Developing university students’ feedback literacy through peer feedback activities

Titolo Rivista EDUCATION SCIENCES AND SOCIETY
Autori/Curatori Chiara Laici, Maila Pentucci
Anno di pubblicazione 2023 Fascicolo 2023/1 Lingua Inglese
Numero pagine 19 P. 204-222 Dimensione file 0 KB
DOI 10.3280/ess1-2023oa15925
Il DOI è il codice a barre della proprietà intellettuale: per saperne di più clicca qui

Vedi l'articolo Scarica l'articolo open access

FrancoAngeli è membro della Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA)associazione indipendente e non profit per facilitare (attraverso i servizi tecnologici implementati da CrossRef.org) l’accesso degli studiosi ai contenuti digitali nelle pubblicazioni professionali e scientifiche

In order to make feedback become a process leading didactic practises it is necessary to overcome the static and single-directional vision linked to providing and receiving feedback and to go towards an interactive and generative feedback, foreseeing some peer feedback moments, some self-evaluation and self- regulation. In this paper we would like to describe a didactic path focused on feedback, activated in two University courses in different Universities with the following aims: activating subsequent feedback spirals (Carless, 2019), first between Professor and students, then between peers, to get to a self-awareness interior process, that is an incorporation of reflexivity on one’s own practices. Promoting feedback literacy (Carless & Boud, 2018) in the student through the experimentation in the practice. In particular, we will account for a peer feedback process realised in the following steps: a) the group production of a learning design; b) the peer review of the colleagues’ designs, through the "Ladder of Feedback" protocol, with a following sharing of the reviews; c) the subsequent reflection on the activated processes through a questionnaire on the students’ perceptions. The analysis of those productions enables us to reflect upon the sense of effectiveness granted to the peer feedback, on the differences between the Professor’s and the peer feedbacks, on the comprehension of the role of the peer feedback within the training process.

In order to make feedback become a process leading didactic practises it is necessary to overcome the static and single-directional vision linked to providing and receiving feedback and to go towards an interactive and generative feedback, foreseeing some peer feedback moments, some self-evaluation and self- regulation. In this paper we would like to describe a didactic path focused on feedback, activated in two University courses in different Universities with the following aims: activating subsequent feedback spirals (Carless, 2019), first between Professor and students, then between peers, to get to a self-awareness interior process, that is an incorporation of reflexivity on one’s own practices. Promoting feedback literacy (Carless & Boud, 2018) in the student through the experimentation in the practice. In particular, we will account for a peer feedback process realised in the following steps: a) the group production of a learning design; b) the peer review of the colleagues’ designs, through the “Ladder of Feedback” protocol, with a following sharing of the reviews; c) the subsequent reflection on the activated processes through a questionnaire on the students’ perceptions. The analysis of those productions enables us to reflect upon the sense of effectiveness granted to the peer feedback, on the differences between the Professor’s and the peer feedbacks, on the comprehension of the role of the peer feedback within the training process.

Keywords:; Peer feedback; Higher education; Students perception; Feedback Literacy

  1. Ajjawi R., and Boud D. (2018). Examining the nature and effects of feedback dialogue. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(7): 1106-1119.
  2. Ajjawi R., Tai J., Dawson P., and Boud D. (2018). Conceptualising evaluative judgement for sustainable assessment in higher education. In D. Boud, R. Ajjawi, P. Dawson, and J. Tai (Eds.). Developing evaluative judgement in higher education: Assessment for knowing and producing quality work (pp. 7-17). London: Routledge.
  3. Boud D., and Molloy E. (2013). Rethinking models of feedback for learning: the challenge of design. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(6): 698-712.
  4. Braun V., and Clarke V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2): 77-101.
  5. Braun V., and Clarke V. (2012). Thematic analysis. In H. Cooper, P. M. Camic, D. L. Long, A. T. Panter, D. Rindskopf, and K. J. Sher (Eds.). APA Handbook of Research Methods in Psychology, Research Designs, Volume 2 (pp. 57-71). Washington D.C: American Psychological Association.
  6. Braun V., and Clarke V. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11(4): 589-597.
  7. Braun V., Clarke V., Hayfeld N., and Terry G. (2019). Answers to frequently asked questions about thematic analysis. Retrieved from https://cdn.auckland.ac.nz/assets/psych/about/our-research/documents/Answers%20to%20frequently%20asked%20questions%20about%20thematic%20analysis%20April%202019.pdf (06/05/2023).
  8. Butler D. L., and Winne P. H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65(3): 245-281.
  9. Carless D. (2019). Feedback loops and the longer-term: towards feedback spirals. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(5): 705-714.
  10. Carless D., and Boud (2018). The development of feedback literacy: enabling uptake of feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(8): 930-941.
  11. Carless D., and Chan K.K.H. (2017). Managing Dialogic Use of Exemplars. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 42(6): 930-941.
  12. Fishman B., and Dede C. (2016). Teaching and technology: New tools for new times. In D. Gitomer and C. Bell (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Teaching, 5th Edition (pp. 1269-1334). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
  13. Gielen S., Peeters E., Dochy F., Onghena P., and Struyven K. (2010). Improving the effectiveness of peer feedback for learning. Learning and instruction, 20(4): 304-315.
  14. Grion V. and Serbati A. (2019). Valutazione sostenibile e feedback nei contesti universitari: Prospettive emergenti, ricerche e pratiche. Lecce: Pensa Multimedia.
  15. Harland T., Wald N., and Randhawa H. (2017). Student peer review: Enhancing formative feedback with a rebuttal. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(5): 801-811.
  16. Jeladze E., Pata K., and Quaicoe J. S. (2017). Factors determining digital learning ecosystem smartness in schools. Interaction Design and Architecture(s) Journal - IxD&A, (35): 32-55.
  17. Laici C. (2021). Il feedback come pratica trasformativa nella didattica universitaria. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
  18. Winstone N., and Carless D. (2019). Designing Effective Feedback Processes in Higher Education: A Learning-Focused Approach. London: Routledge.
  19. Winstone N. E., and Boud D. (2022). The need to disentangle assessment and feedback in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 47(3): 656-667.
  20. Wilson T., Hoffmann P., Somasundaran S., Kessler J., Wiebe J., Choi Y., Cardie C., Riloff E., and Patwardhan S. (2005). OpinionFinder: A system for subjectivity analysis. In Proceedings of HLT/EMNLP 2005 Demonstration Abstracts (pp. 34-35). Vancouver: Association for Computational Linguistics.
  21. Topping K. J. (2009). Peer Assessment. Theory Into Practice, 48(1): 20-27.
  22. Terry G., Hayfeld N., Braun V., and Clarke V. (2017). Thematic analysis. In C. Willig and W. S. Rogers (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research in Psychology (pp. 17-37). London: Sage Publications.
  23. Sutton P. (2012). Conceptualizing feedback literacy: knowing, being, and acting. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 49(1): 31-40.
  24. Sinclair S., and Rockwell G. (2016). Voyant Tools. Retrieved from http://voyant-tools.org/ (06/05/2023).
  25. Simonsmeier B. A., Andronie M., Buecker S., and Frank C. (2020). The Effects of Imagery Interventions in Sports: A Meta-Analysis. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 13(1): 1-22.
  26. Serbati A., Grion V., and Fanti M. (2019). Peer feedback features and evaluative judgment in a blended university course. Italian Journal of Educational Research, (Special Issue), 115-138.
  27. Sadler D. R. (2010). Beyond feedback: developing student capability in complex appraisal. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5): 535-550.
  28. Rossi P.G., and Pentucci M. (2021). Progettazione come azione simulata. Didattica dei processi e degli ecosistemi. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
  29. Perkins D. (2003). King Arthur’s Round Table: How Collaborative Conversations Create Smart Organizations. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
  30. Nicol D., Thomson A., and Breslin C. (2014). Rethinking feedback practices in higher education: A peer review perspective. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(1): 102-122.
  31. Nicol D. J., and Macfarlane-Dick D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2): 199-218.
  32. Nicol D. (2021). The power of internal feedback: exploiting natural comparison processes. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 46(5). 756-778.
  33. Nicol D. (2019). Reconceptualising feedback as an internal not an external process. Italian Journal of Educational Research (Special Issue), 71-84.
  34. McFarland M. (2006). Ladder of Feedback Guide. Retrieved from: http://www.makinglearningvisibleresources.org/ (19/05/2023).
  35. McConlogue T. (2015). Making judgments: Investigating the process of composing and receiving peer feedback. Studies in Higher Education, 40(9): 1495-1506.
  36. Liu N. F., and Carless D. (2006). Peer feedback: the learning element of peer assessment. Teaching in Higher education, 11(3): 279-298.
  37. Laurillard D. (2012). Teaching as a Design Science: Building Pedagogical Patterns for Learning and Technology. London: Routledge. (Carless, 2019).
  38. Laici C., and Pentucci M. (2019). Feedback with technologies in higher education: a systematic review. Form@re -Open Journal Per La Formazione in Rete, 19(3): 6-25.

Chiara Laici, Maila Pentucci, Developing university students’ feedback literacy through peer feedback activities in "EDUCATION SCIENCES AND SOCIETY" 1/2023, pp 204-222, DOI: 10.3280/ess1-2023oa15925