HKBU Peer Feedback May 2017

Making peer feedback work

David Carless

Talk at HKBU, May 8, 2017

The University of Hong Kong

Overview

1. Key feedback concepts

2. Peer feedback rationales

3. Our recent relevant research

4. Challenges & Implications


Aim of talk

To discuss how peer feedback might be

implemented effectively


Are you …

• A peer feedback enthusiast?

• An occasional implementer?

• Someone who hasn’t yet tried peer feedback?


KEY FEEDBACK CONCEPTS


Wider feedback issuesFeedback as assessment design issue

Feedback as pedagogic issue

Feedback as relational issue


Dialogic feedback

Feedback needs to generate dialogue (especially with self or peers)


Key aim of feedback

To enhance student ability to self-monitor their work in progress


Sustainable feedback

Students generating & using feedback from peers, self (or teachers) as part of self-regulated learning

(Carless et al., 2011)


DEFINING

PEER FEEDBACK



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)


A key point

Learners often gain more from composing PF than from receiving it

(Lundstrom & Baker, 2009; Nicol et al., 2014; Yu & Lee, 2015)


RATIONALE FOR PEER FEEDBACK


General rationale

• Feedback processes should encourage student dialogue

• Feedback needs to be sustainable


Specific Rationale

Involve students in dialogue

around the quality of work

Help students to reflect on

own performance

Potentially timely &

sustainable


Technology-enabled PF

LMS

PeerMark

Web 2.0


FOUR KEY STUDIES



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)



2. Higher order thinking

• Composing PF is cognitively engaging:

- Applying criteria

- Diagnosing problems

- Suggesting solutions

(Nicol et al., 2014)



3. Varying response to PF

Not all students buy in to PF

Gains from reading others’ texts

Passive involvement

(Yu & Lee, 2015)



4. Modelling & training

2 hours of modelling global peer feedback processes

+

30 minute ‘feedback on peer feedback’ individual tutorial

(Min, 2006)


OUR RECENT RESEARCH


Qiyun Zhu (Judy) The University of Hong Kong

Context

Year 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 findings

• Written peer feedback then

oral dialogue

• Timeliness, immediacy,

negotiation


Selected negative findings

• Partner not enthusiastic, perfunctory

• Comments were vague & general

• Teacher should provide more guidance


Implications

Importance of dialogue between peers

Scaffolding by teacher


Yueting Xu (Tracey) The University of Hong Kong

Context

Year 1 university EFL class

57 students, 1 ‘excellent’ teacher

PF on oral presentations

Sustained observations, interviews


Preparation

• PF & wider aims of university study

• Discussed video of OP

• Introduced criteria, esp. content

• Modelled giving PF


Positive findings

Students more engaged

Enhanced audience awareness

Focused on content

Facilitates teacher feedback

on PF


Challenges

• Reticence & uncertainty at outset

• Comments inaudible or difficult to understand

• Not easy to get students to be critical


Implications

• ‘Only true friends could be cruelly honest’

• Need for both cognitive scaffolding & social-affective support

(Xu & Carless, 2016)


PEER FEEDBACK CHALLENGES


Discussion

In your opinion, what are the main challenges in carrying out PF?

How might they be tackled?


Main challenges

• Students don’t take it seriously

• Poor quality PF

• Students prefer teacher feedback

• Lack of teacher assessment &

feedback literacy


Implications


Communication

Rationales


Potential benefits

Processes

Tackling challenges

The role of trust

Feedback is a social and relational act:

importance of trust (Carless, 2013)


Recommended PF practice

• Sell rationale & benefits to students

• Communicate gains for ‘giver’

• Provide training, modeling & support

• Encourage collaborative climate


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.

Liu, 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.

Min, H.T. (2006). The effects of trained peer review on EFL students’ revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 118-141.

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.


QUESTIONS

COMMENTS


Less can be More

Information Action


Closing feedback loops

It’s only feedback if students take some action


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)

