Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The effects of autonomy support on student engagement in peer assessment

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Educational Technology Research and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Although peer assessment is widely implemented in higher education, not all students are highly engaged in it. To enhance student engagement in peer assessment, we designed and developed a web-based tool, autonomy-supportive peer assessment (ASPA), to support students’ need for autonomy when they conducted peer assessment. Students’ sense of autonomy, and their behavioral, emotional, and cognitive engagement in peer assessment were examined via interviews and surveys. We also examined students’ academic performances, including their improvement from initial to revised essays and the quality of feedback they provided. Survey results indicated that the ASPA group (1) experienced a slightly higher sense of autonomy than the non-ASPA group, and (2) spent much more time on each evaluation criterion than the non-ASPA group. Interviews suggested that both the ASPA and non-ASPA groups were engaged in peer assessment. However, there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in behavioral, emotional, cognitive engagement, and academic performances.

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

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Assor, A., Kaplan, H., Kanat-Maymon, Y., & Roth, G. (2005). Directly controlling teacher behaviors as predictors of poor motivation and engagement in girls and boys: The role of anger and anxiety. Learning and Instruction, 15(5), 397–413. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2005.07.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Assor, A., Kaplan, H., & Roth, G. (2002). Choice is good, but relevance is excellent: Autonomy-enhancing and suppressing teacher behaviours predicting students’ engagement in schoolwork. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72(2), 261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ballantyne, R., Hughes, K., & Mylonas, A. (2002). Developing procedures for implementing peer assessment in large classes using an action research process. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 27(5), 427–441. doi:10.1080/0260293022000009302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bannert, M. (2004). Designing metacognitive support for hypermedia learning. In H. Niegemann, D. Leutner, & R. Brunken (Eds.), Instructional design for multimedia learning (pp. 19–30). Erfurt: Waxmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Black, A. E., & Deci, E. L. (2000). The effects of instructors’ autonomy support and students’ autonomous motivation on learning organic chemistry: A self-determination theory perspective. Science Education, 84(6), 740–756. doi:10.1002/1098-237X(200011)84:6<740:AID-SCE4>3.0.CO;2-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryant, D. A., & Carless, D. R. (2010). Peer assessment in a test-dominated setting: Empowering, boring or facilitating examination preparation. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 9(3), 3–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buff, A. (2014). Enjoyment of learning and its personal antecedents: Testing the change–change assumption of the control-value theory of achievement emotions. Learning and Individual Differences, 31, 21–29. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2013.12.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cartney, P. (2010). Exploring the use of peer assessment as a vehicle for closing the gap between feedback given and feedback used. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), 551–564.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chatzisarantis, N. L. D., & Hagger, M. S. (2009). Effects of an intervention based on self-determination theory on self-reported leisure-time physical activity participation. Psychology & Health, 24(1), 29–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, W., & Warren, M. (1997). Having second thoughts: Student perceptions before and after a peer assessment exercise. Studies in Higher Education, 22(2), 233.

    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 

  • Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W., Clark, V. L. P., Gutmann, M. L., & Hanson, W. E. (2003). Advanced mixed method research designs. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 209–240). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E. L., Eghrari, H., Patrick, B. C., & Leone, D. R. (1994). Facilitating internalization: The self-determination theory perspective. Journal of Personality, 62(1), 119–142. doi:10.1111/1467-6494.ep9406221281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E. L., Nezlek, J., & Sheinman, L. (1981a). Characteristics of the rewarder and intrinsic motivation of the rewardee. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40(1), 1–10. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.40.1.1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The ‘what’ and ‘why’ of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Facilitating optimal motivation and psychological well-being across life’s domains. Canadian Psychology, 49(1), 14–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E. L., Schwartz, A. J., Sheinman, L., & Ryan, R. M. (1981b). An instrument to assess adults’ orientations toward control versus autonomy with children: Reflections on intrinsic motivation and perceived competence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73(5), 642–650. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.73.5.642.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edmunds, J., Ntoumanis, N., & Duda, J. L. (2008). Testing a self-determination theory-based teaching style intervention in the exercise domain. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38(2), 375–388. doi:10.1002/ejsp.463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellman, N. (1975). Peer evaluation and peer grading. The English Journal, 64(3), 79–80. doi:10.2307/815059.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finn, J. D., & Zimmer, K. S. (2012). Student engagement: What is it? Why does it matter? In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 97–131). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109. doi:10.3102/00346543074001059.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fredricks, J. A., & McColskey, W. (2012). The measurement of student engagement: A comparative analysis of various methods and student self-report instruments. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 763–782). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 331–362. doi:10.1002/job.322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ge, X., & Land, S. M. (2004). A conceptual framework for scaffolding ill-structured problem-solving processes using question prompts and peer interactions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(2), 5–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gielen, S., Peeters, E., Dochy, F., Onghena, P., & Struyven, K. (2010a). Improving the effectiveness of peer feedback for learning. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 304–315. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gielen, S., Tops, L., Dochy, F., Onghena, P., & Smeets, S. (2010b). A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback and of various peer feedback forms in a secondary school writing curriculum. British Educational Research Journal, 36(1), 143–162. doi:10.1080/01411920902894070.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hardré, P. L., & Reeve, J. (2009). Training corporate managers to adopt a more autonomy-supportive motivating style toward employees: An intervention study. International Journal of Training & Development, 13(3), 165–184. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2419.2009.00325.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Honebein, P. C., & Honebein, C. H. (2015). Effectiveness, efficiency, and appeal: Pick any two? The influence of learning domains and learning outcomes on designer judgments of useful instructional methods. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63(6), 937–955.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jang, H., Reeve, J., & Deci, E. L. (2010). Engaging students in learning activities: It is not autonomy support or structure but autonomy support and structure. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3), 588–600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jang, H., Reeve, J., Ryan, R. M., & Kim, A. (2009). Can self-determination theory explain what underlies the productive, satisfying learning experiences of collectivistically oriented Korean students? Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(3), 644–661. doi:10.1037/a0014241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kali, Y., & Ronen, M. (2008). Assessing the assessors: Added value in web-based multi-cycle peer assessment in higher education. Research & Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 3(1), 3–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kao, G. Y.-M. (2013). Enhancing the quality of peer review by reducing student “free riding”: Peer assessment with positive interdependence. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(1), 112–124.

  • Kim, C., & Hodges, C. (2012). Effects of an emotion control treatment on academic emotions, motivation and achievement in an online mathematics course. Instructional Science, 40, 173–192. doi:10.1007/s11251-011-9165-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, C., Kim, D., Yuan, J., Hill, R. B., Doshi, P., & Thai, C. N. (2015a). Robotics to promote elementary education pre-service teachers’ STEM engagement, learning, and teaching. Computers & Education, 91, 14–31. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2015.08.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, C., Park, S. W., Cozart, J., & Lee, H. (2015b). From motivation to engagement: The role of effort regulation of virtual high school students in mathematics courses. Educational Technology & Society, 18(4), 261–272.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, M., & Ryu, J. (2013). The development and implementation of a web-based formative peer assessment system for enhancing students’ metacognitive awareness and performance in ill-structured tasks. Educational Technology Research and Development, 61(4), 549–561.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koestner, R., Ryan, R. M., Bernieri, F., & Holt, K. (1984). Setting limits on children’s behavior: The differential effects of controlling vs. informational styles on intrinsic motivation and creativity. Journal of Personality, 52(3), 233–248. doi:10.1111/1467-6494.ep7390802.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ley, K., & Young, D. B. (2001). Instructional principles for self-regulation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(2), 93–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, L., Liu, X., & Steckelberg, A. L. (2010). Assessor or assessee: How student learning improves by giving and receiving peer feedback. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(3), 525–536. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.00968.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, L., Liu, X., & Zhou, Y. (2012). Give and take: A re-analysis of assessor and assessee’s roles in technology-facilitated peer assessment. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(3), 376–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liou, H.-C., & Peng, Z.-Y. (2009). Training effects on computer-mediated peer review. System, 37, 514–525. doi:10.1016/j.system.2009.01.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lu, J., & Law, N. (2012). Online peer assessment: Effects of cognitive and affective feedback. Instructional Science, 40(2), 257–275. doi:10.1007/s11251-011-9177-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Margaryan, A., Littlejohn, A., & Vojt, G. (2011). Are digital natives a myth or reality? University students’ use of digital technologies. Computers & Education, 56(2), 429–440. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.09.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, A. J. (2012). Part II commentary: Motivation and engagement: conceptual, operational, and empirical clarity. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 303–311). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, R. B., Greene, B. A., Montalvo, G. P., Ravindran, B., & Nichols, J. D. (1996). Engagement in academic work: The role of learning goals, future consequences, pleasing others, and perceived ability. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21(4), 388–422. doi:10.1006/ceps.1996.0028.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Min, H.-T. (2005). Training students to become successful peer reviewers. System, 33(2), 293–308. doi:10.1016/j.system.2004.11.003.

