Enhancing trust, safety and quality: exploring the role of dialogue in peer feedback on professional competencies

Abstract

Peer feedback can enhance learning but may introduce issues like peer pressure and distrust, particularly with professional competencies like teamwork. This jeopardizes the feedback process and skill development crucial for undergraduate students’ career preparation. To address this, two approaches are generally used: anonymizing feedback or incorporating feedback dialogue. However, the impact of anonymity on trust and safety is unclear due to a loss of dialogue. Additionally, the effect of feedback dialogue in the context of competencies remains largely unexplored. Employing a mixed-methods approach, we divided sixty-three participants into an experimental group receiving identifiable online peer feedback with dialogue and a control group receiving anonymous feedback only. We measured students’ psychological safety and trust in giving feedback on teamwork competencies, feedback quality and perceptions of the feedback process. Quantitative results showed no significant differences in safety and trust perceptions between groups, indicating that anonymity and feedback dialogue contribute to a comparably safe environment. However, the qualitative results indicated that the experimental group held more positive attitudes toward the feedback process and their feedback seemed more nuanced. This suggests that dialogue-enhanced peer feedback is preferred for fostering a safe and effective peer feedback exchange that supports professional competency development.

Keywords:

• Peer feedback
• feedback dialogue
• psychological safety
• trust
• anonymity
• higher education
• interpersonal

Reviewing Editor:

• Sammy King Fai Hui, Curriculum & Instruction, The Education University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong

Subjects:

• Chemistry
• Higher Education
• Education - Social Sciences

Acknowledgments

We thank Isabel Braadbaart for translating quotes from the student interviews. Thanks goes to Sonja van Scheijen and Salihanur Darici for their help in coding the peer feedback comments. We also want to thank Robin Straaijer for translating items from the questionnaire.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This research received no specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. This work was supported by the Faculty of Science of the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Notes on contributors

Mirella V. Jongsma

Mirella V. Jongsma is a PhD student of Innovations in Human Health and Life Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Her research interests include active learning, diversity and inclusion in education.

Danny J. Scholten

Danny J. Scholten is an assistant professor of Innovations in Human Health and Life Sciences at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, the Netherlands. His research interests include active learning approaches, such as peer feedback and reflection strategies, and teacher professionalization in STEM education.

Jorick Houtkamp

Jorick Houtkamp was a junior lecturer at Science, Business and Innovation, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands, and is currently employed at the Netherlands Enterprise Agency. His research interests include knowledge exchange, value-based entrepreneurial education, and experiential learning.

Martijn Meeter

Martijn Meeter is professor of Education Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands. His research interests include learning analytics, student motivation, and research into reading.

Jacqueline E. van Muijlwijk-Koezen

Jacqueline E. van Muijlwijk-Koezen is professor and group leader of Innovations in Human Health and Life Sciences, and Chief Education Officer at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Her teaching and learning research focuses on active learning in STEM education, Nature of Science (NoS) and teacher agency.