Peer feedback dialogues

Developing dialogic feedback processes through

peer reviewProfessor David Carless

Guangdong University of Foreign Studies

13th October, 2016

The University of Hong Kong

Overview

1. Key feedback processes & issues

2. Peer feedback rationale

3. Select literature review

4. Our recent research

5. Challenges & Implications

The University of Hong Kong

Marking overload

The University of Hong Kong

Aim of talk

To discuss salient issues for effective implementation of peer feedback

The University of Hong Kong

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)

The University of Hong Kong

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*)

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

SITUATING FEEDBACK & PEER 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, 2015b)

Bigger pictureFeedback as assessment design issue

Feedback as a pedagogical issue

Feedback as a relational issue

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

Less can be More

The University of Hong Kong

RATIONALE FOR PEER FEEDBACK + FOUR KEY STUDIES

The University of Hong Kong

Rationale Involve students in dialogue around the quality of work

Help students to reflect onown performance

Potentially plentiful & timely

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

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

Lundstrom & Baker, 2009*

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

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

Passive involvement

Yu & Lee, 2015*

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

• “I realised it’s not that my idea was wrong but I didn’t express it clearly”

The University of Hong Kong

Selected negative findings• Partner not enthusiastic, perfunctory• Comments were vague & general

• The teacher should have explained how to complete the form

• What does the teacher think about our peer feedback?

The University of Hong Kong

Implications • Importance of interaction between peers

• PF as preparation for feedback from teacher

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 • Positioned PF within wider goals of

university study• Discussed video of OP in class• Introduced assessment criteria, including

content, audience awareness, pacing etc• Modelled how to give PF

The University of Hong Kong

Positive findingsStudents more engaged

Enhanced audience awareness

Focused on content

Enables 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 • Interplay between cognitive scaffolding &

social-affective support• Teacher feedback literacy to support

development of student feedback literacy(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?

The University of Hong Kong

Negative experiences• Students don’t take it seriously

• Poor quality PF

• Students prefer teacher feedback

Lack of teacher assessment & feedback literacy

The University of Hong Kong

Conclusions The University of Hong Kong

Communication

Rationales

The University of Hong Kong

Potential benefits

Processes

Tackling challenges

Good PF practice• Sell rationale to students

• Communicate gains for ‘giver’

• Provide some training & support

The University of Hong Kong

Feedback literacy• Need for further development of teacher

assessment & feedback literacy …

• … seeding student assessment & feedback literacy

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

The University of Hong Kong

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 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.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., & 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.

The University of Hong Kong

THANK YOU

The University of Hong Kong

The University of Hong Kong