Peer feedback dialogues

1. Developing dialogic
feedback processes through
peer review
Professor David Carless
Guangdong University of Foreign
Studies
13th
October, 2016
The University of Hong Kong

2. Overview
1. Key feedback processes & issues
2. Peer feedback rationale
3. Select literature review
4. Our recent research
5. Challenges & Implications
The University of Hong Kong

3. Marking overload
The University of Hong Kong

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

5. My definition of feedback
“A dialogic process in which learners make
sense of information from varied sources
and use it to enhance the quality of their
work or learning strategies”.
Carless (2015a, p.192)
The University of Hong Kong

7. Defining peer feedback (PF)
An arrangement whereby students evaluate
and make judgments about the work of their
peers (Nicol et al., 2014, p. 104)
(peer review)
(peer response: Liu & Hansen, 2002*)
The University of Hong Kong

8. 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

9. SITUATING FEEDBACK &
PEER FEEDBACK
The University of Hong Kong

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

11. Bigger picture
Feedback as
assessment design
issue
Feedback as a
pedagogical issue
Feedback as a
relational issue
The University of Hong Kong

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

13. Less can be More
The University of Hong Kong

14. RATIONALE FOR PEER
FEEDBACK + FOUR KEY
STUDIES
The University of Hong Kong

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

16. 1. To give is better than to receive
Students taught to give PF, improved writing
more than students taught to use PF
You review in your own ZPD but you may
not receive in your ZPD
Lundstrom & Baker, 2009*
The University of Hong Kong

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

18. 3. Varying motives for PF
Not all students buy in to PF
Gains from reading others’ texts
Passive involvement
Yu & Lee, 2015*
The University of Hong Kong

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

20. OUR RECENT RESEARCH
The University of Hong Kong

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

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

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

24. Selected positive findings
• Written peer feedback then
oral dialogue
• Timeliness, immediacy,
negotiation
• “I realised it’s not that my idea was wrong
but I didn’t express it clearly”
The University of Hong Kong

25. Selected negative findings
• Partner not enthusiastic, perfunctory
• Comments were vague & general
• The teacher should have explained how to
complete the form
• What does the teacher think
about our peer feedback?
The University of Hong Kong

26. Implications
• Importance of interaction between peers
• PF as preparation for feedback from
teacher
The University of Hong Kong

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

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

29. Preparation
• Positioned PF within wider goals of
university study
• Discussed video of OP in class
• Introduced assessment criteria, including
content, audience awareness, pacing etc
• Modelled how to give PF
The University of Hong Kong

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

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

32. Implications
• Interplay between cognitive scaffolding &
social-affective support
• Teacher feedback literacy to support
development of student feedback literacy
(Xu & Carless, 2016)
The University of Hong Kong

33. PEER FEEDBACK CHALLENGES
The University of Hong Kong

34. Discussion
In your view/experience, what are
the major challenges in carrying out
PF?
The University of Hong Kong

35. Negative experiences
• Students don’t take it seriously
• Poor quality PF
• Students prefer teacher feedback
Lack of teacher assessment &
feedback literacy
The University of Hong Kong

36. Conclusions
The University of Hong Kong

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

38. Good PF practice
• Sell rationale to students
• Communicate gains for ‘giver’
• Provide some training & support
The University of Hong Kong

39. Feedback literacy
• Need for further development of teacher
assessment & feedback literacy …
• … seeding student assessment &
feedback literacy
(Xu & Brown, 2016) (Xu & Carless, 2016)
The University of Hong Kong

40. References
Carless, D. (2015a). Excellence in University Assessment: learning from award-winning teachers. London:
Routledge.
Carless, D. (2015b). Exploring learning-oriented assessment processes. Higher Education, 69(6), 963-976.
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.
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., & Brown, G. T. L. (2016). Teacher assessment literacy in practice: A reconceptualization. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 58, 149-162.
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

41. THANK YOU
The University of Hong Kong

42. The University of Hong Kong