NTFS Good to Talk Project
Scoping Paper number 1
Peer feedback: An effective approach to feedback delivery?
Alasdair Blair and Samantha McGinty
De Montfort University
ablair@dmu.ac.uk
April 2010
Abstract
This paper contends that student dissatisfaction with assignment feedback coupled with
increased pressures on teaching time calls for a new approach to feedback delivery. Peer
feedback is an under conceptualised and often misunderstood process, however through an
exploration of the literature we argue it offers a new way to support student learning.
Key words: dialogue, peer feedback, students, reflection
Introduction
Through our three year NTFS funded project ‘It’s Good to Talk: Feedback, dialogue and
learning’ we are seeking to identify and promote ways of improving feedback to students
within the disciplines of History and Politics/International Relations at three universities (De
Montfort, London Metropolitan, and Warwick). At the centre of the project is the issue of
encouraging teacher and peer dialogue around learning by drawing on feedback
approaches, one potential approach we are considering is student-to-student peer
feedback.
The National Student Survey (NSS) (2006, 2007, 2008, 2009) indicates that students are
dissatisfied with feedback. Research on student engagement with feedback has widely
reported student misunderstanding of feedback (Chanock, 2000; Lea & Street, 1998;
Maclellan, 2001) and not having strategies to engage with feedback effectively (Weaver,
2006; Burke, 2007). Although recommendations for good practice, such as feedback should
be a collaborative process that ‘encourages teacher and peer dialogue around learning’
(Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick, 2006, p.205) have been recommended, it is apparent that
feedback research has yet to satisfactorily determine an effective approach to feedback
delivery. Consequently, the development of feedback dialogues seems to be a timely
intervention as a potential way of circumventing the difficulties students have in engaging
with feedback.
These problems with the type and quality of feedback are exacerbated by the changing
landscape of higher education with greater numbers of students and increased pressures on
lecturers’ time, for example larger classes have meant an increased marking load for staff
(Hounsell, in Slowey & Watson, 2003). The result is that teachers have less time to write
detailed feedback and there is less opportunity for dialogue around feedback within tutorial
sessions. This raises a pertinent question: How do we effectively provide feedback? We will
argue that peer feedback can circumvent the issues raised around feedback quality and time
pressures. Additionally, this process of peer feedback would help to reconceptualise peer
feedback into the two step process advocated by Race (2005) with an initial focus on
formative feedback and the final step being the summative grade. As Orrell (2006) aptly
points out a lack of student engagement is often not due to poor motivation, but rather a
failure of assessment design to require students to engage with feedback. Peer feedback
could address this omission in assessment design. Therefore we will explore the literature
surrounding the theory and practice of peer feedback
What is peer feedback?
Peer feedback can be defined as ‘a communication process through which learners enter
into dialogues related to performance and standards’ (Lui & Carless, 2006, p. 280). Although
the use of peer feedback is not uncommon in English as a Second Language (ESL) settings, its
pedagogic benefits do not appear to be clearly understood within higher education
generally. Feedback is criticised generally for being an under theorised concept (REF Yorke?)
and consequently peer feedback may also be misunderstood. However, learning theories do
support the process of peer feedback. The concept of a community of practice is important
in social constructivist approaches to learning and was developed by Lave & Wenger (1999).
Aspects of the concept of a community of practice are very useful when considering
engagement with feedback. The idea of community suggests that students’ participating in
the academic community, for example sharing and discussing ideas helps to integrate them
in to the expectations of the academic community. Formative feedback is one way in which
they can integrate into the academic community, particularly if this is supported by dialogue
with other members of the community, for example other students. Not sure about
community of practice bit – scrap? The theoretical underpinning of peer feedback is
important, but for many practitioners the over-riding concerns are its effectiveness and how
to embed peer feedback processes.
Practitioner research
Research by Lui & Carless (2006) and Bloxham & West (2004; 2007) have trialled peer
feedback strategies. Twenty-five per cent of assignment marks were awarded for the quality
of the peer marking in the Lui and Carless (2006) study. They argued that this would provide
an extra incentive for students to think carefully about the assessment criteria and the
feedback process. However, even without the motivating incentive of extra marks, students
do attempt to engage with peer feedback. The Bloxham and West (2004) study found that
students recognised the benefits of peer marking for their own learning development. In a
follow up study Bloxham and West (2007) found that the peer feedback processes students
had engaged with previously had influenced their approach to learning, such as encouraging
them to be more reflective and using their peers informally for feedback on draft
assignments. These two studies suggest that students are willing to engage with peer
feedback and that students understand the benefits it can have to their learning and
development. Any other practitioner research studies? However many lecturers and
students alike are still sceptical.
Winning hearts and minds
Lecturers and students alike have queried if students have the knowledge and skills to
support other students (REFS). Both groups believe that an ‘expert’ (REFS) is needed to give
effective feedback. However, several studies (ESL refs) have addressed this and found that
the quality of student to student feedback was good and in some instances raised issues
that lecturers would not have highlighted. It was also found that students of all abilities
were able to make pertinent feedback comments. More on this Falchikov’s work (2005) also
supports this as she found through the use of formative peer feedback (and not requiring
students to grade each other’s work) in many cases students are able to provide effective
feedback on each other’s work.
