Students’ online argumentative peer feedback, essay writing, and content learning: does gender matter?

References

• Andrews, R. (1995). Teaching and learning argument. London, NY: Cassell.
   Google Scholar
• Asterhan, C. S. C. (2018). Exploring enablers and inhibitors of productive peer argumentation: The role of individual achievement goals and of gender. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 54(1), 66–78.
   Google Scholar
• Asterhan, C. S. C., Schwarz, B. B., & Gil, J. (2012). Small-group, computer-mediated argumentation in middle-school classrooms: The effects of gender and different types of online teacher guidance. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(3), 375–397.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bayerlein, L. (2014). Students’ feedback preferences: How do students react to timely and automatically generated assessment feedback? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(8), 916–931.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caspi, A., Chajut, E., & Sapporta, K. (2008). Participation in class and in online discussions: Gender differences. Computers & Education, 50(3), 718–724.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coffin, C., & O’Halloran, K. (2008). Researching argumentation in educational contexts: New directions, new methods. International Journal of Research and Method in Education, 31(3), 219–227.
   Google Scholar
• Crisp, B. R. (2007). Is it worth the effort? How feedback influences students’ subsequent submission of assessable work. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 32(5), 571–581.
   Google Scholar
• De Lisi, R., & Golbeck, S. L. (1999). Implications of Piagetian theory for peer learning. In A. M. O’Donnell, & A. King (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on peer learning (pp. 3–37). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• De Nisi, A. S., & Kluger, A. N. (2000). Feedback effectiveness: Can 360-degree appraisals be improved? Academy of Management Executive, 14(1), 129–139.
   Google Scholar
• Erkens, G., & Janssen, J. (2008). Automatic coding of dialogue acts in collaboration protocols. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(4), 447–470.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gabelica, C., Van den Bossche, P., Segers, M., & & Gijselaers, W. (2012). Feedback, a powerful level in teams: A review. Educational Research Review, 7(2), 123–144.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 445–476.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hofstede, G. (1993). Cultural constraints in management theories. Academy of Management Executive, 7(1), 81–94.
   Google Scholar
• Hsu, P.-S., Van Dyke, M., & Smith, T. J. (2017). The effect of varied gender grouping on argumentation skills among middle school students in different cultures. Middle Grades Review, 3(2), 1–22.
   Google Scholar
• Jeong, A. C., & Davidson-Shivers, G. (2006). The effects of gender interaction patterns on student participation in computer-supported collaborative argumentation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 54(6), 543–568.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kellogg, R. T., & Whiteford, A. P. (2009). Training advanced writing skills: The case for deliberate practice. Educational Psychologist, 44(4), 250–266.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li, Q. (2002). Gender and computer-mediated communication: An exploration of elementary students’ mathematics and science learning. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 21(4), 341–359.
   Google Scholar
• Lin, S., Liu, E., & Yuan, S. (2001). Web-based peer assessment: Feedback for students with various thinking styles. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 17(4), 420–432.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lizzio, A., & Wilson, K. (2008). Feedback on assessment: Students’ perception of quality and effectiveness. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(3), 263–275.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McAlister, S., Ravenscroftw, A., & Scanlon, E. (2004). Combining interaction and context design to support collaborative argumentation using a tool for synchronous CMC. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20(3), 194–204.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mostert, M., & Snowball, J. D. (2013). Where angels fear to tread: Online peer-assessment in a large first-year class. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(6), 674–686.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Munneke, L., Andriessen, J., Kanselaar, G., & Kirschner, P. (2007). Supporting interactive argumentation: Influence of representational tools on discussing a wicked problem. Computers in Human Behaviour, 23(3), 1072–1088.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nelson, M. M., & Schunn, C. D. (2009). The nature of feedback: How different types of peer feedback affect writing performance. Instructional Science, 37(4), 375–401.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noroozi, O. (2018). Considering students’ epistemic beliefs to facilitate their argumentative discourse and attitudinal change with a digital dialogue game. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 55(3), 357–365. doi: 10.1080/14703297.2016.1208112
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noroozi, O., Biemans, H. J. A., Busstra, M. C., Mulder, M., & Chizari, M. (2011). Differences in learning processes between successful and less successful students in computer-supported collaborative learning in the field of human nutrition and health. Computers in Human Behaviour, 27(1), 309–318.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noroozi, O., Biemans, H. J. A., & Mulder, M. (2016). Relations between scripted online peer feedback processes and quality of written argumentative essay. Internet and Higher Education, 31(1), 20–31.
