The Power of Peer Learning : : Fostering Students' Learning Processes and Outcomes.

• Superior document: Social Interaction in Learning and Development Series
• Author: Noroozi, Omid.
• TeilnehmendeR: De Wever, Bram.
• Place / Publishing House: Cham : : Springer International Publishing AG,, 2023.; ©2023.
• Year of Publication: 2023
• Edition: 1st ed.
• Language: English
• Series: Social Interaction in Learning and Development Series
• Physical Description: 1 online resource (394 pages)

Table of Contents

• Intro
• Series Editors' Preface
• Peer Learning as a Powerful Tool for  Feedback and Assessment Between Students
• Preface
• Contents
• About the Editors
• Part IConceptual Contributions on Peer Learning
• 1 The Four Pillars of Peer Assessment for Collaborative Teamwork in Higher Education
• 1.1 Introduction
• 1.2 Impediments and Solutions for CTW
• 1.2.1 Cognitive, Affective and Behavioural Impediments
• 1.2.2 Strategies to Overcome CTW Impediments
• 1.3 Peer Assessment Challenges in CTW Context
• 1.3.1 Quality and Standards
• 1.3.2 Validity and Reliability
• 1.3.3 Scalability and Sustainability
• 1.3.4 Assessment and Feedback Literacy
• 1.4 Framework Development
• 1.4.1 Design
• 1.4.2 Implementation
• 1.4.3 Technology
• 1.4.4 Roles and Responsibilities
• 1.5 Discussion
• 1.5.1 Usage of the Framework
• 1.5.2 Limitations
• 1.5.3 Further Research
• 1.6 Conclusion
• References
• 2 Learning Analytics for Peer Assessment: A Scoping Review
• 2.1 Introduction
• 2.2 Purpose of the Present Study
• 2.3 Methodology
• 2.3.1 Scoping Review
• 2.3.2 Search
• 2.4 Results
• 2.5 Discussions and Conclusions
• References
• 3 Support Student Integration of Multiple Peer Feedback on Research Writing in Thesis Circles
• 3.1 Introduction
• 3.1.1 Student Peer Review and Feedback in Thesis Circles
• 3.1.2 Multiple Peer Feedback and the Need for Student Support
• 3.1.3 Students Need Support on Assessing Feedback Quality
• 3.1.4 Students Need Support on Integrating Multiple Feedback
• 3.1.5 Integrating Multiple Peer Feedback: Developing Instructional Design for a Complex Student Activity
• 3.2 Methodology
• 3.2.1 Complexities and Challenges of Multiple Peer Feedback Practices
• 3.2.2 Design Hypothesis
• 3.3 Instructional Design
• 3.3.1 Embodiment
• 3.3.2 Mediating Processes
• 3.4 Outcomes
• 3.5 Conclusion.
• Appendix: Steps in Student Feedback Dialogue
• References
• Part IIMethodological Contributions on Peer Learning
• 4 Peer Assessment Using Criteria or Comparative Judgement? A Replication Study on the Learning Effect of Two Peer Assessment Methods
• 4.1 Introduction
• 4.2 Theoretical Framework
• 4.2.1 Quality of Peer Feedback
• 4.2.2 Peer Assessment Using Criteria
• 4.2.3 Peer Assessment Using Comparative Judgement
• 4.3 This Study
• 4.4 Method
• 4.4.1 Samples
• 4.4.2 Design and Instruments
• 4.4.3 Variables
• 4.4.4 Analyses
• 4.5 Results
• 4.5.1 Quality of Feedback
• 4.5.2 Effect on Performance
• 4.6 Discussion
• Appendix
• References
• 5 Using Stochastic Actor-Oriented Models to Explain Collaboration Intentionality as a Prerequisite for Peer Feedback and Learning in Networks
• 5.1 Introduction
• 5.2 Introducing Stochastic Actor-Oriented Models
• 5.3 Illustration of Peer Feedback in Higher Education
• 5.3.1 Variables
• 5.3.2 Specifying Effects to Be Included in the SAOM
• 5.3.3 RSiena Findings
• 5.4 Discussion and Outlook
• References
• 6 Comparing Expert and Peer Assessment of Pedagogical Design in Integrated STEAM Education
• 6.1 Introduction
• 6.2 Methods
• 6.2.1 Participants
• 6.2.2 Procedure
• 6.2.3 Data Sources and Coding
• 6.2.4 Statistical Analyses
• 6.3 Results
• 6.3.1 Pre-service Teacher Responsiveness to Expert Assessment
• 6.3.2 Validity and Reliability of Peer Assessment
• 6.3.3 Comparison Between Expert and Peer Feedback
• 6.3.4 Selection of Pedagogical Scenarios by Peer Assessees for Developing a Lesson Plan in Integrated STEAM Education
• 6.4 Discussion
• References
• Part IIITechnological Contributions on Peer Learning
• 7 Constructing Computer-Mediated Feedback in Virtual Reality for Improving Peer Learning: A Synthesis of the Literature in Presentation Research
• 7.1 Introduction.
• 7.2 The Role of Peer Feedback in Presentation Research
• 7.3 The Differential Effectiveness of Feedback Sources
• 7.4 Quality Criteria for Developing Effective Feedback Messages
• 7.5 Virtual Reality as an Alternative Feedback Source for Peer Learning
• 7.6 Two Recent VR Experiments: Students' Perceptions on Computer-Mediated Feedback
• 7.7 A Future Research Agenda on Computer-Mediated Feedback for Peer Learning in Presentation Research
• References
• 8 Web-Based Peer Assessment Platforms: What Educational Features Influence Learning, Feedback and Social Interaction?
• 8.1 Introduction
• 8.1.1 Web-Based Peer Assessment Platforms
• 8.1.2 Peer Assessment Design Elements Framework
• 8.1.3 Search, Screening and Access to the Platforms, and Review Criteria
• 8.2 Web-Based Peer Assessment Features Influencing Student Learning
• 8.2.1 Intended Learning Outcomes for Students
• 8.2.2 Link to Self-assessment
• 8.2.3 Calibration and Task Scaffolding
• 8.3 Web-Based Peer Assessment Features Influencing Feedback
• 8.3.1 Feedback Information Type
• 8.3.2 Feedback Utilization
• 8.3.3 Feedback Moderation
• 8.4 Web-Based Peer Assessment Features Influencing Social Interactions
• 8.4.1 Anonymity
• 8.4.2 Peer Configuration
• 8.4.3 Peer Matching
• 8.5 Conclusions
• References
• 9 Feed-Back About the Collaboration Process from a Group Awareness Tool. Potential Boundary Conditions for Effective Regulation
• 9.1 Introduction
• 9.2 Supporting Collaboration with Group Awareness Tools
• 9.2.1 Feed-Back on Interaction: How Group Awareness Tools Guide Collaboration
• 9.2.2 Prior Research on Social Group Awareness Tools
• 9.3 Our Research: Scaffolding Collaborative Reflection and Using Self-reports to Assess Participation
• 9.4 Field Study 1: Collaborative Reflection to Scaffold Feed-Up, Feed-Back, and Feed-Forward.
• 9.4.1 Sample, Materials, Procedure, Measures
• 9.4.2 Results
• 9.5 Field Study 2: Contrasting System-Generated Feed-Back and Peer-Generated Feed-Back
• 9.5.1 Using Peer-Generated Feed-Back to Include a More Holistic Operationalization of Participation
• 9.5.2 Sample, Procedure, and Materials
• 9.5.3 Results
• 9.6 Discussion: What Are Boundary Conditions for the Effective Use of Feed-Back Regarding Collaboration?
• 9.6.1 Phases 1 and 2: Collecting and Aggregating Data
• 9.6.2 Phase 3: Taking up Feed-Back and Comparing It to a Desired State
• 9.6.3 Phase 4: Regulating the Collaboration
• 9.7 Conclusion
• References
• 10 Viewbrics: A Technology-Enhanced Formative Assessment Method to Mirror and Master Complex Skills with Video-Enhanced Rubrics and Peer Feedback in Secondary Education
• 10.1 Introduction and Background
• 10.1.1 The Acquisition of Complex Skills, Formative Assessment and (Video-Enhanced) Rubrics
• 10.1.2 Technology-Enhanced Formative Assessment: Process Support for Goal Setting, Practice, Feedback, Reflection and Self-regulation
• 10.1.3 The Objectives and Outline of the Viewbrics Project
• 10.1.4 The Designed Intervention: The Viewbrics Technology-Enhanced Formative Assessment Method
• 10.2 Method
• 10.2.1 Sample
• 10.2.2 Instruments
• 10.3 Results
• 10.4 Discussion
• 10.4.1 Implications for Practice
• 10.5 Conclusion
• References
• Part IVEmpirical Contributions on Peer Learning
• 11 PeerTeach: Teaching Learners to Do Learner-Centered Teaching
• 11.1 Introduction: Prior Studies, Research Questions, and Significance
• 11.2 Prescriptive Intervention Design to Promote Three Learner-Centered Tutoring Strategies
• 11.2.1 Design
• 11.3 Constructivist Intervention Design to Unearth Learner-Centered Tutoring Strategies
• 11.3.1 Design
• 11.4 Methods
• 11.4.1 Round One Implementation Sequence.
• 11.4.2 Round Two Implementation Sequence
• 11.4.3 Measures
• 11.5 Results
• 11.5.1 Students Default to Didactic Teaching Online, but Shift with Training
• 11.5.2 Learning Gains in Round 1 of Data Collection
• 11.5.3 Round Two: Peer Instructional Behaviors Shift to Make Room for Peers to Think
• 11.5.4 Tutoring Improves with Training and Content Mastery
• 11.5.5 Combining Data from Both Studies Highlights Need for Mastery and Training
• 11.6 Discussion
• 11.7 Limitations
• 11.8 Conclusion
• Appendix A: Rubric for Study 1 and 2 Post-assessment
• Appendix B: Frequency of "Most Helpful" Teaching Moves as Recalled by Tutee
• References
• 12 A Thematic Analysis of Factors Influencing Student's Peer-Feedback Orientation
• 12.1 Introduction
• 12.2 Research Design and Method
• 12.3 Qualitative Data Collection and Analysis
• 12.3.1 Participants
• 12.4 Data Analysis
• 12.5 Findings
• 12.5.1 Utility
• 12.5.2 Accountability
• 12.5.3 Social Awareness
• 12.5.4 Self-efficacy
• 12.6 Discussion and Conclusion
• 12.6.1 Discussion
• 12.7 Limitations of the Study and Recommendations for Future Research
• 12.8 Conclusions
• Appendix A
• Appendix B
• Appendix C
• Appendix D
• References
• 13 Giving Feedback to Peers in an Online Inquiry-Learning Environment
• 13.1 Introduction
• 13.1.1 Design of the Studies Conducted
• 13.1.2 Participants
• 13.1.3 Design and Procedure
• 13.1.4 Results and Recommendations for Practice
• 13.1.5 The Role of Assessment Criteria
• 13.1.6 The Role of the Quality and Type of Reviewed Products
• 13.1.7 The Way of Giving Feedback
• 13.2 Conclusion
• References
• 14 Peer Interaction Types for Social and Academic Integration and Institutional Attachment in First Year Undergraduates
• 14.1 Introduction
• 14.2 Previous Research
• 14.3 Method
• 14.3.1 Design
• 14.3.2 Sample
• 14.3.3 Measures.
• 14.3.4 Analysis.