Collaborative peer-feedback practices in hybrid learning environments

Titolo Rivista EDUCATION SCIENCES AND SOCIETY
Autori/Curatori Nadia Sansone, Ilaria Bortolotti, Manuela Fabbri
Anno di pubblicazione 2023 Fascicolo 2023/1 Lingua Inglese
Numero pagine 14 P. 174-187 Dimensione file 0 KB
DOI 10.3280/ess1-2023oa15283
Il DOI è il codice a barre della proprietà intellettuale: per saperne di più clicca qui

Vedi l'articolo Scarica l'articolo open access

FrancoAngeli è membro della Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA)associazione indipendente e non profit per facilitare (attraverso i servizi tecnologici implementati da CrossRef.org) l’accesso degli studiosi ai contenuti digitali nelle pubblicazioni professionali e scientifiche

The article describes a technology-mediated collaborative peer-feedback experience. 125 students took part into the activity during the delivery of a 3-months teaching in “Methodology of Action Research”, within a 3-year Degree Course in Psychological, Social and Occupational Sciences. The activity was based on a 4-phases cycle of collaborative output production, structured peer-feedback, collaborative output improvement, individual reflection. The aim of the exploratory case-study here presented is to observe if and how the peer-feedback activity supported the development of collaborative, meta-cognitive and digital skills, other than knowledge acquisition. To answer our research questions, we used a mixed system, able to provide both objective data with respect to the activity carried out and the skills put in place, and subjective data related to the students' personal experience and the perceived impact on their learning. Results show a good appropriation of metacognitive skills and offer numerous hints on the design aspects which have been found to be effective in supporting students’ learning.

The article describes a technology-mediated collaborative peer-feedback experience. 125 students took part into the activity during the delivery of a 3-months teaching in “Methodology of Action Research”, within a 3-year Degree Course in Psychological, Social and Occupational Sciences. The activity was based on a 4-phases cycle of collaborative output production, structured peer-feedback, collaborative output improvement, individual reflection. The aim of the exploratory case-study here presented is to observe if and how the peer-feedback activity supported the development of collaborative, meta-cognitive and digital skills, other than knowledge acquisition. To answer our research questions, we used a mixed system, able to provide both objective data with respect to the activity carried out and the skills put in place, and subjective data related to the students' personal experience and the perceived impact on their learning. Results show a good appropriation of metacognitive skills and offer numerous hints on the design aspects which have been found to be effective in supporting students’ learning.

Keywords:; collaborative peer-feedback; assessment as learning; trialogical learning and assessment approach; hybrid learning; higher education

  1. Bereiter C. and Sansone N. (2022). The “new normality”: Digital technologies and learning environments beyond the emergency. Qwerty, Open and Interdisciplinary Journal of Technology, Culture and Education, 17(2): 5-9. DOI: 10.30557/QW000054.
  2. Biggs J. and Tang C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university. What the student does (4th ed.). Maidenhead, UK: McGrawhill.
  3. Boud D. (2000). Sustainable assessment: Rethinking assessment for learning society. Studies in Continuing Education, 22(2): 151-167. DOI: 10.1080/713695728.
  4. Dewey J. (1961). Come pensiamo: una riformulazione del rapporto fra il pensiero riflessivo e l’educazione. Firenze: La Nuova Italia.
  5. Dillenbourg P. and Hong F. (2008). The mechanics of CSCL macro scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3: 5-23. DOI: 10.1007/s11412-007-9033-1.
  6. Hanrahan S. J. and Isaacs G. (2001). Assessing Self- and Peer-assessment: The students’ views. Higher Education Research & Development, 20(1): 53-70. DOI: 10.1080/07294360123776.
  7. Ilomäki L., Lakkala M. and Kosonen K. (2013). “Mapping the Terrain of Modern Knowledge Work Competencies”. Paper presented at the 15th Biennial EARLI conference for Research on Learning and Instruction, 27-31 August 2013, Munich, Germany.
  8. Jonassen D. H. (2006). Modeling with technology: Mindtools for conceptual change. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
  9. Ligorio M. B. and Sansone N. (2009). Structure of a Blended University Course: Applying Constructivist Principles to Blended Teaching. In: Payne C. R., editor, Information Technology and Constructivism in Higher Education: Progressive Learning Frameworks (pp. 216-230). Hershey-New York: Information Sciences Reference.
  10. Paavola S. and Hakkarainen K. (2005). The knowledge creation metaphor − An emergent epistemological approach to learning. Science & Education, 14(6): 535-557. DOI: 10.1007/s11191-004-5157-0.
  11. Ritella G. and Sansone N. (2020). Covid-19: Turning a huge challenge into an opportunity. Qwerty. Open and Interdisciplinary Journal of Technology, Culture and Education, 15(1): 5-11. DOI: 10.30557/QW000024.
  12. Sambell K., Brown S. and Race P. (2019). Assessment as a locus for engagement: Priorities and practicalities. Italian Journal of Educational Research, XII: 45-62.
  13. Sansone N. (2020). “Collaborative best practices and knowledge work skills in higher education”. Keynote speech presented at the Special 15th international online conference DisCo 2020: (Online) Education in the Age of Covid-19, 22-23 June 2020, Prague, Czech Republic.
  14. Sansone N. and Grion V. (2022). The “Trialogical Learning & Assessment Approach”: Design principles for higher education. Qwerty, Open and Interdisciplinary Journal of Technology, Culture and Education, 17(2): 10-28. DOI: 10.30557/QW000055.
  15. Sansone N., Bortolotti I. and Fabbri M. (2021). Il peer-assessment nella formazione insegnanti: accorgimenti e ricadute, Education Sciences and Society, 2: 444-460, DOI: 10.3280/ess2-2021oa12481.
  16. Sansone N., Cesareni D., Bortolotti I. and McLay K. F. (2021). The designing and re-designing of a blended university course based on the trialogical learning approach. Education Sciences, 11(10): 591-604. DOI: 10.3390/ educsci11100591.
  17. Scardamalia M. and Bereiter C. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In: Sawyer, K., editor, Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 97-118). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  18. Serbati A., Grion V., Li L. and Doria B. (2022). Online assessment: Exemplars as the best sources for comparison processes? In: Auer, M.E., Pester A. and May D., editor, Learning with technologies and technologies in learning. Experience, trends and challenges in higher education (pp. 419-434). Cham: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-031-04286-7_20.

  • Boundary Devices for Reflexive Teachers Nadia Sansone, Manuela Fabbri, Ilaria Bortolotti, in Education Sciences /2024 pp.60
    DOI: 10.3390/educsci14010060

Nadia Sansone, Ilaria Bortolotti, Manuela Fabbri, Collaborative peer-feedback practices in hybrid learning environments in "EDUCATION SCIENCES AND SOCIETY" 1/2023, pp 174-187, DOI: 10.3280/ess1-2023oa15283