   Google Scholar
• Noroozi, O., Kirschner, P., Biemans, H. J. A., & Mulder, M. (2018). Promoting argumentation competence: Extending from first- to second-order scaffolding through adaptive fading. Educational Psychology Review, 30(1), 153–176.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noroozi, O., & Mulder, M. (2017). Design and evaluation of a digital module with guided peer feedback for student learning biotechnology and molecular life sciences, attitudinal change, and satisfaction. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 45(1), 31–39.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noroozi, O., Teasley, S. D., Biemans, H. J. A., Weinberger, A., & Mulder, M. (2013). Facilitating learning in multidisciplinary groups with transactive CSCL scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 8(2), 289–223. doi: 10.1007/s11412-012-9162-z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noroozi, O., Weinberger, A., Biemans, H. J. A., Mulder, M., & Chizari, M. (2012). Argumentation-based computer supported collaborative learning (ABCSCL). A systematic review and synthesis of fifteen years of research. Educational Research Review, 7(2), 79–106. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2011.11.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pessoa, S., Mitchell, T. D., & Miller, R. T. (2017). Emergent arguments: A functional approach to analyzing student challenges with the argument genre. Journal of Second Language Writing, 38(1), 42–55.
   Google Scholar
• Prinsen, F. R., Volman, M. L. L., & Terwel, J. (2007). The influence of learner characteristics on degree and type of participation in a CSCL environment. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(6), 1037–1055.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prinsen, F. R., Volman, M. L. L., Terwel, J., & Van den Eeden, P. (2009). Effects on participation of an experimental CSCL-programme to support elaboration: Do all students benefit? Computers and Education, 52(1), 113–125.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Qin, J., & Karabacak, E. (2010). The analysis of Toulmin elements in Chinese EFL university argumentative writing. System, 38(3), 1–13.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schellens, T., Van Keer, H., De Wever, B., & Valcke, M. (2007). Scripting by assigning roles: Does it improve knowledge construction in asynchronous discussion groups? International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(2-3), 225–246.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schreiber, M., & Engelmann, T. (2010). Knowledge and information awareness for initiating transactive memory system processes of computer-supported collaborating ad hoc groups. Computers in Human Behaviour, 26(6), 1701–1709.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Selfe, C. L., & Meyer, P. R. (1991). Testing claims for on-line conferences. Written Communication, 8(2), 163–192.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shute, V. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153–189.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stern, L. A., & Solomon, A. (2006). Effective faculty feedback: The road less traveled. Assessing Writing, 11(1), 22–41.
   Google Scholar
• Sullivan, F. R., Kapur, M., Madden, S., & Shipe, S. (2015). Exploring the role of “gendered” discourse styles in online science discussions. International Journal of Science Education, 37(3), 484–504.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Underwood, J., Underwood, G., & Wood, D. (2000). When does gender matter? Interactions during computer-based problem solving. Learning and Instruction, 10(5), 447–462.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Uysal, H. H. (2008). The interplay between culture and writing: Rhetorical and process patterns in L1 and L2 argumentative writing within a cultural context. Saarbruecken: VDM Verlag Aktiengesellschaft.
   Google Scholar
• Uysal, H. H. (2012). Argumentation across L1 and L2 writing: Exploring cultural influences and transfer issues. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 9(1), 151–182.
   Google Scholar
• Van Amelsvoort, M., Andriessen, J., & Kanselaar, G. (2007). Representational tools in computer-supported collaborative argumentation-based learning: How dyads work with constructed and inspected argumentative diagrams. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(4), 485–521.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Ginkel, S., Gulikers, J., Biemans, H. J. A., & Mulder, M. (2015). Towards a set of design principles for developing oral presentation competence: A synthesis of research in higher education. Educational Research Review, 14(1), 62–80.
   Google Scholar
• Wingate, U. (2012). Using academic literacies and genre-based models for academic writing instruction. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11(2), 26–37.
   Google Scholar
• Wood, N. V. (2001). Perspectives on argument. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Wu, S. M. (2006). Creating a contrastive rhetorical stance: Investigating the strategy of problematization in students’ argumentation. Regional Language Centre Journal, 37(3), 329–353.
   Google Scholar
• Yang, Y. F. (2010). Students’ reflection on online self-correction and peer review to improve writing. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1202–1210.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang, Y. F. (2011). A reciprocal peer review system to support college students’ writing. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(4), 687–700.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar