Using and rejecting peer feedback in the science classroom: a study of students’ negotiations on how to use peer feedback when designing experiments

References

• Andrée, M., and L. Lager-Nyqvist. 2012. “What do you know about fat? Drawing on diverse funds of knowledge in inquiry based science education.” Nordic Studies in Science Education 8 (2): 178–193. doi:10.5617/nordina.526.
   Google Scholar
• Anker-Hansen, J., and M. Andrée. 2015. “Affordances and Constraints of Using the Socio-political Debate for Authentic Summative Assessment.” International Journal of Science Education 37 (15): 2577–2596. doi:10.1080/09500693.2015.1087068.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arvola, A. O., and I. Lundegård. 2012. “It’s Her Body. When Students’ Argumentation Shows Displacement of Content in a Science Classroom.” Research in Science Education 42 (6): 1121–1145. doi:10.1007/s11165-011-9237-2.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barton, A. C., and E. Tan. 2009. “Funds of Knowledge and Discourses and Hybrid Space.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 46 (1): 50–73. doi:10.1002/tea.v46:1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Black, P., and D. Wiliam. 1998. “Assessment and Classroom Learning.” Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice 5 (1): 7–74. doi:10.1080/0969595980050102.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, E., and C. Glover. 2006. “Evaluating Written Feedback.” In Innovative Assessment in Higher Education, edited by C. Bryan and K. Clegg, 81–91. New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Cheng, K. H., and C. C. Tsai. 2012. “Students’ Interpersonal Perspectives On, Conceptions of and Approaches to Learning in Online Peer Assessment.” Australian Journal of Educational Technology 28 (4): 599–618.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheng, W., and M. Warren. 2000. “Making a Difference: Using Peers to Assess Individual Students’ Contributions to a Group Project.” Teaching in Higher Education 5 (2): 243–255. doi:10.1080/135625100114885.
   Google Scholar
• Dixon, H. R., E. Hawe, and J. Parr. 2011. “Enacting Assessment for Learning: The Beliefs Practice Nexus.” Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice 18 (4): 365–379. doi:10.1080/0969594X.2010.526587.
   Google Scholar
• Falchikov, N. 1995. “Peer Feedback Marking: Developing Peer Assessment.” Innovation in Education and Training International 32 (2): 175–187. doi:10.1080/1355800950320212.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gamlem, S. M., and K. Smith. 2013. “Student Perceptions of Classroom Feedback.” Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice 20 (2): 1–20.
   Google Scholar
• Harris, L. R., and G. T. L. Brown. 2013. “Opportunities and Obstacles to Consider When Using Peer- and Self-Assessment to Improve Student Learning: Case Studies into Teachers’ Implementation.” Teaching and Teacher Education 36: 101–111. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2013.07.008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heritage, M., and C. Wylie. 2018. “Reaping the Benefits of Assessment for Learning: Achievement, Identity, and Equity.” ZDM Mathematics Education 50 (4): 729–741. doi:10.1007/s11858-018-0943-3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hovardas, T., O. E. Tsivitanidou, and Z. C. Zacharia. 2014. “Peer versus Expert Feedback: An Investigation of the Quality of Peer Feedback among Secondary School Students.” Computers & Education 71: 133–152. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2013.09.019.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huann-Shyang, L., R. H. Zuway, W. Hsin-Hui, and L. Sung-Tao. 2011. “Using Reflective Peer Assessment to Promote Students’ Conceptual Understanding through Asynchronous Discussions.” Journal of Educational Technology & Society 14 (3): 178–189.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jidesjö, A., M. Oscarsson, K. G. Karlsson, and H. Strömdahl. 2012. “Science for All or Science for Some: What Swedish Students Want to Learn about in Secondary Science and Technology and Their Opinions on Science Lessons.” Nordic Studies in Science Education 5 (2): 213–229. doi:10.5617/nordina.352.
   Google Scholar
• Jönsson, A. 2013. “Facilitating Productive Use of Feedback in Higher Education.” Active Learning in Higher Education 14 (1): 63–76. doi:10.1177/1469787412467125.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kollar, I., and F. Fisher. 2010. “Peer Assessment as Collaborative Learning: A Cognitive Perspective.” Learning and Instruction 20 (4): 344–348. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kolsto, S. D. 2001. “To Trust or Not to Trust… Pupils’ Ways of Judging Information Encountered in a Socio-Scientific Issue.” International Journal of Science Education 23 (9): 877–901. doi:10.1080/09500690010016102.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuipers, J. 2011. “Unmentionable Others: Representing Participation Frameworks in School Science.” Anthropological Quarterly 84 (1): 87–99. doi:10.1353/anq.2011.0002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lederman, N. G., J. S. Lederman, and A. Antink. 2013. “Nature of Science and Scientific Inquiry as Contexts for the Learning of Science and Achievement of Scientific Literacy.” International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology 1 (3): 138–147.
