Upload
sol-srthku
View
238
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
PROMOTING PEER FEEDBACK IN COMPUTER-SUPPORTED
ENVIRONMENTSTimothy HEW Khe FoonSciences of Learning SeminarThe University of Hong Kong
February 12th 2015
OVERVIEW• Why computer-supported discussion?• Challenges of computer-supported
discussion• Promoting peer feedback• Sustaining peer feedback• Enhancing higher levels of peer feedback
WHAT DOES FEEDBACK MEAN?
• Building on David Carless…
As comments thatprovide information about performance
ORAs entering into dialogues (incl. questions)
around student work or topic being discussed
WHY COMPUTER-SUPPORTED DISCUSSION?
• Contemporary educational theory favors the use of peer learning environments that emphasize student feedback.
• Limitations of f2f classroom feedback• One possible solution – use of social technology
tools (e.g. asynchronous online discussion forums) enable students to interact beyond their classrooms settings
• I have been studying online forums since year 2000.
BUT FIRST…• How accurate is peer feedback?• Is it the case of the ‘blind leading the
blind’?• Peer feedback results correlate well with
instructor ratings in both conventional classrooms and online courses (e.g., Bouzidi & Jaillet, 2009)
TYPICAL PROBLEMS• Students hardly contribute in the forums (Hewitt,
2005; Wan & Johnson, 1994).• Students do not necessary give in-depth
feedback(Burt, Grady, & McMann, 1994; Bullen, 1998; Hew & Cheung, 2003; Khine, Yeap, & Tan, 2003; Landsman & Gorski, 2007).
AIM OF PRESENTATION• To share my findings as well as other scholars
conducted within the last 15 years:• How to increase peer feedback?• How to sustain peer feedback?• How to foster higher-levels of peer feedback?
MAIN RESULTS• 6 major motivators
• Type of discussion topic• Performance-linked incentive (e.g., award of
marks)• Personal gain• Social capital• Sense of enjoyment• Type of response from other participants
MAIN RESULTSTopics should be:• Should be open-ended • Preferably controversial• Directly relates to students’ experience or livelihoodRespondents should:• Give timely response (within 24 hours)• Reply courteously (e.g., agree to disagree if
necessary)• Limit length of response to the length of a typical
abstract (150-200 words)
A SYNTHESIS OF CURRENT LITERATURE
On promoting the number of peer feedback in a computer-supported discussion
SUSTAINING PEER FEEDBACK
• Why study “sustain”?• Sustained feedback, typically characterized by long
threads, help students to explore different perspectives, negotiate issues, and create mutual understandings.
MAIN FACTORS
HIGHER-LEVELS OF FEEDBACK
Level Description1 Mere sharing of ideas2 Exploring dissonance, disagreement among opinions3 Negotiating, identifying areas of agreement4 Testing statements against existing experiences, formal
data collected, and literature5 Applications of new knowledge, and students’ self-
reflective statement(s) that illustrate their knowledge or ways of thinking have changed as a result of the online interaction
Gunawardena, Lowe, & Anderson (1997)
MAIN FACTORS
A WORD ABOUT AUDIO FEEDBACK
MAIN FINDINGS
• Students generally prefer text-based to audio-based feedback
THANK YOU