Classroom evaluation of a scaffolding intervention for improving peer review localization

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

Volumn 8474 LNCS, Issue , 2014, Pages 272-282

  Nguyen, Huy ^a   Xiong, Wenting ^a   Litman, Diane ^a  

^a Learning Research and Development Ctr   (United States)

Author keywords

evaluation; Peer review; review localization; scaffolding

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER AIDED INSTRUCTION; PAPER; STUDENTS; TEACHING;

ANALYSIS OF DATA; EVALUATION; LOCALIZATION MODELS; PEER REVIEW; PEER REVIEW SYSTEM; PREDICTION ACCURACY; SCAFFOLDING; UNIVERSITY RESEARCH;

SCAFFOLDS;

EID: 84958545080     PISSN: 03029743     EISSN: 16113349     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-07221-0_34     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (12)

1. Gielen, S., Peeters, E., Dochy, F., Onghena, P., Struyven, K.: Improving the effectiveness of peer feedback for learning. Learning and Instruction 20(4), 304-315 (2010)
2. Cho, K.: Machine Classification of Peer Comments in Physics. In: Proceedings of 1st international conference on Educational Data Mining (EDM), pp. 192-196 (2008)
3. Cho, K., Schunn, C.D.: Scaffolded writing and rewriting in the discipline: A webbased reciprocal peer review system. Computers &Education 48(3), 409-426 (2007)
4. Kumar, A.N.: Error-Flagging support for testing and its effect on adaptation. In: Aleven, V., Kay, J., Mostow, J. (eds.) ITS 2010, Part I. LNCS, vol. 6094, pp. 359-368. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)
5. Lippman, J., Elfenbein, M., Diabes, M., Luchau, C., Lynch, C., Ashley, K.D., Schunn, C.D.: To Revise or Not To Revise: What Influences Undergrad Authors to Implement Peer Critiques of Their Argument Diagrams? In: International Society for the Psychology of Science and Technology 2012 Conference, Poster (2012)
6. Nelson, M.M., Schunn, C.D.: The nature of feedback: How different types of peer feedback affect writing performance. Instructional Science 37(4), 375-401 (2009)
7. Nguyen, H.V., Litman, D.J.: Identifying Localization in Peer Reviews of Argument Diagrams. In: Lane, H.C., Yacef, K., Mostow, J., Pavlik, P. (eds.) AIED 2013. LNCS, vol. 7926, pp. 91-100. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)
8. Ramachandran, L., Gehringer, E.F.: Automated assessment of review quality using latent semantic analysis. In: 11th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT), pp. 136-138 (2011)
9. Razzaq, L., Heffernan, N.T.: Hints: is it better to give or wait to be asked? In: Aleven, V., Kay, J., Mostow, J. (eds.) ITS 2010, Part I. LNCS, vol. 6094, pp. 349-358. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)
10. Scheuer, O., Loll, F., Pinkwart, N., McLaren, B.M.: Computer-supported argumentation: A review of the state of the art. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 5(1), 43-102 (2010)
11. Xiong, W., Litman, D.: Identifying problem localization in peer-review feedback. In: Aleven, V., Kay, J., Mostow, J. (eds.) ITS 2010, Part II. LNCS, vol. 6095, pp. 429-431. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)
12. Xiong,W., Litman, D.: Automatically Predicting Peer-Review Helpfulness. In: Proceedings of 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (ACL-HLT), pp. 502-507 (2011)