The effects of online peer feedback and epistemic beliefs on students’ argumentation-based learning

Innovations in Education and Teaching International

Volumn 56, Issue 5, 2019, Pages 548-557

  Noroozi, Omid ^a,b   Hatami, Javad ^a  

^a TARBIAT MODARES UNIVERSITY   (Iran)

^b WAGENINGEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Argumentation; epistemic beliefs; essay writing; learning; peer feedback

Indexed keywords

EID: 85041136669     PISSN: 14703297     EISSN: 14703300     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/14703297.2018.1431143     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Bayerlein, L., (2014). Students’ feedback preferences: How do students react to timely and automatically generated assessment feedback? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39, 916–931.10.1080/02602938.2013.870531
2. Cooper, C., Cherry, R., Copley, B., Fleischer, S., Pollard, B., & Sartisky, M., (1984). Studying the writing abilities of a university freshman class: Strategies from a case study. In R., Beach & L., Bridwell (Eds.), New directions in composition research (pp. 19–52). New York, NY: Guilford.
3. Crisp, B. R., (2007). Is it worth the effort? How feedback influences students’ subsequent submission of assessable work. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 32, 571–581.10.1080/02602930601116912
4. Gabelica, C., Van den Bossche, P., Segers, M., & Gijselaers, W., (2012). Feedback, a powerful level in teams: A review. Educational Research Review, 7, 123–144.10.1016/j.edurev.2011.11.003
5. Gabelica, C., Van den Bossche, P., De Maeyer, S., Segers, M., & Gijselaers, W., (2014). The effect of team feedback and guided reflexivity on team performance change. Learning and Instruction, 34, 86–96.10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.09.001
6. Glassner, A., (2017). Evaluating arguments in instruction: Theoretical and practical directions. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 24, 95–103.10.1016/j.tsc.2017.02.013
7. Hofer, B. K., (2001). Personal epistemology research: Implications for learning and teaching. Educational Psychology Review, 13(4), 353–383.10.1023/A:1011965830686
8. Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R., (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67, 88–140.10.3102/00346543067001088
9. Infante, D. A., & Rancer, A. S., (1982). A conceptualization and measure of argumentativeness. Journal of Personality Assessment, 46, 72–80.10.1207/s15327752jpa4601_13
10. Kellogg, R. T., & Whiteford, A. P., (2009). Training advanced writing skills: The case for deliberate practice. Educational Psychologist, 44, 250–266.10.1080/00461520903213600
11. King, P., & Kitchener, K. S., (1994). Developing reflective judgment: Understanding and promoting intellectual growth and critical thinking in adolescents and adults. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
12. Kirschner, P. A., Buckingham-Shum, S. J., & Carr, C. S., (Eds.). (2003). Visualizing argumentation: Software tools for collaborative and educational sense-making. London: Springer.
13. Kollar, I., & Fischer, F., (2010). Peer assessment as collaborative learning: A cognitive perspective. Learning and Instruction, 20, 344–348.10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.005
14. Kuhn, D., Cheney, R., & Weinstock, M., (2000). The development of epistemological understanding. Cognitive Development, 15, 309–328.10.1016/S0885-2014(00)00030-7
15. Lazarou, D., Sutherland, R., & Erduran, S., (2016). Argumentation in science education as a systemic activity: An activity-theoretical perspective. International Journal of Educational Research, 79, 150–166.10.1016/j.ijer.2016.07.008
16. Muis, K. R., (2007). The role of epistemic beliefs in self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 42, 173–190.10.1080/00461520701416306
17. Munneke, L., Andriessen, J., Kanselaar, G., & Kirschner, P., (2007). Supporting interactive argumentation: Influence of representational tools on discussing a wicked problem. Computers in Human Behaviour, 23, 1072–1088.10.1016/j.chb.2006.10.003
18. Noroozi, O., (2016). Considering students’ epistemic beliefs to facilitate their argumentative discourse and attitudinal change with a digital dialogue game. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 1–9. doi:10.1080/14703297.2016.1208112
