Running Head: USING VOICETHREAD AS A PEER FEEDBACK TOOL

ETEC 532 Literature Review: Using VoiceThread as a Peer Feedback Tool. Heather MacLellan ETEC 532 Instructor: Alexander De Cosson University of British Columbia

USING VOICETHREAD AS A PEER FEEDBACK TOOL

Annotation of the Literature Geilen, S., Peeters, E.,Dochy, F., Onghene, P., & Struyven, K. (2010). Improving the effectiveness of peer feedback for learning. Learning and Instruction (20) 304 315 This study examines both the effectiveness of peer feedback and some instructional interventions that support and enhance the use of feedback. I agree with the authors stance that the effectiveness of the peer feedback method depends a great deal on how the students are prepared for the process and how the process is monitored as it proceeds. Another aspect of the study that I think is important is the finding that student justification of their feedback was more important that the accuracy. If students back up their comments with reasoning, they are thinking critically and opening up points for discussion. I agree with the authors that opening up discussion points impacts learning.

Gibbs, G. & Simpson, S. (2004) Conditions under which assessment supports students learning. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education (1) 3-31. This article comes from the perspective that what is being assessed and how assessment takes place has more impact on what is learned than anything else in a course. The authors begin by explaining the difference between assessment as measurement (summative) and assessment for learning (formative). They then use student comments and empirical evidence to solidify their point that assessment is the dominant influence on what is learned. Once they have clearly articulated that idea, they then build on the notion that assessment is important by proposing a set of assessment conditions to be used to support students as learners. The writing style and connections to both theory and student responses made this a very powerful read.

USING VOICETHREAD AS A PEER FEEDBACK TOOL

Stanley, J. (1992) Coaching student writers to be effective peer evaluators. Journal of Second Language Writing 1 (3) 217-233. In this study, Stanley (1992) examines the effects of preparing students for peer tutoring in advance. She offers intensive coaching on how to perform peer evaluation to one student group and does a quicker overview with another group. Her findings show that the participants who receive more advance coaching engaged more productively in the activity and were able to communicate thoughts and ideas about others work more effectively. Although I dont believe that this study was laid out and reported as clearly as the others I am using, I like the way that she grouped student responses when evaluating the effectiveness of her method. The findings here reinforce the ideas in the Geilen et al., (2010) paper and add to my argument that student preparation before peer editing is important.

Topping, K. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68 (3) 249 276. Keith Topping (1998) presents a very well researched review of the literature associated with peer assessment. He defines peer feedback as a form of peer assessment and examines the effectiveness of peer assessment and feedback from many different viewpoints including both process focused and outcome focused studies. He does a great job of defining and separating the two types of studies in a way that makes it clear to me that I want to focus on the process side for my research. This article is a great starting off point because it defines the terms, explains the concepts and situates the ideas in background theory.

USING VOICETHREAD AS A PEER FEEDBACK TOOL

Wasson, B. & Vold, V. (2011) Leveraging new media skills in a peer feedback tool. Internet and Higher Education. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.10.002 This study used research and field observation to substantiate the design of a technology based feedback tool. The feedback tool, named SCYFeedback, allows students to ask and receive feedback from others as they create technology based artifacts. The paper begins with a review of the literature examining peer feedback, goes on to report on a field study where students natural and intuitive feedback interactions were observed, and then uses this information to justify the design of the SCYFeedback tool. The final section of the paper describes the first test results. This paper is important because it clearly defines peer feedback and integrates it with technology just as I am attempting to do.

USING VOICETHREAD AS A PEER FEEDBACK TOOL

Introduction Interest in the application of peer feedback as a formative assessment tool has recently increased as ideas about the purpose of assessment have shifted from summative to formative. This paper reviews the literature on peer feedback and examines how integrating the interactive multimedia tool VoiceThread can enhance the effectiveness of peer feedback through deepening the learning experience and negating difficulties in the traditional implementation process of this teaching technique. Selection of Studies Because it is relatively new, many VoiceThread documents found in the literature tend to be general reviews of the many possible affordances of the program. However, since the goal of this paper is to focus specifically on using VoiceThread as a peer feedback tool, the papers examined will include research on the benefits, drawbacks, and effective use of peer feedback with thoughts for increasing its learning impact using VoiceThread technology.

