In the present poster we present a study carried out at the Autonomous university of Barcelona, in Education studies, which aims to analyse the perception of students of the role of feedback received and offered from and to their peers in their learning process. During the course 2016-2017 we conducted a study analysing the perception of student about their learning after being involved in a peer-feedback experiences. One course later, during 2017-2108 academic course we conducted a follow-up study with the same students. We started from the premises that being involved during longer period of time in peer-feedback experiences improves the students learning. So, we wonder in which manner peer-feedback influenced the perception of students about their learning in all its dimension: cognitive, metacognitive, social and affective?

We based our study in the constructivist approach to education in which assessment is a key component of learning and teaching activities required for the reflective construction of knowledge. Thus, strategies that entail peer assessment are commonly used in higher education and have greatly impacted assessment procedures (Gielen & De Wever, 2015, Nicol, Thomson, & Breslin, 2014). Peer assessment is a central principle of formative assessment and is linked to the notion that assessment is critical for learning (Panadero & Brown, 2017).

Feedback is derived from a vision of teaching that prioritises the formative and continuous nature of assessment, which has been revealed to facilitate student learning, enable students to become active, responsible and reflective practitioners, improve the quality of learning and provide formal accountability and accreditation of knowledge (Quinton & Smallbone, 2010, etc.).

In the peer-feedback process, the students play the roles of both the assessor and the assessee, and each role has implications for student learning. As the assessor, the students are involved in reviewing, summarising, clarifying, providing feedback, diagnosing misconceptions, identifying gaps in knowledge and considering deviations from the ideal (Topping 1998). These tasks are all cognitively and metacognitively demanding activities that can help consolidate, reinforce and deepen the student assessor’s understanding (Kim, 2009).

In our study, peer feedback was integrated with learning, and providing feedback is considered a key component of learning. Engaging students in collaborative peer-feedback experiences impacts not only their own learning but also the work of their peers, thereby contributing to the production of judgments regarding “the work of peers, and, through a reflective process, about their own work; that it involves them in both invoking and applying criteria to explain those judgements; and that it shifts control of feedback processes into students’ hands” (Nicol, Thomson & Breslin, 2014, p. 102).

Considering the Vygotskian concept of scaffolded learning (Vygotsky, 1978), we designed an online questionnaire using the SurveyMonkey platform entitled “Peer evaluation strategies and feedback”. The questionnaire design considers the mechanisms through which peer feedback might generate its effects. The domains included in the questionnaire are: 1. The impact of peer feedback on cognitive and metacognitive student development. 2. The impact of peer feedback on the development of social skills and competencies. 3. The impact of peer feedback on future professional skills. 4. The impact of peer feedback on the development of affective features. The questions related to these domains were asked with a Likert-type scale. The other group of questions were sociodemographic data like gender, age, degree and hours dedicated to give/receive feedback. For the follow up stage, the same questionnaire was used with some adaptations according to the feedback received from the students. Moreover, new sociodemographic items were included in order to be able to carry out more specific comparisons. The questionnaire is considered suitable for evaluating this experience since its Cronbach’s Alfa is 0.9. The study was undertaken in the Faculty of Education of the Autonomous University of Barcelona in Spain. The participants in the study were undergraduate students pursuing a Teaching Bachelor’s degree. In the first stage of the study, we collected a sample consisted of 188 first-year students out of 248, who were enrolled in the first year of the degree. The sample size calculation was performed retrospectively considering a 95% confidence level for finite populations (p and q=0.5), which means a margin of error of 0.035. The second stage pursued following up and took place during 2017-2018 academic year. The sample consisted of second-year students who participated the previous year. The sample in the second stage consist of 226 students out of 300, but we expect it to increase since the study is still ongoing. The participants ranged in age from 18 to 40 (M=20.83; SD=2.876). The questionnaire was submitted in class after the experience had taken place. The modality of administration was direct self-submission to the students that at that moment were in class, since it allows us to obtain a representative sample, the success in avoiding non-answers and the use of exhaustive questionnaires with complex questions (Torrente & Bosch, 1993). Once the data was gathered, univariate and multivariate statistical analyses were run using SPSS 18 and SPAD_N (Bécue & Valls, 2005).

According to data obtained in the first stage, students’ perception is that the feedback they give has more benefits for others than the benefits they obtain from the feedback received. The univariate analysis oriented to describe the application of peer-feedback showed that the experience has been (1) a useful learning strategy (M=4.68; SD=1.497) and (2) significant to improve their assignments (M=4.61; SD=1.446). However, in the follow-up study we will in-depth analyse if the data change and especially if there are any differences in the learning dimensions established. Students agree with the comments received (M=4.80; SD=1.533) and also incorporate them to improve their activities and projects (M=5.37; SD=1.348). However, they are apparently less satisfied with the received feedback (M=4.96; SD=1.600) than with the given feedback (M=5.52; SD=1.234). Means appear to be above the midpoint of the scale but are frequently lower when it comes to “receiving feedback” probably showing that their expectations of peer-feedback were higher. In the follow up study our interest, however, is to carefully examine, if the long-term exposure to peer-feedback experiences determine a change on the students’ perception and satisfaction with their learning. Since the second stage of the study is still ongoing, hereunder we describe the data we will analyse once the complete sample is collected during the following months. - Differences in the results between first and second stage regarding frequency of feedback. We want to check if being continuously in feedback activities modifies perception of their use and learning. - Differences in the results according to the type of feedback, since some of them gave and received oral feedback, others written feedback and others both; some of them gave and received on-site or online feedback. - Differences in the results according to the training received, since some groups received training and/or some tips about peer feedback.

- Bécue, M. & Valls, J. (2005). Manual de introducción a los métodos factoriales y clasificación con SPAD. Bellaterra: Servei d’Estadística. Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. - Gielen, M. & De Wever, B. (2015). Scripting the role of assessor and assessee in peer assessment in a wiki environment: Impact on peer-feedback quality and product improvement. Computers & Education, 88, 370-386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.07.012 - Kim, M. (2009). The impact of an elaborated assessee’s role in peer assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(1), 105-114. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930801955960 - Nicol, D., Thomson, A. & Breslin, C. (2014). Rethinking feedback practices in higher education: a peer review per- spective. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(1), 102-122. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2013.795518 - Panadero, E. & Brown, G. (2017). Teachers’ reasons for using peer assessment: positive experience predicts use. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 32(1), 133-156. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-015-0282-5 - Quinton, S. & Smallbone, T. (2010). Feeding forward: using feedback to promote student reflection and learning –a teaching model. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 47(1), 125-135. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14703290903525911 - Topping, K. (1998). Peer Assessment between Students in Colleges and Universities. Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 249-276. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543068003249 - Torrente, D. & Bosch, J. L. C. (1993). Encuestas telefónicas y por correo. Madrid: Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas. - Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge M, A: MIT Press.