19. Noroozi, O., & Mulder, M., (2016). Design and evaluation of a digital module with guided peer feedback for student learning biotechnology and molecular life sciences, attitudinal change, and satisfaction. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 45, 31–39.
20. Noroozi, O., Weinberger, A., Biemans, H. J. A., Mulder, M., & Chizari, M., (2012). Argumentation-based computer supported collaborative learning (ABCSCL). A systematic review and synthesis of fifteen years of research. Educational Research Review, 7, 79–106.10.1016/j.edurev.2011.11.006
21. Noroozi, O., Biemans, H. J. A., & Mulder, M., (2016). Relations between scripted online peer feedback processes and quality of written argumentative essay. Internet and Higher Education, 31, 20–31.10.1016/j.iheduc.2016.05.002
22. Noroozi, O., McAlister, S., & Mulder, M., (2016). Impacts of a digital dialogue game and epistemic beliefs on argumentative discourse and willingness to argue. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17.https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v17i3.2297
23. Noroozi, O., Kirschner, P., Biemans, H. J. A., & Mulder, M., (2017). Promoting argumentation competence: Extending from first- to second-order scaffolding through adaptive fading. Educational Psychology Review, 1–24. doi:10.1007/s10648-017-9400-z
24. Nussbaum, E. M., & Bendixen, L. D., (2003). Approaching and avoiding arguments: The role of epistemological beliefs, need for cognition, and extraverted personality traits. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 573–595.10.1016/S0361-476X(02)00062-0
25. Nussbaum, E. M., Sinatra, G. M., & Poliquin, A., (2008). Role of epistemic beliefs and scientific argumentation in science learning. International Journal of Science Education, 30, 1977–1999.10.1080/09500690701545919
26. O’Keefe, D. J., (1982). The concept of argument and arguing. In J. R., Cox & C. A., Willard (Eds.), Advances in argumentation theory and research (pp. 3–23). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
27. Oh, S., & Jonassen, D. H., (2006). Scaffolding online argumentation during problem solving. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23, 95–110.
28. Osborne, J. F., (2010). Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science, 328, 463–466.10.1126/science.1183944
29. Qin, J., & Karabacak, E., (2010). The analysis of Toulmin elements in Chinese EFL university argumentative writing. System, 38, 1–13.
30. Rosman, T., Mayer, A. K., Peter, J., & Krampen, G., (2016). Need for cognitive closure may impede the effectiveness of epistemic belief instruction. Advance online publication. Learning and Individual Differences, 49, 406–413.10.1016/j.lindif.2016.05.017
31. Rosman, T., Mayer, A. K., Kerwer, M., & Krampen, G., (2017). The differential development of epistemic beliefs in psychology and computer science students: A four-wave longitudinal study. Learning and Instruction, 49, 166–177.10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.01.006
32. Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. F., (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2–3), 235–260.10.1080/09500690500336957
33. Symons, C., (2017). Supporting emergent bilinguals’ argumentation: Evaluating evidence in informational science texts. Linguistics and Education, 38, 79–91.10.1016/j.linged.2017.02.006
34. Toulmin, S., (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
35. Trevors, G., Feyzi-Behnagh, R., Azevedo, R., & Bouchet, F., (2016). Self-regulated learning varies as a function of epistemic beliefs and task conditions: Mixed method evidence from eye tracking, concurrent and retrospective reports. Learning and Instruction, 42, 31–46.10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.11.003
36. Trevors, G., Muis, K., Pekrun, R., Sinatra, G. M., & Muijselaar, M. M. L., (2017). Exploring the relations between epistemic beliefs, emotions, and learning from texts. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 48, 116–132.10.1016/j.cedpsych.2016.10.001
37. van Amelsvoort, M., Andriessen, J., & Kanselaar, G., (2007). Representational tools in computer-supported collaborative argumentation-based learning: How Dyads work with constructed and inspected argumentative diagrams. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16, 485–521.10.1080/10508400701524785
38. Wood, N. V., (2001). Perspectives on argument. NJ: Prentice Hall.