You are here:

Dyads Versus Groups: Using Different Social Structures in Peer Review to Enhance Online Collaborative Learning Processes
ARTICLE

, , , , Istituto per le Tecnologie Didattiche - CNR

IRRODL Volume 17, Number 2, ISSN 1492-3831 Publisher: Athabasca University Press

Full Text

Abstract

The Peer Review (PR) is a very popular technique to support socio-constructivist and connectivist learning processes, online or face-to-face, at all educational levels, in both formal and informal contexts. The idea behind this technique is that sharing views and opinions with others by discussing with peers and receiving and providing formative feedback enriches the quality of learning. In this study, a class of trainee teachers conducts an online PR. The resulting interactions are analyzed and evaluated by the researchers through the application of an evaluation model based on both quantitative and qualitative data. In particular, two conditions are studied, namely the PR in groups versus the PR in dyads. Results show that students who carried out the PR in groups were less active from the cognitive point of view, while they devoted more effort to deal with organizational matters and discourse facilitation.

Citation

Pozzi, F., Ceregini, A., Ferlino, L. & Persico, D. (2016). Dyads Versus Groups: Using Different Social Structures in Peer Review to Enhance Online Collaborative Learning Processes. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(2),. Athabasca University Press. Retrieved August 12, 2024 from .

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Anewalt, K. (2005). Using Peer Review as a vehicle for communication skill development and active learning. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 21(2), 148-155.
  2. 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), 551–64.
  3. Cho, K., & Schunn, C.D. (2007). Scaffolded writing and rewriting in the disciple: A web-based reciprocal peer review system. Computers& Education, 48, 409-426.
  4. Crespo, R.M., Pardo, A., Somolinos Pérez, J.P., & Delglado Kloos, C. (2005). An Algorithm for Peer
  5. Hansen, J.G., & Liu, J. (2005). Guiding principles for effective peer response. ELT: English Language Teachers Journal, 59(1), 31–8.
  6. Hara, N., Bonk, C.J., & Angeli, C. (2000). Content analysis of online discussion in an applied educational psychology course. Instructional Science, 28, 115-152.
  7. Ho, M.C., & Savignon, S.J. (2007). Face-to-face and computer mediated peer review in EFL writing. CALICO Journal, 24(2), 269-290.
  8. Jaques, D., & Salmon, G. (2007). Learning in groups: A Handbook for Face-To-Face and Online Environments, Routledge, London and New York.
  9. Kanuka, H., & Anderson, T. (1999). Using Constructivism in Technology-Mediated Learning: Constructing Order out of the Chaos in the Literature. Radical Pedagogy, 1(2).
  10. Kern, V.M., Saraiva, L.M., & Dos Santos Pacheco, R.C. (2003). Peer review in education: promoting
  11. Lally, V. (2002). Elaborating collaborative interactions in networked learning: a multi-method approach.
  12. Lipponen, L., Rahikainen, M., Lallimo, J., & Hakkarainen, K. (2003). Patterns of participation and
  13. Martinez, A., Dimitriadis, Y., Rubia, B., Gomez, E., & De La Fuente, P. (2003). Combining qualitative
  14. Min, H.T. (2006). The effects of trained peer review on EFL students’ revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(2), 118-141.
  15. Mulder, R.A., Pearce, J.M., & Baik, C. (2014). Peer review in higher education: Student perceptions before and after participation. Active Learning in Higher Education, 15(2) 157–171.
  16. Persico, D., & Pozzi, F. (2011). Task, Team and Time to structure online collaboration in learning environments. World Journal on Educational Technology, 3(1), 1-15.
  17. Persico, D., Pozzi, F., & Sarti, L. (2010). Monitoring collaborative activities in computer supported collaborative learning. Distance Education, 31(1), 5-22. DOI:10.1080/01587911003724603
  18. Pozzi, F. (2010). Using Jigsaw and Case study for supporting collaboration online. Computers& Education, 55, 67-75.
  19. Pozzi, F. (2011). The impact of scripted roles on online collaborative learning processes. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(3), 471-484.
  20. Pozzi, F., Ceregini, A., Ferlino, L., & Persico, D. (2014). Learning dynamics of the Peer Review: social, cognitive and teaching aspects. In L. Gómez Chova, A. López Martínez, I. Candel Torres (eds.), Proceedings of the 7th International Conference of Education, Research and Innovation (ICERI2014) (pp.2591-2598). Barcelona, Spain: IATED Academy.
  21. Pozzi, F., Manca, S., Persico, D., & Sarti, L. (2007). A general framework for tracking and analysing
  22. Pozzi, F., & Persico, D. (2011) (Eds.). Techniques for Fostering Collaboration in Online Learning
  23. Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, R., & Archer, W. (2001). Methodological Issues in the Content
  24. Strijbos, J.W., Martens, R.L., Prins, F.J., & Jochems, W.M.G. (2006). Content analysis: What are they talking about?. Computers& Education, 46, 29-48.
  25. Strijbos, J.W. (2000). A classification model for group-based learning. EURODL Journal, Retrieved at: http://www.eurodl.org/materials/contrib/2000/strijbos/strijbos.html (01/04/2015).
  26. Teo, A.K. (2006). Social-interactive writing for English language learners. The CATESOL Journal, 18, 160–178.
  27. Topping, K. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68, 249–276.
  28. VanDenBerg, I., Admiraal, W., & Pilot, A. (2006). Design principles and outcomes of peer assessment in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 31(3), 341–56.
  29. Ward, A., Sitthiworachart, J., & Joy, M. (2004). Aspects of web-based peer assessment systems for teaching and learning computer programming. In: IASTED International Conference on Webbased Education, 292–297.
  30. Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2006). A framework to analyse argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers& Education, 46, 71-95.
  31. White, T.L., & Kirby, B.J. (2005). ‘Tis better to give than to receive: An undergraduate peer review project. Teaching of Psychology, 32, 259-261.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References

Cited By

View References & Citations Map

These links are based on references which have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake, please contact info@learntechlib.org.

Links

Also Read

Related Collections

Pages You've Visited

Abstracts