David Carless gave a presentation on implementing peer feedback in educational settings. He discussed the potential benefits of peer feedback, including generating dialogue around student work and helping students reflect on their own performance. However, he also noted several challenges, such as students not taking peer feedback seriously or providing feedback of poor quality. Carless emphasized the importance of preparing students for peer feedback through modeling, guidance on criteria, and building trust between students.

1. Implementing peer
feedback: potentials and
challenges
David Carless
HKU, November 23, 2016
http://davidcarless.edu.hku.hk/
The University of Hong Kong

2. Overview
1. Feedback processes
2. Peer feedback rationales
3. Our recent research
4. Challenges & Implications
The University of Hong Kong

3. Aim of talk
To discuss salient issues for effective
implementation of peer feedback
The University of Hong Kong

4. SITUATING FEEDBACK
The University of Hong Kong

5. The University of Hong Kong
Productive assessment
task design
Understanding quality in the
discipline
Student engagement
with feedback
Learning-oriented assessment framework
(Carless, 2015a)

6. Wider feedback issues
Feedback as
assessment design
issue
Feedback as
pedagogic issue
Feedback as
relational issue
The University of Hong Kong

7. Dialogic feedback
Feedback needs to generate dialogue
The University of Hong Kong

8. Key aim of feedback
To enhance student
ability to self-monitor
their work in
progress
The University of Hong Kong

9. 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

10. INTRODUCING
PEER FEEDBACK
The University of Hong Kong

11. The University of Hong Kong

12. 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

13. A key point
Learners 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

14. RATIONALE FOR PEER
FEEDBACK
The University of Hong Kong

15. General rationale
• Feedback processes should encourage
student dialogue
• Feedback needs to be sustainable
The University of Hong Kong

16. Specific 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

17. Technology-enabled PF
LMS
PeerMark
Web 2.0
The University of Hong Kong

18. FOUR KEY STUDIES
The University of Hong Kong

19. The University of Hong Kong

20. 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

21. The University of Hong Kong

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

23. The University of Hong Kong

24. 3. Varying response to PF
Not all students buy in to PF
Gains from reading others’ texts
Passive involvement
(Yu & Lee, 2015)
The University of Hong Kong

25. The University of Hong Kong

26. 4. Feedback on PF
• Receivers of PF gave feedback to
providers (Kim, 2009)
• Enhanced motivation & performance
The University of Hong Kong

27. OUR RECENT RESEARCH
The University of Hong Kong

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

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

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

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

32. 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

33. Implications
Importance of dialogue between peers
Role of teacher in
PF on writing?
The University of Hong Kong

34. Yueting Xu (Tracey)
The University of Hong Kong

35. Context
Year 1 university EFL class
57 students, 1 ‘excellent’ teacher
PF on oral presentations
Sustained observations, interviews
The University of Hong Kong

36. Preparation
• PF & wider aims of university study
• Discussed video of OP
• Introduced criteria, esp. content
• Modelled giving PF
The University of Hong Kong

37. Positive findings
Students more engaged
Enhanced audience awareness
Focused on content
Facilitates teacher feedback
on PF
The University of Hong Kong

38. Challenges
• Reticence & uncertainty at outset
• Comments inaudible or difficult to
understand
• Not easy to get students to be critical
The University of Hong Kong

39. Implications
• ‘Only true friends could be cruelly honest’
• Need for both cognitive scaffolding &
social-affective support
(Xu & Carless, 2016)
The University of Hong Kong

40. PEER FEEDBACK CHALLENGES
The University of Hong Kong

41. 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

42. 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

43. Implications
The University of Hong Kong

44. Communication
Rationales
The University of Hong Kong
Potential benefits
Processes
Tackling challenges

45. The role of trust
Feedback is a social and relational act:
Importance of trust (Carless, 2013)
The University of Hong Kong

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

48. 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. (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), 105-114
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.
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

49. QUESTIONS
COMMENTS
The University of Hong Kong

50. Less can be More
Information Action
The University of Hong Kong

51. Closing feedback loops
It’s only feedback
if students take
some action
The University of Hong Kong

52. 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

53. Merry, Price, Carless, & Taras (2013)

54. The University of Hong Kong