Thrive 37 - Technology-mediated peer feedback in a low-stake examination

Problem statement: Students are unable to visualise their ideas in 3-D even with feedback (verbal or written) given. It was found that demonstrating how it can be drawn produced a better outcome as students are able to observe the procedure in achieving the 3-D sketch. However, it will not be possible for a teacher to make 20 recordings.

Exemplar - In 1 integrity,  I get students to record their feedback for their peers after I did my own recording to model how feedback can be enacted. 
Ease of use of technology - Within the lesson, one student managed to help me to troubleshoot and bypass using a web-based loom without installation (he is supposing one who is less focused). He feels so proud that he can be the teacher for the day. He becomes my AED for that lesson, going around and helping others who could not set up their looms. As teachers do not have a chrome book, this part of the ICT is also an issue. We cannot test what works on a student's Chromebook. But leveraging on students' experience in a high ability class is one great strategy.

How can I design valid, practical and effective technology-enabled peer feedback? I must first ask this question - how can I design a valid, practical and effective technology-enabled teacher feedback?

A valid and practical intervention 
Design principle 1 - Fair Group Formation, let students choose a friend whom they wanted to help improve based on what they had initially reviewed. The weaker students could learn from their peers first before attempting to help. The best student will have his feedback given by the teacher so that he could improve.
Technology offers accessibility for the timely application of peer feedback underpinned by the philosophical assumption of educational equality. While technology could offer anonymity in this case, having the desire to help a friend with good feedback will likely result in the friend-making improvement.
Design principle 2 - Manage Task complexity, they select a work from their peer that they can help improve (the teacher will select the best students' work as it is more difficult to review and provide comments when the work is good). This is also based on the assumption that students are able to make an accurate comparative judgement of pupils' work.
Technology facilitates autonomy by allowing students to make decisions on the difficulty of the task (students who have obvious mistakes in their 3-D drawing vs students who have drawn reasonably well as a more difficult task to provide feedback) about who they can help based on their level of achievement underpinned by personal construct theory.
Design principle 3 - Calibrate scaffolding, the video uploaded by the teacher served as an exemplar after a student made their initial attempt as well as modelling how peer feedback could be conducted in terms of what to say. (Note that the students could have worked on their own design after viewing my video, having a peer to provide personalised feedback could promote better uptake. That is, they watch my video, use their understanding to work on their peer design and use their peer feedback and my non-personalised feedback and their critique to synthetically improve their drawing. 
Technology facilitates autonomy by allowing students to make decisions about the amount of feedback to be given based on how much they could be internalised from the teacher's feedback (video). Personal construct theory assumes that students interpret feedback based on their worldview.
Design principle 4 - Monitor peer feedback enactment, provide feedback on students' feedback and 'promote' students to 'peer-reviewer' once their peer has improved based on the good feedback. Have a reward system (bonus marks).
Technology allows peer feedback to be constructed by students and monitored by teachers asynchronously. This allows time and space for students to construct good feedback and allow the teacher to understand how feedback is provided and enacted.
Design principle 5 - Consider learners' characteristics, high ability students who are well-versed with technology and are able to set up looms quickly, students who are motivated and do not have behavioural issue in class. There is no evidence of experience with peer feedback and is generally positive. There is no confidence issue of students putting up work done in class (such as being afraid that the work is not good enough and thus refusing to put it up).

Francis is a motivated student and he really worked on my feedback almost immediately to improve his drawing. However, the uptake is only 30%. I am being critical here. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

2024 Thrive 3 - Self-evaluation of sketching using pen

First lesson with 2I (80-min) 20 pax (10 boys & 10 girls) - The use of Ideo video as a resource to test current students' design capability through reflection was not carried out. It is more of checking for understanding rather than facilitating self-reflecting as a class community. If I were to do it again, how can self-assessment be better embedded in the activity and facilitated? How to design a worksheet that embeds self-assessment? You see what we draw so we can improve our drawing - use a pen not pencil. In my research in 2018, it appears that student improves their sketching faster when they sketch with a pen. Why? they can't erase. They dare to explore  (1) Diagnostic assessment of sketching. Students at this age can identify if their observation sketch is accurate. When they are directed to evaluate their first attempt of sketching from observation using rules (isometric or perspective rule). All followed my instructions to improve. However, a 3 uses correction ta...
Read more

My reflection with AI about the STEM project

 I have just completed a STEM workshop with my students. I would like to reflect about this workshop to any of you. ChatGPT That sounds great, Joon Yong! How did the workshop go? What activities did you and your students work on, and what were some key moments or challenges you encountered? 4o We are working on building a chair using a cardboard. The requirement is to be able to withstand three kilos of weight, and also have a leg that is 15 cm long. However, based on my knowledge about knowledge building, I decided for them to make a wheelchair that the humans can sit on. ChatGPT It sounds like you extended the challenge to make it more engaging and relevant. How did your students respond to the new requirement of designing a wheelchair? Did they come up with any innovative ideas or encounter any specific difficulties? 4o Indeed, the outcome surprises us. Everyone is game to attempt, and all the groups have come up with a real-size chat at the end of the day. ChatGPT That's impres...
Read more