ACHMS meeting | 2025 Dec 10
# Collaborative peer feedback ### Dave Smith --- ## Acknowledgement Project supported by 2017 Teaching Innovation Grant from the Centre for Teaching & Learning at Yale-NUS College. ### Publication D. A. Smith *Collaborative peer feedback*, Proceedings of ICEduTech 2017, Ed. P. Kommers, T. Issa, P. Isías, A. Hol, IADIS (2017), 183–186. ### Implementations * **2017–2024** *Proof* course at Yale-NUS College, Singapore. * **2025–…** *Linearity & Continuity 2* at University of Newcastle, Australia --- ## What is peer feedback? #### Process * Students complete an assignment (summative) or a first draft (formative). * Students "mark" each other's work, giving feedback. * Students respond to the feedback they received. --- ## What is peer feedback? #### Process * Students complete an assignment (summative) or a first draft (formative). * Students "mark" each other's work, giving feedback. * Students respond to the feedback they received. #### Popular models * Moore method: presentation to whole class followed by criticism. * Peer feedback is homework, through VLE (Canvas). * Bring homework to class, exchange with neighbour, read, converse. --- ## What is peer feedback? #### Process * Students complete an assignment (summative) or a first draft (formative). * Students "mark" each other's work, giving feedback. * Students respond to the feedback they received. #### Popular models * Moore method: presentation to whole class followed by criticism. * Peer feedback is homework, through VLE (Canvas). * Bring homework to class, exchange with neighbour, read, converse. #### Grading (stakes) * Peer feedback learning activities need not include any grade component. * Course score can be awarded for active participation in learning activity. * Some models include student provided grades counting toward course score. * In some models, students grade their own work based on the feedback they have received from their peers. --- ## Why collaborative peer feedback? --- ## Why
collaborative peer
feedback? --- ## Why
collaborative peer
feedback? Because it works very well.
Feedback has extraordinarily large and consistent positive effect on learning compared to other aspects of teaching.
Black & William *Assessment and classroom learning* (1998) --- ## Why
collaborative peer
feedback? Because it works very well.
Feedback has extraordinarily large and consistent positive effect on learning compared to other aspects of teaching.
Black & William *Assessment and classroom learning* (1998) Because it works better than anything else.
Feedback is the most important single influence on student achievement.
Hattie *Identifying the salient facets of a model of student learning: a synthesis of meta-analyses* (1987) --- ## Why
collaborative peer
feedback? Because it works very well.
Feedback has extraordinarily large and consistent positive effect on learning compared to other aspects of teaching.
Black & William *Assessment and classroom learning* (1998) Because it works better than anything else.
Feedback is the most important single influence on student achievement.
Hattie *Identifying the salient facets of a model of student learning: a synthesis of meta-analyses* (1987) And students know it.
Mathematics students want specific, detailed, facilitative feedback.
Rice et. al. *Improving student feedback in distance education: a research report* (1994) --- ## Why
collaborative
peer feedback? --- ## Why
collaborative
peer feedback? Instructor time. --- ## Why
collaborative
peer feedback? Instructor time. The provider of feedback can also benefit.
Submitting student must
find data
construct arguments
evaluate methodologies
Feedback providor must
check data
interrogate arguments
appraise evaluations
--- ## Why
collaborative
peer feedback? Instructor time. The provider of feedback can also benefit.
Submitting student must
find data
construct arguments
evaluate methodologies
Feedback providor must
check data
interrogate arguments
appraise evaluations
The feedback provider usually attains deeper learning outcomes.
Self-, peer and collaborative assessment helps to remove the student / tutor barrier, develop enterprising competencies in students and can lead to greater motivation and ‘deeper’ learning.
Somervell *Issues in Assessment, Enterprise and Higher Education: the case for self-, peer and collaborative assessment* (1993) --- ## Why
collaborative
peer feedback? Instructor time. --- ## Dangers of peer feedback? * Feedback provider may not engage seriously with task * low quality * high variance in quality * receiving student doubts quality --- ## Dangers of peer feedback? * Feedback provider may not engage seriously with task * low quality * high variance in quality * receiving student doubts quality * anonymity valuable in both roles
When students perceived that their teacher took care not to embarrass them, they reported lower levels of maladaptive behaviors.
