The document summarizes a talk on designing and implementing collaborative assessment. It discusses having student input on assessment design and implementation to increase engagement. Peer feedback is a key part of collaborative assessment where students provide feedback to each other. Research shows students benefit more from giving peer feedback than receiving it. Challenges to peer feedback include students not taking it seriously and poor quality feedback. Training, modeling, and guidance from teachers can help address these challenges and improve peer feedback practices.

1. Designing and Implementing
Collaborative Assessment
David Carless
Talk at EdUHK, June 2, 2017
The University of Hong Kong

2. Overview
1. Collaborative assessment
2. Focus on Peer feedback
3. Some key research
4. Challenges & Implications
The University of Hong Kong

3. Collaborative assessment: what?
Inputs from students (and/or practitioners)
into the way assessment is designed or
implemented
The University of Hong Kong

4. Collaborative assessment: why?
The more students are involved, the more
likely they are to be engaged
The more engaged they are, the more likely
they are to produce good work
The University of Hong Kong

5. Collaborative assessment: how?
• (Input to assessment design)
• Flexibility & choice in assessment
• Brainstorming / engaging with criteria
• Self-evaluation
• Peer feedback
The University of Hong Kong

6. Flexibility & choice
• Choice of topic
• Choice of weighting
The University of Hong Kong

7. Criteria
Engaging with criteria as lever for good
performance
The University of Hong Kong

8. Self-evaluation
Self-regulation as core aspect of lifelong
learning
The University of Hong Kong

9. Students as partners
Collaborative partnerships to enhance
teaching and learning
The University of Hong Kong

10. PEER FEEDBACK
The University of Hong Kong

11. Are you …
• A peer feedback enthusiast?
• An occasional implementer?
• Someone who hasn’t yet tried peer
feedback?
The University of Hong Kong

12. The University of Hong Kong

13. 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)
The University of Hong Kong

14. A key point
Learners usually gain more from composing
PF than receiving it
(Lundstrom & Baker, 2009; Nicol et al.,
2014)
The University of Hong Kong

15. Rationale
Involve students in dialogue
around the quality of work
Help students to reflect on
own performance
Potentially timely &
sustainable
The University of Hong Kong

16. Discussion
In your opinion, what are the main
challenges in carrying out PF?
How might they be tackled?
The University of Hong Kong

17. Main challenges
• Students don’t take it seriously
• Poor quality PF
• Students prefer teacher feedback
• Insufficient training
The University of Hong Kong

18. Problem 1:
Students don’t take PF seriously
Possible Solution A:
Better training, modelling & coaching
Possible Solution B:
Award 10% for PF
The University of Hong Kong

19. Problem 2:
Student PF is poor quality
Possible Solution:
Training, modelling, coaching
‘Feedback on feedback’
The University of Hong Kong

20. Problem 3:
Students don’t think they can gain from PF
Possible Solution:
Sell benefits of composing PF
The University of Hong Kong

21. Problem 4:
Students worried their ideas
are copied/plagiarised
Possible Solution A:
Create trusting, collaborative climate
Possible Solution B:
Students work on different topics
The University of Hong Kong

22. Problem 5:
Students prefer teacher feedback
Possible Solution A:
Teacher provides feedback on PF
Possible Solution B:
Teacher scaffolds & guides
The University of Hong Kong

23. THREE KEY STUDIES
The University of Hong Kong

24. The University of Hong Kong

25. 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

26. The University of Hong Kong

27. 2. Higher order thinking
• Composing PF is cognitively engaging:
- Applying criteria
- Diagnosing problems
- Suggesting solutions
(Nicol et al., 2014)
The University of Hong Kong

28. The University of Hong Kong

29. 3. Modelling & training
2 hours of modelling global peer feedback
processes
+
30 minute ‘feedback on peer feedback’
individual tutorial
(Min, 2006)
The University of Hong Kong

30. OUR RECENT RESEARCH
The University of Hong Kong

31. Qiyun Zhu (Judy)
The University of Hong Kong

32. Context
Year 1 university EFL class
200 students, 5 teachers
Peer review of writing
Sustained observations, interviews
The University of Hong Kong

33. Preparation
No or minimal training
PF sheet / guiding questions
The University of Hong Kong

34. Selected positive findings
• Written peer feedback then
oral dialogue
• Timeliness, immediacy,
negotiation
The University of Hong Kong

35. Selected negative findings
• Partner not enthusiastic, perfunctory
• Comments were vague & general
• Teacher should provide more guidance
The University of Hong Kong

36. Implications
Importance of dialogue between peers
Scaffolding by teacher
The University of Hong Kong

37. Conclusions
The University of Hong Kong

38. Recommended PF practice
• Sell rationale & benefits to students
• Communicate gains for ‘giver’
• Provide training, modeling & support
• Encourage collaborative climate
The University of Hong Kong

39. Student feedback literacy
- Skills / capacities
- Developmental aspects
- Attitudinal dimensions
The University of Hong Kong
<……...>

40. Feedback literate students
• Are developing a sense of quality
• Are developing capacities to judge
• Seek, generate & use feedback
• Are open to critique & want to improve
The University of Hong Kong

41. Staff development
Dialogue & communication
Communities of practice
Leadership
The University of Hong Kong

43. References
Carless, 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. (2015). 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, 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.
The University of Hong Kong

44. QUESTIONS
COMMENTS
The University of Hong Kong

45. The University of Hong Kong