東華大學圖書館 |

Language: English

Help

回圖書館首頁

手機版館藏查詢

Back

Switch To: Labeled | MARC Mode | ISBD

Linked to FindBook

Google Book

Amazon

博客來

Is it better to give or to receive? Insights into collaborative learning through Web -mediated peer review.

Record Type:	Electronic resources : Monograph/item
Title/Author:	Is it better to give or to receive? Insights into collaborative learning through Web -mediated peer review./
Author:	Trautmann, Nancy Morton.
Published:	Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, : 2006,
Description:	127 p.
Notes:	Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 67-11, Section: A.
Contained By:	Dissertations Abstracts International67-11A.
Subject:	Collaboration. -
Online resource:	http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=3205208
ISBN:	9780542535918

Is it better to give or to receive? Insights into collaborative learning through Web -mediated peer review.
Trautmann, Nancy Morton.

Is it better to give or to receive? Insights into collaborative learning through Web -mediated peer review. - Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 2006 - 127 p.

Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 67-11, Section: A.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Cornell University, 2006.

This item must not be sold to any third party vendors.

An important question in collaborative learning research is the extent to which students learn through giving versus receiving assistance from peers. This question was investigated through analysis of web-mediated peer review by undergraduates in an introductory science course. After conducting toxicology experiments, 77 students posted draft research reports and exchanged double-blind reviews. Their experiences provided the basis for testing two hypotheses: (1) Improvement between draft and final research reports is greater for students who engage in peer review than for those who review their own draft manuscripts, and (2) Students benefit more from giving than receiving peer reviews. Two studies were conducted. In the first, students were randomly assigned to four treatment groups representing self review, full peer review, and confinement to only giving or only receiving reviews. Contrast analysis was used to test the significance of differences among treatment groups in terms of the numbers of revisions made between draft and final versions of research reports. In the second study, the same students conducted a second round of experiments and engaged in the full peer review process. Through linear regression and path analysis, the influence of giving versus receiving reviews was investigated. Results supported the first hypothesis; students who engaged in any aspect of peer review made more improvements to their draft reports than did those limited to self review. The students expressed widespread support for their peer review experience, stating for example that it had increased their motivation, helped to improve their writing, and provided both positive and negative exemplars to apply to their own work. Contrary to predictions based on collaborative learning theory, the second hypothesis was not supported. In both studies, receiving reviews was more significant than writing reviews in triggering revision of students' research reports. Student perceptions corroborated this empirical finding; 70% reported that their revisions had been influenced more by reviews received than by ideas developed through reviewing work of their peers. Further research is needed to investigate whether this finding holds true in systems that are designed to promote higher level learning and that incorporate more heterogeneous student groups.

ISBN: 9780542535918Subjects--Topical Terms:

3556296
Collaboration.
Subjects--Index Terms:

Collaborative learning

Is it better to give or to receive? Insights into collaborative learning through Web -mediated peer review.
LDR:03659nmm a2200385 4500 001 2347797
005 20230509065505.5
006 m o d
007 cr#unu||||||||
008 241004s2006 ||||||||||||||||| ||eng d
020 $a 9780542535918
035 $a (MiAaPQ)AAI3205208
035 $a AAI3205208
040 $a MiAaPQ $c MiAaPQ
100 1 $a Trautmann, Nancy Morton. $3 3687098
245 1 0 $a Is it better to give or to receive? Insights into collaborative learning through Web -mediated peer review.
260 1 $a Ann Arbor : $b ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, $c 2006
300 $a 127 p.
500 $a Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 67-11, Section: A.
500 $a Publisher info.: Dissertation/Thesis.
500 $a Advisor: Gay, Geri.
502 $a Thesis (Ph.D.)--Cornell University, 2006.
506 $a This item must not be sold to any third party vendors.
506 $a This item must not be added to any third party search indexes.
520 $a An important question in collaborative learning research is the extent to which students learn through giving versus receiving assistance from peers. This question was investigated through analysis of web-mediated peer review by undergraduates in an introductory science course. After conducting toxicology experiments, 77 students posted draft research reports and exchanged double-blind reviews. Their experiences provided the basis for testing two hypotheses: (1) Improvement between draft and final research reports is greater for students who engage in peer review than for those who review their own draft manuscripts, and (2) Students benefit more from giving than receiving peer reviews. Two studies were conducted. In the first, students were randomly assigned to four treatment groups representing self review, full peer review, and confinement to only giving or only receiving reviews. Contrast analysis was used to test the significance of differences among treatment groups in terms of the numbers of revisions made between draft and final versions of research reports. In the second study, the same students conducted a second round of experiments and engaged in the full peer review process. Through linear regression and path analysis, the influence of giving versus receiving reviews was investigated. Results supported the first hypothesis; students who engaged in any aspect of peer review made more improvements to their draft reports than did those limited to self review. The students expressed widespread support for their peer review experience, stating for example that it had increased their motivation, helped to improve their writing, and provided both positive and negative exemplars to apply to their own work. Contrary to predictions based on collaborative learning theory, the second hypothesis was not supported. In both studies, receiving reviews was more significant than writing reviews in triggering revision of students' research reports. Student perceptions corroborated this empirical finding; 70% reported that their revisions had been influenced more by reviews received than by ideas developed through reviewing work of their peers. Further research is needed to investigate whether this finding holds true in systems that are designed to promote higher level learning and that incorporate more heterogeneous student groups.
590 $a School code: 0058.
650 4 $a Collaboration. $3 3556296
650 4 $a Distance learning. $3 3557921
650 4 $a World Wide Web. $3 534287
650 4 $a Peer review. $3 624199
650 4 $a Educational technology. $3 517670
653 $a Collaborative learning
653 $a Online
653 $a Peer review
653 $a Web-mediated
690 $a 0710
710 2 $a Cornell University. $3 530586
773 0 $t Dissertations Abstracts International $g 67-11A.
790 $a 0058
791 $a Ph.D.
792 $a 2006
793 $a English
856 4 0 $u http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=3205208