Implementing peer feedback: potentials and
challengesDavid Carless
HKU, November 23, 2016http://davidcarless.edu.hku.hk/
The University of Hong Kong
Overview
1. Feedback processes
2. Peer feedback rationales
3. Our recent research
4. Challenges & Implications
The University of Hong Kong
Aim of talk
To discuss salient issues for effective implementation of peer feedback
The University of Hong Kong
SITUATING FEEDBACK
The University of Hong Kong
The University of Hong Kong
Productive assessment task design
Understanding quality in the discipline
Student engagement with feedback
Learning-oriented assessment framework (Carless, 2015a)
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
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
INTRODUCING PEER FEEDBACK
The University of Hong Kong
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 pointLearners 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
RATIONALE FOR PEER FEEDBACK
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 onown performance
Potentially timely & sustainable
The University of Hong Kong
Technology-enabled PFLMS
PeerMark
Web 2.0
The University of Hong Kong
FOUR KEY STUDIES
The University of Hong Kong
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
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
The University of Hong Kong
3. Varying response to PFNot all students buy in to PF Gains from reading others’ texts
Passive involvement
(Yu & Lee, 2015)
The University of Hong Kong
The University of Hong Kong
4. Feedback on PF• Receivers of PF gave feedback to
providers (Kim, 2009)• Enhanced motivation & performance
The University of Hong Kong
OUR RECENT RESEARCH
The University of Hong Kong
Qiyun Zhu (Judy) The University of Hong Kong
ContextYear 1 university EFL class
200 students, 5 teachers
Peer review of writing
Sustained observations, interviews
The University of Hong Kong
Preparation No or minimal training
PF sheet / guiding questions
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 explain how to complete the feedback form
The University of Hong Kong
Implications Importance of dialogue between peers
Role of teacher in PF on writing?
The University of Hong Kong
Yueting Xu (Tracey) The University of Hong Kong
ContextYear 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 findingsStudents 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
PEER FEEDBACK CHALLENGES
The University of Hong Kong
Discussion
In your view/experience, what are the major challenges in carrying out PF? And 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
Implications 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 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.Kim, M. (2009). The impact of an elaborated assessee’s 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.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.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
QUESTIONSCOMMENTS
The University of Hong Kong
Less can be More
Information Action
The University of Hong Kong
Closing feedback loops
It’s only feedback if students take some action
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
Merry, Price, Carless, & Taras (2013)
The University of Hong Kong
Top Related