Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Promoting students’ cross-disciplinary performance and higher order thinking: a peer assessment-facilitated STEM approach in a mathematics course

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

Abstract

STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) refers to the cross-disciplinary learning design for engaging students in applying integrated knowledge to complete a project or solve a complex problem. It has been recognized by many scholars for its educational significance. However, STEM tasks are generally complex and challenging to students. Without proper supports, not only will students’ participation decrease, but their knowledge level and internal capabilities will also hardly improve. To help students understand teachers’ rating standards, increase the opportunity to observe and receive feedback on peers’ work, and improve their cognitive level and higher order thinking such as critical thinking, this study proposes a peer assessment-facilitated STEM (PA-STEM) approach. At the same time, a quasi-experiment was conducted in a junior high school in Taiwan to verify the effectiveness of this approach. A total of four classes of 112 students participated in the experiment. The experimental group (two classes with 53 students) learning with the PA-STEM approach, and the control group (two classes with 59 students) used the conventional STEM approach. The experimental results showed that the students in the experimental group had higher learning achievement. Their collaboration tendency, critical thinking awareness, problem-solving tendency, and meta-cognition tendency were all significantly better than those of the students in the control group. Besides, peer assessment scores were highly correlated with teacher assessment scores, indicating that students were able to fully understand teachers’ rating standards and provide accurate ratings of their peers’ STEM work.

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
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alt, D., & Raichel, N. (2020). Problem-based learning, self-and peer assessment in higher education: Towards advancing lifelong learning skills. Research Papers in Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2020.1849371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2020). Developing young children’s computational thinking with educational robotics: An interaction effect between gender and scaffolding strategy. Computers in Human Behavior, 105, 105954.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arikan, S., Erktin, E., & Pesen, M. (2020). Development and validation of a STEM competencies assessment framework. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-020-10132-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Auttawutikul, S., Wiwitkunkasem, K., & Smith, D. R. (2014). Use of weblogs to enhance group learning and design creativity amongst students at a Thai University. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 51(4), 378–388.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barlow, A., & Brown, S. (2020). Correlations between modes of student cognitive engagement and instructional practices in undergraduate STEM courses. International Journal of STEM Education, 7(1), 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Basham, J. D., & Marino, M. T. (2013). Understanding STEM education and supporting students through universal design for learning. Teaching Exceptional Children, 45(4), 8–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bédard, D., Lison, C., Dalle, D., & Boutin, N. (2010). Predictors of student’s engagement and persistence in an innovative PBL curriculum: Applications for engineering education. International Journal of Engineering Education, 26(3), 511–522.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belland, B. R., Walker, A. E., Kim, N. J., & Lefler, M. (2017). Synthesizing results from empirical research on computer-based scaffolding in STEM education: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 87(2), 309–344.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, R. E. (2011). Formative assessment: A critical review. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18(1), 5–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bicer, A., Nite, S. B., Capraro, R. M., Barroso, L. R., Capraro, M. M., & Lee, Y. (2017). Moving from STEM to STEAM: The effects of informal STEM learning on students’ creativity and problem solving skills with 3D printing. IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), 2017, 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bozick, R., Srinivasan, S., & Gottfried, M. (2014). Beyond academic math: The role of applied STEM course taking in high school. Teachers College Record, 116(7), 1–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Care, E., Scoular, C., & Griffin, P. (2016). Assessment of collaborative problem solving in education environments. Applied Measurement in Education, 29(4), 250–264.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carless, D., & Boud, D. (2018). The development of student feedback literacy: Enabling uptake of feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(8), 1315–1325.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carr, G., Loucks, D. P., & Blöschl, G. (2018). Gaining insight into interdisciplinary research and education programmes: A framework for evaluation. Research Policy, 47(1), 35–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Çevik, M. (2018). Impacts of the project based (PBL) science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education on academic achievement and career interests of vocational high school students. Pegem Egitim Ve Ogretim Dergisi, 8(2), 281–306.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chai, C. S., Deng, F., Tsai, P.-S., Koh, J. H. L., & Tsai, C.-C. (2015). Assessing multidimensional students’ perceptions of twenty-first-century learning practices. Asia Pacific Education Review, 16(3), 389–398.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang, S. C., Hsu, T. C., & Jong, M. S. Y. (2020). Integration of the peer assessment approach with a virtual reality design system for learning earth science. Computers & Education, 146, 103758.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, K.-H., Liang, J.-C., & Tsai, C.-C. (2015). Examining the role of feedback messages in undergraduate students’ writing performance during an online peer assessment activity. The Internet and Higher Education, 25, 78–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christian, K. B., Kelly, A. M., & Bugallo, M. F. (2021). NGSS-based teacher professional development to implement engineering practices in STEM instruction. International Journal of STEM Education, 8(1), 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chung, C. C., Lin, C. L., & Lou, S. J. (2018). Analysis of the learning effectiveness of the STEAM-6E special course: A case study about the creative design of IoT assistant devices for the elderly. Sustainability, 10(9), 3040.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corlu, M. A., & Aydin, E. (2016). Evaluation of learning gains through integrated STEM projects. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 4(1), 20–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Correia, C. F., & Harrison, C. (2020). Teachers’ beliefs about inquiry-based learning and its impact on formative assessment practice. Research in Science & Technological Education, 38(3), 355–376.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cox, T. L., Malone, M. E., & Winke, P. (2018). Future directions in assessment: Influences of standards and implications for language learning. Foreign Language Annals, 51(1), 104–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Develaki, M. (2020). Comparing crosscutting practices in STEM disciplines. Science & Education, 29(4), 949–979.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dmoshinskaia, N., Gijlers, H., & de Jong, T. (2020). Giving feedback on peers’ concept maps in an inquiry learning context: The effect of providing assessment criteria. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 30, 420–430.

    Google Scholar 

  • Double, K. S., McGrane, J. A., & Hopfenbeck, T. N. (2020). The impact of peer assessment on academic performance: A Meta-analysis of Control Group Studies. Educational Psychology Review, 32(2), 481–509.

    Google Scholar 

  • Efklides, A. (2011). Interactions of metacognition with motivation and affect in self-regulated learning: The MASRL model. Educational Psychologist, 46(1), 6–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • English, L. D. (2016). STEM education K-12: Perspectives on integration. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Falloon, G., Forbes, A., Stevenson, M., Bower, M., & Hatzigianni, M. (2020). STEM in the Making? Investigating STEM Learning in Junior School Makerspaces. Research in Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-020-09949-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitzallen, N. (2015). STEM education: What does mathematics have to offer? In Mathematics education in the margins. Proceedings of the 38th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (pp. 237–244): MERGA.

  • Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410–8415.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gao, X., Li, P., Shen, J., & Sun, H. (2020). Reviewing assessment of student learning in interdisciplinary STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 7, 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grangeat, M., Harrison, C., & Dolin, J. (2021). Exploring assessment in STEM inquiry learning classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 43(3), 345–361.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guven, G., Kozcu Cakir, N., Sulun, Y., Cetin, G., & Guven, E. (2020). Arduino-assisted robotics coding applications integrated into the 5E learning model in science teaching. Journal of Research on Technology in Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2020.1812136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heba, E.-D., Mansour, N., Alzaghibi, M., & Alhammad, K. (2017). Context of STEM integration in schools: Views from in-service science teachers. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13(6), 2459–2484.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, C., Connolly, M., Dolan, E. L., Finkelstein, N., Franklin, S., Malcom, S., Rasmussen, C., Redd, K., & John, K. S. (2017). Towards the STEM DBER alliance: Why we need a discipline-based STEM education research community. International Journal of Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education, 3(2), 247–254.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herro, D., Quigley, C., Andrews, J., & Delacruz, G. (2017). Co-Measure: Developing an assessment for student collaboration in STEAM activities. International Journal of STEM Education, 4(1), 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmes, K., Gore, J., Smith, M., & Lloyd, A. (2018). An integrated analysis of school students’ aspirations for STEM careers: Which student and school factors are most predictive? International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 16(4), 655–675.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hsia, L. H., & Sung, H. Y. (2020). Effects of a mobile technology-supported peer assessment approach on students’ learning motivation and perceptions in a college flipped dance class. International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organisation, 14(1), 99–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huisman, B., Saab, N., van den Broek, P., & van Driel, J. (2019). The impact of formative peer feedback on higher education students’ academic writing: A Meta-Analysis. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(6), 863–880.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hung, Y. J., Samuelson, B. L., & Chen, S. C. (2016). Relationships between peer-and self-assessment and teacher assessment of young EFL learners’ oral presentations. Assessing young learners of English: Global and local perspectives (pp. 317–338). Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hwang, G.-J., Hung, C.-M., & Chen, N.-S. (2014). Improving learning achievements, motivations and problem-solving skills through a peer assessment-based game development approach. Educational Technology Research and Development, 62(2), 129–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hwang, G.-J., Li, K.-C., & Lai, C.-L. (2020). Trends and strategies for conducting effective STEM research and applications: A mobile and ubiquitous learning perspective. International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organisation, 14(2), 161–183.

    Google Scholar 

  • Indriasari, T. D., Luxton-Reilly, A., & Denny, P. (2020). Gamification of student peer review in education: A systematic literature review. Education and Information Technologies, 25, 5205–5234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, L. C., McDermott, H. J., Tyrer, J. R., & Zanker, N. P. (2018). Future engineers: The intrinsic technology motivation of secondary school pupils. European Journal of Engineering Education, 43(4), 606–619.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, T. R., & Knowles, J. G. (2016). A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, T. J., & Odell, M. R. L. (2014). Engaging students in STEM education. Science Education International, 25(3), 246–258.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ketonen, L., Nieminen, P., & Hähkiöniemi, M. (2020). The development of secondary students’ feedback literacy: Peer assessment as an intervention. The Journal of Educational Research, 113, 407–417.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, N. J., Belland, B. R., & Walker, A. E. (2018). Effectiveness of computer-based scaffolding in the context of problem-based learning for STEM education: Bayesian meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 30(2), 397–429.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lai, C.-L., & Hwang, G.-J. (2014). Effects of mobile learning time on students’ conception of collaboration, communication, complex problem-solving, meta-cognitive awareness and creativity. International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organisation, 8(3–4), 276–291.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lesseig, K., Nelson, T. H., Slavit, D., & Seidel, R. A. (2016). Supporting middle school teachers’ implementation of STEM design challenges. School Science and Mathematics, 116(4), 177–188.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, H., Xiong, Y., Zang, X., Kornhaber, M. L., Lyu, Y., Chung, K. S., & Suen, H. K. (2016). Peer assessment in the digital age: A meta-analysis comparing peer and teacher ratings. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(2), 245–264.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, H.-C., Hwang, G.-J., & Hsu, Y.-D. (2019a). Effects of ASQ-based flipped learning on nurse practitioner learners’ nursing skills, learning achievement and learning perceptions. Computers & Education, 139, 207–221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, J.-W., Tsai, C.-W., Hsu, C.-C., & Chang, L.-C. (2019b). Peer assessment with group awareness tools and effects on project-based learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 29, 583–589.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, C. C., & Tsai, C. C. (2008). An analysis of peer interaction patterns as discoursed by on-line small group problem-solving activity. Computers & Education, 50(3), 627–639.

    Google Scholar 

  • Longfellow, E., May, S., Burke, L., & Marks-Maran, D. (2008). ‘They had a way of helping that actually helped’: A case study of a peer-assisted learning scheme. Teaching in Higher Education, 13(1), 93–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lou, S.-J., Shih, R.-C., Ray Diez, C., & Tseng, K.-H. (2011). The impact of problem-based learning strategies on STEM knowledge integration and attitudes: An exploratory study among female Taiwanese senior high school students. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 21(2), 195–215.

    Google Scholar 

  • Margot, K. C., & Kettler, T. (2019). Teachers’ perception of STEM integration and education: A systematic literature review. International Journal of STEM Education, 6(1), 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martineau, B., Mamede, S., St-Onge, C., & Bergeron, L. (2016). The influence of peer feedback on the acquisition of physical-examination skills. Health Professions Education, 2(2), 106–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayorova, V. I., Grishko, D. A., & Leonov, V. V. (2021). “Vivid mathematics” as a general vector of multidisciplinary STEM education for future aerospace engineers. Acta Astronautica, 178, 72–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • McConnell, M., Montplaisir, L., & Offerdahl, E. (2020). Meeting the conditions for diffusion of teaching innovations in a university STEM department. Journal for STEM Education Research, 3(1), 43–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • McMahon, T. (2010). Combining peer-assessment with negotiated learning activities on a day-release undergraduate-level certificate course (ECTS level 3). Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(2), 223–239.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, M., Direito, I., & Spacey, R. (2017). Individual perceptions of advantage and disadvantage in accessing, undertaking and progressing in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) postgraduate taught study. SRHE Conference Proceedings.

  • Mulder, R. A., Pearce, J. M., & Baik, C. (2014a). Peer review in higher education: Student perceptions before and after participation. Active Learning in Higher Education, 15(2), 157–171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mulder, R., Baik, C., Naylor, R., & Pearce, J. (2014b). How does student peer review influence perceptions, engagement and academic outcomes? A case study. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(6), 657–677.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mustafa, N., Ismail, Z., Tasir, Z., & Mohamad Said, M. N. H. (2016). A meta-analysis on effective strategies for integrated STEM education. Advanced Science Letters, 22(12), 4225–4228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ng, O.-L., Ting, F., Lam, W. H., & Liu, M. (2020). Active learning in undergraduate mathematics tutorials via cooperative problem-based learning and peer assessment with interactive online whiteboards. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 29(3), 285–294.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patchan, M. M., & Schunn, C. D. (2015). Understanding the benefits of providing peer feedback: How students respond to peers’ texts of varying quality. Instructional Science, 43(5), 591–614.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pear, J. J., & Crone-Todd, D. E. (2002). A social constructivist approach to computer-mediated instruction. Computers & Education, 38(1), 221–231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peppler, K., & Wohlwend, K. (2018). Theorizing the nexus of STEAM practice. Arts Education Policy Review, 119(2), 88–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Price, M., Handley, K., & Millar, J. (2011). Feedback: Focusing attention on engagement. Studies in Higher Education, 36(8), 879–896.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reynante, B. M., Selbach-Allen, M. E., & Pimentel, D. R. (2020). Exploring the promises and perils of integrated STEM through disciplinary practices and epistemologies. Science & Education, 29(4), 785–803.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roebers, C. M. (2017). Executive function and metacognition: Towards a unifying framework of cognitive self-regulation. Developmental Review, 45, 31–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Romulo, C. L., Raoufi, A., Largen, K., & Reid Schwebach, J. (2018). Using peer review to improve lab report assignments. The American Biology Teacher, 80(4), 301–304.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shahali, E. H. M., Halim, L., Rasul, M. S., Osman, K., & Zulkifeli, M. A. (2016). STEM learning through engineering design: Impact on middle secondary students’ interest towards STEM. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13(5), 1189–1211.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steverding, D., Tyler, K. M., & Sexton, D. W. (2016). Evaluation of marking of peer marking in oral presentation. Perspectives on Medical Education, 5(2), 103–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strijbos, J.-W., & Wichmann, A. (2018). Promoting learning by leveraging the collaborative nature of formative peer assessment with instructional scaffolds. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 33(1), 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teasdale, R., Ryker, K., Viskupic, K., Czajka, C. D., & Manduca, C. (2020). Transforming education with community-developed teaching materials: Evidence from direct observations of STEM college classrooms. International Journal of STEM Education, 7(1), 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Topping, K. J. (2010). Methodological quandaries in studying process and outcomes in peer assessment. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 339–343.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tseng, S.-C., & Tsai, C.-C. (2010). Taiwan college students’ self-efficacy and motivation of learning in online peer assessment environments. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(3), 164–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner, A., Logan, M., & Wilks, J. (2021). Planting food sustainability thinking and practice through STEM in the garden. International Journal of Technology and Design Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-021-09655-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner, S. A., Pérez-Quiñones, M. A., & Edwards, S. H. (2018). Peer review in CS2: Conceptual learning and high-level thinking. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 18(3), 1–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Popta, E., Kral, M., Camp, G., Martens, R. L., & Simons, P.R.-J. (2017). Exploring the value of peer feedback in online learning for the provider. Educational Research Review, 20, 24–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vickerman, P. (2009). Student perspectives on formative peer assessment: An attempt to deepen learning? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(2), 221–230.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, X.-M., Hwang, G.-J., Liang, Z.-Y., & Wang, H.-Y. (2017). Enhancing students’ computer programming performances, critical thinking awareness and attitudes towards programming: An online peer-assessment attempt. Educational Technology & Society, 20(4), 58–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wanner, T., & Palmer, E. (2018). Formative self-and peer assessment for improved student learning: The crucial factors of design, teacher participation and feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(7), 1032–1047.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, S. B., & Varma-Nelson, P. (2016). Small groups, significant impact: A review of peer-led team learning research with implications for STEM education researchers and faculty. Journal of Chemical Education, 93(10), 1686–1702.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeidler, D. L. (2016). STEM education: A deficit framework for the twenty first century? A sociocultural social scientific response. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 11(1), 11–26.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study is supported in part by the Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwan under contract numbers MOST-109-2511-H-011-002-MY3 and MOST-108-2511-H-011-005-MY3.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Graduate Institute of Digital Learning and Education, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, #43, Sec.4, Keelung Rd., Taipei, 106, Taiwan, ROC

    Di Chang, Gwo-Jen Hwang & Sheng-Yuan Wang

  2. Department of International Bachelor Program in Informatics and the Department of Information Communication, Yuan Ze University, #135 Yuan-Tung Rd, Taoyuan, 330, Taiwan, ROC

    Shao-Chen Chang

Authors
  1. Di Chang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gwo-Jen Hwang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Shao-Chen Chang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sheng-Yuan Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gwo-Jen Hwang.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interests

The authors would like to declare that there is no conflict of interest in this study.

Ethical approval

The participants were protected by hiding their personal information during the research process. They knew that the participation was voluntary and they could withdraw from the study at any time.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix: Questionnaire items

Appendix: Questionnaire items

Collaboration tendency

1. In a team activity, I believe that all of the team members will try their best to complete the task

2. In a team activity, I believe our team will successfully collaborate to complete the task

3. When my peers propose some ideas, I will not question their motives

4. When collaborating with peers, I generally communicate with them well

5. When collaborating with peers, we generally have the tasks properly assigned to each of the team members

Critical thinking awareness

1. In this class, I think about whether what I've learned is correct

2. In this class, I will judge the value of new information or evidence presented to me

3. In this class, I think about other possible ways of understanding what I am learning

4. In this class, I consider different opinions to see which one makes more sense

5. In this class, I can tell what information can be trusted

6. In this class, I provide reasons and evidence for my opinions

Problem-solving tendency

1. I believe that I have the ability to solve the problems I encounter

2. I believe that I can solve problems on my own

3. I have experiences of solving the problems I encounter

4. When encountering problems, I am willing to face and deal with them

5. I will not escape from the problems I encounter

6. I always try my best to solve the problems I encounter

Meta-cognition tendency

1. I ask myself periodically if I am meeting my goal

2. I periodically review to help me understand important relationships

3. I find myself pausing regularly to check my comprehension

4. I ask myself how well I accomplished my goals once I’m finished

5. I ask myself if I learned as much as I could have once I finish a task

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chang, D., Hwang, GJ., Chang, SC. et al. Promoting students’ cross-disciplinary performance and higher order thinking: a peer assessment-facilitated STEM approach in a mathematics course. Education Tech Research Dev 69, 3281–3306 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-10062-z

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-10062-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation