Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Prompting secondary students’ use of criteria, feedback specificity and feedback levels during an investigative task

  • Published:
Instructional Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study investigates the effects of prompting on secondary students’ written peer feedback in chemistry investigation reports. In particular, we examined students’ feedback features in relation to the use of criteria, feedback specificity, and feedback levels. A quasi-experimental pre-test post-test design was adopted. Reviewers in the prompted condition were provided with question prompts that asked them to pose written feedback to their peers on what they did or did not do well and suggestions for improvement, while reviewers in the unprompted condition gave written peer feedback without prompts. The findings showed that prompted peer feedback has a significant effect on the number of comments related to Knowledge of errors, Suggestions for improvement and Process level feedback. This study supports the view that prompting peer feedback in the use of criteria, feedback specificity and feedback levels opens up opportunity for reviewers to engage more meaningfully with peer feedback in report writing tasks.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. NCEA is the national qualification system for students at New Zealand secondary schools.

  2. http://www.nzqa.govt.nz/qualifications-standards/qualifications/ncea/.

References

  • Abd-El-Khalick, F., Boujaoude, S., Duschl, R., Lederman, N. G., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Hofstein, A., et al. (2004). Inquiry in science education: International perspective. Science Education, 88(3), 397–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Althauser, R., & Darnall, K. (2001). Enhancing critical reading and writing through peer reviews: An exploration of assisted performance. Teaching Sociology, 29, 23–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andrade, H. (2010). Students as the definitive source of formative assessment: Academic self-assessment and the self-regulation of learning. In H. Andrade & G. Cizek (Eds.), Handbook of formative assessment. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berthold, K., Nuckles, M., & Renkl, A. (2007). Do learning protocols support learning strategies and outcomes? The role of cognitive and metacognitive prompts. Learning and Instruction, 17, 564–577.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2003). Assessment for learning: Putting it into practice. Berkshire. England: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boekaerts, M. (2006). Self-regulation and effort investment. In K. A. Renninger & I. E. Sigel (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 345–377)., Child psychology in practice New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boud, D. (1995). Enhancing learning through self-assessment. London: Kogan Page.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boud, D., Cohen, R., & Sampson, J. (1999). Peer learning and assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 24(4), 413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, G. T. L., Harris, L. R., & Harnett, J. (2012). Teacher beliefs about feedback within an assessment for learning environment: Endorsement of improved learning over student well-being. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28, 968–978.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burnett, P. C., & Mandel, V. (2010). Praise and Feedback in the Primary Classroom: Teachers’ and Students’ Perspectives. Australian Journal of Educational & Developmental Psychology, 10, 145–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cho, Y. H., & Cho, K. (2011). Peer reviewers learn from giving comments. Instructional Science, 39, 629–643.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cho, K., & MacArthur, C. (2010). Student revision with peer and expert reviewing. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 328–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cho, K., & Schunn, C. D. (2007). Scaffolded writing and rewriting in the discipline: A web-based reciprocal peer review system. Computers & Education, 48(3), 409–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, E. (2003). Prompting middle school science students for productive reflection: Generic and directed prompts. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 91–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, E. A., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scaffolding students’ knowledge integration: Prompting for reflection in KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 819–837.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. W. (Eds.). (2006). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Falchikov, N. (2001). Learning together: Peer tutoring in higher education. London & New York: RoutledgeFalmer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Falchikov, N. (2005). Improving assessment through student involvement: practical solutions for learning in higher and further education. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Falchikov, N., & Goldfinch, J. (2000). Student peer assessment in higher education: A meta-analysis comparing peer and teacher marks. Review of Educational Research, 70, 287–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frederiksen, J. R. & White, B. J. (1997). Reflective assessment of students’ research within an inquiry-based middle school science curriculum. In Proceedings of Annual meeting of the AERA conference, Chicago, IL.

  • Gan, M. J. S. (2011). The effects of prompts and explicit coaching on peer feedback quality. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Auckland, available online at https://researchspace.auckland.ac.nz/handle/2292/6630.

  • Gan, M. J. S., & Hill, M. (2014). Using a dialogical approach to examine peer feedback during chemistry investigative task discussion. Research in Science Education, 1–23.

  • Gibbs, G., & Simpson, C. (2004). Conditions under which assessment supports students’ learning. Learning & Teaching in Higher Education, 1, 3–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gielen, S. (2007). Peer assessment as a tool for learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Leuven University, Leuven, Belgium.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gott, R., & Duggan, S. (2003). Understanding and using scientific evidence. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gott, R., & Roberts, R. (2008). Concepts of evidence and their role in open-ended practical investigations and scientific literacy; background to published papers. UK: The School of Education, Durham University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haigh, M., France, B., & Forret, M. (2005). Is “doing science” in New Zealand classrooms an expression of scientific inquiry? International Journal of Science Education, 27, 215–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, L. R., Brown, G. T. L., & Harnett, J. (2014). Understanding classroom feedback practices: A study of New Zealand student experiences, perceptions, and emotional responses. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 1–27.

