Web-based peer review: the learner as both adapter and reviewer

This study describes an effective web-based learning strategy, peer review, used by 143 computer science undergraduate students in an operating systems class at a Taiwanese university. Peer review, based on social constructivism, can be easily implemented via the authors' well-developed web-based peer review (WPR) system. Through peer review, the authors hope to form an authentic learning environment similar to an academic society in which a researcher submits a paper to a journal and receives reviews from society members before publication. Students using this learning strategy are expected to develop higher level thinking skills. The WPR system functioned in the following roles in this study: (1) an information distribution channel and management center for assignment submissions and peer review; (2) a forum for peer interaction and knowledge construction; and (3) storage for knowledge construction procedures. An evaluation of learning effects and students' perceptions about peer review during the spring of 1998 revealed that students not only performed better under peer review, but also displayed higher level thinking skills, i.e., critical thinking, planning, monitoring, and regulation. Students perceived peer review as an effective strategy that promoted their learning motivation. However, merely being an effective reviewer or an effective author may not excel in a peer review environment. The most effective individual appears to be the strategic adapter who effectively constructs a project, adjusts to peers' comments, and serves as a critical reviewer as well.

[1]  David W. Johnson,et al.  Cooperative Versus Competitive Efforts and Problem Solving , 1995 .

[2]  B. Zimmerman,et al.  Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues and educational applications. , 1994 .

[3]  Joseph D. Novak,et al.  Learning creating and using knowledge: Concept maps as facilitative tools , 1998 .

[4]  Chien Chou,et al.  Experiencing CORAL: design and implementation of distant cooperative learning , 1996 .

[5]  Jane Schaffer.  Peer Response That Works , 1996 .

[6]  Kate Greenan,et al.  Developing work‐based transferable skills in a university environment , 1997 .

[7]  N. Falchikov.  Peer Feedback Marking: Developing Peer Assessment , 1995 .

[8]  Jian Ma,et al.  Use of a group support system for collaborative assessment , 1999, Comput. Educ..

[9]  Robert Davies,et al.  An evaluation of the use of computer supported peer review for developing higher-level skills , 1998, Comput. Educ..

[10]  M. Resnick.  Distributed Constructionism , 1996, ICLS.

[11]  J. Novak.  Concept Maps as Facilitative Tools in Schools and Corporations , 1998 .

[12]  Wolff-Michael Roth,et al.  From Everyday Science to Science Education: How Science and Technology Studies Inspired Curriculum Design and Classroom Research , 1997 .

[13]  J. Flavell.  Metacognition and Cognitive Monitoring: A New Area of Cognitive-Developmental Inquiry. , 1979 .

[14]  Lynnette R. Porter,et al.  Creating the Virtual Classroom: Distance Learning with the Internet , 1997 .

[15]  Yaqub Rafiq,et al.  Peer Assessment of Group Projects in Civil Engineering , 1996 .

[16]  Kam-por Kwan,et al.  Tutor Versus Peer Group Assessment of Student Performance in a Simulation Training Exercise , 1996 .

[17]  Roger C. Schank,et al.  Virtual Learning: A Revolutionary Approach to Building a Highly Skilled Workforce , 1997 .

[18]  Mark Freeman,et al.  Peer Assessment by Groups of Group Work , 1995 .

[19]  Barbara Rogoff,et al.  Social interaction as apprenticeship in thinking: Guided participation in spatial planning , 1991, Perspectives on socially shared cognition.

[20]  Gayle L. Nelson,et al.  Chinese students' perceptions of ESL peer response group interaction , 1996 .

[21]  P. Pintrich,et al.  Students' motivational beliefs and their cognitive engagement in classroom academic tasks. , 1992 .

[22]  Vic Lally,et al.  Gender differences in an on-line learning environment , 1999, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[23]  P. Orsmond,et al.  The Importance of Marking Criteria in the Use of Peer Assessment , 1996 .

[24]  Michelle D. Young,et al.  Telecommunication in the Classroom: Rhetoric versus Reality , 1999 .

[25]  K. Topping.  Peer Assessment Between Students in Colleges and Universities , 1998 .

[26]  Susan Wilcox,et al.  Peer and self assessment of group work: developing an effective response to increased enrolment in a third‐year course in microclimatology , 1996 .