   Google Scholar
• Lundstrom, K., and W. Baker. 2009. “To Give Is Better than to Receive: The Benefits of Peer Review to the Reviewer’s Own Writing.” Journal of Second Language Writing 18 (1): 30–43. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2008.06.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Min, H. T. 2005. “Training Students to Become Successful Peer Reviewers.” System 33 (2): 293–308. doi:10.1016/j.system.2004.11.003.
   Google Scholar
• Murphy, P., S. Lunn, and H. Jones. 2006. “The Impact of Authentic Learning on Students’ Engagement with Physics.” Curriculum Journal 17 (3): 229–246. doi:10.1080/09585170600909688.
   Google Scholar
• Nicol, D. 2009. “Assessment for Learner Self-Regulation: Enhancing Achievement in the First Year Using Learning Technologies.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 34 (3): 335–352. doi:10.1080/02602930802255139.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Panadero, E. 2016. “Is It Safe? Social, Interpersonal, and Human Effects of Peer Assessment: A Review and Future Directions.” In Handbook of Human and Social Conditions in Assessment, edited by G. T. L. Brown and L. R. Harris. New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Panadero, E., M. Romero, and J. W. Strijbos. 2013. “The Impact of a Rubric and Friendship on Construct Validity of Peer Assessment, Perceived Fairness and Comfort, and Performance.” Studies in Educational Evaluation 39 (4): 195–203. doi:10.1016/j.stueduc.2013.10.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poon, W. Y., C. McNaught, P. Lam, and H. S. Kwan. 2009. “Improving Assessment Methods in University Science Education with Negotiated Self- and Peer-Assessment.” Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice 16 (3): 331–346. doi:10.1080/09695940903319729.
   Google Scholar
• Sadler, D. R. 2007. “Perils in the Meticulous Specification of Goals and Assessment Criteria.” Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice 14 (3): 387–392. doi:10.1080/09695940701592097.
   Google Scholar
• Sadler, P. M., and E. Good. 2006. “The Impact of Self- and Peer-Grading on Student Learning.” Educational Assessment 11 (1): 1–31. doi:10.1207/s15326977ea1101_1.
   Google Scholar
• Sandoval, W. A., and B. J. Reiser. 2004. “Explanation-Driven Inquiry: Integrated Conceptual and Epistemic Scaffolds for Scientific Inquiry.” Science Education 88 (3): 345–372. doi:10.1002/sce.10130.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strijbos, J. W., T. A. Ochoa, D. M. A. Sluijsmans, M. S. R. Segers, and H. Tillema. 2009. “Fostering Interactivity through Formative Peer Assessment in (Web-Based) Collaborative Learning Environments.” In Cognitive and Emotional Process in Web-Based Education: Integrating Human Factors and Personalization, edited by C. Mourlas, N. Tsianos, and P. Germanakos, 375–395. Hersey, PA: IGI Global.
   Google Scholar
• Tal, T. 2005. “Implementing Multiple Assessment Modes in an Interdisciplinary Environmental Education Course.” Environmental Education Research 11 (5): 575–601. doi:10.1080/13504620500169767.
   Google Scholar
• The Swedish National Agency for Education. 2009. Nationella ämnesprovet i biologi våren 2009 [The national subject test in biology spring 2009]. Sweden: Stockholm.
   Google Scholar
• The Swedish National Agency for Education. 2011. Curriculum for the Compulsory School, Preeschool Class and Leisure-Time Centre 2011. Sweden: Stockholm.
   Google Scholar
• Timmer, J. 2012. Scientific Reproducibility, for Fun and Profit. Arstechnica. Accessed http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/08/scientific-reproducibility-for-fun-and-profit/website
   Google Scholar
• Topping, K. 1998. “Peer Assessment between Students in Colleges and Universities.” Review of Educational Research 68 (3): 249–276. doi:10.3102/00346543068003249.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tsai, C. C., S. S. J. Lin, and S. M. Yuan. 2002. “Developing Science Activities through a Networked Peer Assessment System.” Computers & Education 38 (1): 241–252. doi:10.1016/S0360-1315(01)00069-0.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tsivitanidou, O. E., Z. C. Zacharia, and T. Hovardas. 2011. “Investigating Secondary School Students’ Unmediated Peer Assessment Skills.” Learning and Instruction 21 (4): 506–519. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.08.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Zundert, M., D. Sluijsmans, and J. van Merriënboer. 2010. “Effective Peer Assessment Processes: Research Findings and Future Directions.” Learning and Instruction 20 (4): 270–279. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Willis, J. 2011. “Affiliation, Autonomy and Assessment for Learning.” Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice 18 (4): 399–415. doi:10.1080/0969594X.2011.604305.
   Google Scholar