Advertisement

Investigating the effects of peer to peer prompts on collaborative argumentation, consensus and perceived efficacy in collaborative learning

  • Owen M. HarneyEmail author
  • Michael J. Hogan
  • Sarah Quinn
Article

Abstract

In a society which is calling for more productive modes of collaboration to address increasingly complex scientific and social issues, greater involvement of students in dialogue, and increased emphasis on collaborative discourse and argumentation, become essential modes of engagement and learning. This paper investigates the effects of facilitator-driven versus peer-driven prompts on perceived and objective consensus, perceived efficacy, team orientation, discomfort in group learning, and argumentation style in a computer-supported collaborative learning session using Interactive Management. Eight groups of undergraduate students (N = 101) came together to discuss either critical thinking, or collaborative learning. Participants in the facilitator-driven condition received prompts in relation to the task from a facilitator throughout the process. In the peer-driven condition, the facilitator initially modelled the process of peer prompting, followed by a phase of coordinating participants in engaging in peer prompting, before the process of prompting was passed over to the participants themselves. During this final phase, participants provided each other with peer-to-peer prompts. Results indicated that those in the peer-driven condition scored significantly higher on perceived consensus, perceived efficacy of the IM methodology, and team orientation. Those in the peer-driven condition also scored significantly lower on discomfort in group learning. Furthermore, analysis of the dialogue using the Conversational Argument Coding Scheme revealed significant differences between conditions in the style of argumentation used, with those in the peer-driven condition exhibiting a greater range of argumentation codes. Results are discussed in light of theory and research on instructional support and facilitation in computer-supported collaborative learning.

Keywords

Computer Supported Collaborative Learning Prompting Peer Learning Facilitation Consensus Argumentation 

