You are here:

Scaffolding peer-assessment skills: Risk of interference with learning domain-specific skills?
ARTICLE

, ,

Learning and Instruction Volume 60, Number 1, ISSN 0959-4752 Publisher: Elsevier Ltd

Abstract

Giving students complex learning tasks combined with peer-assessment tasks can impose a high cognitive load. Scaffolding has proven to reduce cognitive load during learning and improve accuracy on domain-specific tasks. This study investigated whether scaffolding has a similar, positive effect on the learning of peer-assessment tasks. We hypothesised that: (1) domain-specific scaffolding improves domain-specific accuracy and reduces time on task and perceived mental effort, and (2) peer-assessment scaffolding improves peer-assessment accuracy and reduces time on task and perceived mental effort. Additionally, we explored whether there was an interaction between domain-specific and peer-assessment scaffolding. In a 2x2 experiment with the factors domain-specific scaffolding (present, absent) and peer-assessment scaffolding (present, absent), 236 secondary school students assessed the performance of fictitious peers in an electronic learning environment. We found that domain-specific accuracy indeed improved with domain-specific scaffolding, confirming our first hypothesis. Our tests of the second hypothesis, however, revealed surprising results: peer-assessment scaffolding significantly increased accuracy and mental effort during learning, it had no effect on peer-assessment accuracy at the test and led to reduced domain-specific accuracy, even when combined with domain-specific scaffolding. These results suggest that scaffolding students' peer assessment before they have mastered the task at hand can have disturbing effects on students’ ability to learn from the task.

Citation

Könings, K.D., van Zundert, M. & van Merriënboer, J.J.G. (2019). Scaffolding peer-assessment skills: Risk of interference with learning domain-specific skills?. Learning and Instruction, 60(1), 85-94. Elsevier Ltd. Retrieved February 7, 2023 from .

This record was imported from Learning and Instruction on March 15, 2019. Learning and Instruction is a publication of Elsevier.

Full text is availabe on Science Direct: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.11.007

