Formative assessment and peer feedback

download Formative assessment and peer feedback

If you can't read please download the document

  • date post

    06-May-2015
  • Category

    Education

  • view

    387
  • download

    0

Embed Size (px)

description

Presentation on formative assessment and peer feedback: what is it, why use is and what guidelines have to be respected by teachers and peers. With two examples to illustrate how the process can be set up.

Transcript of Formative assessment and peer feedback

  • 1.Peer feedback for formative assessment What is it, why use it and how to make it work

2. ISABELLE LANGEVELDBLENDED LEARNING ARCHITECT AND MOODLE CONSULTANT 3. Introduction of assignment Context: what and why of peer assessment Short discussion to discover your attitude How to improve the quality of (peer) feedback How to set it up Discussion of example of peer feedback on Master thesis Our own peer feedback process 4. assignment why? RUTH COLVIN CLARKCONTENT COVEREDCONTENT LEARNED 5. DESIGN AN ASSIGNMENT FOR PEER ASSESSMENT WORK OUT ON PAPER DURING PRESENTATION: ARGUE CHOICE FOR PEER FEEDBACK SO YOU CAN EXPLAIN IT TO STUDENTS WHAT IS THE PRODUCT TO BE SUBMITTED FB ON WHAT LEVEL OF IMPACT FORMATIVE AND/OR SUMMATIVE HOW YOU ORGANISE THE PROCESS: - GROUPING - CONTROL - OTHER SETTINGS ON CONTROL PANEL - WHICH ACTIVITY IN MOODLE (FORUM, WORKSHOP, WIKI) - ETC = INPUT FOR PEER FEEDBACK WITHIN YOUR TEAM 6. FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT PEER FEEDBACK PEER ASSESSMENTWHAT IS ITBLENDED ENVIRONMENT 7. FEEDBACK IS INFORMATION THAT HELPS A STUDENT TO NAVIGATE THE GAPBETWEEN WHERE HE IS AND WHERE HE IS MEANT TO BE IN TERMS OF UNDERSTANDING AND PERFORMANCE 8. FEEDBACK: HOW AM I DOING SO FAR? FEED UP: WHERE AM I GOING?CLEAR AND CHALLENGING GOALFEED FORWARD: WHERE AM I GOING NEXT?UNDERSTANDABLE CRITERIAPOSSIBILITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT 9. SOURCES OF FEEDBACK S E L F 10. PRODU CTWhen useful?NOT REPRODUCTIVE LEARNING 11. Why?BLOOMS TAXONOMY NO TEACHER/LESS WORK FOR HER/MORE FB FOR STUDENTSTRANSFER OF FEEDBACK SKILLS TO THE WORKPLACE 12. COMPARABLE LEVEL OF ACADEMIC SKILLS AND MOTIVATIONOVERLAP IN DOMAIN INTEREST 13. 1 Extra work for the teacher in organizing peer feedback is compensated by higher student achievementsTRUEFALSE 14. 2 HIGH PROFICIENCY STUDENTS PROFIT less FROM PEER FEEDBACK THAN STUDENTS WITH LOWER PROFICIENCYTRUEFALSE 15. 3 who has ever tried it?YESNO 16. JOHN HATTIEProfessor of Education at Auckland University, New Zealand 17. CONCLUSIONS OF HIS META-ANALYSIS: IT DOESNT ALWAYS WORK EFFECT IS variableh! u DUNDER SOME CONDITIONS, FEEDBACK INFORMATION HAD no EFFECT OR EVEN DEBILITATED PERFORMANCE FEEDBACK has twice the average effect ON ACHIEVEMENT OF ALL OTHER EFFECTS OF SCHOOLING INTERVENTIONS 18. FEEDBACK SHOULD NOT BE GIVEN IN A VACUUMCONTENT/ INSTRUCTION PRODUCT/ PROCESSASSIGNMENT/ GOAL FEEDBACK 19. FOUR LEVELS4. ON SELFAM I A NICE, DILIGENT, ABLE PERSON3. SELFREGULATIONAM I ORGANISING AND EVALUATING MY LEARNING PROPERLY2. PROCESSIS MY TASK APPROACH APPROPRIATE AND WELL EXECUTED1. RESULT OF TASKIS IT CORRECT/ DO I MEET THE CRITERIAOF FEEDBACK 20. What else to think aboutGIVING IS NOT RECEIVING