Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

References

  • Ackoff, R. L. (1981). Creating the corporate future: Plan or be planned for. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Alexander, G. C. (2002). Interactive management: An emancipatory methodology. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 15(2), 111–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, R. (2004). Towards dialogic teaching. York: Dialogos.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Argyris, C. (1982). Reasoning, learning, and action: Individual and organizational. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashby, W. R. (1958). An introduction to cybernetics. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Beauchamp, G., & Kennewell, S. (2010). Interactivity in the classroom and its impact on learning. Computers & Education, 54(3), 759–766.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beckman, M. (1990). Collaborative learning: Preparation for the workplace and democracy? College Teaching, 38(4), 128–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boud, D. (1990). Assessment and the promotion of academic values. Studies in Higher Education, 15, 101–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079012331377621.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boud, D., Cohen, R., & Sampson, J. (2001). Peer Learning in Higher Education: Learning from & with Each Other. Psychology Press.

  • Boulding, K. E. (1966). The impact of the social sciences. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Broome, B. J. (1995a). Collective design of the future: Structural analysis of tribal vision statements. American Indian Quarterly, 19(2), 205–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cantwell, R. H., & Andrews, B. (2002). Cognitive and psychological factors underlying secondary school students' feelings towards group work. Educational Psychology, 22(1), 75–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cazden, C. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth: Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chin, C. (2006). Classroom Interaction in Science: Teacher questioning and feedback to students' responses. International Journal of Science Education, 28(11), 1315–1346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    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., 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christakis, A. N. (1987). Systems profile: The club of Rome revisited. Systems Research, 4(1), 53–58. https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.3850040107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deal, T. E., & Kennedy, A. A. (1982). Corporate cultures: The rites and rituals of corporate life. Reading: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dillon, J. T. (1985). Using questions to foil discussion. Teaching and Teacher Education, 1(2), 109–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, D., & Mercer, N. (1987). Common knowledge: The growth of understanding in the classroom. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erkens, G. (2005). Multiple episode protocol analysis. (Version 4.10). [Software] Available from http://edugate.fss.uu.nl/mepa/.

  • Falchikov, N. (1995). Peer feedback marking: developing peer assessment. Innovations in Education and Training International, 32(2), 175–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gan, M. J. (2011). The effects of prompts and explicit coaching on peer feedback quality (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ResearchSpace@Auckland (2292/13035).

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hardman, F., & Abd-Kadir, J. (2010). Classroom discourse: towards a dialogic pedagogy. The international handbook of English, language and literacy, 254-264.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Hattie, J., and Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Havnes, A. (2008). Peer-mediated learning beyond the curriculum. Studies in Higher Education, 33(2), 193–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hogan, M. J. (2006). Against Didacticism: A psychologist’s view. Educational Research and Reviews, 1(6), 206–212.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • Kollar, I., & Fischer, F. (2010). Peer assessment as collaborative learning: A cognitive perspective. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 344–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lemke, J. (1990). Talking Science: language, learning and values. Norwood: Ablex Publishing.

    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 

  • 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 

  • Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mercer, N., & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the development of children’s thinking: A sociocultural approach. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michaelsen, L. K., & Sweet, M. (2008). The essential elements of team-based learning. New directions for teaching and learning, 2008(116), 7–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Novakovich, J. (2016). Fostering critical thinking and reflection through blog-mediated peer feedback. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 32(1), 16–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum, E. M. (2008). Collaborative discourse, argumentation, and learning: Preface and literature review. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33(3), 345–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • O’Donnell, A. M., & King, A. (Eds.). (1998). Cognitive perspectives on peer learning. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palinscar, 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    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 

  • Rittel, H., & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01405730.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, K., & O’Reilly, C. (1974). Measuring organizational communication. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59(3), 321–326. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0036660.

    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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sato, T. (1979). Determination of hierarchical networks of instructional units using the ISM method. Educational Technology Research, 3, 67–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1960). The new science of management decisions. New York: Harper & Row.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sinclair, J., & Coulthard, R. M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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).

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strayer, J. F. (2012). How learning in an inverted classroom influences cooperation, innovation and task orientation. Learning Environments Research, 15(2), 171–193.

    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 

  • Sunstein, C. R. (2005). Why societies need dissent (Vol. 9). Cambridge, Harvard University Press.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warfield, J. N. (1976). Societal systems: Planning, policy, and complexity. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warfield, J. N. (2006). An introduction to systems science. Singapore: World Scientific.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Warfield, J., & Cardenas, R. (1994). A handbook of interactive management. Ames: Iowa State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webb, N. M. (1984). Sex differences in interaction and achievement in cooperative small groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(1), 33–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhu, W. (1995). Effects of training for peer response on students’ comments and interaction. Written Communication, 12, 492–528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Psychology, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland

    Owen M. Harney, Michael J. Hogan & Sarah Quinn

Authors
  1. Owen M. Harney
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael J. Hogan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sarah Quinn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Owen M. Harney.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Harney, O.M., Hogan, M.J. & Quinn, S. Investigating the effects of peer to peer prompts on collaborative argumentation, consensus and perceived efficacy in collaborative learning. Intern. J. Comput.-Support. Collab. Learn 12, 307–336 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-017-9263-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-017-9263-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation