peer feedback dialogues

Developing dialogic feedback processes through peer reviewProfessor David CarlessGuangdong University of Foreign Studies13th October, 2016

OverviewKey feedback processes & issuesPeer feedback rationaleSelect literature reviewOur recent research Challenges & Implications

Marking overload

Aim of talk To discuss salient issues for effective implementation of peer feedback

*

My definition of feedback A dialogic process in which learners make sense of information from varied sources and use it to enhance the quality of their work or learning strategies.

Carless (2015a, p.192)

Defining peer feedback (PF) An arrangement whereby students evaluate and make judgments about the work of their peers (Nicol et al., 2014, p. 104)(peer review)

(peer response: Liu & Hansen, 2002*)

A key pointLearners often gain more from composing PF than from receiving it

(Lundstrom & Baker, 2009*; Nicol et al., 2014; Yu & Lee, 2015*)

SITUATING FEEDBACK & PEER FEEDBACK

Learning-oriented assessment framework (Carless, 2015b)

Bigger pictureFeedback as assessment design issue

Feedback as a pedagogical issue

Feedback as a relational issue

Key aim of feedback To enhance student ability to self-monitor their work in progress

*

Less can be More

RATIONALE FOR PEER FEEDBACK + FOUR KEY STUDIES

Rationale Involve students in dialogue around the quality of work

Help students to reflect onown performance

Potentially plentiful & timely

1. To give is better than to receive Students taught to give PF, improved writing more than students taught to use PF

You review in your own ZPD but you may not receive in your ZPD

Lundstrom & Baker, 2009*

2. Higher order thinkingComposing PF is cognitively engaging:

Applying criteriaDiagnosing problemsSuggesting solutions

(Nicol et al., 2014)

3. Varying motives for PFNot all students buy in to PF Gains from reading others texts

Passive involvement

Yu & Lee, 2015*

4. Feedback on PFReceivers of PF gave feedback to providers (Kim, 2009)Enhanced motivation & performance

OUR RECENT RESEARCH

Qiyun Zhu (Judy)

ContextYear 1 university EFL class

200 students, 5 teachers

Peer review of writing

Sustained observations, interviews

Preparation No or minimal training

PF sheet / guiding questions

Selected positive findingsWritten peer feedback then

oral dialogueTimeliness, immediacy,

negotiation

I realised its not that my idea was wrong but I didnt express it clearly

Selected negative findingsPartner not enthusiastic, perfunctoryComments were vague & general

The teacher should have explained how to complete the formWhat does the teacher think

about our peer feedback?

Implications Importance of interaction between peers

PF as preparation for feedback from teacher

Yueting Xu (Tracey)

ContextYear 1 university EFL class

57 students, 1 excellent teacher

PF on oral presentations

Sustained observations, interviews

Preparation Positioned PF within wider goals of university studyDiscussed video of OP in classIntroduced assessment criteria, including content, audience awareness, pacing etcModelled how to give PF

Positive findingsStudents more engaged

Enhanced audience awareness

Focused on content

Enables teacher feedback on PF

ChallengesReticence & uncertainty at outset

Comments inaudible or difficult to understand

Not easy to get students to be critical

Implications Interplay between cognitive scaffolding & social-affective supportTeacher feedback literacy to support development of student feedback literacy

(Xu & Carless, 2016)

PEER FEEDBACK CHALLENGES

Discussion

In your view/experience, what are the major challenges in carrying out PF?

Negative experiencesStudents dont take it seriously

Poor quality PF

Students prefer teacher feedback

Lack of teacher assessment & feedback literacy

Conclusions

CommunicationRationalesPotential benefitsProcessesTackling challenges

Good PF practice Sell rationale to students

Communicate gains for giver

Provide some training & support

Feedback literacyNeed for further development of teacher assessment & feedback literacy

seeding student assessment & feedback literacy

(Xu & Brown, 2016) (Xu & Carless, 2016)

ReferencesCarless, D. (2015a). Excellence in University Assessment: learning from award-winning teachers. London: Routledge. Carless, D. (2015b). Exploring learning-oriented assessment processes. Higher Education, 69(6), 963-976.Kim, M. (2009). The impact of an elaborated assessees role in peer assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(1), 105-114Liu, J., & Hansen, J. G. (2002). Peer response in second language writing classrooms. Michigan: University of Michigan Press.Lundstrom, K., & Baker, K. (2009). To give is better than to receive: The benefits of peer review to the reviewers own writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(1), 30-43.Nicol, D., Thomson, A., & Breslin, C. (2014). Rethinking feedback practices in higher education: a peer review perspective. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(1), 102122. Xu, Y., & Brown, G. T. L. (2016). Teacher assessment literacy in practice: A reconceptualization. Teaching and Teacher Education, 58, 149-162. 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.

THANK YOU

*

*