References

  1. Ackoff, R. L. (1981). Creating the corporate future: Plan or be planned for. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
  2. Alberts, H. (1992). Acquisition: past, present and future. Paper presented at the meeting of the Institute of Management Sciences and Operations Research Society, Orlando, FL.Google Scholar
  3. Alexander, G. C. (2002). Interactive management: An emancipatory methodology. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 15(2), 111–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alexander, R. (2004). Towards dialogic teaching. York: Dialogos.Google Scholar
  5. Andriessen, J. (2006). Arguing to learn. In: Sawyer, R.K. (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (pp. 443–460). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Argyris, C. (1982). Reasoning, learning, and action: Individual and organizational. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  7. Ashby, W. R. (1958). An introduction to cybernetics. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  8. Baker, M.J. (2003). Computer-Mediated Argumentative Interactions for the Co-Elaboration of Scientific Notions. In: Andriessen, J., Baker, M.J., and Suthers, D.D. (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting Cognitions in Computer- Supported Collaborative Learning Environments (pp. 47–78). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Beauchamp, G., & Kennewell, S. (2010). Interactivity in the classroom and its impact on learning. Computers & Education, 54(3), 759–766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Beck, S. J., Gronewold, K., & Western, K. (2012). Intergroup argumentation in city government decision making: The Wal-Mart dilemma. Small Group Research, 43(5), 87–612.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496412455435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Beckman, M. (1990). Collaborative learning: Preparation for the workplace and democracy? College Teaching, 38(4), 128–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bloxham, S., and West, A. (2004). Understanding the rules of the game: marking peer assessment as a medium for developing student’s conceptions of assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 29(6), 721–733.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0260293042000227254.
  13. Blumenfeld, P., Soloway, E., Marx, R., Krajcik, J., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26, 369–398.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.1991.9653139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Boud, D. (1990). Assessment and the promotion of academic values. Studies in Higher Education, 15, 101–111.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079012331377621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Boud, D., Cohen, R., & Sampson, J. (2001). Peer Learning in Higher Education: Learning from & with Each Other. Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  16. Boulding, K. E. (1966). The impact of the social sciences. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Broome, B. J. (1995a). Collective design of the future: Structural analysis of tribal vision statements. American Indian Quarterly, 19(2), 205–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Broome, B. J. (1995b). The role of facilitated group process in community-based planning and design: Promoting greater participation in Comanche tribal governance. In L. R. Frey (Ed.), Innovations in group facilitation: Applications in natural settings (pp. 27–52). Cresskill: Hampton Press.Google Scholar
  19. Broome, B. J., & Chen, M. (1992). Guidelines for computer-assisted group problem-solving: Meeting the challenges of complex issues. Small Group Research, 23(2), 216–236.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496492232005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Broome, B. J., & Christakis, A. N. (1988). A culturally-sensitive approach to tribal governance issue management. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 12(2), 107–123.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(88)90043-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Broome, B. J., & Cromer, I. L. (1991). Strategic planning for tribal economic development: A culturally appropriate model for consensus building. International Journal of Conflict Management, 2(3), 217–234.  https://doi.org/10.1108/eb022700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Broome, B. J., & Fulbright, L. (1995). A multi-stage influence model of barriers to group problem solving. Small Group Research, 26(1), 25–55.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496495261002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cantwell, R. H., & Andrews, B. (2002). Cognitive and psychological factors underlying secondary school students' feelings towards group work. Educational Psychology, 22(1), 75–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Cazden, C. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  25. Chin, C. (2006). Classroom Interaction in Science: Teacher questioning and feedback to students' responses. International Journal of Science Education, 28(11), 1315–1346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Chinn, C. A., O’Donnell, A. M., & Jinks, T. S. (2000). The structure of discourse in collaborative learning. The Journal of Experimental Education, 69, 77–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Cho, K., & MacArthur, C. (2010). Student revision with peer and expert reviewing. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 328–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Cho, K., Chung, T. R., King, W. R., & Schunn, C. D. (2008). Peer-based computer supported knowledge refinement: an empirical investigation. Communications of the ACM, 51(3), 83–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Christakis, A. N. (1987). Systems profile: The club of Rome revisited. Systems Research, 4(1), 53–58.  https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.3850040107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Coke, J. G., & Moore, C. M. (1981). Coping with a budgetary crisis: Helping a city council decide where expenditure cuts should be made. In S. W. Burks & J. F. Wolf (Eds.), Building city council leadership skills: A casebook of models and methods (pp. 72–85). Washington, DC: National League of Cities.Google Scholar
  31. Currall, S. C., & Judge, T. A. (1995). Measuring trust between organizational boundary role persons. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 64(2), 151–170.  https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1995.1097.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Davis, E.A. (2003). Prompting Middle School Science Students for Productive Reflection: Generic and Directed Prompts. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 91–142.  https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS1201_4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Deal, T. E., & Kennedy, A. A. (1982). Corporate cultures: The rites and rituals of corporate life. Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  34. Delbeq, A. L., Van De Ven, A. H., & Gustafson, D. H. (1975). Group techniques for program planning: A guide to nominal group and Delphi processes. Glenview: Scott, Foresman.Google Scholar
  35. Dierick, S., & Dochy, F. (2001). New lines in edumetrics: New forms of assessment lead to new assessment criteria. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 27, 307–329.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-491X(01)00032-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Dillon, J. T. (1985). Using questions to foil discussion. Teaching and Teacher Education, 1(2), 109–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ding, N. and Harskamp, E. G. (2009). Gender difference in students’ cognitive representations during collaborative problem-solving in physics. International Journal of Science Education. Retrieved May 2nd, 2015 from: https://www.rug.nl/research/portal/files/14562479/Chapter%205.
  38. Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Dwyer, C. P., Hogan, M. J., & Stewart, I. (2015). The effects of argument mapping-infused critical thinking instruction on reflective judgement performance. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 16, 11–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Eby, L., & Dobbins, G. (1997). Collectivistic orientation in teams: An individual and group-level analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 275–295.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3100145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Edwards, D., & Mercer, N. (1987). Common knowledge: The growth of understanding in the classroom. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  42. Erkens, G. (2005). Multiple episode protocol analysis. (Version 4.10). [Software] Available from http://edugate.fss.uu.nl/mepa/.
  43. Falchikov, N. (1995). Peer feedback marking: developing peer assessment. Innovations in Education and Training International, 32(2), 175–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Fransen, J., Weinberger, A., and Kirschner, P.A. (2013). Team effectiveness and team development in CSCL. Educational Psychologist, 48(1), 9–24.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2012.747947.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Gabelica, C., Bossche, P. V. D., Segers, M., & Gijselaers, W. (2012). Feedback, a powerful lever in teams: A review. Educational Research Review, 7(2), 123–144.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2011.11.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Gan, M. J. (2011). The effects of prompts and explicit coaching on peer feedback quality (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ResearchSpace@Auckland (2292/13035).Google Scholar
  47. Gan, M. J., & Hattie, J. A. C. (2014). Prompting secondary students’ use of criteria, feedback specificity and feedback levels during an investigative task. Instructional Science, 42(6), 861–878.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Gibbs, G., & Simpson, C. (2004). Conditions under which assessment supports students’ learning. Learning & Teaching in Higher Education, 1, 3–31.Google Scholar
  49. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Gielen, M., and De Wever, B. (2015). Scripting the role of assessor and assessee in peer assessment in a wiki environment: Impact on peer feedback quality and product improvement. Computers & Education, 88, 370–386,  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.07.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Gillies, R. M., & Ashman, A. F. (1995). The effects of gender and ability on students’ behaviours and interactions in classroom-based work groups. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 65, 211–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Hardman, F., & Abd-Kadir, J. (2010). Classroom discourse: towards a dialogic pedagogy. The international handbook of English, language and literacy, 254-264.Google Scholar
  53. Harney, O. M., Hogan, M. J., & Broome, B. (2012). Collaborative learning: The effects of trust and open and closed dynamics on consensus and efficacy. Social Psychology of Education, 15(4), 517–532.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-012-9202-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Harney, O. M., Hogan, M. J., Broome, B., Hall, T., & Ryan, C. (2015). Investigating the effects of prompts on argumentation style, consensus and perceived efficacy in collaborative learning. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 10(4), 367–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Hattie, J. A. C., & Gan, M. (2011). Instruction based on feedback. In R. Mayer & P. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Learning and Instruction (pp. 249–271). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  56. Hattie, J., and Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112.  https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Havnes, A. (2008). Peer-mediated learning beyond the curriculum. Studies in Higher Education, 33(2), 193–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Higgins, R., Hartley, P., & Skelton, A. (2002). The conscientious consumer: Reconsidering the role of assessment feedback in student learning. Studies in Higher Education, 27(1), 53–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Hogan, M. J. (2006). Against Didacticism: A psychologist’s view. Educational Research and Reviews, 1(6), 206–212.Google Scholar
  60. Hogan, M. J., Dwyer, C. P., Harney, O. M., Noone, C., & Conway, R. J. (2015a). Metacognitive skill development and applied systems science: A framework of metacognitive skills, self-regulatory functions and real-world applications. In Metacognition: Fundaments, applications, and trends (pp. 75-106). Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
  61. Hogan, M.J., Harney, O. M., & Broome, B. (2015b). Catalyzing Collaborative Learning and Collective Action for Positive Social Change through Systems Science Education. In, R. Wegerif, J. Kaufman, & L. Li (Eds). The Routledge Handbook of Research on Teaching Thinking.Google Scholar
  62. Hogan, M., Hall, T., & Harney, O. (2017). Collective Intelligence Design and a New Politics of System Change. Civitas educationis. Education, Politics, and Culture, 6(1), 51–78.Google Scholar
  63. Kenny, D. A., Albright, L., Malloy, T. E., & Kashy, D. A. (1994). Consensus in interpersonal perception: Acquaintance and the big five. Psychological Bulletin, 116(2), 245–358.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.116.2.245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Kenworthy, J. B., & Miller, N. (2001). Perceptual asymmetry in consensus estimates of majority and minority members. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(4), 597–612.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.80.4.597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. King, A., Staffieri, A., & Aldelgais, A. (1998). Mutual peer tutoring: Effects of structuring tutorial interaction to scaffold peer learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 134–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Kirschner, F., Paas, F., & Kirschner, P. (2009a). A cognitive load approach to collaborative learning: United brains for complex tasks. Educational Psychology Review, 21, 31–42.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-008-9095-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Kirschner, F., Paas, F., & Kirschner, P. (2009b). Individual and group-based learning from complex cognitive tasks: Effects on retention and transfer efficiency. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 306–314.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Kirschner, F., Paas, F., & Kirschner, P. (2011). Task complexity as a driver for collaborative learning efficiency: The collective working-memory effect. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25, 615–624.  https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Koc, E.W, Koncz, A. J., Tsang, K.C., & Longenberger, A. (2015). Jobs Outlook 2015. Retrieved from http://www.umuc.edu/documents/upload/nace-job-outlook-2015.pdf
  70. Kollar, I., & Fischer, F. (2010). Peer assessment as collaborative learning: A cognitive perspective. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 344–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Janes, F. R., Ellis, R. K., & Hammer, K. (1993). Experience of Teaching the Systems-Based Methodology of Interactive Management. In F. A. Stowell & D. West (eds.) Systems Science: Addressing global issues (pp. 545-551). Springer US.Google Scholar
  72. Jarvenpaa, S. L., Knoll, K., & Leidner, D. (1998). Is anybody out there? The antecedents of trust in global virtual teams. Journal of Management Information Systems, 14(4), 29–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., and Smith, K. (2007). The state of cooperative learning in postsecondary and professional settings. Educational Psychology Review, 19(1), 15–29.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-006-9038-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Lemke, J. (1990). Talking Science: language, learning and values. Norwood: Ablex Publishing.Google Scholar
  75. Lockhart, C., & Ng, P. (1995). Analyzing talk in ESL peer response groups: stances, functions and content. Language Learning, 45, 605–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. The Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734.  https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1995.9508080335.Google Scholar
  78. Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Mercer, N., & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the development of children’s thinking: A sociocultural approach. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  80. Meyers, R. A., & Brashers, D. E. (1998). Argument in group decision making: Explicating a process model and investigating the argument-outcome link. Communication Monographs, 65(4), 261–281.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759809376454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Michaelsen, L. K., & Sweet, M. (2008). The essential elements of team-based learning. New directions for teaching and learning, 2008(116), 7–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychology Review, 63(2), 81–97.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Min, H. T. (2005). Training students to become successful peer reviewers. System, 33, 293–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Mohammed, S., & Angell, L. C. (2004). Surface-and deep-level diversity in workgroups: Examining the moderating effects of team orientation and team process on relationship conflict. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(8), 1015–1039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Mohammed, S., & Ringseis, E. (2001). Cognitive diversity and consensus in group decision making: The role of inputs, processes, and outcomes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 85(2), 310–335.  https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2000.2943.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Maidenhead: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  87. Muller Mirza, N., Tartas, V., Perret-Clermont, A.-N., and de Pietro, J.-F. (2007). Using graphical tools in a phased activity for enhancing dialogical skills: An example with digalo. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(2–3), 247–272.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-007-9021-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 553–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Novakovich, J. (2016). Fostering critical thinking and reflection through blog-mediated peer feedback. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 32(1), 16–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Nussbaum, E. M. (2008). Collaborative discourse, argumentation, and learning: Preface and literature review. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33(3), 345–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Nystrand, M., Wu, L., Gamorgan, A., Zeiser, S., & Long, D. (2003). Questions in time: investigating the structure and dynamics of unfolding classroom discourse. Discourse Processes, 35, 135–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. O’Donnell, A. M. (2006). The role of peers and group learning. In P. H. Winne & P. A. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 781–802). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  93. O’Donnell, A. M., & King, A. (Eds.). (1998). Cognitive perspectives on peer learning. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  94. Palinscar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Patchan, M. M., Schunn, C. D., & Correnti, R. J. (2016). The nature of feedback: How peer feedback features affect students’ implementation rate and quality of revisions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(8), 1098.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Pearce, J. L., Sommer, S. M., Morris, A., & Frideger, M. (1992). A configurational approach to interpersonal relations: Profiles of workplace social relations and task interdependence. Irvine: Graduate School of Management, University of California.Google Scholar
