Towards productive teacher-student partnerships in feedback processes

1. Towards productive teacher-
student partnerships in feedback
processes
David Carless, University of
Hong Kong,
@CarlessDavid
Keynote for TU Dublin,
February 11, 2022
The University of Hong Kong

3. Overview
1. Towards partnerships in feedback
2. Peer feedback and digital possibilities
3. Designing for satisfying feedback
4. Shared feedback literacy
5. Summary & Implications
The University of Hong Kong

4. Key issue
How might feedback processes become
(more of) a partnership between teachers
and students?
The University of Hong Kong

5. EXAMPLES:
MAKING PEER FEEDBACK WORK
The University of Hong Kong

6. The University of Hong Kong

7. Peer review + response
Research proposal assessment task (Year 2)
Anonymous peer review
Revise and respond (rebut) addressing peer
reviews
The University of Hong Kong

8. Cumulative peer review
Peer review within research-based curriculum
Development of critical evaluation skills
Multiple & sustained experiences
(Harland et al., 2017).
The University of Hong Kong

9. Peer review steps
1. Students attempt task;
2. Students review multiple other attempts;
3. Peer feedback composed & received;
4. Opportunities to revise work.
(Nicol, 2021)
The University of Hong Kong

10. Digital peer feedback
Peer feedback using Screencasting &
Google docs
Opportunities to clarify peer feedback and
co-construct opportunities to use it
(Wood, 2021).
The University of Hong Kong

11. The University of Hong Kong

12. Audio peer feedback
Feeling personally committed
Understanding own learning processes
Comparing own work with that of peers
(Filius et al., 2019)
The University of Hong Kong

13. Peer feedback facilitators
Teacher capacities: designing multiple peer
feedback sequences; organising curriculum
time; enabling student experience + support
Student capacities: willingness to give &
receive peer feedback; trust and respect; use
insights
The University of Hong Kong

14. TOWARDS STUDENTS AS
PARTNERS (SaP) IN FEEDBACK
PROCESSES
The University of Hong Kong

15. Considering students’ needs
Student input on preferred modes & timing
of feedback (Carless, 2020)
Negotiating more than just following what
students want (Matthews et al., 2018)
The University of Hong Kong

16. Feedback sequences
Task 1  feedback  interlinked task 2
Position students as feedback users
The University of Hong Kong

17. Reflective feedback requests
1. The strengths are …
2. The aspects for development are …
3. I would like feedback on …
(Winstone & Carless, 2019)
The University of Hong Kong

18. The University of Hong Kong

19. SaP meets feedback
Dialogue
Trust
Power
(Matthews et al., 2021)
The University of Hong Kong

20. Students as co-researchers
Projects involving teachers & students as
co-researchers of feedback processes
(Carless et al., 2020)
The University of Hong Kong

21. Disciplines & feedback
Disciplinary factors facilitate or inhibit
feedback (Esterhazy, 2018)
What disciplinary features might enable
productive feedback processes?
The University of Hong Kong

22. Authentic feedback
Processes resembling the feedback
practices of the discipline, profession or
workplace (Dawson, Carless & Lee, 2020)
The University of Hong Kong

23. Oral assessment example
Biochemistry lab reports
Oral interaction promotes higher-order
thinking
Increased student accountability
(Burrows et al., 2021)
The University of Hong Kong

24. TOWARDS DESIGNING SATISFYING
FEEDBACK EXPERIENCES
The University of Hong Kong

25. Satisfying feedback experiences
Making feedback satisfying for teachers is
just as important as making it worthwhile for
students (Boud & Molloy, 2013a, p. 5)
The University of Hong Kong

26. What staff might want
For staff, what would represent positive
outcomes of feedback processes?
The University of Hong Kong

27. Staff desired outcomes
Students engaging
Students taking responsibility
Students taking action
Workload friendly
The University of Hong Kong

28. What students might want
For students, what would represent positive
outcomes of feedback processes?
The University of Hong Kong

29. Student desired outcomes
Support to achieve high grades
Feedback they can use
Perceptions of care, respect
Perceptions of fairness
The University of Hong Kong

30. Thoughts so far …?
Questions, comments?
The University of Hong Kong

31. VIEWING FEEDBACK
DIFFERENTLY
The University of Hong Kong

32. Paradigm shift
From teachers delivering comments
To what learners do: self-generated
feedback; using inputs
The University of Hong Kong

33. Comments  uptake
The University of Hong Kong
Teachers produce comments
Focus on delivery
Students generate insights
Focus on uptake
(Carless, 2015; Winstone & Carless, 2019)

34. Shared responsibilities
The University of Hong Kong

35. Teacher-student partnership
The University of Hong Kong

36. Feedback designs
Shift from provision of comments to design
of learning environments
(Boud & Molloy, 2013b)
The University of Hong Kong

37. (Carless & Winstone, 2020)
Teacher Feedback Literacy
Student Feedback Literacy
Values feedback
Refines evaluative judgments
Work with emotions productively
Acts in response to feedback
Designing for uptake
Relational sensitivities
Managing practicalities

38. Key challenges
Regulations & procedures inhibit agency in
feedback processes (Gravett 2020)
AND
How feedback is framed in QA encourages
delivery models (Winstone & Carless, 2021;
Winstone et al. 2021)
The University of Hong Kong

39. IMPLICATIONS
The University of Hong Kong

40. Partnership issues
Confronting power differentials
Communication, negotiation & trust
Modelling experiences
The University of Hong Kong

