Eliciting informative feedback in peer review: Importance of problem-specific scaffolding

Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics)

Volumn 6094 LNCS, Issue PART 1, 2010, Pages 95-104

  Goldin, Ilya M ^a   Ashley, Kevin D ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH   (United States)

Author keywords

Computer supported peer review; Ill defined problem solving

Indexed keywords

CONTROLLED EXPERIMENT; FEEDBACK TO STUDENTS; ILL-DEFINED PROBLEM-SOLVING; PEER REVIEW; PEER REVIEW SYSTEM; STUDENT REVIEWERS;

COMPUTER AIDED INSTRUCTION; SCAFFOLDS; STUDENTS;

PROBLEM SOLVING;

EID: 79957497963     PISSN: 03029743     EISSN: 16113349     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-13388-6_14     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (22)

1. Topping, K.: Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research 68, 249-276 (1998). (Pubitemid 128376780)
2. Cho, K., Schunn, C.D.: Scaffolded writing and rewriting in the discipline: A web-based reciprocal peer review system. Computers and Education 48 (2007).
3. Sluijsmans, D.: The use of self-, peer- and co-assessment in higher education: a review of literature. Educational Technology Expertise Centre Open University of the Netherlands, Heerlen (1998).
4. Goldin, I.M., Ashley, K.D., Pinkus, R.L.: Teaching Case Analysis through Framing: Prospects for an ITS in an Ill-defined Domain. In: Workshop on Intelligent Tutoring Systems for Ill-Defined Domains, 8th International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems, Jhongli, Taiwan (2006).
5. VanLehn, K., Lynch, C., Schulze, K., Shapiro, J., Shelby, R., Taylor, L., Treacy, D., Weinstein, A., Wintersgill, M.: The Andes Physics Tutoring System: Lessons Learned. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Education 15 (2005).
6. Koedinger, K., Anderson, J., Hadley, W., Mark, M.: Intelligent tutoring goes to school in the big city. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 8, 30-43 (1997).
7. Voss, J.: Toulmin's Model and the Solving of Ill-Structured Problems. In: Arguing on the Toulmin Model: New Essays in Argument Analysis and Evaluation. Springer, Heidelberg (2006).
8. Russell, A.: Calibrated Peer Review: A writing and critical thinking instructional tool. In: Invention and Impact: Building Excellence in Undergraduate Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) Education. American Association for the Advancement of Science (2004).
9. Gehringer, E.: Strategies and mechanisms for electronic peer review. In: 30th Annual Frontiers in Education Conference, vol. 1, pp. F1B/2-F1B/7 (2000).
10. Zhi-Feng Liu, E., Lin, S., Chiu, C., Yuan, S.: Web-based peer review: the learner as both adapter and reviewer. IEEE Transactions on Education 44, 246-251 (2001). (Pubitemid 32945776)
11. Masters, J., Madhyastha, T., Shakouri, A.: ExplaNet: A collaborative learning tool and hybrid recommender system for student-authored explanations. Journal of Interactive Learning Research 19, 51-74 (2008).
12. Hsiao, I., Brusilovsky, P.: Modeling peer review in example annotation. In: 16th International Conference on Computers in Education, Taipei, Taiwan, pp. 357-362 (2008).
13. Gouli, E., Gogoulou, A., Grigoriadou, M.: Supporting self-, peer-, and collaborative 0- assessment in e-learning: the case of the PEer and Collaborative ASSessment Environment (PECASSE). Journal of Interactive Learning Research 19, 615 (2008).
14. Nelson, M., Schunn, C.D.: The nature of feedback: how different types of peer feedback affect writing performance (2008).
15. Walvoord, M.E., Hoefnagels, M.H., Gaffin, D.D., Chumchal, M.M., Long, D.A.: An analysis of Calibrated Peer Review (CPR) in a science lecture classroom. Journal of College Science Teaching 37, 66-73 (2008).
16. Pinkus, R., Gloeckner, C., Fortunato, A.: Professional knowledge and applied ethics: a cognitive science approach (under review).
17. McNamara, D., Kintsch, E., Songer, N., Kintsch, W.: Are good texts always better? interactions of text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text. Cognition and Instruction 14, 1-43 (1996). (Pubitemid 126311608)
18. Wooley, R., Was, C.A., Schunn, C.D., Dalton, D.W.: The effects of feedback elaboration on the giver of feedback. In: Love, B.C., McRae, K., Sloutsky, V.M. (eds.) Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, pp. 2375-2380. Cognitive Science Society, Washington (2008).
19. Hübner, S., Nückles, M., Renkl, A.: Prompting cognitive and metacognitive processing in writing-to-learn enhances learning outcomes. In: 28th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (2006).
20. Nückles, M., Hübner, S., Renkl, A.: Enhancing self-regulated learning by writing learning protocols. Learning and Instruction 19, 259-271 (2009).
21. King, A.: ASK to THINK-TEL WHY: A model of transactive peer tutoring for scaffolding higher level complex learning. Educational Psychologist. 32, 221-235 (1997).
22. Cho, K., Cho, Y.H.: Learning from ill-structured cases. In: 29th Annual Cognitive Science Society Conference, p. 1722. Cognitive Science Society, Austin (2007).