nach oben

International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning

Erschienen in:

07.12.2017

Investigating the effects of peer to peer prompts on collaborative argumentation, consensus and perceived efficacy in collaborative learning

verfasst von: Owen M. Harney, Michael J. Hogan, Sarah Quinn

Erschienen in: International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning | Ausgabe 3/2017

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

In a society which is calling for more productive modes of collaboration to address increasingly complex scientific and social issues, greater involvement of students in dialogue, and increased emphasis on collaborative discourse and argumentation, become essential modes of engagement and learning. This paper investigates the effects of facilitator-driven versus peer-driven prompts on perceived and objective consensus, perceived efficacy, team orientation, discomfort in group learning, and argumentation style in a computer-supported collaborative learning session using Interactive Management. Eight groups of undergraduate students (N = 101) came together to discuss either critical thinking, or collaborative learning. Participants in the facilitator-driven condition received prompts in relation to the task from a facilitator throughout the process. In the peer-driven condition, the facilitator initially modelled the process of peer prompting, followed by a phase of coordinating participants in engaging in peer prompting, before the process of prompting was passed over to the participants themselves. During this final phase, participants provided each other with peer-to-peer prompts. Results indicated that those in the peer-driven condition scored significantly higher on perceived consensus, perceived efficacy of the IM methodology, and team orientation. Those in the peer-driven condition also scored significantly lower on discomfort in group learning. Furthermore, analysis of the dialogue using the Conversational Argument Coding Scheme revealed significant differences between conditions in the style of argumentation used, with those in the peer-driven condition exhibiting a greater range of argumentation codes. Results are discussed in light of theory and research on instructional support and facilitation in computer-supported collaborative learning.

Vorheriger Artikel How to combine collaboration scripts and heuristic worked examples to foster mathematical argumentation – when working memory matters

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Ackoff, R. L. (1981). Creating the corporate future: Plan or be planned for. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Alberts, H. (1992). Acquisition: past, present and future. Paper presented at the meeting of the Institute of Management Sciences and Operations Research Society, Orlando, FL.

Alexander, G. C. (2002). Interactive management: An emancipatory methodology. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 15(2), 111–122.CrossRef

Alexander, R. (2004). Towards dialogic teaching. York: Dialogos.

Andriessen, J. (2006). Arguing to learn. In: Sawyer, R.K. (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (pp. 443–460). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Argyris, C. (1982). Reasoning, learning, and action: Individual and organizational. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Ashby, W. R. (1958). An introduction to cybernetics. New York: Wiley.

Baker, M.J. (2003). Computer-Mediated Argumentative Interactions for the Co-Elaboration of Scientific Notions. In: Andriessen, J., Baker, M.J., and Suthers, D.D. (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting Cognitions in Computer- Supported Collaborative Learning Environments (pp. 47–78). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.CrossRef

Beauchamp, G., & Kennewell, S. (2010). Interactivity in the classroom and its impact on learning. Computers & Education, 54(3), 759–766.CrossRef

Beck, S. J., Gronewold, K., & Western, K. (2012). Intergroup argumentation in city government decision making: The Wal-Mart dilemma. Small Group Research, 43(5), 87–612. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496412455435.CrossRef

Beckman, M. (1990). Collaborative learning: Preparation for the workplace and democracy? College Teaching, 38(4), 128–133.CrossRef

Bloxham, S., and West, A. (2004). Understanding the rules of the game: marking peer assessment as a medium for developing student’s conceptions of assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 29(6), 721–733. https://doi.org/10.1080/0260293042000227254.

Blumenfeld, P., Soloway, E., Marx, R., Krajcik, J., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26, 369–398. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.1991.9653139.CrossRef

Boud, D. (1990). Assessment and the promotion of academic values. Studies in Higher Education, 15, 101–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079012331377621.CrossRef

Boud, D., Cohen, R., & Sampson, J. (2001). Peer Learning in Higher Education: Learning from & with Each Other. Psychology Press.

Boulding, K. E. (1966). The impact of the social sciences. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.

Broome, B. J. (1995a). Collective design of the future: Structural analysis of tribal vision statements. American Indian Quarterly, 19(2), 205–228.CrossRef

Broome, B. J. (1995b). The role of facilitated group process in community-based planning and design: Promoting greater participation in Comanche tribal governance. In L. R. Frey (Ed.), Innovations in group facilitation: Applications in natural settings (pp. 27–52). Cresskill: Hampton Press.

