peer feedback dialogues
Post on 15-Apr-2017
258 views
Embed Size (px)
TRANSCRIPT
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
*
*