Friedel et. al. *"Stop embarrassing me!" Relations among student perceptions of teachers, classroom goals, and maladaptive behaviors* (2002) --- ## The Proof course at Yale-NUS College Mostly a course in mathematical writing. Learning goals: * writing proof * critical reading of proof * (board) presentation of proof * typesetting mathematics with LaTeX * methods of proof: contradiction, induction, $\varepsilon$ $:$ $\delta$ arguments * some foundational topics: elementary number theory, combinatorics, functions and sets, field arithmetic, construction of $\mathbb N, \mathbb Z, \mathbb Q, \mathbb R, \mathbb C$ Enrollment * 40% year 2 students * 15—23 students per section; approx 45 students per year * 80% went on to major in Mathematics, Computer Science & Statistics * Highly motivated students --- ## Why peer feedback in Proof? Peer feedback risky because * submitting student not used to precise writing * feedback provider not used to unpicking imprecise writing * low probability of valuable feedback, especially early in course --- ## Why peer feedback in Proof? Peer feedback risky because * submitting student not used to precise writing * feedback provider not used to unpicking imprecise writing * low probability of valuable feedback, especially early in course Potential advantages * personalised feedback especially valuable on new mode of communication * "low quality" feedback resulting from feedback provider misunderstanding often represents failure of submitting student to write clearly * critical reading of proofs of varying quality is a learning goal * easier to practice critical reading of another's proof before one's own * sharing LaTeX tips between learners --- ## Why peer feedback in Proof? Peer feedback risky because * submitting student not used to precise writing * feedback provider not used to unpicking imprecise writing * low probability of valuable feedback, especially early in course Potential advantages * personalised feedback especially valuable on new mode of communication * "low quality" feedback resulting from feedback provider misunderstanding often represents failure of submitting student to write clearly * critical reading of proofs of varying quality is a learning goal * easier to practice critical reading of another's proof before one's own * sharing LaTeX tips between learners Effective (peer or instructor) feedback on written proofs requires markup directly on submitted document. --- ## Collaborative peer feedback Aim to address: feedback provider may not engage seriously with task, low quality, high variance of quality, receiving student doubts quality, anonymity valuable in both roles.
Before class
students submit work (LaTeX source) through Canvas VLE
instructor pseudonymises and prints
instructor assigns students and submitted work to feedback groups
During class
instructor provides model solutions
feedback generated
collaboratively
by groups of 3–4 students
groups study submissions together & agree each piece of feedback before writing
instructor facilitates generic feedback
After class
instructor scans feedback & maps pseudonyms to names
instructor distributes feedback through VLE
students complete reflective assignment based on feedback they received
Grading
on submission, participation and completion of reflection
total 20% of course grade for 9 exercises in 13 week semester
--- ## Effectiveness of collaborative peer feedback in Proof #### Course evaluations * ⅔ of students mentioned the peer feedback exercises when asked about "mode of interaction" or "most effective learning activities". * Almost all mentions of peer feedback were positive. * After number of peer feedback exercises was increased and generic feedback sessions introduced, all comments were positive. #### Colleagues' observations of classes * Students have "surprisingly deep discussions of their peers' proofs". * "Students appear to enjoy" the collaborative peer feedback exercise. * The collaborative peer feedback exercise "forced student to challenge their assumptions and those of their peers in a supportive and respectful environment". * Collaborative peer feedback "(1) requires students to read lots of different proofs for a small set of mathematical statements and (2) provides unbiased ... feedback to each student on how understandable their proofs were to peers". --- ## Technology in collaborative peer feedback Significant instructor time could be spent on * instructor pseudonymises and prints * instructor assigns students to feedback groups and submitted work to feedback groups * instructor provides model solutions * instructor scans feedback & maps pseudonyms to names * instructor distributes feedback through VLE --- ## Technology in collaborative peer feedback Significant instructor time could be spent on * instructor pseudonymises and prints * instructor assigns students to feedback groups and submitted work to feedback groups * instructor provides model solutions * instructor scans feedback & maps pseudonyms to names * instructor distributes feedback through VLE Automated in Python. Currently only Mac & Linux, but Windows coming soon. Less work then expected as few model solutions necessary and can be reused each semester. --- ## Technology in collaborative peer feedback Significant instructor time could be spent on * instructor pseudonymises and prints * instructor assigns students to feedback groups and submitted work to feedback groups * instructor provides model solutions * instructor scans feedback & maps pseudonyms to names * instructor distributes feedback through VLE Automated in Python. Currently only Mac & Linux, but Windows coming soon. Less work then expected as few model solutions necessary and can be reused each semester. None of this requires students submit in LaTeX; a pdf submission works too. --- ## Demonstration
Submission
Pseudonymisation
Feedback
--- ## Collaborative peer feedback at UoN #### Motivation * Most students solve very few problems each week. * Students get very little individual feedback on their work. * Students are expected to produce more sophisticated proofs than in previous courses. * Students have not previously critically read proof. #### Adaptations * Approx 35 minutes of each 50 minute tutorial is dedicated to collaborative peer feedback. * Students submit pdf through Canvas LMS. * More model solutions provided, including incorrect attempts by the instructor. * Class discussion of the pack of model solutions before beginning the peer feedback. * Students only get feedback from 1 group. * Generic feedback session dropped as students were not willing to participate. #### Student feedback * No course evaluations yet. * Students are more actively engaged on collaborative peer feedback than on worksheet. --- ## Materials
Canvas assignments
Correct solutions
Incorrect solutions
--- ## Demonstration
Submission
Pseudonymisation
Feedback
--- # Thanks! ### These slides ## 