Broome, B. J., & Chen, M. (1992). Guidelines for computer-assisted group problem-solving: Meeting the challenges of complex issues. Small Group Research, 23(2), 216–236. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496492232005.CrossRef

Broome, B. J., & Christakis, A. N. (1988). A culturally-sensitive approach to tribal governance issue management. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 12(2), 107–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(88)90043-0.CrossRef

Broome, B. J., & Cromer, I. L. (1991). Strategic planning for tribal economic development: A culturally appropriate model for consensus building. International Journal of Conflict Management, 2(3), 217–234. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb022700.CrossRef

Broome, B. J., & Fulbright, L. (1995). A multi-stage influence model of barriers to group problem solving. Small Group Research, 26(1), 25–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496495261002.CrossRef

Cantwell, R. H., & Andrews, B. (2002). Cognitive and psychological factors underlying secondary school students' feelings towards group work. Educational Psychology, 22(1), 75–91.CrossRef

Cazden, C. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth: Heinemann.

Chin, C. (2006). Classroom Interaction in Science: Teacher questioning and feedback to students' responses. International Journal of Science Education, 28(11), 1315–1346.CrossRef

Chinn, C. A., O’Donnell, A. M., & Jinks, T. S. (2000). The structure of discourse in collaborative learning. The Journal of Experimental Education, 69, 77–97.CrossRef

Cho, K., & MacArthur, C. (2010). Student revision with peer and expert reviewing. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 328–338.CrossRef

Cho, K., Chung, T. R., King, W. R., & Schunn, C. D. (2008). Peer-based computer supported knowledge refinement: an empirical investigation. Communications of the ACM, 51(3), 83–88.CrossRef

Christakis, A. N. (1987). Systems profile: The club of Rome revisited. Systems Research, 4(1), 53–58. https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.3850040107.CrossRef

Coke, J. G., & Moore, C. M. (1981). Coping with a budgetary crisis: Helping a city council decide where expenditure cuts should be made. In S. W. Burks & J. F. Wolf (Eds.), Building city council leadership skills: A casebook of models and methods (pp. 72–85). Washington, DC: National League of Cities.

Currall, S. C., & Judge, T. A. (1995). Measuring trust between organizational boundary role persons. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 64(2), 151–170. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1995.1097.CrossRef

Davis, E.A. (2003). Prompting Middle School Science Students for Productive Reflection: Generic and Directed Prompts. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 91–142. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS1201_4.CrossRef

Deal, T. E., & Kennedy, A. A. (1982). Corporate cultures: The rites and rituals of corporate life. Reading: Addison-Wesley.

Delbeq, A. L., Van De Ven, A. H., & Gustafson, D. H. (1975). Group techniques for program planning: A guide to nominal group and Delphi processes. Glenview: Scott, Foresman.

Dierick, S., & Dochy, F. (2001). New lines in edumetrics: New forms of assessment lead to new assessment criteria. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 27, 307–329. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-491X(01)00032-3.CrossRef

Dillon, J. T. (1985). Using questions to foil discussion. Teaching and Teacher Education, 1(2), 109–121.CrossRef

Ding, N. and Harskamp, E. G. (2009). Gender difference in students’ cognitive representations during collaborative problem-solving in physics. International Journal of Science Education. Retrieved May 2nd, 2015 from: https://www.rug.nl/research/portal/files/14562479/Chapter%205.

Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39–72.CrossRef

Dwyer, C. P., Hogan, M. J., & Stewart, I. (2015). The effects of argument mapping-infused critical thinking instruction on reflective judgement performance. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 16, 11–26.CrossRef

Eby, L., & Dobbins, G. (1997). Collectivistic orientation in teams: An individual and group-level analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 275–295. https://doi.org/10.2307/3100145.CrossRef

Edwards, D., & Mercer, N. (1987). Common knowledge: The growth of understanding in the classroom. London: Routledge.

Erkens, G. (2005). Multiple episode protocol analysis. (Version 4.10). [Software] Available from http://edugate.fss.uu.nl/mepa/.

Falchikov, N. (1995). Peer feedback marking: developing peer assessment. Innovations in Education and Training International, 32(2), 175–187.CrossRef

Fransen, J., Weinberger, A., and Kirschner, P.A. (2013). Team effectiveness and team development in CSCL. Educational Psychologist, 48(1), 9–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2012.747947.CrossRef

Gabelica, C., Bossche, P. V. D., Segers, M., & Gijselaers, W. (2012). Feedback, a powerful lever in teams: A review. Educational Research Review, 7(2), 123–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2011.11.003.CrossRef

Gan, M. J. (2011). The effects of prompts and explicit coaching on peer feedback quality (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ResearchSpace@Auckland (2292/13035).

Gan, M. J., & Hattie, J. A. C. (2014). Prompting secondary students’ use of criteria, feedback specificity and feedback levels during an investigative task. Instructional Science, 42(6), 861–878.CrossRef

Gibbs, G., & Simpson, C. (2004). Conditions under which assessment supports students’ learning. Learning & Teaching in Higher Education, 1, 3–31.

Gielen, S., Peeters, E., Dochy, F., Onghena, P., & Struyven, K. (2010). Improving the effectiveness of peer feedback for learning. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 304–315.CrossRef

Gielen, M., and De Wever, B. (2015). Scripting the role of assessor and assessee in peer assessment in a wiki environment: Impact on peer feedback quality and product improvement. Computers & Education, 88, 370–386, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.07.012.CrossRef

Gillies, R. M., & Ashman, A. F. (1995). The effects of gender and ability on students’ behaviours and interactions in classroom-based work groups. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 65, 211–225.CrossRef

Hardman, F., & Abd-Kadir, J. (2010). Classroom discourse: towards a dialogic pedagogy. The international handbook of English, language and literacy, 254-264.

Harney, O. M., Hogan, M. J., & Broome, B. (2012). Collaborative learning: The effects of trust and open and closed dynamics on consensus and efficacy. Social Psychology of Education, 15(4), 517–532. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-012-9202-6.CrossRef

Harney, O. M., Hogan, M. J., Broome, B., Hall, T., & Ryan, C. (2015). Investigating the effects of prompts on argumentation style, consensus and perceived efficacy in collaborative learning. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 10(4), 367–394.CrossRef

Hattie, J. A. C., & Gan, M. (2011). Instruction based on feedback. In R. Mayer & P. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Learning and Instruction (pp. 249–271). New York: Routledge.

Hattie, J., and Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487.CrossRef

Havnes, A. (2008). Peer-mediated learning beyond the curriculum. Studies in Higher Education, 33(2), 193–204.CrossRef

Higgins, R., Hartley, P., & Skelton, A. (2002). The conscientious consumer: Reconsidering the role of assessment feedback in student learning. Studies in Higher Education, 27(1), 53–64.CrossRef

Hogan, M. J. (2006). Against Didacticism: A psychologist’s view. Educational Research and Reviews, 1(6), 206–212.

Hogan, M. J., Dwyer, C. P., Harney, O. M., Noone, C., & Conway, R. J. (2015a). Metacognitive skill development and applied systems science: A framework of metacognitive skills, self-regulatory functions and real-world applications. In Metacognition: Fundaments, applications, and trends (pp. 75-106). Springer International Publishing.

Hogan, M.J., Harney, O. M., & Broome, B. (2015b). Catalyzing Collaborative Learning and Collective Action for Positive Social Change through Systems Science Education. In, R. Wegerif, J. Kaufman, & L. Li (Eds). The Routledge Handbook of Research on Teaching Thinking.

Hogan, M., Hall, T., & Harney, O. (2017). Collective Intelligence Design and a New Politics of System Change. Civitas educationis. Education, Politics, and Culture, 6(1), 51–78.

Kenny, D. A., Albright, L., Malloy, T. E., & Kashy, D. A. (1994). Consensus in interpersonal perception: Acquaintance and the big five. Psychological Bulletin, 116(2), 245–358. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.116.2.245.CrossRef

Kenworthy, J. B., & Miller, N. (2001). Perceptual asymmetry in consensus estimates of majority and minority members. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(4), 597–612. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.80.4.597.CrossRef

King, A., Staffieri, A., & Aldelgais, A. (1998). Mutual peer tutoring: Effects of structuring tutorial interaction to scaffold peer learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 134–152.CrossRef

Kirschner, F., Paas, F., & Kirschner, P. (2009a). A cognitive load approach to collaborative learning: United brains for complex tasks. Educational Psychology Review, 21, 31–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-008-9095-2.CrossRef

Kirschner, F., Paas, F., & Kirschner, P. (2009b). Individual and group-based learning from complex cognitive tasks: Effects on retention and transfer efficiency. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 306–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.008.CrossRef

Kirschner, F., Paas, F., & Kirschner, P. (2011). Task complexity as a driver for collaborative learning efficiency: The collective working-memory effect. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25, 615–624. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1730.CrossRef

Koc, E.W, Koncz, A. J., Tsang, K.C., & Longenberger, A. (2015). Jobs Outlook 2015. Retrieved from http://www.umuc.edu/documents/upload/nace-job-outlook-2015.pdf

Kollar, I., & Fischer, F. (2010). Peer assessment as collaborative learning: A cognitive perspective. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 344–348.CrossRef

Janes, F. R., Ellis, R. K., & Hammer, K. (1993). Experience of Teaching the Systems-Based Methodology of Interactive Management. In F. A. Stowell & D. West (eds.) Systems Science: Addressing global issues (pp. 545-551). Springer US.

Jarvenpaa, S. L., Knoll, K., & Leidner, D. (1998). Is anybody out there? The antecedents of trust in global virtual teams. Journal of Management Information Systems, 14(4), 29–64.CrossRef

Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., and Smith, K. (2007). The state of cooperative learning in postsecondary and professional settings. Educational Psychology Review, 19(1), 15–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-006-9038-8.CrossRef

Lemke, J. (1990). Talking Science: language, learning and values. Norwood: Ablex Publishing.

Lockhart, C., & Ng, P. (1995). Analyzing talk in ESL peer response groups: stances, functions and content. Language Learning, 45, 605–655.CrossRef

Lundstrom, K., & Baker, W. (2009). To give is better than to receive: The benefits of peer review to the reviewer's own writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(1), 30–43.CrossRef

Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. The Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1995.9508080335.

Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRef

Mercer, N., & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the development of children’s thinking: A sociocultural approach. London: Routledge.

Meyers, R. A., & Brashers, D. E. (1998). Argument in group decision making: Explicating a process model and investigating the argument-outcome link. Communication Monographs, 65(4), 261–281. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759809376454.CrossRef

Michaelsen, L. K., & Sweet, M. (2008). The essential elements of team-based learning. New directions for teaching and learning, 2008(116), 7–27.CrossRef

Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychology Review, 63(2), 81–97. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043158.CrossRef

Min, H. T. (2005). Training students to become successful peer reviewers. System, 33, 293–308.CrossRef

Mohammed, S., & Angell, L. C. (2004). Surface-and deep-level diversity in workgroups: Examining the moderating effects of team orientation and team process on relationship conflict. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(8), 1015–1039.CrossRef

Mohammed, S., & Ringseis, E. (2001). Cognitive diversity and consensus in group decision making: The role of inputs, processes, and outcomes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 85(2), 310–335. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2000.2943.CrossRef

Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Muller Mirza, N., Tartas, V., Perret-Clermont, A.-N., and de Pietro, J.-F. (2007). Using graphical tools in a phased activity for enhancing dialogical skills: An example with digalo. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(2–3), 247–272. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-007-9021-5.CrossRef

Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 553–576.CrossRef

Novakovich, J. (2016). Fostering critical thinking and reflection through blog-mediated peer feedback. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 32(1), 16–30.CrossRef

Nussbaum, E. M. (2008). Collaborative discourse, argumentation, and learning: Preface and literature review. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33(3), 345–359.CrossRef

Nystrand, M., Wu, L., Gamorgan, A., Zeiser, S., & Long, D. (2003). Questions in time: investigating the structure and dynamics of unfolding classroom discourse. Discourse Processes, 35, 135–198.CrossRef

O’Donnell, A. M. (2006). The role of peers and group learning. In P. H. Winne & P. A. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 781–802). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

O’Donnell, A. M., & King, A. (Eds.). (1998). Cognitive perspectives on peer learning. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Palinscar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117–175.CrossRef

Patchan, M. M., Schunn, C. D., & Correnti, R. J. (2016). The nature of feedback: How peer feedback features affect students’ implementation rate and quality of revisions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(8), 1098.CrossRef

Pearce, J. L., Sommer, S. M., Morris, A., & Frideger, M. (1992). A configurational approach to interpersonal relations: Profiles of workplace social relations and task interdependence. Irvine: Graduate School of Management, University of California.

Prins, F. J., Sluijsmans, D. M., Kirschner, P. A., & Strijbos, J. W. (2005). Formative peer assessment in a CSCL environment: A case study. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(4), 417–444.CrossRef

Prins, F., Sluijsmans, D., & Kirschner, P. (2006). Feedback for general practitioners in training: Quality, styles and preferences. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 11, 289–303.CrossRef

Rittel, H., & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01405730.CrossRef

Roberts, K., & O’Reilly, C. (1974). Measuring organizational communication. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59(3), 321–326. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0036660.CrossRef

Rollinson, P. (2005). Using peer feedback in the ESL writing class. ELT Journal:English Language Teachers Journal, 59(1), 23–30.CrossRef

Russell, T. L. (1983). Analyzing arguments in science classroom discourse: Can teachers‘questions distort scientific authority? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20, 27–45.CrossRef

Sato, T. (1979). Determination of hierarchical networks of instructional units using the ISM method. Educational Technology Research, 3, 67–75.

Seibold, D. R., & Meyers, R. A. (2007). Group argument: A structuration perspective and research program. Small Group Research, 38(3), 312–336. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496407301966.CrossRef

Schwarz, B.B., and Glassner, A. (2003). The blind and the paralytic: Fostering argumentation in social and scientific issues. In: Andriessen, J., Baker, M.J., and Suthers, D.D. (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computersupported collaborative learning environments (pp. 227–260). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. CrossRef

Scheuer, O., Loll, F., Pinkwart, N., & McLaren, B. M. (2010). Computer-supported argumentation: A review of the state of the art. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5(1), 43–102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-009-9080-x.CrossRef

Simon, H. A. (1960). The new science of management decisions. New York: Harper & Row.CrossRef

Sinclair, J., & Coulthard, R. M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Skinner, K., & Louw, J. (2009). The feminization of psychology: Data from South Africa. International Journal of Psychology, 44(2), 81–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207590701436736.CrossRef

Sluijsmans, D. M., Brand-Gruwel, S., & van Merriënboer, J. J. (2002). Peer assessment training in teacher education: Effects on performance and perceptions. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 27(5), 443–454.CrossRef

Sluijsmans, D. M. A., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2000). A peer assessment model (Heerlen, Open University of the Netherlands, Center for Educational Technology and Expertise).

Stahl, G. (2010). Guiding group cognition in CSCL. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5(3), 255–258. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-010-9091-7.CrossRef

Stegmann, K., Weinberger, A., and Fischer, F. (2007). Facilitating argumentative knowledge construction with computer-supported collaboration scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(4), 421–447. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-007-9028-y.CrossRef

Strayer, J. F. (2012). How learning in an inverted classroom influences cooperation, innovation and task orientation. Learning Environments Research, 15(2), 171–193.CrossRef

Strijbos, J. W., Narciss, S., & Dünnebier, K. (2010). Peer feedback content and sender‘s competence level in academic writing revision tasks: Are they critical for feedback perceptions and efficiency? Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 291–303.CrossRef

Sunstein, C. R. (2005). Why societies need dissent (Vol. 9). Cambridge, Harvard University Press.

Topping, K. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68, 249–276.CrossRef

Topping, K. J. (2003). Self and peer assessment in school and university: Reliability, validity and utility. In M. Segers, F. Dochy, & E. Cascallar (Eds.), Optimising new modes of assessment: In search of qualities and standards (pp. 55–89). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRef

van Gennip, N. A., Segers, M. S., & Tillema, H. H. (2010). Peer assessment as a collaborative learning activity: The role of interpersonal variables and conceptions. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 280–290.CrossRef

Van Steendam, E., Rijlaarsdam, G., Sercu, L., & Van den Bergh, H. (2010). The effect of instruction type and dyadic or individual emulation on the quality of higher order peer feedback in EFL. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 316–327.CrossRef

Volet, S., & Mansfield, C. (2006). Group work at university: Significance of personal goals in the regulation strategies of students with positive and negative appraisals. Higher Education Research & Development, 25(4), 341–356.CrossRef

Warfield, J. N. (1976). Societal systems: Planning, policy, and complexity. New York: Wiley.

Warfield, J. N. (2006). An introduction to systems science. Singapore: World Scientific.CrossRef

Warfield, J., & Cardenas, R. (1994). A handbook of interactive management. Ames: Iowa State University Press.

Webb, N. M. (1984). Sex differences in interaction and achievement in cooperative small groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(1), 33–44.CrossRef

Webb, N. M., Franke, M. L., Ing, M., Chan, A., De, T., Freund, D., & Battey, D. (2008). The role of teacher instructional practices in student collaboration. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33(3), 360–381.CrossRef

Yang, M., Badger, R., & Yu, Z. (2006). A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback in a Chinese EFL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 179–200.CrossRef

Zhu, W. (1995). Effects of training for peer response on students’ comments and interaction. Written Communication, 12, 492–528.CrossRef

Titel: Investigating the effects of peer to peer prompts on collaborative argumentation, consensus and perceived efficacy in collaborative learning
verfasst von: Owen M. Harney
Michael J. Hogan
Sarah Quinn
Publikationsdatum: 07.12.2017
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning / Ausgabe 3/2017
Print ISSN: 1556-1607
Elektronische ISSN: 1556-1615
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-017-9263-9

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2017

Cracking her codes: understanding shared technology resources as positioning artifacts for power and status in CSCL environments

Facilitating socio-cognitive and socio-emotional monitoring in collaborative learning with a regulation macro script – an exploratory study

How to combine collaboration scripts and heuristic worked examples to foster mathematical argumentation – when working memory matters

Divisive or facilitative: The two faces of technology in CSCL

Premium Partner