Analysis, Synthesis and Critique Definition of Terms Within the educational field, views of assessment are changing. In the past, assessment was used primarily summatively, reporting about student learning after the fact. But more recently, assessment has taken on another aspect. As well as the summative model, it is also being integrated into teaching formatively, as a feedback method used throughout the learning process to improve and deepen long term learning (Gibbs & Simpson, 2004). This has been widely described as a shift from assessment of learning to assessment for learning (Gibbs & Simpson, 2004; Wasson & Vold, 2011). When using the assessment for learning model, students

USING VOICETHREAD AS A PEER FEEDBACK TOOL

receive clear, timely, and effective feedback during the process of completing a final assignment. If implemented effectively, this feedback scaffolds their learning and guides them towards deeper understanding through the use of critical analysis during the learning process (Gibbs & Simpson, 2004). It is not necessary for this type of formative feedback to come directly from the teacher to be effective (Wasson & Vold, 2011). In fact, many studies have shown that, if it is well thought out and smoothly integrated into the lessons, peer feedback can function as an effective form of formative assessment. Successful peer assessment doesnt have to result in students providing each other with specific marks (Geilen, Peeters, Dochy, Onghene, & Struyven, 2010). Often, when peer feedback is carefully incorporated as an integral part of the learning process, qualitative comments on how to improve content knowledge and process skills are more effective at sparking critical thinking and discussion than a single mark (Geilen et al., 2010; Gibbs & Simpson, 2004). For the purposes of this paper, peer feedback is defined as a type of peer assessment where students review each others work before completion and provide responses in the form of written or verbal comments (Wasson & Vold, 2011). One way that students can provide this feedback is through the VoiceThread program. Using this method allows students to post a first draft of their work into the main screen of VoiceThread where multiple others can comment on it. This paper will consider ways in which integrating VoiceThread technology into the peer feedback process will impact student learning. Benefits of peer feedback Peer feedback has been shown to have many positive impacts on learning for both the student who is being assessed (the assessee) and the student who is providing the evaluation (the assessor). The assessee benefits by receiving swifter feedback in a greater quantity than the

USING VOICETHREAD AS A PEER FEEDBACK TOOL

teacher alone can provide. This timely and extensive feedback can prevent misconceptions from becoming incorporated into the students long term understanding of a topic (Topping, 1998). An aspect of feedback interpretation deserving consideration is the fact that all students are undergoing the process of learning new content and general skills. This means that the feedback supplied may be only partially correct, fully incorrect, or misleading (Geilen et al., 2010, p. 305; Topping, 1998; Wasson & Vold, 2011). Although one may first believe that this limits the usefulness of peer feedback, in fact Geilen et al. (2010) suggest that the lack of belief in its accuracy may encourage students to critically evaluate the strengths and weakness in both the supplied feedback and their own work. They point out that rather than accepting peer comments at face value, students would search for confirmation, resulting in enhanced subject understanding (Geilen et al., 2010). Having peer feedback recorded in VoiceThread allows students to improve their critical evaluation of the comments through the ability to replay and reflect on the information at their leisure. Revisiting the commentary and following the assessors train of thought allows the assessee to take time to reflect on and address each piece of feedback without the concern of missing, losing, or forgetting comments. Assessors can also benefit from the peer feedback experience. The act of providing comments allows learners to actively engage in meta-cognitive analysis about the process involved in creating a solid final product (Topping, 1998; Wasson & Vold, 2011). Students can view others approaches to a problem as well as internalize the criteria, goals and learning outcomes required in the assignment (Topping, 1998) Applying this knowledge to their own work can deepen their understanding and make their final products stronger. VoiceThread makes this process easier by providing a user friendly interface where students can choose to

USING VOICETHREAD AS A PEER FEEDBACK TOOL

record written, verbal, or visual comments depending on their comfort level and learning style. This stimulates students to apply reflection, collaboration, and discussion to critically examining others contributions. The awareness of both their own and their peers learning experiences give students the ability to become active learners by taking charge of their own learning (Wasson & Vold, 2011). Minimizing Drawbacks through Effective Implementation While most research into the subject of peer feedback produces positive outcomes, some studies have not found it to be an effective method. Stanley (1992), Topping (1998) and Wasson & Vold (2011) suggest that the lack of positive results in some research may be linked to difficulties in effective implementation. As has been pointed out by many researchers (Stanley, 1992; Topping, 1998; Wasson & Vold, 2011 ), peer feedback is only effective if it stimulates critical thinking so that students develop a deeper understanding of the topic. However,

executing effective peer feedback procedures is not always an easy task. Researchers point out several weaknesses to be aware of during the process. These include students offering unhelpful or unfocused editing responses (Stanley, 1992, Wasson & Vold, 2011; Geilen et al., 2010); students addressing surface errors of mechanics and ignoring problematic issues of meaning (Stanley, 1992); and students providing peer comments that may lack tact (Stanley, 1992, Wasson & Vold, 2011). Stanley (1992) and Geilen et al. (2010) suggest that preparing students in advance for peer feedback tasks is crucial to minimize these negatives. In considering designs for classroom implementation of peer assessment, it is helpful to consult Gibbs and Simpsons (2004) list of conditions under which feedback can positively influence learning. In this list, they mention that feedback should be sufficient in detail; focused on student ideas instead of on the students

USING VOICETHREAD AS A PEER FEEDBACK TOOL

themselves; timely; appropriate to the assignment criteria; and acted upon by the student. These considerations aid in designing lessons to teach students the peer editing skills required to move learning forward. Some design options tested in prior research include use of directed questions (such as did the work cover all learning outcomes?), and sentence openers (I think that.), however, Geilen et al.(2010) points out that these enforce the use of the same communication structures in all circumstances and, as such, they may interrupt students natural interaction process and have negative motivational effects. Instead of using set structures, Geilen et al., (2010) notes that the use of assessee feedback sheets filled out prior to peer review can provide a forum to explain perceived editing needs and help to focus the assessors comments. After the peer feedback is completed, the assesse then creates a reflection where she reflects on the assessors comments, thus completing the peer feedback loop (Geilen et al., 2010). No matter what specific approach is taken to the design of peer feedback procedures, Topping (1998 p. 265-267), suggests the following general organizational factors to promote success: Clarifying Expectations, Objectives and Acceptability; Developing and Clarifying Assessment Criteria; Providing Quality Training; and Specifying Activities. Creating a solid structure for teaching peer editing is only half of the battle. After implementing an effective peer editing strategy, the next step involves monitoring the process. Topping (1988) suggests that it is important for the instructor to quickly detect and correct problems occurring during the process such as errors and misconceptions unnoticed by the editor, absent remediation, and the possibility of plagiarism. Topping (1998) also points out that process monitoring is very difficult. With many students working in pairs or small groups, effectively monitoring the real time discussions and feedback becomes problematic. Because of VoiceThreads ability to record and playback comments, the teachers presence during the initial

USING VOICETHREAD AS A PEER FEEDBACK TOOL

10

conversation is not necessary for effective monitoring and response. Later access to feedback can ensure that students are focused on using the peer feedback to stimulate critical thinking and deepen learning. Conclusion When implemented thoughtfully, peer feedback can be an effective method for deepening learning and teaching critical analysis skills. The use of VoiceThread can enhance the peer editing process primarily through its application as a recording device. Students can use the recordings to reference and respond to each thought and teachers can use them to monitor the process and intervene if necessary.

USING VOICETHREAD AS A PEER FEEDBACK TOOL

11

References Geilen, S., Peeters, E.,Dochy, F., Onghene, P., & Struyven, K. (2010). Improving the effectiveness of peer feedback for learning. Learning and Instruction (20) 304 315 Gibbs, G. & Simpson, S. (2004) Conditions under which assessment supports students learning. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education (1) 3-31. Stanley, J. (1992) Coaching student writers to be effective peer evaluators. Journal of Second Language Writing 1 (3) 217-233. Topping, K. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68 (3) 249 276. Wasson, B. & Vold, V. (2011) Leveraging new media skills in a peer feedback tool. Internet and Higher Education. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.10.002