{"title":"How more-improvement and less-improvement groups differ in peer feedback giving and receiving practice-an exploratory study","authors":"Wenli Chen, Qianru Lyu, Junzhu Su","doi":"10.1007/s11251-024-09667-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Peer feedback is widely applied to support peer learning and accumulating studies pointed out that feedback features directly impact its learning benefits. However, existing peer feedback studies provide limited insights into group-level peer feedback activities in authentic classrooms. This study conducted group-level peer feedback activity in social studies classrooms of a Singapore secondary school. Fourteen groups of students (<i>N</i> = 61, Female = 61) participated in group-level peer feedback during the computer-supported collaborative argumentation activities. Students’ collaborative argumentation and peer feedback were collected. Paired sample t-test was conducted to compare each group’s argumentation performance before and after peer feedback activity. Qualitative content analysis was implemented to identify the cognitive and affective features of peer feedback given and received by more-improvement groups and less-improvement groups. A comparison of the feature networks between two student groups revealed the effective practices of peer feedback. The results demonstrated the key role of the specific solution when student groups gave and received peer feedback apart from problem identification and general suggestions. Besides, providing peer feedback at the overall argumentation level was found to be more beneficial than a word or evidence level. When receiving feedback, the use of hedge was found to bring more group improvement than mitigation language. These findings highlight the important features of peer feedback in group-level peer feedback activities, providing insights for the design and instruction of group-level peer feedback activities in authentic classrooms.</p>","PeriodicalId":47990,"journal":{"name":"Instructional Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Instructional Science","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-024-09667-7","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Peer feedback is widely applied to support peer learning and accumulating studies pointed out that feedback features directly impact its learning benefits. However, existing peer feedback studies provide limited insights into group-level peer feedback activities in authentic classrooms. This study conducted group-level peer feedback activity in social studies classrooms of a Singapore secondary school. Fourteen groups of students (N = 61, Female = 61) participated in group-level peer feedback during the computer-supported collaborative argumentation activities. Students’ collaborative argumentation and peer feedback were collected. Paired sample t-test was conducted to compare each group’s argumentation performance before and after peer feedback activity. Qualitative content analysis was implemented to identify the cognitive and affective features of peer feedback given and received by more-improvement groups and less-improvement groups. A comparison of the feature networks between two student groups revealed the effective practices of peer feedback. The results demonstrated the key role of the specific solution when student groups gave and received peer feedback apart from problem identification and general suggestions. Besides, providing peer feedback at the overall argumentation level was found to be more beneficial than a word or evidence level. When receiving feedback, the use of hedge was found to bring more group improvement than mitigation language. These findings highlight the important features of peer feedback in group-level peer feedback activities, providing insights for the design and instruction of group-level peer feedback activities in authentic classrooms.
同伴反馈被广泛应用于支持同伴学习，越来越多的研究指出，反馈的特点直接影响其学习效益。然而，现有的同伴反馈研究对真实课堂中小组层面的同伴反馈活动的洞察力有限。本研究在新加坡一所中学的社会学课堂上开展了小组级同伴反馈活动。14组学生（男=61，女=61）在计算机支持的合作论证活动中参与了小组级同伴反馈。收集了学生的合作论证和同伴反馈。进行了配对样本 t 检验，以比较各组在同伴反馈活动前后的论证表现。对内容进行定性分析，以确定进步大的小组和进步小的小组在给予和接受同伴反馈时的认知和情感特征。通过比较两个学生群体的特征网络，发现了同伴反馈的有效做法。结果表明，除了发现问题和提出一般性建议外，学生小组在提供和接受同伴反馈时，具体解决方案起着关键作用。此外，从整体论证层面提供同伴反馈比从单词或证据层面提供同伴反馈更有益处。在接受反馈时，对冲的使用比缓解语言更能促进小组的进步。这些发现凸显了小组层面同伴反馈活动中同伴反馈的重要特征，为真实课堂中小组层面同伴反馈活动的设计和指导提供了启示。
期刊介绍：
Instructional Science, An International Journal of the Learning Sciences, promotes a deeper understanding of the nature, theory, and practice of learning and of environments in which learning occurs. The journal’s conception of learning, as well as of instruction, is broad, recognizing that there are many ways to stimulate and support learning. The journal encourages submission of research papers, covering a variety of perspectives from the learning sciences and learning, by people of all ages, in all areas of the curriculum, in technologically rich or lean environments, and in informal and formal learning contexts. Emphasizing reports of original empirical research, the journal provides space for full and detailed reporting of major studies. Regardless of the topic, papers published in the journal all make an explicit contribution to the science of learning and instruction by drawing out the implications for the design and implementation of learning environments. We particularly encourage the submission of papers that highlight the interaction between learning processes and learning environments, focus on meaningful learning, and recognize the role of context. Papers are characterized by methodological variety that ranges, for example, from experimental studies in laboratory settings, to qualitative studies, to design-based research in authentic learning settings. The Editors will occasionally invite experts to write a review article on an important topic in the field. When review articles are considered for publication, they must deal with central issues in the domain of learning and learning environments. The journal accepts replication studies. Such a study should replicate an important and seminal finding in the field, from a study which was originally conducted by a different research group. Most years, Instructional Science publishes a guest-edited thematic special issue on a topic central to the journal''s scope. Proposals for special issues can be sent to the Editor-in-Chief. Proposals will be discussed in Spring and Fall of each year, and the proposers will be notified afterwards. To be considered for the Spring and Fall discussion, proposals should be sent to the Editor-in-Chief by March 1 and October 1, respectively. Please note that articles that are submitted for a special issue will follow the same review process as regular articles.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
