Predictive Effects of the Quality of Online Peer-Feedback Provided and Received on Primary School Students' Quality of Question-Generation

Introduction Student question-generation as a contemporary approach to teaching and learning, and areas in need of future work Student question-generation (SQG) engages students in reflecting on a recent learning experience, and constructing questions around areas they deem personally relevant and important for self- or peer-assessment. Its pedagogical significance and value have been well established empirically. Specifically, based on the results of a meta-analysis of 109 empirical studies on SQG conducted in a wide variety of disciplines and at all levels of schooling (with the primary level taking up nearly two-thirds of the studies), there is wide support for its positive effects on a variety of learning outcomes (e.g., academic achievement, attitudes toward learning) (Yu, 2012). Despite SQG's solid empirical support, and sound theoretical foundations on the theories of self-regulated learning, constructivism, and self-determination, several factors affect its wider adoption in classrooms. In particular, studies show that primary school students have concerns about their capability and performance as related to SQG (Yu & Liu, 2005). There is thus a need to examine how to ease students' concerns and provide adequate scaffolding for SQG by taking advantage of peer-assessment (PA), as this approach not only allows students to receive more timely feedback in a large class, but also encourages them to keep examining the quality criteria of the expected learning outcomes (Topping & Ehly, 1998). Peer-assessment as a generative learning approach and the current research gaps The cognitive conflict, social constructivism, and social learning theories can help elucidate why the various cognitive processes brought about by PA (including self-evaluation, self-correction, self-adjustment, and self-reflection through giving, receiving and responding to comments) promote students' performance and cognitive growth (van Gennip, Segers & Tillema, 2010). Indeed, a growing body of empirical evidence since the 1990's has shown PA to promote students' critical thinking, cognitive development, and performance (Nelson & Schunn, 2009; Topping, 2010; van Gennip et al., 2010). Efforts have been devoted to refine PA designs by identifying beneficial elements of PA tasks, such as the provision of clear and pre-specified criteria for objective comments and training (van Zundert, Sluijsmans, & van Merrienboer, 2010), the offering of both appropriate affective and cognitive feedback (Cho & Cho, 2011; Nelson & Schunn, 2009), and the inclusion of both quantitative and descriptive feedback (Topping, 2010; Yu & Wu, 2013). However, there are still a number of gaps in the related literature worthy of further investigation. In particular, few studies examine the effects of PA from both perspectives (i.e., the assessors and the assessed), or have clearly differentiated the effects of assessing peers from those of being assessed by peers (Topping, 2010; van Zundert et al., 2010). Moreover, those studies that have done so have all involved college or secondary school students. For instance, the results from Li, Liu and Steckelberg (2010), which involved undergraduate students engaged in computer-related projects, showed that the quality of comments given significantly predicted the performance of assessors, whereas the quality of received comments did not. The results from Cho and Cho (2011), which examined undergraduate students writing a science report on physics, similarly found that giving comments positively influenced the manner in which the assessors revised their own writing, although the effects of receiving peer comments were limited. Finally, Lu and Zhang (2012) and Lu and Law (2012) both examined secondary students and indicated that the cognitive feedback that was given strongly predicted how the assessors performed in their final projects, but was not related to the performance of the assessed student. …