Measuring peer feedback in face-to-face and online public-speaking workshops

References

• Allen, M., Titsworth, S., & Hunt, S. K. (2009). Quantitative research in communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Bentler, P. M., & Yuan, K.-H. (1999). Structural equation modeling with small samples: Test statistics. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 34, 181–197. doi: 10.1207/s15327906mb340203
   Google Scholar
• Billett, S. (2002). Workplace pedagogic practices: Co–participation and learning. British Journal of Educational Studies, 50(4), 457–481. doi:10.1111/1467-8527.t01-2-00214
   Google Scholar
• Boud, D., & Molloy, E. (2013). Rethinking models of feedback for learning: The challenge of design. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(6), 698–712. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2012.691462
   Google Scholar
• Carless, D. (2006). Differing perceptions in the feedback process. Studies in Higher Education, 31, 219–233. doi: 10.1080/03075070600572132
   Google Scholar
• Cole, A. W. (2016). Testing the impact of student preference for face-to-face communication on online course satisfaction. Western Journal of Communication, 80, 619–637. doi: 10.1080/10570314.2016.1186824
   Google Scholar
• De Wever, B., Van Keer, H., Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (2011). Assessing collaboration in a wiki: The reliability of university students’ peer assessment. The Internet and Higher Education, 14(4), 201–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.07.003
   Google Scholar
• Eraut, M. (2004). Informal learning in the workplace. Studies in Continuing Education, 26(2), 247–273. doi:10.1080/158037042000225245
   Google Scholar
• Ertmer, P. A., Richardson, J. C., Belland, B., Camin, D., Connolly, P., Coulthard, G., & Mong, C. (2007). Using peer feedback to enhance the quality of student online postings: An exploratory study. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12, 412–433. doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00331.x
   Google Scholar
• Garside, C. (1996). Look who’s talking: A comparison of lecture and group discussion teaching strategies in developing critical thinking skills. Communication Education, 45, 212–227. doi: 10.1080/03634529609379050
   Google Scholar
• Gielen, M., & De Wever, B. (2015). Scripting the role of assessor and assessee in peer assessment in a wiki environment: Impact on peer feedback quality and product improvement. Computers & Education, 88, 370–386. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2015.07.012
   Google Scholar
• Henley, A. J., & DiGennaro Reed, F. D. (2015). Should you order the feedback sandwich? Efficacy of feedback sequence and timing. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 35(3-4), 321–335. doi: 10.1080/01608061.2015.1093057
   Google Scholar
• Higgins, R., Hartley, P., & Skelton, A. (2002). The conscientious consumer: Reconsidering the role of assessment feedback in student learning. Studies in Higher Education, 27(1), 53–64. doi: 10.1080/03075070120099368
   Google Scholar
• Hounsell, D. (2003). Student feedback, learning, and development. In M. Slowey, & D. Watson (Eds.), Higher education and the lifecourse (pp. 67–78). Berkshire: McGraw-Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Kerssen-Griep, J., & Terry, C. L. (2016). 12. Communicating instructional feedback: Definitions, explanations, principles, and questions. Communication and Learning, 16, 287. doi: 10.1515/9781501502446-013
   Google Scholar
• Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254–284. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254
   Google Scholar
• Liu, N. F., & Carless, D. (2006). Peer feedback: The learning element of peer assessment. Teaching in Higher Education, 11, 279–290. doi: 10.1080/13562510600680582
   Google Scholar
• Lu, J., & Law, N. (2012). Online peer assessment: Effects of cognitive and affective feedback. Instructional Science, 40, 257–275. doi: 10.1007/s11251-011-9177-2
   Google Scholar
• MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S., & Hong, S. (1999). Sample size in factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 4, 84–99. doi: 10.1037/1082-989x.4.1.84
   Google Scholar
• Morreale, S., Hugenberg, L., & Worley, D. (2006). The basic communication course at U.S. colleges and universities in the 21st century: Study VII. Communication Education, 55, 415–437. doi: 10.1080/03634520600879162
   Google Scholar
• Morreale, S. P., Worley, D. W., & Hugenberg, B. (2010). The basic communication course at two- and four-year U.S. Colleges and universities: Study VIII—The 40th anniversary. Communication Education, 59, 405–430. doi: 10.1080/03634521003637124
   Google Scholar
• Mutch, A. (2003). Exploring the practice of feedback to students. Active Learning in Higher Education, 4, 24–38. doi: 10.1177/1469787403004001003
   Google Scholar
• National Association of Colleges and Employers. (2015). Job outlook 2015 survey. Retrieved from http://www.naceweb.org/s11122014/job-outlook-skills-qualities-employers-want.aspx
   Google Scholar
• National Communication Association. (2015). College graduates with communication degrees have the knowledge and skills employers need. Retrieved from https://www.natcom.org/uploadedFiles/Teaching_and_Learning/420College20Graduates20with20Communication20Degrees20Have.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Ng, H. Z., & Hussain, R. M. R. (2010). A qualitative research on teacher trainees as the feedback-giver in a blended learning environment. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 9, 810–814. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.12.239 doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.12.411
   Google Scholar
• Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31, 199–218. doi: 10.1080/03075070600572090
   Google Scholar
• Nicol, D., Thomson, A., & Breslin, C. (2014). Rethinking feedback practices in higher education: A peer review perspective. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(1), 102–122. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2013.795518
   Google Scholar
• Nilson, L. B. (2003). Improving student peer feedback. College Teaching, 51, 34–38. doi: 10.1080/87567550309596408
   Google Scholar
• Rosseel, Y. (2012). Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36. doi: 10.18637/jss.v048.i02
   Google Scholar
• Sargeant, J., Armson, H., Driessen, E., Holmboe, E., Könings, K., Lockyer, J., … Soklaridis, S. (2016). Evidence-informed facilitated feedback: The R2C2 feedback model. MedEdPORTAL Publications, 12, 10387. doi: 10.15766/mep_2374-8265.10387
   Google Scholar
• Sellnow, D. D., & Treinen, K. P. (2004). The role of gender in perceived speaker competence: An analysis of student peer critiques. Communication Education, 53, 286–296. doi: 10.1080/0363452042000265215
   Google Scholar
• Semlak, J. (2008). Traditional pedagogical tools: Examining peer feedback in the basic communication course. Basic Communication Course Annual, 20(1), 8. Retrieved from http://ecommons.udayton.edu/bcca/vol20/iss1/8
   Google Scholar
• Sollitto, M., Johnson, Z. D., & Myers, S. A. (2013). Students’ perceptions of college classroom connectedness, assimilation, and peer relationships. Communication Education, 62, 318–331. doi: 10.1080/03634523.2013.788726
   Google Scholar
• Steelman, L. A., Levy, P. E., & Snell, A. F. (2004). The feedback environment scale: Construct definition, measurement, and validation. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64, 165–184. doi: 10.1177/0013164403258440
   Google Scholar
• Van der Pol, J., Van den Berg, B. A. M., Admiraal, W. F., & Simons, P. R. J. (2008). The nature, reception, and use of online peer feedback in higher education. Computers & Education, 51(4), 1804–1817. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2008.06.001
   Google Scholar
• Winne, P. H., & Butler, D. L. (1994). Student cognition in learning from teaching. In T. Husen, & T. Postlewaite (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (2nd ed., pp. 5738–5745). Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
   Google Scholar
• Xie, K. (2013). What do the numbers say? The influence of motivation and peer feedback on students’ behavior in online discussions. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44, 288–301. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01291.x
   Google Scholar