Training peer-feedback skills on geometric construction tasks: role of domain knowledge and peer-feedback levels

European Journal of Psychology of Education

Volumn 33, Issue 1, 2018, Pages 11-30

  Alqassab, Maryam ^a   Strijbos, Jan Willem ^b   Ufer, Stefan ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF GRONINGEN   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Domain knowledge; Geometric constructions; Peer feedback; Preservice teachers

Indexed keywords

EID: 85027894155     PISSN: 02562928     EISSN: 18785174     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10212-017-0342-0     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Bathke, A. C., Schabenberger, O., Tobias, R. D., & Madden, L. V. (2009). Greenhouse-Geisser adjustment and the ANOVA-type statistic: cousins or twins? The American Statistician, 63(3), 239–246.
2. Brown, G. T. L., Peterson, E. R., & Yao, E. S. (2016). Student conceptions of feedback: impact on self-regulation, self-efficacy, and academic achievement. British Journal of Educational Psychology. doi:10.1111/bjep.12126.
3. Brunner, E., Munzel, U., & Puri, M. L. (1999). Rank score tests in factorial designs with repeated measures. Journal of Multivariate Analysis, 70(2), 286–317. doi:10.1006/jmva.1999.1821.
4. Butler, D. L., & Winne, P. H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: a theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65(3), 245–281.
5. Carroll, W. M. (1994). Using worked examples as an instructional support in the algebra classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(3), 360–367.
6. Chen, N., Wei, C., Wua, K., & Uden, L. (2009). Effects of high level prompts and peer assessment on online learners’ reflection levels. Computers & Education, 52(2), 283–291. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.08.007.
7. Cheng, W., & Warren, M. (1997). Having second thoughts: student perceptions before and after a peer assessment exercise. Studies in Higher Education, 22(2), 233–239.
8. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
9. Ericsson, K. A., & Charness, N. (1994). Expert performance: its structure and acquisition. American Psychologist, 49(8), 725–747. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.49.8.725.
10. Ericsson, K. A., & Crutcher, R. J. (1991). Introspection and verbal reports on cognitive processes—two approaches to the study of thinking: a response to Howe*. New Ideas in Psychology, 9(1), 57–91. doi:10.1016/0732-118X(91)90041-J.
11. Field, A. P. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed). Los Angeles: SAGE.
12. Friedrich, S., Konietschke, F., & Pauly, M. (2017). GFD: an R-package for the analysis of general factorial designs. Journal of Statistical Software, 79(1), 1–18. doi:10.18637/jss.v079.c01.
13. Gan, M. (2011). The effects of prompts and explicit coaching on peer feedback quality (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The University of Auckland, New Zealand.
14. Gan, M. J. S., & Hattie, J. (2014). Prompting secondary students’ use of criteria, feedback specificity and feedback levels during an investigative task. Instructional Science, 42(6), 861–878. doi:10.1007/s11251-014-9319-4.
15. 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.
16. Harris, L. R., Brown, G. T. L., & Harnett, J. (2015). Analysis of New Zealand primary and secondary student peer- and self-assessment comments: applying Hattie & Timperley’s feedback model. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 22(2), 265–281. doi:10.1080/0969594X.2014.976541.
17. Hattie, J. A., & Gan, M. (2011). Instruction based on feedback. In R. E. Mayer & P. A. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of research on learning and instruction (pp. 249–271). New York: Routledge.
18. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. doi:10.3102/003465430298487.
19. Hinkin, T. R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods, 1(1), 104–121. doi:10.1177/109442819800100106.
20. King, A. (2002). Structuring peer interaction to promote high-level cognitive processing. Theory Into Practice, 41(1), 33–39. doi:10.1207/s15430421tip4101_6.
21. Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: a historical review, a meta-analysis and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254–284.
22. Kuhn, D. (2015). Thinking together and alone. Educational Researcher, 44(1), 46–53. doi:10.3102/0013189X15569530.
23. Kuzniak, A., & Houdement, C. (2001). Pretty (good) didactical provocation as a tool for teacher’s training in geometry. In J. Novotná (Ed.), Proceedings of European research in mathematics education II (pp. 292–303). Mariánské Lázně Czech Republic: Charles University, Faculty of Education.
24. Lakens, D. (2013). Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: a practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 1–10. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00863.
25. Lavy, I., & Shriki, A. (2014). Engaging prospective teachers in peer assessment as both assessors and assesses: the case of geometrical proofs. International Journal for Mathematics Teaching and Learning. Retrieved from http://www.cimt.plymouth.ac.uk/jour-nal/lavey2pdf.
26. Linderbaum, B. A., & Levy, P. E. (2010). The development and validation of the feedback orientation scale (FOS). Journal of Management, 36(6), 1372–1405. doi:10.1177/0149206310373145.
27. Miyakawa, T. (2004). Reflective symmetry in construction and proving. In M. J. Høines & A. B. Berit (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics education (pp. 337–344). Bergen: Bergen University College.
28. Nathan, M. J., Koedinger, K. R., & Alibali, M. W. (2001). Expert blind spot: when content knowledge eclipses pedagogical content knowledge. In L. Chen (Ed.), Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Cognitive Science (pp. 644–648). Beijin: University of Science and Technology on China Press.