HOME CULTURE GROUP CULTURE: IS IT OKAY TO MAKE ERRORS AND SHOW DOUBT 21. Power of peers, feedback can: BE A WONDERFUL INSIGHT THE TEACHER HAD NEVER THOUGHT OF HAVE A POSITIVE INFLUENCE ON COMMITMENT+JAZZ UP LEARNERS REPUTATION, THEIR SELFESTEEM AND SELFEFFICACYBE INCORRECT, TEACHER HAS TO MONITOR BE CONSIDERED HURTFUL, TEACHER HAS TO FOSTER A WARM AND INQUISITIVE CLIMATE DAMAGE LEARNERS REPUTATION IF CRITICISM AND PRAISE ARE OUT OF BALANCE- 22. FOCUS ON TASK, NOT LEARNER PROMOTE LEARNING GOAL ORIENTATIONreduce uncertainty between performance and goalsafter instruction, building on prior knowledgeIN MANAGEABLE UNITSPROVIDE ELABORATED FB POS + NEGWRITTEN WITH CARETIMELY, BEFORE FRUSTRATION TAKES OVERUNBIASED AND OBJECTIve discussed in equal dialogueBE SPECIFIC, CLEAR, SIMPLE AS POSSIBLE 23. EXAMPLE COURSERA 1 24. EXAMPLE COURSERA 2 RUBRICS 25. EXAMPLE COURSERA 3 FEEDBACKHOW DO YOU EVALUATE THE QUALITY? 26. Setting up peer assesment 27. TUNING SETTINGSoutcomewhatwho/weight of grade feedbacksummativeformativehowgradeprocessproductopenwhenpeershowhowopenselfcriteria/ checklistoralwrittenobligationteacherHOWANONYMOUSPUBLICCONTROL GROUPING MOODLEduringfinaloptionalcompulsorySTUDENTTEACHER 28. LETHELP YOU 29. Stage 1- Online WhatIdea for research topic and concept problem statementHow in MoodlePersonal discussion thread in ForumGroupingWhole classFB CriteriaBrief reflection on relevance and feasibilityControlStudents are free to choose who to provide feedback 30. Stage 2 - Online WhatProblem statement, scope, research strategy, referencesHow in MoodleWorkshop, with built-in criteria and planned phases for upload and feedbackGroupingFb to a 3 peers, settings in WorkshopFB CriteriaElaborate and concrete fb on all parts of proposalControlSettings in Workshop: who provides fb to whom is randomly distributed 31. Stage 3 - Live WhatAdapted problem statement, scope, research strategy, referencesHowPlenary session, expert provides additional fb and discusses most instructive examples (after peer review phase is closed)GroupingPlenaryFB CriteriaSame: Elaborate and concrete fb on all parts of proposalControlTutor organizes the session 32. Stage 4 - Online WhatProduct conceptHowAnnotation Tool (outside of Moodle: assembles comments and allows discussion between commentators, grading of comments. Random evaluation by expertsGroupingSmall group of st with comparable domainFB CriteriaDetailed comments on argumentation, structure, readability, use of references, interpretation of findingsControlSt choose who they give fb, tutor monitors distribution of tasks 33. Stage 5 - Online WhatFinal productHow in MoodleAssignment (submit file)GroupingIf a student needs it: small group of st with comparable domainFB CriteriaDetailed comments on argumentation, structure, readability, use of references, interpretation of findingsControlTutor 34. Our feedback experiment Work in a trioGive your paper to your neighbour and ask him/her to focus on 2 aspects (3) Write your comments on a separate paper with the focus your neighbour asked for, try to use the guidelines (5-10) Repeat once (5-10) Compare the fb you received, discuss with your peers (5 per product - 15) Evaluate the outcomes and the process (10)