22 SES 04 B, Consumerism and Enslavement
Paper/Pecha Kucha Session
The “learning element of peer assessment” is represented by peer feedback (Liu & Carless, 2006, p.1). Peer feedback transforms the role of students and requires students to target, to generate and to interpret feedback while communicating and engaging with each other (Ion, Cano, & Fernández, 2017). This method includes qualitative comments involving groups of students or peers and benefits student learning by increasing accountability, encouraging reflection and assessing their own or their peers’ performance, and developing evaluative expertise (Harris & Brown, 2013).
Peer feedback has been shown to be beneficial in many learning situations, particularly for those receiving comments from tutors and peers (Van den Hurk, Houtveen, & Van de Grift, 2016, etc.). However, the benefits of peer feedback to the reviewer, i.e., the student providing the feedback, has not been thoroughly investigated in the field of teacher education.
Peer-assessment processes are increasing in popularity in tertiary educational institutions given their potential to contribute to a student-centred learning approach (Simpson & Cliford, 2015).
In the present communication, we analyse students receiving and providing feedback to identify the perceived impact to those students in terms of learning achievements, self-regulation of learning, the conception of assessment and social competencies. This study explores peer feedback in group environments by comparing the assessors’ and assesses’s perceptions of the feedback.
In this study, peer feedback is considered to rely upon social constructivism, which, as proposed by Vygotsky (1978), is the joint construction of knowledge through discourse and other types of interactions in which communication and social skills are implicit. The Vygotskian concept of scaffolded learning presumably depends on whether the peer assessor merely identifies weaknesses in the assessed work or also identifies strengths and provides recommendations for improvement. In addition, we related peer feedback to the Piagetian model of cognitive conflict, which involves students who have equal status (Ibarra, Rodríguez & Gómez, 2012) but different levels of competence. Thus, a negotiation occurs between the students and their knowledge (Wen, Tsai & Chang, 2006).
Providing feedback in small groups is beneficial to both the assessor (e.g., Topping, 2009) and the assessee (e.g., Tsivitanidou, Zacharia, & Hovardas, 2011) and represents an excellent opportunity for learning (e.g., Carless & Chang, 2016). Providing and receiving feedback in collaborative contexts help students clarify their understanding of the topics (e.g., Boud & Molloy, 2013), increase students’ engagement, and empowers students in their own learning (Panadero & Dochy, 2014).
As an assessor, the learners must be able to recognise and assess particular criteria, judge the performance of a peer, and eventually provide peer feedback. In contrast, the assessee traditionally must “critically review the peer feedback they have received, decide which changes are necessary to improve their work and proceed with making those changes” (Hovardas, Tsivitanidou, & Zacharia, 2014, p. 135). In addition, the assessee’s role in most peer-assessment practices has been described in a very passive manner as follows: the assessee’s role is usually merely receiving peer feedback (Kim, 2009).
We will address the following issue: In the context of peer feedback, which role (assessor and assesse) impacts more on students’ learning? To answer this research question, this study examines the relationship between students’ perception of learning while ‘providing’ and ‘receiving’ feedback with an emphasis on the following areas: (1) cognitive and metacognitive learning, (2) the development of discipline-related and professional academic skills, and (3) academic emotions or other socio-emotional aspects.
Considering the Vygotskian concept of scaffolded learning, we designed an online questionnaire entitled “Peer evaluation strategies and feedback” (EAIF, after its Spanish acronym) using the SurveyMonkey platform. The questionnaire design considers the mechanisms through which peer feedback might generate its effects. The domains included in the questionnaire are as follows: 1. The impact of peer feedback on cognitive and metacognitive student development (peer feedback leads to comparisons, reflection, contrasting, communication skills, considering deviation from the standards, and learning through models). 2. The impact of peer feedback on the development of social skills and competencies (i.e., development of group work skills, active learning, acceptance of criticism, argumentation, and assertiveness). 3. The impact of peer feedback on future professional skills. This domain includes aspects related to the impact of peer assessment on the students’ perception of the assessment competencies, their level of confidence in the assessment, their level of confidence in their peers, and conceptions of future professions. 4. The impact of peer feedback on the development of socio-emotional and socio-affective features (i.e., anxiety, sense of belonging, personal responsibility, and level of acceptance of negative comments). The study was performed in the Faculty of Education of the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. The participants were first-year undergraduate students pursuing a Teaching Bachelor’s Degree. The study sample consisted of 188 students (80.3% female), who consented to participate in both the research study and the innovation project. In total, 248 students were enrolled in the degree programme and participated in the peer-feedback experience. The sample size calculation was performed retrospectively considering a 95% confidence level for finite populations (p and q=0.5), indicating that the margin of error was +-0.035. The participants ranged in age from 18 to 39 years (M=19.74; SD=2.735). The questionnaire was completed in class after the experience had occurred at the very end of the course in May 2017. The questionnaire was administered to the students who were in class at that time, which allowed for the attainment of a representative sample and the use of exhaustive questionnaires with complex questions while avoiding the non-responders (Torrente & Bosch, 1993). Once the data were gathered, univariate and multivariate statistical analyses were performed using IBM Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS v.20) and Système portable pour l'analyse des données (SPAD_N v.5.6) (Bécue & Valls, 2005).
Students perceived that other students benefitted more from the feedback they provided than they benefitted from the feedback that they received. According to the univariate analysis, the experience was a useful learning strategy (M=4.68; SD=1.497) and significantly improved their assignments (M=4.61; SD=1.446). As mentioned above, the students believed that despite its significance, the feedback was more useful in improving the tasks of others (M=5.11; SD=1.245) than in improving the tasks performed by their group (M=4.89; SD=1.460). These statements are valued above the midpoint on the scale because the items ranged from 1 to 7. In addition, the difference between providing and receiving feedback was analysed according to the overall assessment of each action, i.e., providing and/or receiving. Indices were obtained by averaging all actions related to providing and receiving feedback. Then, we compared both indices by performing a paired-samples t-test. The difference between the means of the two conditions (providing and receiving) was sufficiently large and was not due to chance. The t-value was positive, indicating that the first condition (providing feedback) had a higher mean (M=4.75; SD=.090) than the second condition (receiving; M=4.63; SD=1.145); thus, we may conclude that providing feedback caused significantly more reported benefits than receiving feedback (t(183)=2.504; p=.013). The results were consistent with the students’ responses, and a robust significant correlation was observed (r=.812; p=.000). Providing feedback rendered the students more active and involved in their learning, enhanced their responsibility and commitment to the task, and developed their assertiveness skills. Our study fills a gap in the literature (Topping, 2009) and provides new insights into the benefits of providing peer review in student learning. Active involvement by students is directly linked to students’ empowerment (Panadero & Dochy, 2014) and has the potential of contributing to lifelong-learning process and professional skill development (Li et al., 2010).
1.Bécue, M., & Valls, J. (2005). Manual de introducción a los métodos factoriales y clasificación con SPAD. Bellaterra: Servei d’Estadística. Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. 2.Boud, D., & Molloy, E. (2013). Rethinking models of feedback for learning: the challenge of design. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(6), 698-712. 3.Carless, D., & Chang, K. K. H. (2016). Managing dialogic use of exemplars. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(6), 930-941. 4.Harris, L., & Brown, G. (2013). Opportunities and obstacles to consider when using peer- and self-assessment to improve student learning: Case studies into teachers’ implementation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 36, 101-111. 5.Hovardas, T., Tsivitanidou, O. E., & Zacharia, Z. C. (2014). Peer versus expert feedback: an investigation of the quality of peer-feedback among secondary school students. Computers & Education, 71, 133-152. 6.Ibarra, M. S., Rodríguez, G., & Gómez, M. A. (2012). La evaluación entre iguales: beneficios y estrategias para su práctica en la universidad / Benefits of peer-assessment and strategies for its practice at the university. Revista de Educación, 359, 206-231. 7.Ion, G., Cano, E., & Fernández, M. (2017). Enhancing self-regulated learning through using written feedback in higher education. International Journal of Educational Research, 85, 1–10. 8.Li, L., Liu, X., & Steckelberg, A. (2010). Assessor or assessee: How student learning improves by giving and receiving peer-feedback. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(3), 525–536. 9.Liu, N. F., & Carless, D. (2006). Peer-feedback: the learning element of peer assessment. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(3), 279-290. 10.Panadero, E., & Dochy, F. (2014). Student self-assessment: assessment, learning and empowerment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(7), 895-897. 11.Simpson, G., & Clifton, J. (2015). Assessing postgraduate student perceptions and measures of learning in a peer review feedback process. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(4), 501-514. 12.Topping, K. J. (2009). Peer assessment. Theory into Practice, 48(1), 20-27. 13.Tsivitanidou, O. E., Zacharia, Z. C., & Hovardas, T. (2011). Investigating secondary school students' unmediated peer assessment skills. Learning and Instruction, 21, 506-519. 14.Van den Hurk, T. G., Houtveen, A. M., & Van de Grift, W. J. (2016). Fostering effective teaching behavior through the use of data-feedback. Teaching and Teacher Education, 60, 444-451. 15. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge M, A: MIT Press. 16. Wen, M. L., Tsai, C. C., & Chun‐Yen Chang, C. Y. (2006). Attitudes towards peer assessment: a comparison of the perspectives of pre‐service and in‐service teachers. Journal Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 43(1), 83-92.
00. Central Events (Keynotes, EERA-Panel, EERJ Round Table, Invited Sessions)
Network 1. Continuing Professional Development: Learning for Individuals, Leaders, and Organisations
Network 2. Vocational Education and Training (VETNET)
Network 3. Curriculum Innovation
Network 4. Inclusive Education
Network 5. Children and Youth at Risk and Urban Education
Network 6. Open Learning: Media, Environments and Cultures
Network 7. Social Justice and Intercultural Education
Network 8. Research on Health Education
Network 9. Assessment, Evaluation, Testing and Measurement
Network 10. Teacher Education Research
Network 11. Educational Effectiveness and Quality Assurance
Network 12. LISnet - Library and Information Science Network
Network 13. Philosophy of Education
Network 14. Communities, Families and Schooling in Educational Research
Network 15. Research Partnerships in Education
Network 16. ICT in Education and Training
Network 17. Histories of Education
Network 18. Research in Sport Pedagogy
Network 19. Ethnography
Network 20. Research in Innovative Intercultural Learning Environments
Network 22. Research in Higher Education
Network 23. Policy Studies and Politics of Education
Network 24. Mathematics Education Research
Network 25. Research on Children's Rights in Education
Network 26. Educational Leadership
Network 27. Didactics – Learning and Teaching
The programme is updated regularly (each day in the morning)
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.