29. Nicol, D., Thomson, A., & Breslin, C. (2014). Rethinking feedback practices in higher education: a peer review perspective. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(1), 102–122. doi:10.1080/02602938.2013.795518.
30. Noguchi, K., Gel, Y. R., Brunner, E., & Konietschke, F. (2012). nparLD: an R software package for the nonparametric analysis of longitudinal data in factorial experiments. Journal of Statistical Software, 50(12), 1–23.
31. Nückles, M., Hübner, S., & Renkl, A. (2009). Enhancing self-regulated learning by writing learning protocols. Learning and Instruction, 19(3), 259–271. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.05.002.
32. O’Connor, B. P. (2000). SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number of components using parallel analysis and Velicer’s MAP test. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 32(3), 396–402.
33. Paas, F. G. W. C., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (1994). Variability of worked examples and transfer of geometrical problem-solving skills: a cognitive-load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(1), 122–133.
34. Panadero, E., Romero, M., & Strijbos, J. W. (2013). The impact of rubric and friendship on peer assessment: effects on construct validity, performance, and perceptions of fairness and comfort. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 39(4), 195–203. doi:10.1016/j.stueduc.2013.10.005.
35. Panadero, E., Brown, G. T. L., & Strijbos, J. W. (2016). The future of student self-assessment: a review of known unknown and potential directions. Educational Psychology Review, 28(4), 803–830. doi:10.1007/s10648-015-9350-2.
36. Patchan, M. M., & Schunn, C. D. (2015). Understanding the benefits of providing peer feedback: how students respond to peers’ texts of varying quality. Instructional Science, 43(5), 591–614. doi:10.1007/s11251-015-9353-x.
37. Phielix, C., Prins, F. J., & Krischner, P. A. (2010). Awareness of group performance in a CSCL-environment: effects of peer feedback and reflection. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 151–161. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2009.10.011.
38. Quintana, C., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., Duncan, R. G., Kyza, E., Edelson, D., & Soloway, E. (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 337–386. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1303_4.
39. Reiss, K. M., Heinze, A., Renkl, A., & Groß, C. (2008). Reasoning and proof in geometry: effects of learning environment based on heuristic worked-out examples. ZDM Mathematics Education, 40(3), 455–467. doi:10.1007/s11858-008-0105-0.
40. Renkl, A. (2014). Towards an instructionally-oriented theory of example-based learning. Cognitive Science, 38, 1–37. doi:10.1111/cogs.12086.
41. Rotsaert, T., Panadero, E., Estrada, E., & Schellens, T. (2017). How do students perceive the educational value of peer assessment in relation to its social nature? A survey study in Flanders. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 53, 29–40. doi:10.1016/j.stueduc.2017.02.003.
42. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1986). On having and using geometric knowledge. In J. Hiebert (Ed.), Conceptual and procedural knowledge: the case of mathematics (pp. 225–264). Hillsdale,NJ: Erlbaum.
43. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1989). Explorations of students’ mathematical beliefs and behavior. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20(4), 338–355. doi:10.2307/749440.
44. Sluijsmans, D. M. A., Brand-Gruwel, S., Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Martens, R. L. (2004). Training teachers in peer-assessment skills: effects on performance and perceptions. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 41(1), 59–57. doi:10.1080/1470329032000172720.
45. Strijbos, J. W., & Müller, A. (2014). Personale faktoren im feedbackprozess. In H. Ditton & A. Müller (Eds.), Feedback und rückmeldungen: theoretische grundlagen, empirische befunde, praktische anwendungsfelder [Feedback and evaluation: theoretical foundations, empirical findings, practical implementation] (pp. 87–134). Münster: Waxmann.
46. Strijbos, J. W., Martens, R. L., Prins, F. J., & Jochems, W. M. G. (2006). Content analysis: what are they talking about? Computers & Education, 46(1), 29–48. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2005.04.002.
47. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Essex, England: Pearson.
48. Tapan, M. S., & Arslan, C. (2009). Preservice teachers’ use of spatio-visual elements and their level of justification dealing with a geometrical construction problem. US-China Education Review, 6(3), 54–60.
49. Ufer, S., Heinze, A., & Reiss, K. (2008). Individual predictors of geometrical proof competence. In Figueras, O., Cortina, J.L., Alatorre, S., Rojano, T., Sepulveda, A. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Joint Meeting of PME 32 and PME-NA XXX, Vol. 4 (pp. 361–368). Mexico: Cinvestav-UMSNH.
50. Ufer, S., Heinze, A., & Reiss, K. (2009). Mental models and the development of geometric proof competency. In M. Tzekaki, M. Kaldrimidou, & C. Sakonidis (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Vol. 5 (pp. 257–264). Thessaloniki: PME.
51. Van Zundert, M. J., Könings, K. D., Sluijsmans, D. M. A., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2012a). Teaching domain-specific skills before peer assessment skills is superior to teaching them simultaneously. Educational Studies, 38(5), 541–557. doi:10.1080/03055698.2012.654920.
52. Van Zundert, M. J., Sluijsmans, D. M. A., Könings, K. D., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2012b). The differential effects of task complexity on domain-specific and peer assessment skills. Educational Psychology: An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology, 32(1), 127–145. doi:10.1080/01443410.2011.626122.
53. Wang, W. (2014). Students’ perceptions of rubric-referenced peer feedback on EFL writing: a longitudinal inquiry. Assessing Writing, 19, 80–96. doi:10.1016/j.asw.2013.11.008.