    Article  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. doi:10.1007/s11251-008-9053-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newmann, F. M. (1992). Student engagement and achievement in American secondary schools. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orsmond, P., & Merry, S. (1996). The importance of marking criteria in the use of peer assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 21(3), 239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orsmond, P., Merry, S., & Reiling, K. (2005). Biology students’ utilization of tutors’ formative feedback: A qualitative interview study. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(4), 369–386. doi:10.1080/02602930500099177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ozogul, G., Olina, Z., & Sullivan, H. (2008). Teacher, self and peer evaluation of lesson plans written by preservice teachers. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(2), 181–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papadopoulos, P. M., Lagkas, T. D., & Demetriadis, S. N. (2012). How to improve the peer review method: Free-selection vs assigned-pair protocol evaluated in a computer networking course. Computers & Education, 59, 182–195. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.01.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, S., & Kim, C. (2014). Virtual Tutee System: a potential tool for enhancing academic reading engagement. Education Tech Research and Development, 62, 71–97. doi:10.1007/s11423-013-9326-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, S., & Kim, C. (2015). Boosting learning-by-teaching in virtual tutoring. Computers & Education, 82, 129–140. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.11.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, S., & Kim, C. (2016). The effects of a virtual tutee system on academic reading engagement in a college classroom. Educational Technology Research and Development, 64(2), 195–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patall, E. A., Dent, A. L., Oyer, M., & Wynn, S. R. (2013). Student autonomy and course value: The unique and cumulative roles of various teacher practices. Motivation and Emotion, 37(1), 14–32. doi:10.1007/s11031-012-9305-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., & Frenzel, A. C. (2007). Academic emotions questionnarie—Mathematics (AEQ-M): User’s manual. Munich: University of Munich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pintrich, P. R., & de Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33–40. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prins, F. J., Sluijsmans, D. M. A., & Kirschner, P. A. (2006). Feedback for general practitioners in training: Quality, styles, and preferences. Advances in Health Sciences Education: Theory and Practice, 11(3), 289–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reeve, J. (1998). Autonomy support as an interpersonal motivating style: Is it teachable? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23(3), 312–330. doi:10.1006/ceps.1997.0975.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reeve, J. (2012). A self-determination theory perspective on student engagement. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 149–172). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Reeve, J., & Jang, H. (2006). What teachers say and do to support students’ autonomy during a learning activity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 209–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reeve, J., Jang, H., Carrell, D., Jeon, S., & Barch, J. (2004). Enhancing students’ engagement by increasing teachers’ autonomy support. Motivation & Emotion, 28(2), 147–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reeve, J., Jang, H., Hardre, P., & Omura, M. (2002). Providing a rationale in an autonomy-supportive way as a strategy to motivate others during an uninteresting activity. Motivation & Emotion, 26(3), 183–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reigeluth, C. M. (1983). Instructional design: What is it and why is it? In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: An overview of their current status (pp. 3–36). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reigeluth, C. M., & Carr-Chellman, A. A. (2009). Understanding instructional theory. In C. M. Reigeluth & A. A. Carr-Chellman (Eds.), Instrctional-design theories and models: Building a common knowledge base (Vol. III, pp. 3–26). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruona, W. E. A. (2005). Analyzing qualitative data. In R. A. Swanson & E. F. Holton (Eds.), Research in organizations: Foundations and methods of inquiry (pp. 223–263). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54–67. doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2002). Overview of self-determination theory: An organismic dialectical perspective. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 3–33). New York: The University of Rochester Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schunk, D. H. (2001). Social cognitive theory and self-regulated learning. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, E., Furrer, C., Marchand, G., & Kindermann, T. (2008). Engagement and disaffection in the classroom: Part of a larger motivational dynamic? Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(4), 765–781. doi:10.1037/a0012840.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sluijsmans, D. M. A., Brand-Gruwel, S., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2002). Peer assessment training in teacher education: Effects on performance and perceptions. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 27(5), 443–454. doi:10.1080/0260293022000009311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sluijsmans, D. M. A., Brand-Gruwel, S., van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Martens, R. L. (2004). Training teachers in peer-assessment skills: Effects on performance and perceptions. Innovations in Education & Teaching International, 41(1), 60–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steele, J. P., & Fullagar, C. J. (2009). Facilitators and outcomes of student engagement in a college setting. Journal of Psychology, 143(1), 5–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stefani, L. A. J. (1994). Peer, self, and tutor assessment: Relative reliabilities. Studies in Higher Education, 19(1), 69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stefanou, C. R., Perencevich, K. C., DiCintio, M., & Turner, J. C. (2004). Supporting autonomy in the classroom: Ways teachers encourage student decision making and ownership. Educational Psychologist, 39(2), 97–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strijbos, J.-W., Narciss, S., & Dunnebier, 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 