  • Hattie, J. A. C., & Gan, M. J. S. (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.

  • Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderlong, J., & Lepper, M. R. (2002). The effects of praise on children’s intrinsic motivation: A review and synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 128(5), 774–795.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodson, D. (2009). Teaching and learning about science: Language, theories, methods, history, traditions and values. Rotterdam: Sense.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hovardas, T., Tsivitanidou, O. E., & Zacharia, Z. C. (2014). Peer versus expert feedback: An investigation of the quality of peer feedback among secondary school students. Computers & Education, 71, 133–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (Eds.). (2006). Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, M. (2009). The impact of an elaborated assessee’s role in peer assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(1), 105–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, X., & Lehman, J. D. (1999). Supporting learning of variable control in a computer-based biology environment: Effects of prompting college students to reflect on their own thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 837–858.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lockhart, C., & Ng, P. (1995). Analyzing talk in ESL peer response groups: stances, functions and content. Language Learning, 45, 605–655.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lundstrom, K., & Baker, W. (2009). To give is better than to receive: The benefits of peer review to the reviewer’s own writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(1), 30–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacKinnon, D. P. (2007). Introduction to statistical mediation analysis. Mahwah: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • McConlogue, T. (2014). Making judgements: investigating the process of composing and receiving peer feedback. Studies in Higher Education, pp. 1–13.

  • Min, H. T. (2005). Training students to become successful peer reviewers. System, 33, 293–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Min, H. T. (2006). The effects of training peer review on EFL students’ revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(2), 118–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mory, E. H. (2004). Feedback research review. In D. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 745–783). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Narciss, S. (2008). Feedback strategies for interactive learning tasks. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. J. G. Van Merrienboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (3rd ed., pp. 125–143). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, M., & Schunn, C. (2009). The nature of feedback: How different types of peer feedback affect writing performance. Instructional Science, 37(4), 375–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ngar-Fun, L., & Carless, D. (2006). Peer feedback: The learning element of peer assessment. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(3), 279–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orsmond, P., Merry, S., & Reiling, K. (2000). The use of student derived marking criteria in peer and self assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 25(1), 23–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orsmond, P., Merry, S., & Reiling, K. (2002). The use of exemplars and formative feedback when using student-derived marking criteria in peer and self assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 27(4), 309–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension fostering and comprehension monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ploegh, K., Tillema, H. H., & Segers, M. S. R. (2009). In search of quality criteria in peer assessment practices. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 35, 102–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prins, F., Sluijsmans, D., & Kirschner, P. (2006). Feedback for general practitioners in training: Quality, styles and preferences. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 11, 289–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramaprasad, A. (1983). On the definition of feedback. Behavioural Science, 28, 4–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rollinson, P. (2005). Using peer feedback in the ESL writing class. ELT Journal: English Language Teachers Journal, 59(1), 23–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18, 119–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, R. (2009). Indeterminacy in the use of preset criteria for assessment and grading in higher education. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 34, 159–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sluijsmans, D. M. A., Brand-Gruwel, S., Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Bastiaens, T. J. (2002). The training of peer assessment skills to promote the development of reflection skills in teacher education. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 29(1), 23–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sluijsmans, D. M. A., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2000). A peer assessment model. Heerlen: Open University of the Netherlands.

  • Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. Sociological Methodology, 13, 290–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strijbos, J. W., Narciss, S., & Dünnebier, K. (2010). 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), 291–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, D. R. (2006). A general inductive approach for analysing qualitative evaluation data. American Journal of Evaluation, 27, 237–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Topping, K. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68, 249–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Topping, K. (2005). Trends in peer learning. Educational Psychology, 25(6), 631–645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsivitanidou, O. E., Zacharia, Z. C., & Hovardas, T. (2011). Investigating secondary school students’ unmediated peer assessment skills. Learning and Instruction, 21, 506–519.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Steendam, E., Rijlaarsdam, G., Sercu, L., & Van den Bergh, H. (2010). The effect of instruction type and dyadic or individual emulation on the quality of higher-order peer feedback in EFL. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 316–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, T., Perry, M., Anderson, C. J., & Grosshandler, D. (2011). Engaging young students in scientific investigations: prompting for meaningful reflection. Instructional Science, 40, 19–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Starpath Project, Faculty of Education, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

    Mark J. S. Gan

  2. Melbourne Graduate School of Education, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia

    John Hattie

Authors
  1. Mark J. S. Gan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. John Hattie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mark J. S. Gan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gan, M.J.S., Hattie, J. Prompting secondary students’ use of criteria, feedback specificity and feedback levels during an investigative task. Instr Sci 42, 861–878 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-014-9319-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-014-9319-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation