Just plain peers across social networks: Peer-feedback networks nested in personal and academic networks in higher education

Learning, Culture and Social Interaction

Volumn 18, Issue , 2018, Pages 86-112

  Dingyloudi, Filitsa ^a   Strijbos, Jan Willem ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GRONINGEN   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Communities of learning practice; Mixed methods; Peer feedback; Social network analysis; Social networks

Indexed keywords

EID: 85044995030     PISSN: 22106561     EISSN: 2210657X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.lcsi.2018.02.002     Document Type: Article

References (102)

1. Angelillo, C., Rogoff, B., Chavajay, P., Examining shared endeavors by abstracting video coding schemes with fidelity to cases. Goldman, R., Pea, R., Barron, B., Derry, S.J., (eds.) Video research in the learning sciences, 2006, Routledge, Abingdon, UK, 189–206.
2. Askew, S., Lodge, C., Gifts, ping- pong and loops – Linking feedback and learning. Askew, S., (eds.) Feedback for learning, 2000, Routledge, London, UK, 1–17.
3. Bastian, M., Heymann, S., Jacomy, M., Gephi: An open source software for exploring and manipulating networks. Paper presented at the third international AAAI conference on weblogs and social media, 2009, May, Paper, San Jose, CA (retrieved from) http://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/ICWSM/09/paper/view/154.
4. Beaumont, C., O'Doherty, M., Shannon, L., Reconceptualising assessment feedback: A key to improving student learning?. Studies in Higher Education 36:6 (2011), 671–687, 10.1080/03075071003731135.
5. Bellotti, E., Qualitative networks: Mixed methods in sociological research. 2015, Routledge, Abingdon, UK.
6. Berg, E.C., The effects of trained peer response on ESL students’ revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing 8:3 (1999), 215–241.
7. Bolibar, M., Macro, meso, micro: Broadening the ‘social’ of social network analysis with a mixed methods approach. Quality and Quantity 50:5 (2016), 2217–2236, 10.1007/s11135-015-0259-0.
8. Bonacich, P., Factoring and weighting approaches to status scores and clique identification. Journal of Mathematical Sociology 2:1 (1972), 113–120, 10.1080/0022250X.1972.9989806.
9. Borgatti, S.P., Centrality and network flow. Social Networks 27:1 (2005), 55–71, 10.1016/j.socnet.2004.11.008.
10. Borgatti, S.P., Brass, D.J., Halgin, D.S., Social network research: Confusions, criticisms, and controversies. Brass, D.J., Labianca, G., Mehra, A., Halgin, D.S., Borgatti, S.P., (eds.) Contemporary perspectives on organizational social networks (research in the sociology of organizations, Vol. 40), 2014, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bradford, UK, 1–29.
11. Borgatti, S.P., Halgin, D.S., On network theory. Organization Science 22:5 (2011), 1168–1181, 10.1287/orsc.1100.0641.
12. Borgatti, S.P., Molina, J.L., Ethical and strategic issues in organizational social network analysis. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 39:3 (2003), 337–349, 10.1177/0021886303258111.
13. Boud, D., Sustainable assessment: Rethinking assessment for the learning society. Studies in Continuing Education 22:2 (2000), 151–167, 10.1080/713695728.
14. Boud, D., Cohen, R., Sampson, J., Peer learning and assessment. Boud, D., Cohen, R., Sampson, J., (eds.) Peer learning in higher education: Learning from and with each other, 2001, Routledge, New York, 67–81.
15. Boud, D., Falchikov, N., Aligning assessment with long-term learning. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 31:4 (2006), 399–413, 10.1080/02602930600679050.
16. Boud, D., Freeman, M., James, R., Joughin, G., Sadler, R., Dochy, F., Fitzgerald, T., Student assessment in ad after courses. (Retrieved from) http://www.olt.gov.au/resource-student-assessment-learning-and-after-courses-uts-2010, 2010.
17. Boud, D., Molloy, E., What is the problem with feedback?. Boud, D., Molloy, E., (eds.) Feedback in higher and professional education: Understanding it and doing it well, 2013, Routledge, Abingdon, UK, 1–10.
18. Boud, D., Molloy, E., Rethinking models of feedback for learning: The challenge of design. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 38:6 (2013), 698–712, 10.1080/02602938.2012.691462.
19. Brill, J.M., Hodges, C.B., Investigating peer review as an intentional learning strategy to foster collaborative knowledge-building in students of instructional design. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 23:1 (2011), 114–118.
20. Burt, R.S., Structural holes: The social structure of competition. 1992, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
21. Carless, D., Trust and its role in facilitating dialogic feedback. Boud, D., Molloy, E., (eds.) Feedback in higher and professional education: Understanding it and doing it well, 2013, Routledge, Abingdon, UK, 90–103.
22. Carrington, P.J., Social network research. Domínguez, S., Hollstein, B., (eds.) Mixed methods social networks research, 2014, Cambridge University Press, New York, 35–64.
23. Carrington, P.J., Scott, J., Wasserman, S., (eds.) Models and methods in social network analysis, 2005, Cambridge University Press, New York.
24. Cho, H., Gay, G., Davidson, B., Ingraffea, A., Social networks, communication styles, and learning performance in a CSCL community. Computers & Education 49:2 (2007), 309–329, 10.1016/j.compedu.2005.07.003.
25. Cho, H., Stefanone, M., Gay, G., Social information sharing in a CSCL community. Stahl, G., (eds.) Computer support for collaborative learning: Foundations for a CSCL community, 2002, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, 43–50.
26. Cho, K., MacArthur, C., Student revision with peer and expert reviewing. Learning and Instruction 20 (2010), 328–338, 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.006.
27. Crossley, N., The social world of the network: Combining qualitative and quantitative elements in social network analysis. Sociologica, 1, 2010, 10.2383/32049.
28. Crossley, N., Bellotti, E., Edwards, G., Everett, M.G., Koskinen, J., Tranmer, M., Social network analysis for ego-nets. 2015, SAGE, London, UK.
29. Crossley, N., Prell, C., Scott, J., Social network analysis: Introduction to special issue. Methodological Innovations Online 4:1 (2009), 1–7, 10.1177/205979910900400101.
30. Dawson, S., A study of the relationship between student social networks and sense of community. Journal of Educational Technology & Society 11:3 (2008), 224–238.
31. De Laat, M., Lally, V., Lipponen, L., Simons, R.-J., Investigating patterns of interaction in networked learning and computer-supported collaborative learning: A role for social network analysis. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 2:1 (2007), 87–103, 10.1007/s11412-007-9006-4.
32. De Laat, M., Strijbos, J.W., Unfolding perspectives on networked professional learning: Exploring ties and time. Frontline Learning Research 2:2 (2014), 72–80, 10.14786/flr.v2i2.122.
33. DiPardo, A., Freedman, S.W., Peer response groups in the writing classroom: Theoretic foundations and new directions. Review of Educational Research 58:2 (1988), 119–149.
34. Edwards, G., Mixed methods approaches to social network analysis (discussion paper, ESRC National Centre for Research Methods Review paper). (Retrieved from) http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/842/1/Social_Network_analysis_Edwards.pdf, 2010.
35. Evans, C., Making sense of assessment feedback in higher education. Review of Educational Research 83:1 (2013), 70–120, 10.3102/0034654312474350.
36. Falchikov, N., Learning together: Peer tutoring in higher education. 2001, Routledge, Abingdon, UK.
37. Falchikov, N., Improving assessment through student involvement: Practical solutions for aiding learning in higher and further education. 2005, Routledge, Abingdon, UK.
38. Freeman, L.C., Centrality in social networks: Conceptual clarification. Social Networks 1:3 (1979), 215–239, 10.1016/0378-8733(78)90021-7.
39. Freeman, L.C., Some antecedents of social network analysis. Connections 19:1 (1996), 39–42.
40. Freeman, L.C., The development of social network analysis: A study in the sociology of science. 2004, Empirical Press, Vancouver, Canada.
41. Gielen, S., Peeters, E., Dochy, F., Onghena, P., Struyven, K., Improving the effectiveness of peer feedback for learning. Learning and Instruction 20 (2010), 304–315, 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.007.
42. Granovetter, M.S., The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology 78:6 (1973), 1360–1380, 10.1086/225469.
43. Granovetter, M.S., The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited. Sociological Theory 1 (1983), 201–233, 10.2307/202051.
44. Greene, J.C., Kreider, H., Mayer, E., Combining qualitative and quantitative methods in social inquiry. Somekh, B., Lewin, C., (eds.) Theory and methods in social research, 2011, SAGE, London, UK, 259–266.
45. Grunspan, D.Z., Wiggins, B.L., Goodreau, S.M., Understanding classrooms through social network analysis: A primer fro social network analysis in educational research. CBE Life Sciences Education 13:2 (2014), 167–178, 10.1187/cbe.13-08-0162.
46. Hammer, D., Berland, L.K., Confusing claims for data: A critique of common practices for presenting qualitative research on learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences 23:1 (2014), 37–46, 10.1080/10508406.2013.802652.
47. Hansen, J.G., Liu, J., Guiding principles for effective peer response. ELT Journal 59:1 (2005), 31–38, 10.1093/elt/cci004.
48. Hattie, J., Timperley, H., The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research 77:1 (2007), 81–112, 10.3102/003465430298487.
49. Haythornthwaite, C., Exploring multiplexity: Social network structures in a computer-supported distance learning class. The Information Society 17:3 (2001), 211–226, 10.1080/01972240152493065.
50. Haythornthwaite, C., Building social networks via computer networks: Creating and sustaining distributed learning communities. Renninger, K.A., Shumar, W., (eds.) Building virtual communities: Learning and change in cyberspace, 2002, Cambridge University Press, New York, 159–190.
51. Haythornthwaite, C., Learning relations and networks in web-based communities. International Journal of Web Based Communities 4:2 (2008), 140–158, 10.1504/IJWBC.2008.017669.
52. Haythornthwaite, C., Wellman, B., Work, friendship, and media use for information exchange in a networked organization. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 49:12 (1998), 1101–1114, 10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(1998)49:12<1101::AID-ASI6>3.0.CO;2-Z.
53. Hmelo-Silver, C.E., Kati, E., Nagarajan, A., Chernobilsky, E., Soft leaders, hard artifacts, and the groups we rarely see: Using video to understand peer learning processes. Goldman, R., Pea, R., Barron, B., Derry, S.J., (eds.) Video research in the learning sciences, 2006, Routledge, Abingdon, UK, 255–270.
54. Hollstein, B., Mixed methods social network research: An introduction. Domínguez, S., Hollstein, B., (eds.) Mixed methods social networks research, 2014, Cambridge University Press, New York, 3–34.
55. Hyland, K., Hyland, F., Interpersonal aspects of response: Constructing and interpreting teacher written feedback. Hyland, K., Hyland, F., (eds.) Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues, 2006, Cambridge University Press, New York, 206–224.
56. Jehn, K.A., Shah, P.P., Interpersonal relationships and task performance: An examination of mediation processes in friendship and acquaintance groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 72:4 (1997), 775–790, 10.1037/0022-3514.72.4.775.
57. Johnson, R.B., Onwuegbuzie, A.J., Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher 33:7 (2004), 14–26, 10.3102/0013189X033007014.
58. Katz, N., Lazer, D., Arrow, H., Contractor, N., Network theory and small groups. Small Group Research 35:3 (2004), 307–332, 10.1177/1046496404264941.
59. Khokhar, D., Gephi cookbook. 2015, Packt Publishing, Birmingham, UK.
60. Knoblauch, H., Schnettler, B., Raab, J., Video-analysis: Methodological aspects of interpretive audiovisual analysis in social research. Knoblauch, H., Schnettler, B., Raab, J., Soeffner, H.-G., (eds.) Video analysis: Methodology and methods, 3rd ed., 2012, Frankfurt, Peter Lang, 9–26.
61. Kossinets, G., Effects of missing data in social networks. Social Networks 28 (2006), 247–268, 10.1016/j.socnet.2005.07.002.
62. Krippendorff, K., Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. 3rd ed., 2013, SAGE, Thousand Oaks, CA.
63. Lave, J., Teaching, as learning in practice. Mind, Culture, and Activity 3:3 (1996), 149–164.
64. Lave, J., Wenger, E., Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. 1991, Cambridge University Press, New York.
65. Liu, N.-F., Carless, D., Peer feedback: The learning element of peer assessment. Teaching in Higher Education 11:3 (2006), 279–290, 10.1080/13562510600680582.
66. London, M., The power of feedback: Giving, seeking, and using feedback for performance improvement. 2015, Routledge, New York.
67. Merry, S., Price, M., Carless, D., Taras, M., (eds.) Reconceptualising feedback in higher education: Developing dialogue with students, 2013, Routledge, Abingdon, UK.
68. Moreno, J.L., Who shall survive?: A new approach to the problem of human interrelations. 1934, Nervous and Mental Disease Publishing Company, Washington, DC.
69. Narciss, S., Feedback strategies for interactive learning tasks. Spector, J.M., Merrill, M.D., Van Merriënboer, J., Driscoll, M.P., (eds.) Handbook research on educational communications and technology, 2008, Taylor & Francis, New York, 126–143.
70. Nardi, B.A., Whittaker, S., Schwarz, H., NetWORKers and their activity in intentional networks. Computer Supported Cooperative Work 11:1 (2002), 205–242, 10.1023/A:1015241914483.
71. Nicol, D.J., From monologue to dialogue: Improving written feedback processes in mass higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 35:5 (2010), 501–517, 10.1080/02602931003786559.
72. Nicol, D.J., Peer review: Putting feedback processes in students’ hands. Perspectives on pedagogy and practice, 4, 2013, 111–123.
73. Nicol, D.J., MacFarlane-Dick, D., Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education 31:2 (2006), 199–218, 10.1080/03075070600572090.
74. Nicol, D.J., Thomson, A., Breslin, C., Rethinking feedback practices in higher education: A peer review perspective. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 39:1 (2013), 102–122, 10.1080/02602938.2013.795518.
75. Opsahl, T., Agneessens, F., Skvoretz, J., Node centrality in weighted networks: Generalizing degree and shortest paths. Social Networks 32:3 (2010), 245–251, 10.1016/j.socnet.2010.03.006.
76. Patchan, M.M., Schunn, C.D., Understanding the benefits of providing peer feedback: How students respond to peers’ texts of varying quality. Instructional Science 43:5 (2015), 591–614, 10.1007/s11251-015-9353-x.
77. Poverjuc, O., Brooks, V., Wray, D., Using peer feedback in a Master's programme: A multiple case study. Teaching in Higher Education 17:4 (2012), 465–477, 10.1080/13562517.2011.641008.
78. Sadler, D.R., Beyond feedback: Developing student capability in complex appraisal. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 35:5 (2010), 535–550, 10.1080/02602930903541015.
79. Sadler, D.R., Opening up feedback: Teaching learners to see. Merry, S., Price, M., Carless, D., Taras, M., (eds.) Reconceptualising feedback in higher education: Developing dialogue with students, 2013, Routledge, Abingdon, UK, 54–63.
80. Sambell, K., Assessment and feedback in higher education: Considerable room for improvement. Student Engagement in Higher Education Journal, 1(1), 2016.
81. Schoenfeld, A.H., On paradigms and methods: What do you do when the ones you know don't do what you want them to? Issues in the analysis of data in the form of videotapes. The Journal of the Learning Sciences 2:2 (1992), 179–214, 10.1207/s15327809jls0202_3.
