A SOLSTICE discussion and webinar with Sarah Honeychurch and Gill Ferrell this Friday at 12pm.
“Peer review is an important alternative to teacher feedback, as research indicates that both the production and the receipt of feedback reviews can enhance students’ learning without necessarily increasing teacher workload.” (Nicol, 2013:103).
A wealth of literature supports Nicol’s assertion: Zingaro & Porter, 2013; Mostert & Snowball, 2012; Nicol, 2010; Crouch, et al, 2007; Mitra, 2003 as well as experiences documented at Edge Hill (Juss et al., 2010).
Further, Nicol says peer review ‘ … should receive much greater attention in higher education curricula’ (ibid:102). Hence, I’ve organised an online and face-to-face event at the SOLSTICE conference, where external experts will attend to discuss the technique and illustrate how technology can facilitate peer review.
Please come along to this event – either face-to-face in B004 at 12pm this Friday (please ensure you register for SOLSTICE):
… or to join us online, following this link:
The session will discuss some of the barriers to adoption, such as students’ lack of confidence giving feedback and concern about plagiarisism between students; to tutors disquiet about the quality of peer feedback provided. The idea is to explore how insurmountable these barriers are and how we might overcome them.
Note that we’d be very interested in hearing from colleagues who are using the technique, especially online, exploring their drivers, approach and outcomes.
So – please come along, either in B004 or online. Further thoughts sought too (leave a comment at the bottom).
Here’s my SOLSTICE abstract that gives further details:
Kindest regards to all, David
Crouch, H., Watkins, J. Fagen, A.P., Mazur, E. (2007) Peer Instruction: Engaging students one-on-one, all at once in Reviews in Physics Education Research, Ed. E.F. Redish and P. Cooney, pp. 1-1 (American Association of Physics Teachers, College Park, MD, 2007). Available from http://mazur.harvard.edu/publications.php?function=display&rowid=537 [Accessed 13th May 2015]
Juss, M., Chamberlain, V. and Callaghan, D. (2010) Moving Assessed Student Presentations Online: How a Change in Practice Brought “…a breath of fresh air” to the Student Experience SOLSTICE Conference 2010, Edge Hill University, ORMSKIRK, 3rd June 2010 [http://www.eshare.edgehill.ac.uk/1265/] last accessed 1st June 2015
Mitra, S. (2003). “Minimally Invasive Education: A progress report on the “Hole-in-the-wall” experiments”. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(3), 367-371.
Mostert, M.; Snowball , J. (2012) Where angels fear to tread: online peer-assessment in a large first-year class Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education Vol. 38, Iss. 6, 2013 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2012.683770 [Accessed 13trh May 2015]
Nicol, D. (2010) The foundation for graduate attributes: Developing self-regulation through self and peer assessment. The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education.Scotland,
Nicol, D., Thomson, A, and Breslin, C. (2013) Rethinking feedback practices in higher education: a peer review perspective. Assessment and evaluation in higher education. 39(1), 102-122.
Zingaro, D., & Porter, L. (2014) Peer instruction in computing: The value of instructor intervention. Computers & Education, 71 , 87–96.
One response to “More peer review = More feedback. What’s not to love?”
Extracts from chat transcript from online session:
Meg: It might be argued that you are more likely to trust feedback from those you know and respect. Thus, perhaps cohort cohesion is critical.
Sarah: Yes, Meg, exactly. I’d start with a Jigsaw Classroom model
Gill: David Nicol has good evidence that reviewing other assignments done to same brief as your own is a huge help in really understanding what the assessment criteria mean.
Sarah: My colleage, Steve Draper, uses F2F peer review for honours dissertation students. They work on groups of 3-4 and comment on each others’ work throughout
Gill: University of Edinburgh doing very interesting work on ACJ (Adaptive Comparative Judgement) using technology
Sarah: We are also working on ACJ for peer review here at Glasgow.