41. Teacher role
Design learning environments for students
to generate feedback inputs
The University of Hong Kong

42. Digital interaction
Prioritizing learner generation of insights
Designing for dialogue & uptake
The University of Hong Kong

43. References
Boud, D., & Molloy, E. (2013a). Decision-making for feedback. In D. Boud & E. Molloy (Eds.),
Feedback in Higher and Professional Education. London: Routledge.
Boud, D., & Molloy, E. (2013b). Rethinking models of feedback for learning: The challenge of design.
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(6), 698-712.
Burrows, N.L., Ouellet, J., Joji, J., & Man, J. (2021). Alternative assessment to lab reports: A
phenomenology study of undergraduate biochemistry students’ perceptions of interview
assessment. Journal of Chemical Education, 98(5), 1518-1528.
Carless, D. (2020). A Longitudinal Inquiry into Students’ Experiences of Feedback: A Need for
Teacher-Student Partnerships. Higher Education Research and Development 39(3): 425-438.
Carless, D., & Boud, D. (2018). The development of student feedback literacy: Enabling uptake of
feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1463354.
Carless, D., To, J., Kwan, C. & Kwok, J., (2020). Disciplinary perspectives on feedback practices:
Towards signature feedback practices. Teaching in Higher Education.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2020.1863355
Carless, D., & Winstone, N. (2020). Teacher feedback literacy and its interplay with student feedback
literacy, Teaching in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2020.1782372
Dawson, P. Carless, D. & Lee, P.P.W (2021). Authentic feedback: Supporting learners to engage in
disciplinary feedback practices. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 46(2), 286-296.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1769022
Esterhazy, R. (2018). What matters for productive feedback? Disciplinary practices and their relational
dynamics. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 43 (8): 1302-1314.
The University of Hong Kong

44. References (continued)
Gravett, K. (2020). Feedback literacies as sociomaterial practice. Critical Studies in Education. doi:
10.1080/17508487.2020.1747099
Mahoney, P., Macfarlane, S., & Ajjawi, R. (2019). A qualitative synthesis of video feedback in higher
education. Teaching in Higher Education, 24(2), 157-179. doi:10.1080/13562517.2018.1471457
Matthews, K., A. Dwyer, L. Hine, & J. Turner. (2018). Conceptions of Students as Partners. Higher
Education 76: 957-971. doi:10.1007/s10734-018-0257-y
Nicol, D. (2021) The power of internal feedback: Exploiting natural comparison processes.
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 46(5), 756-778.
Winstone, N., Ajjawi, R., Dirkx, K., & Boud, D. (2021). Measuring what matters: The positioning of
students in feedback processes within national student satisfaction surveys. Studies in Higher
Education. doi:10.1080/03075079.2021.1916909
Winstone, N., & Carless, D. (2021). Who is feedback for? The influence of accountability and quality
assurance agendas on the enactment of feedback processes. Assessment in Education, 28(3),
261-278. doi:10.1080/0969594X.2021.1926221
Winstone, N., Pitt, E. and Nash, R. (2020). Educators’ perceptions of responsibility-sharing in
feedback processes. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education.
Wood, J. (2021). Making peer feedback work: The contribution of technology-mediated dialogic peer
feedback to feedback uptake and literacy. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education.
doi:10.1080/02602938.2021.1914544
Y1 Feedback Project, led by Maynooth University’ http://y1feedback.ie/about/
The University of Hong Kong

45. THANK YOU
The University of Hong Kong

46. Towards virtuous cycles
Teachers designing potentially positive
feedback experiences for students
Students engaging and acting
The University of Hong Kong

47. Mutual feedback literacy
Partnership approaches to seed mutual
development of teacher & student feedback
literacy
(Carless, 2020)
The University of Hong Kong

48. Implementing peer feedback
• Selling benefits
• Scaffolding, modelling & coaching
• Trios rather than pairs (multiple reviews)
• Opportunities for dialogue then revision
The University of Hong Kong

49. Leveraging comparisons
Productive learning occurs when learners
compare their own work with that of multiple
other attempts at a similar task (Nicol, 2021)
The University of Hong Kong

50. Teacher workload
Generation of information to students about
their work is time-consuming. Not justified if
no explicit expectation that it will be used.
(Boud & Molloy, 2013a, p. 206).
The University of Hong Kong

51. Shifts in priorities
Carless (2015) p. 240
The University of Hong Kong
Increase Decrease
Guidance within the taught
curriculum
Unidirectional comments after
completion of module
Written feedback comments on
first assessment task of module
Written feedback comments on
final task of module
Feedback for first year students Feedback for final year students

54. The University of Hong Kong
DISCOUNT CODE:
FLR40

55. Responsibilities
Shared responsibilities needed in feedback
processes but transmission-based models
dominate (Winstone, Pitt & Nash, 2020)
The University of Hong Kong

56. Video feedback synthesis
Lack of opportunities for dialogue or
response to teacher video feedback inputs
Need for active student roles
(Mahoney et al. 2019)
The University of Hong Kong

57. Defining student feedback literacy
Understandings, capacities & dispositions
needed to use feedback for improvement
(Carless & Boud, 2018).
The University of Hong Kong

58. Student feedback literacy
The University of Hong Kong
Making
Judgments
Valuing
Feedback
Working
with
Emotions
Taking Action
(Carless & Boud, 2018)

59. Defining teacher feedback literacy
“Knowledge, expertise & dispositions to
design feedback processes in ways which
enable student uptake of feedback”
(Carless & Winstone, 2020, p. 4)
The University of Hong Kong

60. The University of Hong Kong

61. The University of Hong Kong