Studies (REFS) have looked at the extent to which students implement revisions to draft
assignments based on the comments of their peers. Some work (REFS) on peer feedback has
criticised the extent to which students take these revisions into account, finding in some
instances these comments were not addressed. However, considering the oft-cited
literature on the lack of student engagement with lecturer feedback (REFS) this may not be
the main issue of contention with peer feedback. Furthermore other studies (REFS) have
found that students do make subsequent amendments based on peer feedback, additionally
the reflection students will have indirectly undertaken on their assignments may result in
further changes to their assignment drafts. When the summative element is taken away
from this peer process, the formative benefits are likely to encourage greater reflection and
autonomy in student learning (Falchikov, 2005). The reflective process which this enables
students to go through may be of benefit to their own learning, even if this means better
proof-reading and more accurate referencing!
Comments from students interviewed in the Orsmond et al., (2002) study suggest that the
type of feedback opportunities that they want may well be met by the processes of peer
feedback, for example the opportunity to discuss essay exemplars and feedback
commentaries on draft assignments. More on this study and others which show student
support for this process.
Training
There is an issue of students providing feedback to their peers in a sensitive manner.
However, lecturers themselves can fall foul of this and several studies have criticised the
impact negative lecturer feedback can have on student self-esteem (Young, 2000). Research
showed (refs) that with proper support and guidance students are able to give feedback in a
sensitive and constructive manner. Although they will need support in implementing these
practises, for example lecturers need to model good feedback and provide a learning
environment where students feel safe.
Setting up peer feedback in the classroom
Studies using different processes and the effectiveness of these e.g. written versus verbal,
or a combination, pairs, small groups.
Conclusion
The paper has argued that structured peer feedback can be effective in supporting student
understanding of academic criteria and encouraging a more inclusive approach to feedback.
Furthermore, it has the potential to provide the interim feedback on draft assignments that
students want to ensure that they are ‘on the right track’ and enables them to receive much
more immediate feedback than is possible for lecturers to deliver. However, it is paramount
for lecturers and students to understand the pedagogic benefits of peer feedback if it is to
be carried out effectively. We advise caution, this is not a quick-fix strategy for avoiding
copious amounts of marking, nor are we encouraging students to grade each other’s work.
Additionally, it will take time and careful training to ensure that students can give each
other feedback in a sensitive and constructive manner. It will also take time for students to
get over their reluctance to show their work to others and to give and receive feedback.
Nevertheless, we believe the benefits to students in terms of developing their ability to
reflect on their assignments, adopt a more iterative process of writing (Taras, date) and
develop their confidence as valid commentators on their assignments and those of their
peers is invaluable This literature review will be the impetus for developing peer feedback
initiatives within our own research project and hopefully those of others.
References
Bloxham, S. & West, A. (2004) Understanding the rules of the game: marking peer
assessment as a medium for developing students’ conceptions of assessment, Assessment &
Evaluation in Higher Education, 29 (6), pp. 721-733
Chanock, K. (2000) Comments on essays: Do students understand what tutors write?
Teaching in Higher Education, 5, (1) 95 - 105.
Falchikov, N. (2005) Improving assessment through student involvement (London,
Routledge Falmer).
Higgins, R., Hartley P., & Skelton, A. (2001), ‘Getting the message across: the problem of
communicating assessment feedback’ in Teaching in Higher Education, 6 (2), pp. 269-74.
Lea, M. & Street, B. (1998) Student writing in higher education: An academic literacies
approach. Studies in Higher Education, 23, (2) 157- 172.
Liu, N-F. & Carless, D. (2006) Peer feedback: the learning element of peer assessment,
Teaching in Higher Education, 11(3), pp.279-290
Nicol D, and Macfarlane-Dick, D., (2004), 'Rethinking formative assessment in HE: a
theoretical model and seven principals of good feedback practice'. Available online at:
http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/ourwork/learning/assessment/senlef/principles
Orsmond, P.;Merry, S. &Reiling, K. (2002)The Use of Exemplars and Formative Feedback
when Using Student Derived Marking Criteria in Peer and Self-assessment. Assessment &
Evaluation in Higher Education, 27 (4), 309 – 323
Orrell, J. (2006) Feedback on learning achievement: rhetoric and reality, Teaching in Higher
Education, 11 (4), 441 – 456
Slowey, M. & D. Watson (Eds) Higher education and the lifecourse (Buckingham, Society for
Research into Higher Education & Open University Press)
Sluijsmans, D., Moerkerke, G., Van Merrie¨nbor, J. & Dochy, F. (2001) Peer assessment in
problem-based learning, Studies in Educational Evaluation, 27, 153-173.
Weaver, M.R., (2006), ‘Do students value feedback? Student perceptions of tutors’ written
responses’, in Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 31 (3) pp.379-94.