21 June 2009 ............... Length about 500 words (5,000 bytes).
(Document started on 17 June 2009.)
This is a WWW document maintained by
Steve Draper, installed at http://www.psy.gla.ac.uk/~steve/talks/mcr2.html.
You may copy it.
How to refer to it.
Web site logical path:
Reciprocal peer critiquing reconsidered
Title Reciprocal peer critiquing reconsidered
Date/time: Monday 22 June 2009. Session: 1-2pm
CAPEL, Graham Hills Building, Strathclyde University
50 George Street (central Glasgow).
How to get there:
Department of Psychology,
University of Glasgow.
A continuing practice by some tutors in the psychology department is to get
students to perform reciprocal peer critiquing of each others' work: an
exercise in which they read and critique a piece of each other's work, and
exchange these comments. Data published in 2006 showed clear benefits as
measured by student attitudes. This talk, based on some years of experience
with this learning activity and further individual feedback from participants,
explores a range of theoretical reasons why it might be beneficial, and
discusses which of these is the fundamental origin of the benefits.
Frequently stated benefits include getting multiple opinions not just one,
getting feedback in interactive dialogue not in terse written comments, just
seeing how other students approach the task (the variety is the value, not
seeing an undoubtedly better or "right" solution), exercising the judgement
criteria as a critic not just as a defendant. A contrasting position and
exercise is also discussed based on the recent work of Sadler, who far from
getting students to make judgements based on explicit criteria, required them
to produce critiques without any given criteria. Having introduced the range
of different possible benefits, the learning design is then measured, in a
bidirectional comparison, against a) Nicol's 7 principles of feedback and
assessment, b) Rowntree's list of assessment proposals, and c) the 5 National
Student Survey items relating to assessment and feedback. On the one hand,
great (as opposed to merely adequate) learning designs tend to tick many boxes
at once in a single coherent activity, and this probably to some extent
explains the enduring value of this activity (i.e. adding scores across
principles shows the activity to score highly overall). On the other hand, it
does not match some others of these criteria, which implies questions about
simply adding item scores together when some items seem to predict that this
exercise should not deliver value for feedback.
For more information, booking, etc. please contact
Web site logical path:
[Top of this page]