Formative assessment and peer feedback
Download as PPT, PDF2 likes1,300 views
The document discusses the implementation of peer feedback for formative assessment, exploring its importance, benefits, and practical setup in a blended learning environment. It highlights key aspects such as the role of feedback in improving student performance, the organization of peer assessment processes, and considerations for effective feedback delivery. Additionally, the document includes an example of a feedback experiment involving collaboration among students.
Formative assessment and peer feedback
- 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
- 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
- 24. EXAMPLE COURSERA 2 RUBRICS
- 25. EXAMPLE COURSERA 3 FEEDBACK HOW DO YOU EVALUATE THE QUALITY?
- 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)