By Ellen Coady, Teaching Assistant, Masters in Forensic Psychology student, Carleton University
For many university students, the cycle of feedback on written works is not a process of dialogue. Instead, it is a one-directional interaction wherein works are submitted for evaluation and by the time feedback has been provided, students have moved on in order to attend to upcoming coursework. This behaviour is of great concern as if students do not engage with feedback provided on assessments, they cannot benefit from it (Winstone et al., 2017). This issue is further complicated by the fact that even if students do engage with their feedback, there are often few chances to apply the feedback in the same context, as many courses offer modules with little continuity between them, thus harming students’ ability to learn from the feedback provided (Jonsson, 2013). Thus, the status quo does not promote engaged learning nor thoughtful consideration of feedback provided on assessed works, begging the question of how to promote student engagement with written feedback on course assessments. Identifying mechanisms of improving students’ feedback engagement is integral to improving learning outcomes as engagement is thought to be the strongest predictor of feedback effectiveness (Winstone et al., 2017).
One experiential learning activity which can promote proactive recipience of feedback and student engagement is a peer review report activity, developed by Drs. Katie Lucas and Sean Landsman for NSCI1000 (Natural Sciences Seminar in Science). Specifically, this activity addresses three major barriers to student engagement with feedback identified by Jonsson (2013) and Winstone et al. (2017): insufficiently detailed, impersonal feedback, authoritativeness, and barriers to implementation. In this activity, class members complete peer review report forms for the final essays of two of their classmates. These peer review report forms replicate the peer review process of academic journals, requiring students to provide an overall impression of the article and to identify major and minor areas of improvement. Students then meet with their peer reviewers to discuss the provided feedback. Students are marked on their participation. This activity exemplifies student engagement as a means of building student understanding (Ashwin & McVitty, 2015).
The structure of this activity addresses the barrier of insufficiently detailed, impersonal feedback as the feedback provided on the student’s essay is completely tailored to the student’s work, creating a high degree of individualization. In addition, during student meetings with their peer reviewers, students can discuss the feedback provided and reviewers are able to elaborate on pieces of feedback which are lacking in detail. Thus, it is unlikely that the feedback provided during the activity will be considered impersonal and insufficiently detailed.
Second, traditional forms of lecturing can create authoritative classroom hierarchies which promote passive student engagement as they typically involve a unidirectional exchange of knowledge from the professor to the class (Jonsson, 2013). By extension, in these environments, feedback is often thought of as the responsibility of the educator (Winstone et al., 2017). However, this perspective undermines the fact that students must take an active role in responding to and applying the feedback they receive in order for this feedback to be effective. In the peer review report activity, the students and the teaching team engage in a reciprocal exchange of knowledge, and equal value is placed on feedback coming from the peer reviewers and the teaching team (who moderate classroom discussions). This structure demonstrates that the teaching team values peer feedback and student voice. Subsequently, it helps to shift the classroom power dynamic to be one where students and teaching team members have similar levels of power. By removing the barrier of authoritativeness of feedback by reconstructing classroom power structures, the activity encourages proactive recipience of feedback.
Third, students often experience barriers to implementing feedback (e.g., confusion on feedback language and mechanisms of applying feedback, discontinuity in course modules, etc.; Jonsson, 2013; Winstone et al., 2017). This activity minimizes the impact of this barrier as working with peers may create a more approachable pathway for student inquiry. Students who may not be comfortable reaching out to their teaching team can ask their peers for clarification. In addition, the group meetings included in this activity provide dedicated class time for a student to review their feedback with their peer reviewers, who can walk the student through points of clarification and provide advice on implementation. This intensive support can be more specific, thorough, and targeted than the support which can be provided to students by teaching team members, who typically cannot review and provide feedback on essay drafts. Last, students have the opportunity to apply this feedback to their essays prior to submitting a final copy for assessment, giving them the opportunity to practice applying their feedback.
In conclusion, the peer review report activity dismantles three major barriers to building student engagement: insufficient detail and individualization, authoritativeness, and barriers to implementation (Jonsson, 2013; Winstone et al., 2017). By building a culture of engaged learning and promoting proactive recipience of feedback, students will be better able to develop a thorough understanding of course materials and related skills (e.g., scientific writing, compassionate communication, understanding the academic publication process). Subsequently, students are better able to succeed in their academic environment (Ashwin & McVitty, 2015). The opportunity to engage in this activity is now available to the broader Carleton community through the Carleton Undergraduate Journal of Science (CUJS) who offer support to any faculty members interested in implementing this activity in their course.
References
Ashwin, P., & McVitty, D. (2015). The meanings of student engagement: Implications for practices and policies. In A. Curaj, L. Matei, R. Pricopie, J. Salmi, & P. Scott (Eds.), The European higher education area: Between critical reflections and future policies (pp. 343-359). Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20877-0
Jonsson, A. (2013). Facilitating productive use of feedback in higher education. Active Learning in Higher Education, 14, 63–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1469787412467125
Winstone, N. E., Nash, R. A., Parker, M., & Rowntree, J. (2017). Supporting learners’ agentic engagement with feedback: A systematic review and a taxonomy of recipience processes. Educational Psychologist, 52(1), 17–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2016.1207538