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