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Ariga, A., & Lleras, A. (2011). Brief and rare mental 'breaks' keep you focused: Deactivation and reactivation of task goals preempt vigilance decrements. Cognition, 118, pp. 439-443.
  2. Ashenafi, M.M. (2017). Peer-assessment in higher education – twenty-first century practices, challenges and the way forward. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42, pp. 226-251.
  3. Bloom, B.S., & Krathwohl, D.R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals, by a committee of college and university examiners. Handbook 1: Cognitive domain. New York: Longmans.
  4. Bruner, J.S. (1975). From communication to language: A psychological perspective. Cognition, 3, pp. 255-287.
  5. Cheng, K.H., Liang, J.C., & Tsai, C.C. (2015). Examining the role of feedback messages in undergraduate students' writing performance during an online peer assessment activity. The Internet and Higher Education, 25, pp. 78-84.
  6. Cho, K., Schunn, C.D., & Wilson, R.W. (2006). Validity and reliability of scaffolded peer assessment of writing from instructor and student perspectives. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, pp. 891-901.
  7. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Routledge Academic.
  8. Corbalan, G., Kester, L., & Van Merriënboer, J.J.G. (2008). Selecting learning tasks: Effects of adaptation and shared control on efficiency and task involvement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, pp. 733-756.
  9. Demiraslan Çevik, Y., Haşlaman, T., & Çelik, S. (2015). The effect of peer assessment on problem solving skills of prospective teachers supported by online learning activities. Studies In Educational Evaluation, 44, pp. 23-35.
  10. Gan, M.J.S., & Hattie, J. (2014). Prompting secondary students' use of criteria, feedback specificity and feedback levels during an investigative task. Instructional Science, 42, pp. 861-878.
  11. Gielen, M., & De Wever, B. (2015). Structuring peer assessment: Comparing the impact of the degree of structure on peer feedback content. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, pp. 315-325.
  12. Gielen, S., Tops, L., Dochy, F., Onghena, P., & Smeets, S. (2010). A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback forms in secondary school writing curriculum. British Educational Research Journal, 36, pp. 143-162.
  13. Greenfield, P.M. (1984). A theory of the teacher in the learning activities of everyday life. Everyday cognition: Its development in social context Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  14. Greenfield, P.M. (1999). Historical change and cognitive change: A two-decade follow-up study in Zinacantan, a Maya community in Chiapas, Mexico. Mind, Culture and Activity, 6, pp. 92-98.
  15. Kauffman, D.F., Zhao, R., & Yang, Y.S. (2011). Effects of online note taking formats and self-monitoring prompts on learning from online text: Using technology to enhance self-regulated learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36, pp. 313-322.
  16. Könings, K.D., Seidel, T., & Van Merriënboer, J.J.G. (2014). Participatory design of learning environments: Integrating perspectives of students, teachers, and designers. Instructional Science, 42, pp. 1-9.
  17. Liu, X., & Li, L. (2014). Assessment training effects on student assessment skills and task performance in a technology-facilitated peer assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39, pp. 275-292.
  18. Maranges, H.M., Schmeichel, B.J., & Baumeister, R.F. (2017). Comparing cognitive load and self-regulatory depletion: Effects on emotions and cognitions. Learning and Instruction, 51, pp. 74-84.
  19. Paas, F. (1992). Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving skill in statistics: A cognitive-load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, pp. 429-434.
  20. Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational Psychologist, 38, pp. 1-4.
  21. Paas, F., Tuovinen, J., Tabbers, H., & Van Gerven, P.W.M. (2003). Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educational Psychologist, 38, pp. 63-71.
  22. Paas, F., & Van Gog, T. (2006). Optimising worked example instruction: Different ways to increase germane cognitive load. Learning and Instruction, 16, pp. 87-91.
  23. Patchan, M.M., Hawk, B., Stevens, C.A., & Schunn, C.D. (2013). The effects of skill diversity on commenting and revisions. Instructional Science, 41, pp. 381-405.
  24. Renkl, A., & Atkinson, R.K. (2003). Structuring the transition from example study to problem solving in cognitive skill acquisition: A cognitive load perspective. Educational Psychologist, 38, pp. 15-22.
  25. Renkl, A., Maier, U.H., Atkinson, R.K., & Staley, R. (2002). From example study to problem solving: Smooth transitions help learning. The Journal of Experimental Education, 70, pp. 293-315.
  26. Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C. (1992). The use of scaffolds for teaching higher-level cognitive Strategies. Educational Leadership, 49, pp. 26-33.
  27. Saab, N., Van Joolingen, W.R., & Van Hout-Wolters, B.H.A.M. (2005). Communication in collaborative discovery learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, pp. 603-621.
  28. Schmitz, M.J., & Winskel, H. (2008). Towards effective partnership in a collaborative problem-solving task. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, pp. 581-596.
  29. Siegler, R.S., & Crowley, K. (1994). Constraints on learning in nonprivileged domains. Cognitive Psychology, 27, pp. 194-226.
  30. Sluijsmans, D.M.A. (2002). Student involvement in assessment: The training of peer assessment skills. Heerlen, The Netherlands: Open University of The Netherlands.
  31. Stark, R. (2004). Implementing example-based learning and teaching in the context of vocational school education in business administration. Learning Environments Research, 7, pp. 143-163.
  32. Strijbos, J.W., Narciss, S., & Dünnebier, K. (2010). Peer feedback content and sender's competence level in academic writing revision tasks: Are they critical for feedback perceptions and efficiency?. Learning and Instruction, 20, pp. 291-303.
  33. Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12, pp. 257-285.
  34. Sweller, J. (2010). Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review, 22, pp. 123-138.
  35. Sweller, J., Van Merriënboer, J.J.G., & Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational Psychology Review, 10, pp. 251-296.
  36. Tillema, H., Leenknecht, M., & Segers, M. (2011). Assessing assessment quality: Criteria for quality assurance in design of (peer) assessment for learning - a review of research studies. Studies In Educational Evaluation, 37, pp. 25-34.
  37. Topping, K.J. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68, pp. 249-276.
  38. Topping, K.J. (2009). Peer assessment. Theory Into Practice, 48, pp. 20-27.
  39. Van Dijk, A.M., & Lazonder, A.W. (2016). Scaffolding students' use of learner-generated content in a technology-enhanced inquiry learning environment. Interactive Learning Environments, 24, pp. 194-204.
  40. Van Merriënboer, J.J.G. (1990). Strategies for programming instructions in high school:Program completion vs. program generation. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 6, pp. 265-285.
  41. Van Merriënboer, J.J.G., & De Croock, M.B.M. (1992). Strategies for computer-based programming instruction: Program completion vs. program generation. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 6, pp. 365-394.
  42. Van Merriënboer, J.J.G., & Kirschner, P.A. (2018). Ten steps to complex learning: A systematic approach to four-component instructional design. New York: Routledge.
  43. Van Merriënboer, J.J.G., Kirschner, P.A., & Kester, L. (2003). Taking the load of a learner's mind: Instructional design for complex learning. Educational Psychologist, 38, pp. 5-13.
  44. Van Popta, E., Kral, M., Camp, G., Martens, R.L., & Simons, P.R.J. (2017). Exploring the value of peer feedback in online learning for the provider. Educational Research Review, 20, pp. 24-34.
  45. Van Zundert, M.J., Sluijsmans, D.M.A., Könings, K.D., & Van Merriënboer, J.J.G. (2012). The differential effects of task complexity on domain-specific and peer assessment skills. Educational Psychology, 32, pp. 137-145.
  46. Van Zundert, M.J., Sluijsmans, D.M.A., & Van Merriënboer, J.J.G. (2010). Effective peer assessment processes: Research findings and future directions. Learning and Instruction, 20, pp. 270-279.
  47. Voet, M., Gielen, M., Boelens, R., & de Wever, B. (2017). Using feedback requests to actively involve assessees in peer assessment: Effects on the assessor's feedback content and assessee's agreement with feedback. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 33, pp. 145-164.
  48. Wood, D., Bruner, J.S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, pp. 89-100.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References