From Deficit to Growth: A Guide to Asset-Based Feedback and Rubric Design

I remember the first time I received a paper from my English teacher covered in red ink. Every comment highlighted something I had done wrong. The feedback focused on everything I misunderstood, failed to include, or needed to fix. There wasn’t a single note about what I had done well. I stared at my paper, scanning it for a word of encouragement. Nothing. I left class feeling defeated and discouraged.

Even though I remember how terrible I felt receiving that feedback, I gave my students feedback the same way for years. Why? It was what I thought I was supposed to do as a teacher. Because of my experiences in school, I assumed that it was my job to highlight what was wrong so students could fix it. I thought I was helping my students by being clear and identifying everything they needed to work on. I assumed that pointing out their mistakes was what good teachers do. Though well-intentioned, I didn’t consider how my language reinforced a deficit mindset. It was undermining their confidence and negatively impacting their perception of themselves as learners.

I didn’t know then what I know now: that the words we choose in our feedback, rubrics, conversations, and comments have the power to either build our learners up or shut them down.

Shifting from Deficit to Asset-Based Language

The words we use as educators can shape how students view themselves as learners. It impacts how they view their abilities and potential. When we operate from a deficit-based lens, we focus on what students lack—what is missing, incorrect, or underdeveloped. This often sounds like:

• Unclear.
• Awkward wording.
• Lacks detail.
• Didn’t follow directions.

These phrases may be factually accurate, but they center on the students’ shortcomings rather than their strengths or growth. Over time, this kind of language can reinforce a fixed mindset and erode their confidence.

By contrast, asset-based language centers on what students can do, what they are showing us, and how they can continue to build and develop. It focuses on progress, potential, and the individual learner’s assets. This might sound like:

• You’ve made a strong point here. How might you reword this sentence to make it even clearer?
• You’ve chosen a strong example. Let’s work on developing your explanation further.
• You’re beginning to engage with the text in a meaningful way.
• You’re asking great questions that show you’re thinking deeply about the topic.

Shifting from deficit to asset-based language isn’t about sugar-coating feedback or avoiding hard truths. It’s about how we frame learning as an ongoing journey rather than a fixed destination. The goal is to support student growth by reinforcing their belief in their ability to improve and providing clear, actionable next steps. By shifting our language this way, we help develop a growth mindset, foster a stronger sense of belonging, and nurture self-efficacy.

Feedback Through an Asset-Based Lens

Feedback is more than a comment in the margins or a score at the top of the page. It is one of the most powerful tools we have to shape students’ perceptions of themselves as learners.

Carol Dweck’s (2008; 2015) research on motivation and mindset makes this clear: when feedback focuses on effort, strategy, and growth, students are more likely to persevere and engage deeply. By contrast, feedback focusing only on errors or shortcomings can reinforce a fixed mindset and erode students’ confidence over time.

So, what does giving feedback through an asset-based lens look like?

From Critique to Coaching: A Feedback Reframe

Deficit-based feedback often sounds like critique, focused on what’s missing or incorrect. Asset-based feedback, by contrast, functions more like coaching. It highlights what’s working, identifies specific areas for development, and helps students take the next step in their learning.

When we view feedback as a coaching session rather than a justification for a grade, we step more fully into our role as facilitators of learning. This mindset shift reminds us to meet students where they are, celebrate their progress, and guide them forward as they wrestle with complex concepts and work toward mastering specific skills.

Below are classroom examples of deficit-based feedback with an asset-based alternative:

Feedback Frame

Our comments may imply a binary “right” or “wrong.” But learning is nonlinear, and our language should reflect that. Instead of “This isn’t right,” “You’re on the right track. Let’s try another approach here.” Below is a feedback frame educators can use to guide them in transitioning to asset-based feedback.

Too often, feedback is given after the finished products have been submitted, and, as a result, it feels more like a final verdict on the quality of a student’s work. Feedback often takes the form of comments scribbled into the margins or a score on a rubric. However, when we shift our mindset and treat feedback like an ongoing conversation about learning, we invite students into the learning process.

