Download - HKBU Peer Feedback May 2017
Overview
1. Key feedback concepts
2. Peer feedback rationales
3. Our recent relevant research
4. Challenges & Implications
The University of Hong Kong
Aim of talk
To discuss how peer feedback might be
implemented effectively
The University of Hong Kong
Are you …
• A peer feedback enthusiast?
• An occasional implementer?
• Someone who hasn’t yet tried peer feedback?
The University of Hong Kong
Wider feedback issuesFeedback as assessment design issue
Feedback as pedagogic issue
Feedback as relational issue
The University of Hong Kong
Dialogic feedback
Feedback needs to generate dialogue (especially with self or peers)
The University of Hong Kong
Key aim of feedback
To enhance student ability to self-monitor their work in progress
The University of Hong Kong
Sustainable feedback
Students generating & using feedback from peers, self (or teachers) as part of self-regulated learning
(Carless et al., 2011)
The University of Hong Kong
Defining peer feedback (PF)
“A communication process through which learners enter into dialogues related to performance & standards” (Liu & Carless, 2006, p. 280)
peer review: (Nicol et al., 2014)
peer response: (Liu & Hansen, 2002)
The University of Hong Kong
A key point
Learners often gain more from composing PF than from receiving it
(Lundstrom & Baker, 2009; Nicol et al., 2014; Yu & Lee, 2015)
The University of Hong Kong
General rationale
• Feedback processes should encourage student dialogue
• Feedback needs to be sustainable
The University of Hong Kong
Specific Rationale
Involve students in dialogue
around the quality of work
Help students to reflect on
own performance
Potentially timely &
sustainable
The University of Hong Kong
1. To give is better than to receive
Students taught to give PF improved writing more than students taught to use PF
Explanation: You review in your own ZPD but may not receive in your ZPD
(Lundstrom & Baker, 2009)
The University of Hong Kong
2. Higher order thinking
• Composing PF is cognitively engaging:
- Applying criteria
- Diagnosing problems
- Suggesting solutions
(Nicol et al., 2014)
The University of Hong Kong
3. Varying response to PF
Not all students buy in to PF
Gains from reading others’ texts
Passive involvement
(Yu & Lee, 2015)
The University of Hong Kong
4. Modelling & training
2 hours of modelling global peer feedback processes
+
30 minute ‘feedback on peer feedback’ individual tutorial
(Min, 2006)
The University of Hong Kong
Context
Year 1 university EFL class
200 students, 5 teachers
Peer review of writing
Sustained observations, interviews
The University of Hong Kong
Selected positive findings
• Written peer feedback then
oral dialogue
• Timeliness, immediacy,
negotiation
The University of Hong Kong
Selected negative findings
• Partner not enthusiastic, perfunctory
• Comments were vague & general
• Teacher should provide more guidance
The University of Hong Kong
Implications
Importance of dialogue between peers
Scaffolding by teacher
The University of Hong Kong
Context
Year 1 university EFL class
57 students, 1 ‘excellent’ teacher
PF on oral presentations
Sustained observations, interviews
The University of Hong Kong
Preparation
• PF & wider aims of university study
• Discussed video of OP
• Introduced criteria, esp. content
• Modelled giving PF
The University of Hong Kong
Positive findings
Students more engaged
Enhanced audience awareness
Focused on content
Facilitates teacher feedback
on PF
The University of Hong Kong
Challenges
• Reticence & uncertainty at outset
• Comments inaudible or difficult to understand
• Not easy to get students to be critical
The University of Hong Kong
Implications
• ‘Only true friends could be cruelly honest’
• Need for both cognitive scaffolding & social-affective support
(Xu & Carless, 2016)
The University of Hong Kong
Discussion
In your opinion, what are the main challenges in carrying out PF?
How might they be tackled?
The University of Hong Kong
Main challenges
• Students don’t take it seriously
• Poor quality PF
• Students prefer teacher feedback
• Lack of teacher assessment &
feedback literacy
The University of Hong Kong
Communication
Rationales
The University of Hong Kong
Potential benefits
Processes
Tackling challenges
The role of trust
Feedback is a social and relational act:
importance of trust (Carless, 2013)
The University of Hong Kong
Recommended PF practice
• Sell rationale & benefits to students
• Communicate gains for ‘giver’
• Provide training, modeling & support
• Encourage collaborative climate
The University of Hong Kong
ReferencesCarless, D. (2013). Trust and its role in facilitating dialogic feedback. In D. Boud & L. Molloy (Eds.), Feedback in Higher
and Professional Education: Understanding it and doing it well (pp. 90-103). London: Routledge.
Carless, D. (2015a). Exploring learning-oriented assessment processes. Higher Education, 69(6), 963-976.
Carless, D. (2015b). Excellence in University Assessment: learning from award-winning teachers. London: Routledge.
Carless, D., Salter, D., Yang, M., & Lam, J. (2011). Developing sustainable feedback practices. Studies in Higher Education, 36 (4) 395-407.
Liu, J., & Hansen, J. G. (2002). Peer response in second language writing classrooms. Michigan: University of Michigan Press.
Liu, N.F. & Carless, D. (2006) Peer feedback: the learning element of peer assessment, Teaching in Higher Education, 11 (3), 279-290.
Lundstrom, K., & Baker, K. (2009). To give is better than to receive: The benefits of peer review to the reviewer’s own writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(1), 30-43.
Min, H.T. (2006). The effects of trained peer review on EFL students’ revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 118-141.
Nicol, D., Thomson, A., & Breslin, C. (2014). Rethinking feedback practices in higher education: a peer review perspective. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(1), 102–122.
Xu, Y. & Carless, D. (2016). ‘Only true friends could be cruelly honest’: cognitive scaffolding and social-affective support in teacher feedback literacy, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, DOI:
10.1080/02602938.2016.1226759.
Yu, S., & Lee, I. (2015). Understanding EFL students’ participation in group peer feedback of L2 writing: A case study from an activity theory perspective. Language Teaching Research, 19(5), 572-593.
The University of Hong Kong
Sustainable feedback defined
“Active student participation in dialogic activities in which students generate and use feedback from peers, self or others as part of an ongoing process of developing capacities as autonomous self-regulating learners” (Carless, 2013b)
The University of Hong Kong