Presentation on formative assessment and peer feedback: what is it, why use is and what guidelines have to be respected by teachers and peers. With two examples to illustrate how the process can be set up.

1. Peer feedback for
formative assessment
What is it, why use it and how to make it
work

2. ISABELLE LANGEVELD
BLENDED LEARNING ARCHITECT AND MOODLE
CONSULTANT

3. Introduction of assignment
Context: what and why of peer assessment
Short discussion to discover your attitude
How to improve the quality of (peer) feedback
How to set it up
Discussion of example of peer feedback on
Master thesis
Our own peer feedback process

4. assignment
why?
RUTH COLVIN CLARK
CONTENT COVERED
CONTENT LEARNED

5. DESIGN AN ASSIGNMENT FOR PEER
ASSESSMENT
WORK OUT ON PAPER DURING PRESENTATION:
•ARGUE CHOICE FOR PEER FEEDBACK SO YOU CAN
EXPLAIN IT TO STUDENTS
•WHAT IS THE PRODUCT TO BE SUBMITTED
•FB ON WHAT LEVEL OF IMPACT
•FORMATIVE AND/OR SUMMATIVE
•HOW YOU ORGANISE THE PROCESS:
- GROUPING
- CONTROL
- OTHER SETTINGS ON CONTROL PANEL
- WHICH ACTIVITY IN MOODLE (FORUM,
WORKSHOP, WIKI)
- ETC
= INPUT FOR PEER FEEDBACK WITHIN YOUR TEAM

6. FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT PEER FEEDBACK
PEER ASSESSMENT
WHAT IS IT
BLENDED ENVIRONMENT

7. FEEDBACK IS
INFORMATION THAT HELPS A STUDENT TO NAVIGATE THE GAP
BETWEEN WHERE HE IS AND WHERE HE IS MEANT TO BE IN TERMS
OF UNDERSTANDING AND PERFORMANCE

8. FEEDBACK: HOW AM I DOING SO FAR?
FEED UP: WHERE AM I GOING?
CLEAR AND CHALLENGING
GOAL
FEED FORWARD: WHERE AM I
GOING NEXT?
UNDERSTANDABLE
CRITERIA
POSSIBILITIES FOR
IMPROVEMENT

9. SOURCES OF FEEDBACK
S
E
L
F

10. PRODU
CT
When
useful?
NOT REPRODUCTIVE LEARNING

11. Why?
BLOOM’S TAXONOMY
NO TEACHER/LESS WORK
FOR HER/MORE FB FOR
STUDENTS
TRANSFER OF FEEDBACK
SKILLS TO THE
WORKPLACE

12. COMPARABLE LEVEL OF ACADEMIC SKILLS AND
MOTIVATION
OVERLAP IN DOMAIN INTEREST

13. 1
Extra work for the teacher in organizing peer feedback
is compensated by higher student achievements
TRUE
FALSE

14. 2
HIGH PROFICIENCY STUDENTS PROFIT less FROM
PEER FEEDBACK THAN STUDENTS WITH LOWER
PROFICIENCY
TRUE
FALSE

15. 3
who has ever tried it?
YES
NO

16. JOHN HATTIE
Professor of Education at Auckland
University, New Zealand

17. CONCLUSIONS OF HIS META-ANALYSIS:
IT DOESN’T ALWAYS WORK
EFFECT IS variable
h!
u
D
UNDER SOME CONDITIONS, FEEDBACK INFORMATION HAD no
EFFECT OR EVEN DEBILITATED PERFORMANCE
FEEDBACK has twice the average effect ON ACHIEVEMENT OF
ALL OTHER EFFECTS OF SCHOOLING INTERVENTIONS

18. FEEDBACK SHOULD NOT BE GIVEN IN A VACUUM
CONTENT/
INSTRUCTION
PRODUCT/
PROCESS
ASSIGNMENT/
GOAL
FEEDBACK

19. FOUR LEVELS
4. ON SELF
AM I A NICE, DILIGENT,
ABLE PERSON
3. SELFREGULATION
AM I ORGANISING AND
EVALUATING MY
LEARNING PROPERLY
2. PROCESS
IS MY TASK APPROACH
APPROPRIATE AND WELL
EXECUTED
1. RESULT OF
TASK
IS IT CORRECT/
DO I MEET THE CRITERIA
OF FEEDBACK

