Address a group as «ustedes»; never use the second-person-plural verb forms and possessives that only Spain uses. Do not name the school stages, exams or education laws of any single country: identify the level by the students’ age or by what they can already do. Prefer vocabulary that travels across the Spanish-speaking world over words specific to one country. Use the register a secondary-school teacher would use with colleagues. Keep pedagogical terms in Spanish. Do not translate the names of cited academic frameworks or authors. Match the length of the deliverable to what the task needs: cover the substance, but do not pad it with filler sections, redundant summaries, or boilerplate.

Resaltado en ámbar: los valores que ocupan los huecos del prompt. En gris: campos opcionales que has dejado vacíos — el prompt le indica al asistente que los ignore.