  • Su, Y.-L., & Reeve, J. (2011). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of intervention programs designed to support autonomy. Educational Psychology Review, 23(1), 159–188. doi:10.1007/s10648-010-9142-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tessier, D., Sarrazin, P., & Ntoumanis, N. (2008). The effects of an experimental programme to support students’ autonomy on the overt behaviours of physical education teachers. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 23(3), 239–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Topping, K. J. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 249–276. doi:10.2307/1170598.

    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. 55–87). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Trautmann, N. M. (2009). Interactive learning through web-mediated peer review of student science reports. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57(5), 685–704.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van den Berg, I., Admiraal, W., & Pilot, A. (2006). Design principles and outcomes of peer assessment in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 31(3), 341–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Gennip, N. A. E., Segers, M. S. R., & 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. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Loon, A.-M., Ros, A., & Martens, R. (2012). Motivated learning with digital learning tasks: What about autonomy and structure? Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(6), 1015–1032.

    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, 316–327. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vansteenkiste, M., Simons, J., Lens, W., Soenens, B., & Matos, L. (2005). Examining the motivational impact of intrinsic versus extrinsic goal framing and autonomy-supportive versus internally controlling communication style on early adolescents’ academic achievement. Child Development, 76(2), 483. doi:10.2307/3696516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weinstein, C. E., & Mayer, R. E. (1986). The teaching of learning strategies. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 315–327). New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wen, M. L., & Tsai, C.-C. (2008). Online peer assessmnet in an inservice science and mathematics teacher education course. Teaching in Higher Education, 13(1), 55–67. doi:10.1080/13562510701794050.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, G. C., & Deci, E. L. (1996). Internalization of biopsychosocial values by medical students: A test of self-determination theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(4), 767–779. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.4.767.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xiao, Y., & Lucking, R. (2008). The impact of two types of peer assessment on students’ performance and satisfaction within a Wiki environment. The Internet and Higher Education, 11, 186–193. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2008.06.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, Y.-F., & Tsai, C.-C. (2010). Conceptions of and approaches to learning through online peer assessment. Learning and Instruction, 20, 72–83. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.01.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yuan, J., & Kim, C. (2015). Effective feedback design using free technologies. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 52(3), 408–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview. Educational Psychologist, 25(1), 3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Learning Sciences and Human Development, West Virginia University, 507-B Allen Hall, Morgantown, WV, 26506, USA

    Jiangmei Yuan

  2. Learning, Design, and Technology Program, The University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA

    ChanMin Kim

Authors
  1. Jiangmei Yuan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. ChanMin Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jiangmei Yuan.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Research involving human participants

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yuan, J., Kim, C. The effects of autonomy support on student engagement in peer assessment. Education Tech Research Dev 66, 25–52 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-017-9538-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-017-9538-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation