1 |
Hou, H. T., Chang, K. E., & Sung, Y. T. (2007). An analysis of peer assessment online discussions within a course that uses project-based learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 15(3), 237-251.
DOI
|
2 |
Jeffery, D., Yankulov, K., Crerar, A., & Ritchie, K. (2016). How to achieve accurate peer assessment for high value written assignments in a senior undergraduate course. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(1), 127-140.
DOI
|
3 |
Kaufman, J. H., & Schunn, C. D. (2011). Students’ perceptions about peer assessment for writing: their origin and impact on revision work. Instructional Science, 39(3), 387-406.
DOI
|
4 |
Li, H., Xiong, Y., Zang, X., Kornhaber, M. L., Lyu, Y., Chung K. S., & Suen, H. K. (2016). Peer assessment in the digital age: A meta-analysis comparing peer and teacher ratings. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(2), 245-264.
DOI
|
5 |
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(3), 275-292.
DOI
|
6 |
Liu, X., li, L., & Zhang, Z. (2018). Small group discussion as a key component in online assessment training for enhanced student learning in web-based peer assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 3(2), 207-222.
|
7 |
Marra, R. M., Moore, J. L., & Klimczak, A. K. (2004). Content analysis of online discussion forums: A comparative analysis of protocols. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(2), 23.
DOI
|
8 |
박주용, & 박정애 (2018). 동료평가의 현황과 전망. 인지과학, 29(2), 85-104.
DOI
|
9 |
Cheung-Blunden, V., & Khan, S. R. (2018). A modified peer rating system to recognise rating skill as a learning outcome. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(1), 58-67.
DOI
|
10 |
Chi, M. T. (1997). Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: A practical guide. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6, 271-315.
DOI
|
11 |
Chi, M. T., Kang, S., & Yaghmourian, D. L. (2017). Why students learn more from dialogue-than monologue-videos: Analyses of peer interactions. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 26(1), 10-50.
DOI
|
12 |
Chi, M. T., & Wylie, R. (2014). The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educational Psychologist, 49(4), 219-243.
DOI
|
13 |
Cho, Y. H., & Cho, K. (2011). Peer reviewers learn from giving comments. Instructional Science, 39(5), 629-643.
DOI
|
14 |
Cho, K., & MacArthur, C. (2010). Student revision with peer and expert reviewing. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 328-338.
DOI
|
15 |
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(4), 891-901.
DOI
|
16 |
Gunawardena, C. N., Lowe, C. A., & Anderson, T. (1997). Analysis of a global online debate and the development of an interaction analysis model for examining social construction of knowledge in computer conferencing. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 17(4), 397-431.
DOI
|
17 |
De Lisi, R., & Golbeck, S. (1999). Implications of Piagetian theory for peer learning. Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
|
18 |
Falchikov, N., & Goldfinch, J. (2000). Student peer assessment in higher education: A meta-analysis comparing peer and teacher marks. Review of Educational Research, 70(3), 287-322.
DOI
|
19 |
Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2004). Improving adolescent literacy: Strategies at work. Upper Saddle River, NJ:Pearson.
|
20 |
Chi, M. T. (2009). Active-constructive-interactive: A conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(1), 73-105.
DOI
|
21 |
Mellers, B., Ungar, L., Baron, J., Ramos, J., Gurcay, B., Fincher, K., Moore, D,, Atanasov, P,, Swift, S. A., Murray, T., Stone, E., and Tetlock, P. E. (2014). Psychological strategies for winning a geopolitical forecasting tournament. Psychological Science, 25(5), 1106-1115.
DOI
|
22 |
Moore, J. L., & Marra, R. M. (2005). A comparative analysis of online discussion participation protocols. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(2), 191-212.
DOI
|
23 |
Murphy, P. K., Firetto, C. M., Wei, L., Li, M., & Croninger, R. M. (2016). What really works:Optimizing classroom discussions to promote comprehension and critical-analytic thinking. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3(1), 27-35.
DOI
|
24 |
Patchan, M. M., & Schunn, C. D. (2015). Understanding the benefits of providing peer feedback: how students respond to peers’ texts of varying quality. Instructional Science, 43(5), 591-614.
DOI
|
25 |
Newman, D. R., Johnson, C., Webb, B., & Cochrane, C. (1997). Evaluating the quality of learning in computer supported co-operative learning. Journal of the American Society for Information science, 48(6), 484-495.
DOI
|
26 |
Newman, D. R., Webb, B., & Cochrane, C. (1995). A content analysis method to measure critical thinking in face-to-face and computer supported group learning. Interpersonal Computing and Technology, 3(2), 56-77.
|
27 |
Park, J. (2017). ClassPrep: A peer review system for class preparation. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48, 511-523.
DOI
|
28 |
Reinholz, D. (2016). The assessment cycle: a model for learning through peer assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(2), 301-315.
DOI
|
29 |
Rushton, C., Ramsey, P., & Rada, R. (1993). Peer assessment in a collaborative hypermedia environment:A case study. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 20, 75-80.
|
30 |
Russell J., van Horne, S. V., Ward, A. S., Bettis III, E. A., & Gikonyo, J. (2017). Variability in students’ evaluating processes in peer assessment with calibrated peer review. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 33, 178-190.
DOI
|
31 |
Sluijsmans, D. M. A., Brand-Gruwel, S., & van Merrienboer, J. J. G. (2002). Peer assessment training in teacher education: Effects on performance and perceptions. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 27(5), 443-454.
DOI
|
32 |
Van Loon, M. H., Dunlosky, J., Van Gog, T., Van Merrienboer, J. J., & De Bruin, A. B. (2015). Refutations in science texts lead to hypercorrection of misconceptions held with high confidence. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 42, 39-48.
DOI
|
33 |
Soter, A. O., Wilkinson, I. A., Murphy, P. K., Rudge, L., Reninger, K., & Edwards, M. (2008). What the discourse tells us: Talk and indicators of high-level comprehension. International Journal of Educational Research, 47(6), 372-391.
DOI
|
34 |
Topping, K. (1998). Peer assessment between students in college and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 249-276.
DOI
|
35 |
Tsai, C. C., & Liang, J. C. (2009). The development of science activities via on-line peer assessment: The role of scientific epistemological views. Instructional Science, 37(3), 293-310.
DOI
|
36 |
Zheng, L. Cui, P., Li, W., & Huang, R. (2018). Synchronous discussion between assessors and assessees in web-based peer assessment: Impact on writing performance, feedback quality, meta-cognitive awareness and self-efficacy. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 1-15.
|
37 |
Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. (1980). Identifying the Organization of Writing Processes. In L. W. Gregg, & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive Processes in Writing: An Interdisciplinary Approach (pp. 3-30). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
|