Peer feedback dialogues

download Peer feedback dialogues

If you can't read please download the document

  • date post

    15-Apr-2017
  • Category

    Education

  • view

    212
  • download

    0

Embed Size (px)

Transcript of 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

  • *

    *