That doesn’t mean we need to write long narratives on every paper. In fact, feedback is more effective for students and more manageable for teachers when we focus on one meaningful suggestion at a time. Instead of overwhelming students with a list of everything that needs fixing, we offer a clear, actionable next step. This approach not only saves time, but it reinforces the message that learning is a process. To read more about effective feedback, check out my blog “How and When to Give Feedback.”

Rubric Design That Reflects Student Assets

Just like feedback, the language we use on our rubrics also impacts how students view themselves. When students read the criteria used to evaluate their work, they’re not just interpreting expectations—they’re internalizing messages about what we value, what we notice, and how we believe growth happens.

Many rubrics use deficit-based language, like “below standard,” “incomplete,” or “needs improvement.” While these labels are intended to communicate where students fall on a continuum, they frame performance in terms of what students lack instead of what they are showing us. A more affirming and growth-oriented alternative is to use a progression like: emerging, developing, approaching, extending, or beginning, developing, proficiency, mastery.

An asset-based approach to rubric design emphasizes clarity, growth, and empowerment. Use the checklist below to reflect on whether your rubric is aligned with these values:

• Uses descriptive, student-friendly language to make expectations clear. Avoid jargon or vague phrases. Make sure students can read and understand each explanation, so they know what it means and what to do next.
• Frames each criterion in terms of what students are doing. Describe what is present in student work at each level of mastery, not just what is missing, incomplete, or underdeveloped.
• Focuses on observable skills and behaviors. Use specific, measurable language that reflects student effort, strategy, and learning.
• Uses progressive, non-evaluative performance labels. Replace terms like “below standard” with growth-oriented language.
• Supports self-assessment and goal setting. Design rubrics so students can use them to ask and reflect on the following questions: Where am I now? What am I doing well? What’s one thing I can focus on to grow?

To see this shift in action, let’s look at a sample rubric rewritten through an asset-based lens. The first version uses traditional, deficit-based language, while the second reflects a more growth-oriented, student-centered approach.

Original Deficit-based Rubric

Revised Asset-based Rubric

Revising all of our existing rubrics to reflect asset-based language can feel daunting, especially when time is already limited. However, AI makes this process much more manageable. With a well-crafted prompt, you can quickly transform deficit-based language into affirming, growth-oriented phrasing that better supports student learning. It’s a simple but powerful way to align your values with your tools.

💡Tech Tip: Use AI to Transform Deficit-Based Rubric Language

If you’re working with an older rubric or struggling to reword phrases using asset-based language, AI can be a helpful revision partner. Try using a prompt like,

Act as a rubric designer and help me revise this rubric for student writing in [insert grade level and subject area]. Please replace deficit-based or overly evaluative language with asset-based, student-friendly language highlighting what students are doing and how they can grow. Use performance level labels that reflect learning as a continuum (e.g., Emerging, Developing, Demonstrating, Extending). Make sure each level clearly describes observable skills or behaviors and supports student self-assessment and goal setting.

You can also paste the language from a single row of text from the rubric into an AI chatbot and ask for suggestions. It’s a quick way to refresh your language and make your rubrics a useful tool aligned to your values as a facilitator or coach, not an evaluator of performance.

Wrap Up

Shifting from deficit-based to asset-based language isn’t simply semantics. It is about rethinking the messages we send students about who they are, what they are capable of, and what it means to be a learner. Whether we are giving feedback on work in progress, designing rubrics, or engaging students in conversations about their progress, the language we use can stifle or support their beliefs in their abilities.

This shift also aligns with the principles of Universal Design for Learning (UDL), which strives to design learning experiences that are inclusive, accessible, and affirming for all students. Asset-based language honors learner variability, values growth and effort, and helps all students see a path forward no matter where they begin in their individual learning journeys.

As educators, we are not just teaching content. We are also shaping mindsets. The words we choose and use matter.

Dweck, C. S. (2008). Mindsets: How praise is harming youth and what can be done about it. School Library Media Activities Monthly, 24(5), 55-58.
Dweck, C. (2015). Carol Dweck revisits the growth mindset. Education Week, 35(5), 20-24