Lesson: Facilitating Peer Feedback
Lesson Pages
Sizing Up the Barrier
Studies have shown that quality feedback during the writing and design processes can be highly effective for improving student outcomes (e.g. Alvarez, Espasa, & Guasch, 2012 Links to an external site.). However, according to recent literature, unidirectional correction from instructors or peers (the most common type) is not conducive to divergent and creative thinking often coveted in projects and papers (Nicol, 2010 Links to an external site.). Moreover, instructors are often pressed for time and thus find it difficult to provide high quality feedback to students. Please consider the following scenario.
Scenario
In Professor Meril's journalism course, students are called upon to develop several articles over the course of the semester, and to assemble these articles into a newspaper with the work of different authors from the class as a final collaborative project. In the past, students have complained because certain members of the class contributed work that others felt reduced the overall quality of the final collaborative product. Professor Meril felt the same way. However, Professor Meril also felt unsure as to how to provide feedback earlier in the process so as to enable students to improve their work prior to final submissions. Teaching multiple classes, researching, conferencing, and the other expectations of life as a tenure-track professor made it seem unrealistic to provide quality feedback to all of her students on several iterations and articles. She had tried peer feedback in the past, but it often amounted to either students giving shallow commentary (e.g. "I agree with this;" "this looks good;" "I think you need to review your grammar") or overly critical feedback that caused additional problems. Without good feedback, everyone lost the opportunity to grow. But good feedback from herself or the students' peers seemed out of reach.
In this lesson, we will explore not only how faculty may enhance the quality of formative peer feedback, but will also examine how this model can be applied effectively using the features of Canvas.
Key Term: Formative Peer Feedback
Formative feedback in general refers to "information communicated to the learner that is intended to modify his or her thinking or behaviour for the purpose of improving learning" Shute (2008 Links to an external site., p. 154). Formative peer feedback is formative feedback that is developed and delivered by peers, with or without instructor guidance.
Methods: Critical Friends Protocol
According to some recent research, dialogic peer feedback (Alvarez et al., 2012 Links to an external site.; Nicol, 2010 Links to an external site.) and learner-solicited feedback (Boud & Molloy, 2012 Links to an external site.) can be efficient and effective practices to provide well received feedback by and for students. One method for facilitating peer feedback that is both learner-solicited and dialogic is that of the Critical Friends Protocol.
The Critical Friends Model, or Protocol, consists of "structured processes and guidelines that promote meaningful and efficient communication, problem solving, and learning" (NSRF, 2014 Links to an external site.; para.1). This protocol promotes effective peer feedback from group critiques that emphasize the most "critical" or important feedback (NSRF, ). Critical Friends can be used synchronously (in person or online) or asynchronously (self-paced), although using it asynchronously may require explicit student training.
The Critical Friends Protocol (CFP) calls for a small group of participants to adhere to one of three roles:
- Facilitator: Reviews the process at the outset, manages time, participates in and facilitates discussion, directs the discussion through the phases, and leads the debriefing process.
- Presenter: Prepares and presents work (or an issue) for consultancy, specifies questions to be addressed by the group, observes as an outside observer during the discussion, taking notes on feedback, later specifies what was helpful and applies the helpful feedback to improve the work or issue at hand.
- Discussants: Addresses the questions or issues provided by the presenter giving both warm and cool feedback and practical suggestions in an encouraging and positive way.
In these roles, the participants move through stages of feedback in order. These are:
-
Step One: Facilitator Overview
- Review process
- Set time limits
-
Step Two: Presenter Overview
- Share the work done so far or the conceptual issue to be addressed
- Provide context
- Frame key question(s) for specific consideration
-
Step Three: Probing or Clarifying Questions
- Group members ask more questions to learn about the work or issue
- Reminder, this is not a time to give advice or get into the discussion
-
Step Four: Discussant’s Group Discussion
- Group discusses work or issue (both things they liked and things they think could be improved)
- Presenter is silent, taking notes
- Group addresses possible suggestions related to the work or issue
-
Step Five: Presenter Response
- Presenter responds to group feedback (e.g. what was helpful, what was less helpful, asks for clarification of feedback if any is needed)
-
Step Six: Debriefing
- Facilitator leads discussion, critiquing the process
(See the National School Reform Faculty: Harmony Education Center Links to an external site. for more information and resources related to this model).
Want to see it in practice?
In this video Links to an external site., a high school teacher showcases how students can use the model to provide feedback for peers in a literature analysis class. Also of interest is Storey and Wang's (2016) Links to an external site. paper that operationalizes CFP, specifically for higher ed.
Consider This: The Different Functions of Assessment
Unfortunately, student assessments are often used merely to judge students’ mastery of the content at the end of a course. This summative assessment, or “assessment OF learning,” is carried out for purposes of appraisal, and it is just one of three basic purposes served by assessment. The other two purposes of assessment are formative – they occur during and/or before instruction – and they include: “assessment FOR learning” (used for purposes of diagnosis and guidance), and “assessment AS learning” (used to foster the learner’s metacognition and their skill at self-assessment).
Methods: Peer Feedback on Canvas
There are at least two ways to use Canvas features to facilitate peer review (1) group discussion and (2) Peer review group discussion. Both have strengths, uses, and limitations.
Method One: Group Discussion
The full CFP steps can be used in the online environment, except instead of having one person present at a time, the asynchronous online format allows for multiple authors to solicit feedback simultaneously. The instructor would, for example, set reasonable deadlines for everyone in the group to contribute to each of steps two to five. All group members would share and provide feedback to their peer group by these deadlines. Additionally, steps one (Facilitator Overview) and six (Debriefing) may be completed by the instructor/TA who may wish to function as facilitator for all groups.
For example, a timeline for the discussion could look like:
| Due Date | Content |
|---|---|
| September 20 | Share your draft with your peers (via upload or link) and comment on the context or anything else they need to know. Raise 2-4 questions to focus your peers' feedback of your work. |
|
September 24 |
Read through each members' drafts and ask any clarifying questions you may have. |
|
September 25 |
Respond to group mates' clarifying questions. |
|
September 30 |
Provide at least one warm and one cool point of feedback for each group member. Respond to what other peers are saying in feedback. Be sure to intentionally address the focal points prescribed by the author. |
|
October 2 |
Authors - respond in general terms to your peers, ask for clarification of their feedback as needed. Respond to requests for clarification from others based on your feedback. |
This method is excellent as a way to facilitate the CFP in an online, asynchronous environment. However, it may be slower and more labor intensive than the peer assignment review and does not allow for anonymity.
Method Two: Peer Assignment Review
This method is excellent for soliciting 1:1 peer review (anonymously or not) and as a way for students to consider the rubric explicitly in commenting on one another's work. Both the potential anonymity and the use of the rubric may increase the quality of feedback compared to more traditional peer review formats, as may instructor/TA oversight of peer reviews. Note: even in anonymous mode, the instructors and TAs can always see both the authors' and reviewers' names.
Summary
Students may benefit from the opportunity to give and receive solicited feedback during the writing or project design process. However, faculty are often too busy to provide quality detailed feedback during the process and then again for finished products in courses. One research-based solution is to facilitate high-quality peer feedback that is dialogic and solicited. The Critical Friends Protocol is one way to accomplish this type of peer feedback. In Canvas, there are at least two ways to enable students to provide one another with quality feedback: (1) group discussions and (2) peer-reviewed assignments. These each have strengths and limitations and should both be considered viable tools for different situations.