Reflection, review and peer feedback 6.10. 2021
- Afnan Khan
- Oct 11, 2021
- 5 min read
Today’s competence goal You understand the meaning and goals of assessment in the learning process.
The day started with a thirty-minute warm-up session, and the principle question discussed in the main room was the difference between meeting virtually and in person. Many participants and instructors shared their life experiences regarding this topic. Many insights and engaging stories served to highlight that meeting virtually and meeting people in person are not always the same in terms of how we perceive things. In this starter discussion, the topic slowly turned to the giving of feedback in various situations, either virtually or in person. What kind of factors do we take into account on a general level when reviewing, writing reflections and giving feedback about other people’s work? Many people agreed that such factors could affect the evaluation process at any given moment. Even when we try our best to be fair and neutral, there can be a range of considerations influencing our final feedback and reflection.
After this initial discussion, the instructors went over some formalities regarding writing and evaluating other people's blogs in the group. The instructors also explained the role of blogs in the evaluation process of each course. They advised us to quickly attach the OSSI system links to find the relevant blog as a learning diary. It is my understanding that blogs are the best way to reflect the learning process at each step in these pedagogy studies.
The instructors then introduced a link from the Visual Capitalist website, which describes the 50 cognitive biases to be aware of while evaluating other people and their work. They divided the whole class into pairs and assigned two biases to each pair. The task was to discuss these two biases and relate them to everyday reflection, evaluation and feedback situations. Do these biases actually exist, or are they just myths? In our pair, we discussed the Barnum effect and anchoring.
To begin with, our understanding of these two phenomena was scant, and it was not immediately clear how to relate them to everyday teaching life. We tried our best, however, and after some discussion, we came up with a few analogies. Once the discussion was over, we all went back to the main room, and each group briefly described their assigned biases. Some confusion in the group work led to the repetition of some biases, but around 8 to 10 biases were covered in total. The instructors listened to every group and aimed to improve our general understanding of each bias with concrete examples.
For the Barnum effect, the example was enlightening. Some students tried to answer the assigned questions by making vague statements and including lots of information. While this may look impressive, it only goes to show that the real answers are missing behind these vague statements.
Other biases covered included the Halo effect, anchoring, groupthink and self-serving bias.
On a personal level, I reflected that many of these biases had played some role in my own evaluation of people in the past, even when I had tried to be neutral. This interactive session lasted for an hour.
The next section was about differentiating between feedback and assessment. Participants were able to gain a deeper understanding of both. The nature of feedback is that it is brief, formative, non-judgemental and specific, and it focuses on the behaviours the learner can improve. In contrast, assessment or evaluation is scheduled, summative, formal judgement based on comparison with peers. With the use of various examples, the instructors stressed the importance of being clear about the distinction between these two factors. Particular points for consideration while giving and receiving feedback were also discussed. A Padlet was provided, and everyone wrote their opinions about these two questions:
What should be considered when giving feedback?
What should be considered when receiving feedback?
All of the participants wrote their opinions about these two questions, which can be seen below:
I believe that the instructors prepared all the participants sufficiently before jumping into the blog feedback session. All participants were divided into three groups, with six people in each group. In this session, all participants offered feedback regarding other people’s blogs. Our group included the same three-person group to which I was assigned earlier by the instructors. I provided input to Feroj and Shiv, and they both gave feedback about my blog posts. The sessions were friendly and good-natured, and we highlighted the good points in each blog and provided input for improving the various segments of the blogs. The other three participants also shared their blogs and received feedback on them (since we had time to do so), so we went through all of the six blogs and talked about what could be done differently in future blogs.
Two critical suggestions which repeatedly came up during the feedback were that the blog should be more visualised, and that videos should be used in upcoming blogs.
The instructions provided for the feedback session were presented in the form of a table. This format made it easier to give systematic feedback. This session lasted for an hour, and afterwards, we returned to the main meeting room. We had a brief discussion in the main room about the happenings of the blog feedback session, and most of the participants were very positive about it.
We then entered the last section of the day, in which one of the instructors provided us with the link to the Padlet with the following question in it:
What are your top five helpful tips for students who are getting ready to submit their work for assessment?
All three feedback groups wrote down their five helpful tips in their column. We were in Room 2; I took the responsibility of recording our group’s critical tips, after consultation with all group members. We came up with a total of eight main tips. Details are in the following picture.
That concludes the events of the reflection, review and peer feedback day, 6.10.2021. I am satisfied that all of the day’s objectives were comprehensively covered.
References
Visualcapitalist.com. 2021. [online] Available at: <https://www.visualcapitalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/50-cognitive-biases-2.png> [Accessed 11 October 2021].
Aaltodoc.aalto.fi. 2021. [online] Available at: <https://aaltodoc.aalto.fi/bitstream/handle/123456789/4755/isbn9789526030357.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y> [Accessed 25 September 2021].
Biggs, J. (1999) Teaching for Quality Learning at University (pp. 165-203). Buckingham, UK: SRHE and Open University Press. https://engineering.purdue.edu/ChE/aboutus/publications/teaching_eng/chapter14.pdf
Teaching Engineering - Wankat & Oreovicz Learning Theories Chapter 15
Teaching Engineering - Wankat & Oreovicz Models of cognitive development: Piaget and Perry 1994
Teaching and Learning in Higher Education: New Trends and Innovations. University of Aveiro, 13-17. 2003.
The Education system in Finland in 2011 – Materials provided by OAMK instructors
Vocational Skills Demonstrations in Finland – Materials provided by OAMK instructors
Dreyfus, S.E., 2004. The five-stage model of adult skill acquisition. Bulletin of science, technology & society, 24(3), pp.177-181.
College, M., 2021. Blooms Higher Level Verbs | Curriculum | Mesa Community College. [online] Mesacc.edu. Available at: <https://www.mesacc.edu/employees/course-management/curriculum/resources/blooms-higher-level-verbs> [Accessed 23 September 2021].
Oamk.fi. 2021. Professional Teacher Education :: Oulun ammattikorkeakoulu :: Opinto-opas. [online] Available at: <https://www.oamk.fi/opinto-opas/en/school-professional-teacher-education/professional-teacher-education> [Accessed 23 September 2021].
About Author
Afnan is an RDI Specialist at the LAB University of Applied Sciences. His research areas include product and service development, innovations, knowledge creation, brain drain in Finland. He is also a work-life coach and multicultural trainer in Arffman (Barona Oy), Finland. Additionally, he has worked in five different countries and completed multiple university degrees in Finland and abroad. He has also worked as a researcher in Finland and Sweden. His blog series named Rooting for Pedagogy Science is his personal journey to learn pedagogy in Finnish perceptive.
Connect with Afnan on LinkedIn
Comments