82. Scott, J., Social network analysis. 3rd ed., 2013, SAGE, London, UK.
83. Sfard, A., On two metaphors for learning and the danger of choosing just one. Educational Researcher 27:2 (1998), 4–13, 10.3102/0013189X027002004.
84. Shah, P.P., Jehn, K.A., Do friends perform better than acquaintances? The interaction of friendship, conflict, and task. Group Decision and Negotiation 2:2 (1993), 149–165, 10.1007/BF01884769.
85. Strijbos, J.W., Müller, A., Personale faktoren im feedbackprozess. Ditton, H., Müller, A., (eds.) Feedback und rückmeldungen: Theoretische grundlagen, empirische befunde, praktische anwendungsfelder (Trans.) Feedback and evaluation: Theoretical foundations, empirical findings, practical implementation, 2014, Waxmann, Münster, Germany, 87–134.
86. Strijbos, J.W., Narciss, S., Dünnebier, K., Peer feedback content and sender's competence level in academic writing revision tasks: Are they critical for feedback perceptions and efficiency?. Learning and Instruction 20:4 (2010), 291–303, 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.008.
87. Strijbos, J.W., Sluijsmans, D., Unravelling peer assessment: Methodological, functional, and conceptual developments. Learning and Instruction 20:4 (2010), 265–269, 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.002.
88. Teddlie, C., Tashakkori, A., Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. 2009, SAGE, Thousand Oaks, CA.
89. Topping, K.J., Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research 68:3 (1998), 249–276, 10.3102/00346543068003249.
90. Topping, K.J., Trends in peer learning. Educational Psychology 25:6 (2005), 631–645, 10.1080/01443410500345172.
91. Van Gennip, N.A.E., Segers, M.S.R., Tillema, H.H., Peer assessment as a collaborative learning activity: The role of interpersonal variables and conceptions. Learning and Instruction 20:4 (2010), 280–290, 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.010.
92. Villamil, O.S., De Guerrero, M.C.M., Peer revision in the L2 classroom: Social-cognitive activities, mediating strategies and aspects of social behavior. Journal of Second Language Writing 5:1 (1996), 51–75, 10.1016/S1060-3743(96)90015-6.
93. Villamil, O.S., De Guerrero, M.C.M., Sociocultural theory: A framework for understanding the social-cognitive dimensions of peer feedback. Hyland, K., Hyland, F., (eds.) Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues, 2006, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 23–41.
94. Vygotsky, L.S., Mind in society. 1978, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
95. Wald, A., Triangulation and validity of network data. Domínguez, S., Hollstein, B., (eds.) Mixed methods social networks research, 2014, Cambridge University Press, New York, 65–89.
96. Wasserman, S., Faust, K., Social network analysis: Methods and applications. 1994, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
97. Wenger, E., Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. 1998, Cambridge University Press, New York.
98. Wingate, U., The impact of formative assessment on the development of academic writing. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 35:5 (2010), 519–533, 10.1080/02602930903512909.
99. Winstone, N.E., Nash, R.A., Parker, M., Rowntree, J., Supporting learners’ agentic engagement with feedback: A systematic review and a taxonomy of recipience processes. Educational Psychologist 52:1 (2017), 17–37, 10.1080/00461520.2016.1207538.
100. Wölfer, R., Faber, N.S., Hewstone, M., Social network analysis in the science of groups: Cross-sectional and longitudinal applications for studying intra- and intergroup behavior. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice 19:1 (2015), 45–61, 10.1037/gdn0000021.
101. Yang, M., Carless, D., The feedback triangle and the enhancement of dialogic feedback processes. Teaching in Higher Education 18:3 (2013), 285–297, 10.1080/13562517.2012.719154.
102. Zhu, W., Mitchell, D.A., Participation in peer response as activity: An examination of peer response stances from an activity theory perspective. TESOL Quarterly 46:2 (2012), 362–386.