I believe that peer feedback is critical for students. Part of this is the nature of peer interactions. Peers are often able to share their thoughts in a more relatable way than teachers. Another part is simply the time limits that teachers have. Even with student conferencing, teachers can only offer so much immediate feedback. However, with quality peer feedback, students can get an extra pair of eyes to figure out what they need to do next.
When I mention this to fellow teachers, the first concern is usually time. We don’t want to burn an entire class period on peer feedback. The second concern is structural. We’ve all had times when students simply shrug their shoulders and say, “Looks good to me.” So, how do we pull it off?
Over the last few years, I have worked on a twenty-minute system. None of this is new. This process (pitching, clarifying, offering feedback, paraphrasing, and coming up with next steps) has existed in many forms for years. So, I don’t claim to be original at all here. I’m just tossing out what’s worked for me. You can find it in the video below:
<a class=”fasc-button fasc-size-medium fasc-type-flat fasc-ico-before dashicons-format-video” style=”background-color: #00bceb; color: #000000;” target=”_blank” rel=”noopener noreferrer” href=”bit.ly/spencervideos”>Subscribe to YouTube Channel</a>
The System
The way this works is simple. Members from different groups pair up and engage in a five-step process. Each step takes two minutes. You, as a teacher, can keep a timer going and say, “next” when it is time to move to the next phase. In the first phase, the first partner gives an “elevator pitch” sharing the product. Next, the second partner asks clarifying questions while the first partner answers the questions. The rule is that there cannot be any feedback given. It has to be question and answer. Afterward, they move into the feedback stage, where the second partner gives specific feedback. This is followed by paraphrasing. Finally, they land on next steps. When this is done, the partners switch roles.
Part One:
|
Time
|
Phase
|
Description
|
Directions for Partner A
|
Directions for Partner B
|
|
0-2
|
Elevator Pitch
|
Partner A explains the process, product or idea in two minutes
|
Explain your process, product or idea
|
Take notes on what you are hearing or listen actively
|
|
2-4
|
Clarifying Questions
|
Partner B asks clarifying questions without giving any feedback
|
Answer clarifying questions
|
Ask clarifying questions
|
|
4-6
|
Feedback
|
Partner B gives feedback to Partner A
|
Take notes on specific feedback you have gotten
|
Offer feedback in the form of two things that worked well and one idea for an improvement
|
|
6-8
|
Paraphrase
|
Partner A paraphrases what he or she has heard from Partner B
|
Paraphrase what you have heard
|
Listen to see if the paraphrased information is correct
|
|
8-10
|
Next Steps
|
Partner A makes a list of future revisions
|
Make a list of future revisions
|
Check the list of revisions
|
Part Two:
|
Time
|
Phase
|
Description
|
Directions for Partner A
|
Directions for Partner B
|
|
10-12
|
Elevator Pitch
|
Partner B explains the process, product or idea in two minutes
|
Take notes on what you are hearing or listen actively
|
Explain your process, product or idea
|
|
12-14
|
Clarifying Questions
|
Partner A asks clarifying questions without giving any feedback
|
Ask clarifying questions
|
Answer clarifying questions
|
|
14-16
|
Feedback
|
Partner A gives feedback to Partner B
|
Offer feedback in the form of two things that worked well and one idea for an improvement
|
Take notes on specific feedback you have gotten
|
|
16-18
|
Paraphrase
|
Partner B paraphrases what he or she has heard from Partner A
|
Listen to see if the paraphrased information is correct
|
Paraphrase what you have heard
|
|
18-20
|
Next Steps
|
Partner B makes a list of future revisions
|
Check the list of revisions
|
Make a list of future revisions
|
Final Thoughts
Note that sometimes it works best to front-load the first step by having students read one another’s work ahead of time. When this happens, it gives the second partner the chance to have a solid context for what the first partner is going to say. Also note that the first time you use this structure with students they will most likely ask for more time. However, the more you use this structure the more comfortable they will be with how it works. You might even need to model it with students first.
Get Your FREE Authentic Assessment Toolkit
Get your free set of customizable, student-centered assessments. This toolkit includes student self-assessments, peer assessment structures, and the 5-minute conferencing system. You'll also get members-only free access to my best blog posts, videos, and resources sent straight to your inbox.
According to authors Black and Wiliams of “The Black Box,” (A meta-analysis of 581 articles and chapters on assessment A meta-analysis of 581 articles and chapters on assessment) nothing is more effective at teaching a student how to improve HIS OWN writing like self-evaluating. Peer evaluation plays a critical role in training the student to look at a piece of writing with a detached and judgmental eye, as PREPARATION for self-evaluating. Jan Chappius et al have excellent suggestions for training students to see quality in writing the way the teacher does.
I love this idea and am super excited to use it with my in-person students.
How can this work with asynchronous online students?
If available, you could use breakout rooms. If not, you could have the students share their Doc with a partner and have them do the process in a page added to the Doc, in a separate Doc, or via Comment & Replies in the Doc itself. Just ideas!