DOCTORAL STUDENTS’ EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF PEER ASSESSMENT AND REVIEW JOAN SMITH, PHIL WOOD, GARETH LEWIS AND HILARY BURGESS UNIVERSITY OF LEICESTER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION PROJECT FUNDED BY HEA SOCIAL SCIENCES

PRESENTATION OUTLINE The issues Summary of the pedagogical project Data collection Summary of key themes Current phase Possible implications

ISSUES Challenges of developing critical writing (students and supervisors) Affective barriers to accepting feedback Isolation of school-based researchers Need to develop pedagogies to develop criticality & resilience, & induct students into peer review

SUMMARY Focus on developing EdD students’ critical writing & reviewing skills through peer assessment & induction into peer review Emphasis on social aspects of learning & critical writing: ‘writing as social practice’ (Kamler and Thomson 2006: 5) ‘making writing relational’ (Murray 2015: 1) Intensive critical writing weekend: Roundtable feedback session Positive criticality Writing clearly and critically Preparing for the editorial board Editorial board extended meeting Presentation of plan by editorial board

THE BRIDGE s.com

DATA COLLECTION Pre-weekend interviews Post-weekend interviews Current phase of interviews Peer review feedback

KEY THEMES FROM PRE- WEEKEND INTERVIEWS Most students: Chose to take part because they saw a need to improve their academic/critical writing Felt they already had some understanding of criticality/critical reading and writing Felt they would be open to receiving feedback from other students Experienced feelings of self-doubt and inadequacy as an academic and writer Saw feedback as potentially destructive/damaging/hurtful (half had been hurt by feedback themselves) Drew parallels between peer assessment and their professional work assessing/giving feedback to children

KEY THEMES FROM POST-WEEKEND INTERVIEWS All students said that: they understood more about critical writing they had altered their approach to writing they were much more aware of their own writing/how to improve it/be critical of it they had had a positive experience of being involved with the journal the social aspects of learning and feeling of belonging to a student community were important. Most said: the weekend was transformational they enjoyed the weekend they were more confident being involved in peer review was illuminating/motivating/helpful

PEER FEEDBACK ‘I have no problem in giving [peer feedback]. But one of the things I’m thinking of…when you’re giving feedback, I think there are different levels of feedback appropriate at different times in somebody’s writing. So when they’re just starting out, to just be picking up on vocabulary is not useful. But…if you’re saying, ‘Where are your ideas going?’ Asking questions. Helping the people to think further, that’s appropriate at that stage. Then at a later stage it might be appropriate to say, ‘Well, what do you actually mean by this concept? What do you mean by this term?’ However if you leave that too late they could have done a load of work. You pick up on one thing and that kind of demolishes everything that they’ve done…I think it’s important to be careful with words that you don’t discourage people, that you don’t shut down the work that they’re doing’ (Sue, pre- weekend interview)

IMPROVED UNDERSTANDING OF CRITICAL WRITING ‘It was a really encouraging environment…it really helped me to see what others are looking for [in a piece of writing] and helped me to see what I should observe more in others’ writing as well…right after the weekend I think I felt better about myself or I had more confidence’ (Hannah, post-weekend interview). ‘I’m aware in my own writing…I’m able to leave it for a few days, go back to it, read it again and see all the holes in it…I’m picturing that scenario where we’re all sat around the table and somebody reading my work, and giving me that feedback…it’s made me much more aware of what I’m writing and more self-critical and self-aware…I’m making myself do it more, that’s the change…You know in my other assignments by this time I’d have sent [supervisor] at least two versions and got some feedback from him…whereas I haven’t sent him anything so far…because I think I need to make sure tht I’ve tackled it as much as…I can …whereas before I wasn’t too fussed about it…I just liked [supervisor] to help me. And that’s not what it’s about. It’s about me trying to work it out for myself first’ (Rita, post-weekend interview0.

POSITIVE IMPACT OF INVOLVEMENT WITH JOURNAL ‘The peer review process I have to say has been brilliant…being sent an article to review, having to use the same framework, and gone through the process myself, and also giving feedback has been most useful and confidence- boosting. When doing it for the second time around…you can kind of feel as though you’ve got a better handle on doing it, and I certainly did it with more confidence…with regards to the writing aspect of it, still brilliant, and it’s motivational…a very valuable, high quality learning experience’ (Mia, post-weekend interview)

CURRENT PHASE Third round of interviews Peer feedback from journal

POSSIBLE IMPLICATIONS & IMPACT Build into programmes opportunities for students to engage in peer review Foster and encourage critical friendship to build researcher resilience, criticality and a self-sustaining pg research community Running supervisor training on developing student criticality (cross disciplinary): 1.What is criticality? 2.Critical reading and writing 3.Feedback and feedforward 4.Student diversity and criticality 5.Writing as a social process

REFERENCES Kamler, B. & Thomson, P. (2006) Helping doctoral students write: pedagogies for supervision. Abingdon: Routledge Murray, R. (2015). Writing in social spaces: a social processes approach to academic writing. London: Routledge. Smith, J. et al (2016) Critical friendship as a pedagogical strategy, in V. Storey (Ed) International Perspectives on Designing Professional Practice Doctorates: Applying the Critical Friends Approach to the EdD and Beyond Florida: Palgrave Macmillan