Supporting the Learning of Their Peers: Preservice Teacher Feedback

• In Event: Channels of Feedback: Examining Sources, Types, and Contingencies

Abstract

Objectives and Theoretical Framework
One aspect of contemporary preservice education scholarship is the focus on mutually supporting concepts of representations, decompositions, and approximations of practice (Grossman et al, 2009; Moss, 2011). Representations illustrate critical aspects of professional practice. Decompositions break down professional practices into discrete, smaller components that can be approximated to provide opportunities for PSTs practice in situations that deliberately reduce complexity (Grossman et al, 2009). The purpose of the study was to explore the quality of peer feedback on short performance tasks to support preservice teacher (PST) learning of core teaching practices in mathematics and RLA. This paper focuses on the quality of peer feedback on a set of tasks that provided rehearsal opportunities for PSTs to support learning through deliberate practice (Ericcson et al., 1993) and that engaged PSTs as a community of practice that supports collective learning (Lave & Wenger, 1991).
Method and Data Sources
Four teacher educators (TEs) (two mathematics, two RLA) from diverse programs piloted the short performance tasks in methods courses, using a suggested structure for how to incorporate the tasks and peer feedback process into class. We interviewed the TEs after each task individually, and as a group at the project’s conclusion. We collected PSTs’ written reflections on the tasks, their initial and second task performances, and the feedback that they provided to a peer on their first performance on a task. The analysis in this paper focuses on the peer feedback and reflections.

See Table 1 for information about the data collected. For the 111 cases with complete/almost complete data, we rated the quality of feedback that each PST provided on a four-point scale, from zero (feedback is only vague praise) to a rating of three (feedback is aligned to the rubric and includes specific guidance for improvement) (Wylie & Lyon, 2019). We also examined the quantitative rating that each PST provided.
Results
The math TEs gave a specific structure for the feedback (“glow/grow/glow” and “what my partner did/did not do well”) but the ELA TEs did not appear to do so. Preliminary analysis suggests that peers rated each other’s performances highly, with peers rating 82% of performances with the highest score on the task rubric. PST feedback to their peers was generally of high quality, with 73% of the feedback statements rated the highest level of the quality rubric. In the paper we will provide details about the PST feedback and its relationship to the actual quality of the performances, PST reflections on what they learned from this process, and next steps to help ensure PSTs receive meaningful feedback.
Significance
Although we only had four TEs it was noteworthy that use of peer feedback was not a common practice. All reported that both they and their students gained value from engaging with the performance tasks and the peer feedback process. The value that the PSTs reported extended beyond the task itself to broader considerations of the value to their professional learning and in their future classrooms.

Authors

• E. Caroline Wylie, Center for Assessment
  Presenting Author

• Geoffrey C. Phelps, Educational Testing Service
  Non-Presenting Author

• Christine J. Lyon, ETS
  Non-Presenting Author