Peer Feedback in a Large Undergraduate Blended Course: Perceptions of Value and Learning

Abstract

This study examined students' perceptions of peer feedback and learning in a large, undergraduate course that incorporated supplementary online discussions. Peer feedback (PF) was facilitated via an automated rating system, within Blackboard discussion forums, for half of the students enrolled in the course. Following the peer feedback process, students in the PF group perceived higher levels of confidence and comfort for posting and responding in online discussions than students who did not receive peer feedback. A significant difference was noted on perceptions of confidence for contributing relevant ideas to the discussions, with the PF students expressing higher levels of confidence, yet not all students perceived benefits to their learning. Implications for the implementation of peer feedback in online and blended courses are provided.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Allen

I. E.

, & Seaman

(2008). Staying the course: Online education in the United States, 2008. Needham, MA: Sloan Consortium. Retrieved November 30, 2008, from http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/survey/downloadreports

Allen

I. E.

Seaman

, & Garrett

(2007). Blending in: The extent and promise of blended education in the United States. Needham, MA: Sloan Consortium. Retrieved November 30, 2008, from http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/survey/downloadreports

Arbaugh

J. B.

(2000). How classroom environment and student engagement affect learning in Internet-based MBA courses. Business Communication Quarterly, 63(4), 9–26.

Arbaugh

J. B.

(2001). How instructor immediacy behaviors affect student satisfaction and learning in web-based courses. Business Communication Quarterly, 64(4), 42–54.

Baud

Cohen

, & Sampson

(1999). Peer learning and assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 24, 413–426.

Bonk

C. J.

, & Zhang

(2008). Empowering online learning: 100+ activities for reading, reflecting, displaying, and doing. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Cook

(2001). Assessing the use of flexible assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 26, 539–549.

Creswell

J. W.

(2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Creswell

J. W.

, & Plano Clark

V. L.

(2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

10.

Dunlap

J. C.

(2005). Workload reduction in online courses: Getting some shuteye. Performance and Improvement, 44(5), 18–25.

11.

Ertmer

P. A.

Richardson

J. C.

Belland

Camin

Connolly

Coulthard

(2007). Using peer feedback to enhance the quality of student online postings: An exploratory study. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(2). Available online: http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol12/issue2/ertmer.html

12.

Ertmer

P. A.

, & Stepich

D. A.

(2004, July). Examining the relationship between higherorder learning and students' perceived sense of community in an online learning environment. Proceedings of the 10th Australian World Wide Web conference, Gold Coast, Australia.

13.

Ertmer

Temur-Gedik

Richardson

, & Newby

(2008). Perceived value of online discussions: Perceptions of engineering and education students. In Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2008 (pp. 4679–4687). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

14.

Gibbs

, & Simpson

(2005). Conditions under which assessment supports student learning. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, 1(1), 3–31.

15.

Gunawardena

, & Zittle

(1997). Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer mediated conferencing environment. American Journal of Distance Education, 11(3), 8–26.

16.

Haavind

(2006). Key factors of online course design and instructor facilitation that enhance collaborative dialogue among learners. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.

17.

Harasim

L. M.

(1990). Online education: Perspectives on a new environment. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing.

18.

Johnson

G. M.

(2006). Synchronous and asynchronous text-based CM in educational contexts: A review of recent research. TechTrends, 50(4), 46–53.

19.

Johnson

R. B.

, & Onwuegbuzie

A. J.

(2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14–26.

20.

, & Rossen

(2001). Teaching online: A practical guide. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin.

21.

Land

S. M.

, & Dornisch

M. M.

(2001). A case study of student use of asynchronous bulletin board systems (BBS) to support reflection and evaluation. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 30, 365–377.

22.

Lehman

J. D.

Richardson

J. C.

Ertmer

P. A.

Newby

T. J.

, & Campbell

J. C.

(2009). Impact of asynchronous online discussions: A study of implementation in two large-enrollment blended courses. In Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2009 (pp. 2928–2936). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

23.

Liu

E. Z.

Lin

S. J.

Chiu

, & Yuan

(2001). Web-based peer review: The learner as both adapter and reviewer. IEEE Transactions on Education, 44, 246–251.

24.

Liu

, & Carless

(2006). Peer feedback: The learning element of peer assessment. Teaching in Higher Education, 11, 279–290.

25.

Lou

Bernard

R. M.

, & Abrami

P. C.

(2006). Media and pedagogy in undergraduate distance education: A theory-based meta-analysis of empirical literature. Educational Technology Research and Development, 54(2), 141–176.

26.

Palloff

R. M.

, & Pratt

(1999). Building learning communities in cyberspace: Effective strategies for the online classroom. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

27.

Palloff

R. M.

, & Pratt

(2001). Lessons from the cyperspace classroom: The realities of online teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

28.

Palloff

R. M.

, & Pratt

(2007). Building online learning communities: Effective strategies for the virtual classroom. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

29.

Rourke

Anderson

Garrison

D. R.

, & Archer

(2001). Assessing social presence in asynchronous text-based computer conferencing. Journal of Distance Education, 14(2), 50–71.

30.

Shea

, & Bidjerano

(2009). Community of inquiry as a theoretical framework to foster “epistemic engagement” and “cognitive presence” in online education. Computers & Education, 52, 543–553.

31.

Smith

S. D.

Salaway

, & Borreson Caruso

(2009). ECAR key findings: The ECAR study of undergraduate students and information technology, 2009. Boulder, CO: Educause Center for Applied Research. Retrieved October 23, 2009, from http://www.educause.edu/ers0906

32.

Stepich

D. A.

, & Ertmer

P. A.

(2003). Building community as a critical element of online course design. Educational Technology, 43(5), 33–43.

33.

Swan

(2002). Building communities in online courses: The importance of interaction. Education, Communication and Information, 2(1), 23–49.

34.

Topping

(1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68, 249–275.

35.

Topping

(2005). Trends in peer learning. Educational Psychology, 25, 631–645.

36.

U.S. Department of Education (US DOE). (2009). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education; Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development. Retrieved October 24, 2009, from www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html

37.

Xie

Debacker

T. K.

, & Ferguson

(2006). Extending the traditional classroom through online discussion: The role of student motivation. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 34(1), 67–89.