Using reflective peer assessment to promote students' conceptual understanding through asynchronous discussions

Educational Technology and Society

Volumn 14, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 178-189

  Lin, Huann Shyang ^a   Hong, Zuway R ^a   Wang, Hsin Hui ^a   Lee, Sung Tao ^b  

^a NATIONAL SUN YAT SEN UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

^b Naval Academy   (Taiwan)

Author keywords

Argumentation; Asynchronous; Conceptual understanding; Reflection

Indexed keywords

EID: 80053489866     PISSN: 11763647     EISSN: 14364522     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Andresen, M. A. (2009). Asynchronous discussion forums: success factors, outcomes, assessments, and limitations. Educational Technology & Society, 12(1), 249-257.
2. Andriessen, J. (2006). Collaboration in computer conferencing. In A. M. O'Donnell, C. E. Hmelo-Silver & D. Erkens (Eds.), Collaborative Learning, Reasoning, and Technology (pp. 197-230). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
3. Baker, M., & Lund, K. (1997). Promoting reflective interactions in a CSCL environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 13, 175-193.
4. Boud, D., Keogh, R., & Walker, D. (1985). What is reflection in learning? In D. Boud, R. Keogh & D. Walker (Eds.), Reflection: Turning experience into learning. (pp. 7-17). London: Kogan Page.
5. Chen, N. S., Wei, C. W., Wu, K. T., & Uden, L. (2009). Effects of high level prompts and peer assessment on online learners' reflection levels. Computers & Education, 52(2), 283-291.
6. Conant, J. B., & Nash, L. K. (1957). Harvard case histories in experimental science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
7. De Smet, M., Van Keer, H., & Valcke, M. (2008). Blending asynchronous discussion groups and peer tutoring in higher education: An exploratory study of online peer tutoring behaviour. Computers & Education, 50(1), 207-223.
8. De Wever, B., Van Keer, H., & Valcke, M. (2009). Structuring asynchronous discussion groups: the impact of role assignment and self-assessment on students' level of knowledge construction through social negotiation. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25, 177-188.
9. Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people's images of science. Buckingham: Open University Press.
10. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-312.
11. Eryilmaz, A. (2002). Effects of conceptual assignment and conceptual change discussions on students' misconceptions and achievement regarding force and motion. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(10), 1001-1015.
12. Frenzel, A. C., Pekrun, R., & Goetz, T. (2007). Perceived learning environment and students' emotional experiences: A multilevel analysis of mathematics classrooms. Learning and Instruction, 17, 478-493.
13. Fuller, S. (1997). Science. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
14. Golanics, J. D., & Nussbaum, E. M. (2008). Enhancing online collaborative argumentation through question elaboration and goal instruction. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24, 167-180.
15. Guldberg, K., & Pilkington, R. (2007). Tutor roles in facilitating reflection on practice through online discussion. educational Technology & Society, 10(1), 61-72.
16. Harre, R. (1981). Great scientific experiments. Oxford: Phaidon Press.
17. Hong, K. S., Lai, K. W., & Holton, D. (2003). Students' satisfaction and perceived learning with a Web-based course. Educational Technology & Society, 6(1), 116-124.
18. Hsu, J. L., Chou, H. W., Hwang, W. Y., & Chou, S. B. (2008). A Two-Dimension Process in Explaining Learners' Collaborative Behaviors in CSCL. educational Technology & Society, 11(4), 66-80.
19. Jeong, A., & Joung, S. (2007). Scaffolding collaborative argumentation in asynchronous discussions with message constraints and message labels. Computers & Education, 48, 427-445.
20. Kortemeyer, G. (2006). An analysis of asynchronous online homework discussions in introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 74(6), 526-536.
21. Lai, K. R., & Lan, C. H. (2006). Modeling peer assessment as agent negotiation in a computer supported collaborative learning environment. educational Technology & Society, 9(3), 16-26.
22. Lee, A. Y., & Hutchison, L. (1998). Improving learning from examples through reflection. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 4(3), 187-210.
23. Lin, H. S., Cheng, H. J., & Lawrenz, F. (2000). The assessment of students and teachers' understanding of gas laws. Journal of Chemical Education, 77(2), 235-238.
24. Lin, H. S., Hung, J. Y., & Hung, S. C. (2002). Using the history of science to promote students' problem-solving ability. International Journal of Science Education, 24(5), 453-464.
25. McKendree, J., Stenning, K., Mayes, T., Lee, J., & Cox, R. (1998). Why observing a dialogue may benefit learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 14, 110-119.
26. 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.
27. Nussbaum, E. M., & Jacobson, T. (2004). Reasons that students avoid intellectual arguments. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association.
28. OECD. (2006). Assessing scientific, reading, and mathematical literacy: A framework for PISA 2006. Paris: OECD.
29. OECD. (2007). PISA 2006 science competencies for tomorrow's world. Paris: OECD.
30. Onrubia, J., & Engel, A. (2009). Strategies for collaborative writing and phases of knowledge construction in CSCL environments. Computers & Education, 53(4), 1256-1265.
31. Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004b). Ideas, evidence and argument in science [In-service Training Pack, Resource Pack and Video]. London: Nuffield Foundation.
32. Ravenscroft, A. (2000). Designing argumentation for conceptual development. Computers & Education, 34, 241-255.
33. Roth, M. (1996). Teacher questioning in an open-inquiry learning environment: Interactions of context, content, and student responses. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(3), 709-736.
34. Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (2005). Collaborative learning in asynchronous discussion groups: What about the impact on cognitive processing? Computers in Human Behavior, 21(6), 957-975.
35. Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2-3), 235-260.
36. Staver, J. R. (1998). Constructivism: Sound theory for explicating the practice of science and science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(5), 501-520.
37. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
38. Tseng, S. C., & Tsai, C. C. (2007). On-line peer assessment and the role of the peer feedback: A study of high school computer course. Computers & Education, 49(4), 1161-1174.
39. Van Zee, E. H., Iwasyk, M., Kurose, A., Simpson, D., & Wild, J. (2001). Student and teacher questioning during conversations about science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(2), 159-190.
40. Veerman, A. L. (2003). Constructive discussions through electronic dialogue. In J. andriessen, M. Baker & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to Learn: Confronting Cognitions in Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning environments (pp. 117-143). Boston: Kluwer.
41. Veerman, A. L., Andriessen, J. E. B., & Kanselaar, G. (2000). Learning through synchronous electronic discussion. Computers & Education, 34, 269-290.
42. Webb, E., Jones, A., Barker, P., & van Schaik, P. (2004). Using e-learning dialogues in higher education. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 41(1), 93-103.
43. Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2006). A framework to analyze argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers & Education, 46(1), 71-95.
44. Yang, S. H. (2009). Using Blogs to Enhance Critical Reflection and Community of Practice. educational Technology & Society, 12(2), 11-21.