20. What else to think
about
GIVING IS NOT RECEIVING
‘HOME’ CULTURE
GROUP CULTURE: IS IT OKAY TO MAKE ERRORS AND SHOW DOUBT

21. Power of peers, feedback can:
BE A WONDERFUL INSIGHT THE
TEACHER HAD NEVER THOUGHT
OF
HAVE A POSITIVE
INFLUENCE ON
COMMITMENT
+
JAZZ UP LEARNERS
REPUTATION, THEIR SELFESTEEM AND SELFEFFICACY
BE INCORRECT, TEACHER
HAS TO MONITOR
BE CONSIDERED HURTFUL,
TEACHER HAS TO FOSTER A
WARM AND INQUISITIVE
CLIMATE
DAMAGE LEARNERS
REPUTATION IF CRITICISM
AND PRAISE ARE OUT OF
BALANCE
-

22. FOCUS ON TASK,
NOT LEARNER
PROMOTE
LEARNING GOAL
ORIENTATION
reduce uncertainty
between
performance
and goals
after
instruction,
building on
prior
knowledge
IN MANAGEABLE
UNITS
PROVIDE
ELABORATED FB
POS + NEG
WRITTEN
WITH
CARE
TIMELY,
BEFORE
FRUSTRATION
TAKES OVER
UNBIASED AND
OBJECTIve
discussed in
equal dialogue
BE SPECIFIC,
CLEAR, SIMPLE
AS POSSIBLE

23. EXAMPLE COURSERA 1

24. EXAMPLE COURSERA 2 RUBRICS

25. EXAMPLE COURSERA 3 FEEDBACK
HOW DO YOU EVALUATE THE QUALITY?

26. Setting up peer
assesment

27. TUNING
SETTINGS
outcome
what
who/weight of grade
feedback
summative
formative
how
grade
process
product
open
when
peers
how
how
open
self
criteria/
checklist
oral
written
obligation
teacher
HOW
ANONYMOUS
PUBLIC
CONTROL GROUPING
MOODLE
during
final
optional
compulsory
STUDENT
TEACHER

28. LET
HELP YOU

30. Stage 1- Online
What
Idea for research topic and concept
problem statement
How in Moodle
Personal discussion thread in Forum
Grouping
Whole class
FB Criteria
Brief reflection on relevance and
feasibility
Control
Students are free to choose who to
provide feedback

31. Stage 2 - Online
What
Problem statement, scope, research
strategy, references
How in Moodle
Workshop, with built-in criteria and
planned phases for upload and
feedback
Grouping
Fb to a 3 peers, settings in Workshop
FB Criteria
Elaborate and concrete fb on all parts of
proposal
Control
Settings in Workshop: who provides fb
to whom is randomly distributed

32. Stage 3 - Live
What
Adapted problem statement, scope,
research strategy, references
How
Plenary session, expert provides
additional fb and discusses most
instructive examples (after peer review
phase is closed)
Grouping
Plenary
FB Criteria
Same: Elaborate and concrete fb on all
parts of proposal
Control
Tutor organizes the session

33. Stage 4 - Online
What
Product concept
How
Annotation Tool (outside of Moodle: assembles
comments and allows discussion between
commentators, grading of comments. Random
evaluation by experts
Grouping
Small group of st with comparable domain
FB Criteria
Detailed comments on argumentation, structure,
readability, use of references, interpretation of
findings
Control
St choose who they give fb, tutor monitors
distribution of tasks

34. Stage 5 - Online
What
Final product
How in Moodle
Assignment (submit file)
Grouping
If a student needs it: small group of st
with comparable domain
FB Criteria
Detailed comments on argumentation,
structure, readability, use of references,
interpretation of findings
Control
Tutor

35. Our feedback
experiment
Work in a trio
Give your paper to your neighbour and ask
him/her to focus on 2 aspects (3)
Write your comments on a separate paper with the
focus your neighbour asked for, try to use the
guidelines (5-10)
Repeat once (5-10)
Compare the fb you received, discuss with your
peers (5 per product - 15)
Evaluate the outcomes and the process (10)