1

Peerfeedback in einem schreibintensiven Seminar organisieren

Roman Banzer

http://www.slideshare.net/

Definition• Peerfeedback meint die Rückmeldung auf

Lernprodukte von Lernenden an Lernende.

• Keith Topping (1998) defines peer assessment as ‘‘an arrangement in which individuals consider the amount, level, value, worth, quality, or success of the products or outcomes of learning of peers of similar status’’ (p. 250).

• Vygotzky: Zone of Proximal Development

• Im Sinne des sozialen Konstruktivismus ein Angebot, das die Lernenden konstruktiv vorantreibt.

3

Behauptungen

• Feedback steigert die Qualität von Texten

kommunikationstheoretische Sicht: nicht-nicht

• Peerfeedback steigert die Qualität von Texten

Sarah Gielen, Elien Peeters, Filip Dochy, Patrick Onghena & Katrien Struyven. Improving the effectiveness of peer feedback for learning. Gefunden am: 7.6.2010 unter http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MImg&_imagekey=B6VFW-4XHC6BX-1-1&_cdi=6021&_user=6563041&_pii=S0959475209000759&_orig=search&_coverDate=08%2F31%2F2010&_sk=999799995&view=c&wchp=dGLzVtz-zSkzV&md5=2ca03e8ffefb71edf2536417ed1992aa&ie=/sdarticle.pdf

4

Nehmerregeln• aktiv zuhören• nicht rechtfertigen• Botschaft ankommen lassen• nicht verteidigen• bedanken• Verständnisfragen sind erlaubt• autonom entscheiden

Behauptung: Feedback steigert die Qualität von Texten

Geberregeln

• Direkt an den Empfänger• Ich-Botschaften, nicht man, Du, wir• die Person nicht werten• konstruktiv sein• rechtzeitig• konkret• detailliert

Allgemeine Bedingungen

5

Criterion-based feedback1

• What is the quality of the content of the writing: the ideas, the perceptions, the point of view?

• How well is the writing organized? • How effective is the language? • Are there mistakes or inappropriate choices of usage?

Behauptung: Feedback steigert die Qualität von Texten

Reader-based feedback1

• What was happening to you, moment by moment, as you were reading the piece of writing?

• Summarize the writing: give your understanding of what it says or what happened in it.

• Make up some images for the writing and the transaction it creates with you

1Elbow, P. (1998). Writing with power: Techniques for mastering the writing process (2. ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

Schreibspezifische Bedingungen

four different feedback stances

• authoritative (focused on problems and errors in the text)

• interpretive (focused on a personal evaluation of the text),

• probing (focused on understanding the writers’ intended meaning)

• collaborative (focused on negotiating intended meaning of the text).

6

Jan-Willem Strijbos, Susanne Narciss & Katrin Dünnebier. Peer feedback content and senders competence level in academic writing revision tasks: Are they critical for feedback perceptions and efficiency? Gefunden am: 7.6.2010 unter http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MImg&_imagekey=B6VFW-4X7FRK5-2-1&_cdi=6021&_user=6563041&_pii=S0959475209000760&_orig=search&_coverDate=08%2F31%2F2010&_sk=999799995&view=c&wchp=dGLzVlz-zSkzk&md5=d4a1c46af3ee4924865cef52ecb60fa1&ie=/sdarticle.pdf

• increasing the timeliness of feedback, providing new learning opportunities for both givers and receivers of feedback,

humanizing the environment, and building community (Corgan, Hammer, Margolies, & Crossley, 2004). By asking students to provide constructive feedback to each other, instructors are inviting them to participate in each other's learning and thus achieve greater understanding and appreciation for their peers' experiences and perspectives. Moreover, by engaging students in the feedback process,

meaningful interaction increases —interaction with peers and interaction with the content of the discussion postings—which subsequently promotes students' satisfaction with the course (Richardson & Swan, 2003) and with the instructor (Fulford & Zhang, 1998). If used effectively, both instructor and peer feedback have the potential to increase the quality of discourse, and thus the quality of learning, in the online environment.

Vorteile des Peerfeedbacks

Ertmer, P. A., Richardson, J. C., Brain Belland, Denise Camin, Patrick Connoly, Glen Coulthard, Kimfong Lei & Christopher Mong. (2007, 04. August). Using Peer Feedback to Enhance the Quality of Student Online Postings: An Exploratory Study. Gefunden am: 20.8.2009 unter http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol12/issue2/ertmer.html

• Help students understand not only how the peer feedback process works, but why it is being used (e.g., to provide additional feedback, to better gauge postings).

• Model and provide examples of effective feedback prior to implementing the peer feedback process.

• Provide guidelines regarding how to provide effective peer feedback, such as "always begin with positive feedback and then offer information on areas for improvement."

• Monitor the process and, in turn, provide feedback on the feedback, at least initially, to help the process run smoothly and to allow students to benefit from the strategy.

• Ensure that the feedback is anonymous so that students can provide ratings without feeling pressure from peers.

• Use multiple peer ratings for each response in order to provide an aggregated view of the value of the response.

• Ensure that the process is easy for students to implement so as not to overwhelm them.

Ratschläge, damit Peerfeedback funktioniert.

Ertmer, P. A., Richardson, J. C., Brain Belland, Denise Camin, Patrick Connoly, Glen Coulthard, Kimfong Lei & Christopher Mong. (2007, 04. August). Using Peer Feedback to Enhance the Quality of Student Online Postings: An Exploratory Study. Gefunden am: 20.8.2009 unter http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol12/issue2/ertmer.html

Diskussion im Plenum

Wir gehen die Texte und Feedbacks exemplarisch gemeinsam durch.

Auftrag:Fasse die drei Feedbacks zusammen. Gibt es Aussagen in

den Feedbacks, die unklar sind?

14

Was kommt dabei raus?

• Gute Texte, bessere Texte

• Zufriedener Dozent

• Schlauere Studis?

• Vielen Dank für Ihre Aufmerksamkeit.

15