Peer feedback case study

School / Department:  Graduate School, College of Business, Law and Social Sciences

Programmes:  MSc Research Methods (Taught Masters) and MA in Academic Practice (Academic programme for staff)

Contact: Matt Henn

Module:  Research Design and Planning

Level of study:  Post Graduate

Activity:  Peer feedback following presentation of research proposal

Aim: To offer constructive and genuine feedback to peers to inform and develop a research proposal

Background: This feedback exercise features in the two Post Graduate programmes listed above. Masters programmes are divided into three stages; Certificate (60 credit points), Diploma (60 credit points) and Masters (60 credit points). They feature an increasing amount of independent study the further they progress through the three stages. The module this exercise takes place in is taught at the diploma stage, and features a mixture of taught and independent learning. The exercise is one of many within the module that aims to ease the transition from mainly taught to independent learning.

The MSc Research Methods cohort generally numbers around 15 students and the MA Academic Practice (not running in 2010/2011) also 15.

Exercise: Students are required to submit for assessment a 2,000 word research proposal, and a 2,000 word Critique of that research proposal. At Week 11 Students are asked to present a draft of a research proposal to their Module Leader and peers.

Prior to the presentations students will receive guidance, via email, on what is expected of them in terms of preparation and during presentation sessions.

• They will read each individual student proposal (forwarded to students prior to the session) - students are advised that they should allow approximately one day for this.
• They will act as discussant to one particular colleague’s presentation of their research proposal (they are informed which one prior to the event); the discussant should pay particular attention to that research proposal in their preparation. They will be expected to begin the critique following the presentation and offer up to five minutes of detailed feedback.
• Students are encouraged to give “constructive and genuine feedback in a positive and helpful way”.
• Students are asked to receive feedback “without being defensive”.

Each student has approximately 10-15 minutes to present their proposal followed by 10-15 minutes of questions, answers, feedback and observations (including the discussant’s opening comments). Students are free to present their ideas as they wish, i.e. they don’t have to use Microsoft PowerPoint if they don’t wish to do so – but are reminded that “the better they convey their ideas, the better feedback you will get”.

Students are then asked to write down their feedback for each presentation and pass this to individual presenters before the end of the session. Attendance at the presentations is mandatory, although students are not assessed on either their presentations or their contribution to feedback.

Following the session, students use the feedback to write a 2,000 word critique of their proposal, incorporating issues, considerations or suggestions that they may have received during the presentation stage. By Week 15, each student’s final research proposal should be submitted.

Benefits to staff: Personally rewarding to see the motivation and engagement of the students. Initially the sessions and pre-session preparation were quite time consuming but become less so once a template for the exercise is established.

Benefits to students: Students receive extensive in-depth, quality feedback, partly due to the pre-session preparation required. Students are motivated to take part to maximise feedback from each other, and so inform revision of their final research proposal and development of the Critique.

Student feedback: Students find this exercise helpful and the feedback they receive developmental to the module aim.

Considerations:  This exercise is labour-intensive for students. It includes a requirement for them to invest significant effort in preparation for their presentation, pre-reading of other students’ proposals, and preparation for their role as discussant. For these reasons it is suggested that if colleagues were to consider such an exercise for undergraduate students it should be streamlined or simplified in some way.

Further information:  Matt Henn, Professor of Social Research, School of Social Sciences.