  97. Prins, F. J., Sluijsmans, D. M., Kirschner, P. A., & Strijbos, J. W. (2005). Formative peer assessment in a CSCL environment: A case study. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(4), 417–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Rittel, H., & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01405730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Roberts, K., & O’Reilly, C. (1974). Measuring organizational communication. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59(3), 321–326.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0036660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Rollinson, P. (2005). Using peer feedback in the ESL writing class. ELT Journal:English Language Teachers Journal, 59(1), 23–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Russell, T. L. (1983). Analyzing arguments in science classroom discourse: Can teachers‘questions distort scientific authority? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20, 27–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Sato, T. (1979). Determination of hierarchical networks of instructional units using the ISM method. Educational Technology Research, 3, 67–75.Google Scholar
  104. Seibold, D. R., & Meyers, R. A. (2007). Group argument: A structuration perspective and research program. Small Group Research, 38(3), 312–336.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496407301966.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Schwarz, B.B., and Glassner, A. (2003). The blind and the paralytic: Fostering argumentation in social and scientific issues. In: Andriessen, J., Baker, M.J., and Suthers, D.D. (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computersupported collaborative learning environments (pp. 227–260). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Scheuer, O., Loll, F., Pinkwart, N., & McLaren, B. M. (2010). Computer-supported argumentation: A review of the state of the art. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5(1), 43–102.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-009-9080-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Simon, H. A. (1960). The new science of management decisions. New York: Harper & Row.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Sinclair, J., & Coulthard, R. M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  109. Skinner, K., & Louw, J. (2009). The feminization of psychology: Data from South Africa. International Journal of Psychology, 44(2), 81–92.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00207590701436736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Sluijsmans, D. M., Brand-Gruwel, S., & van Merriënboer, J. J. (2002). Peer assessment training in teacher education: Effects on performance and perceptions. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 27(5), 443–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Sluijsmans, D. M. A., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2000). A peer assessment model (Heerlen, Open University of the Netherlands, Center for Educational Technology and Expertise).Google Scholar
  112. Stahl, G. (2010). Guiding group cognition in CSCL. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5(3), 255–258.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-010-9091-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Stegmann, K., Weinberger, A., and Fischer, F. (2007). Facilitating argumentative knowledge construction with computer-supported collaboration scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(4), 421–447.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-007-9028-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Strayer, J. F. (2012). How learning in an inverted classroom influences cooperation, innovation and task orientation. Learning Environments Research, 15(2), 171–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Sunstein, C. R. (2005). Why societies need dissent (Vol. 9). Cambridge, Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  117. Topping, K. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68, 249–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Topping, K. J. (2003). Self and peer assessment in school and university: Reliability, validity and utility. In M. Segers, F. Dochy, & E. Cascallar (Eds.), Optimising new modes of assessment: In search of qualities and standards (pp. 55–89). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. van Gennip, N. A., Segers, M. S., & Tillema, H. H. (2010). Peer assessment as a collaborative learning activity: The role of interpersonal variables and conceptions. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 280–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Volet, S., & Mansfield, C. (2006). Group work at university: Significance of personal goals in the regulation strategies of students with positive and negative appraisals. Higher Education Research & Development, 25(4), 341–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Warfield, J. N. (1976). Societal systems: Planning, policy, and complexity. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  123. Warfield, J. N. (2006). An introduction to systems science. Singapore: World Scientific.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. Warfield, J., & Cardenas, R. (1994). A handbook of interactive management. Ames: Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar
  125. Webb, N. M. (1984). Sex differences in interaction and achievement in cooperative small groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(1), 33–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Webb, N. M., Franke, M. L., Ing, M., Chan, A., De, T., Freund, D., & Battey, D. (2008). The role of teacher instructional practices in student collaboration. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33(3), 360–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. Yang, M., Badger, R., & Yu, Z. (2006). A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback in a Chinese EFL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 179–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. Zhu, W. (1995). Effects of training for peer response on students’ comments and interaction. Written Communication, 12, 492–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society of the Learning Sciences, Inc. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Owen M. Harney
    • 1
    Email author
  • Michael J. Hogan
    • 1
  • Sarah Quinn
    • 1
  1. 1.School of PsychologyNational University of IrelandGalwayIreland

Personalised recommendations