{"id":748,"date":"2024-11-11T04:38:16","date_gmt":"2024-11-11T04:38:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/wafaealhajali.ca\/?page_id=748"},"modified":"2024-11-20T02:42:49","modified_gmt":"2024-11-20T02:42:49","slug":"crr-2","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/wafaealhajali.ca\/?page_id=748","title":{"rendered":"Critical Review Repor (CRR #2)"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Using peer feedback to enhance the quality of student online postings
Ertmer et al. (2007)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The study by Ertmer et al. in 2007 examines the effect of peer feedback on student online discussion in terms of its quality, tackling a key issue in online learning \u2013 encouraging active participation when the conditions are devoid of any physical interaction. Additionally, the research proposes that peer feedback can promote or maintain the quality of online responses and promote engagement and critical thinking. The authors opted for a two-fold design \u2013 using qualitative inquiry alone; they studied the degree of the content through Bloom’s taxonomy, surveys, and interviews. This research design is beneficial for understanding the relationship between peer feedback and developing critical thinking skills. To a large extent, the sample size and the study’s convenience sample strategy can affect the generalizability of the findings. However, despite the limitations, the researchers have managed to provide other researchers with a reference point so that they can systematically explore the influences of peer feedback on improving online educational experiences.

Problem<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  1. Identify the clarity with which this article states a specific problem to be explored.

    <\/strong>Internet conversation creates a lot of positive emotions, trains one’s analytical skills, and develops the ability to create one’s opinion. However, not so much the purpose \u2013 what is the task \u2013 being solved is a pain in the neck, as the reader has to guess that the main problem is to maintain the required level of interaction while the dialogues are going \u2013 it is easier for everyone to define the basis of the problem. In this case, addressing a specific problem stemming from how peer feedback can be used to improve discussion engagement is paramount to keep the focus of the following sections clear; otherwise, the study will appear disjointed from the outset. Conceptualizing the main issue would place its importance in a better perspective and facilitate comprehension of the aim of the study.
    <\/li>\n\n\n\n
  2. Comment on the need for this study and its educational significance as it relates to this problem.  <\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    Ertmer et al.’s (2007) study addresses a significant need in online education: improving the quality of student discussions to foster engagement, critical thinking, and deeper learning. Online courses often lack the face-to-face interaction that encourages active participation, leading to lower engagement and limited discussion quality. The study investigates whether peer feedback can help maintain or enhance the quality of online discussion posts, offering a potential solution to these challenges. This research is particularly valuable because it explores a scalable and practical approach to enhancing interactions in online courses, primarily when instructors cannot provide individualized feedback to every student. Peer feedback has the potential to fill this gap by fostering collaboration and encouraging students to evaluate their own and others’ contributions critically. It could become an effective strategy for improving learning outcomes in digital environments. While the study underscores the importance of peer feedback for cognitive engagement, a stronger emphasis in the introduction on its role in promoting critical thinking and deeper learning would enhance the clarity of its educational significance. Overall, this study highlights an essential method for addressing common challenges in online education and supports the broader goal of creating meaningful and engaging learning experiences in digital classrooms.
    <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    3. Comment on whether the problem \u201cresearchable\u201d? That is, can it be investigated through the collection and analysis of data? <\/strong>
    <\/strong>A concern that is effectively dealt with in the study conducted by Ertmer et al. (2007) revolves around cleverly engineered ways to fight boredom and encourage more significant interaction of learners in online education, as well as the practices of critical questioning and understanding; this makes the online courses inadequate in terms of student engagement and quality of the discussion. The exploration of peer review as a solution is welcome, given that it offers easy means of collaboration and improvement that do not involve people face to face. The assessment also contributes much to the field of education as it strives to improve e-learning, which is a worthy goal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Theoretical Perspective and Literature Review<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    4. Critique the author\u2019s conceptual framework.
    <\/strong>
    Although the study is grounded in foundational theories such as Vygotsky’s social constructivist theory, the framework, on the whole, lacks coherence. The association between peer feedback, motivation, and learning in online environments is not fully established; thus, the theoretical base appears somewhat fragmented. An inclusion of more recent research into peer feedback for online education, supplementing Vygotsky’s work, would have further strengthened the framework. A more cohesive integration with social constructivism and modern findings would make the study more relevant to the digital learning dynamics and provide a more theoretical basis for peer feedback as a tool in online courses. Ertmer et al. (2007) efficaciously link their research to relevant theories, especially Vygotsky’s theory of social constructivism, which maintains that one learns through interaction with others (Vygotsky, 1978). This framework also supports the focus of this study on peer feedback as a tool to improve discussion quality and enhance collaborative learning. They also refer to general feedback theories such as Mory’s (1992) work on instructional feedback and Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick’s (2006) principles of formative assessment, emphasizing self-regulation and cognitive engagement. Although the foundational theories and studies are useful in context, they are rather general and old, addressing general feedback rather than peer feedback in online environments. The authors could have better linked these theories to their research questions, particularly while exploring the role of peer feedback in developing critical thinking. Some references, such as those explaining in general the benefits of online learning, were a bit vague on the issue of peer feedback. The inclusion of more recent and focused research concerning peer review in online learning would enrich theoretical support and also make the study more applicable to present practices in online education.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    5. Does the literature review conclude with a summary of the literature and its implications for the problem investigated?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Whereas\u00a0Ertmer et al. (2007) do not\u00a0have\u00a0a\u00a0summary\u00a0section\u00a0at the end of their literature review\u00a0that\u00a0would\u00a0connect\u00a0reviewed studies to the research problem,\u00a0one\u00a0can find\u00a0discussion of gaps in the literature, such as\u00a0limited exploration of peer feedback in online learning,\u00a0within the main body of the review\u00a0itself.\u00a0More\u00a0specifically,\u00a0a\u00a0summary would\u00a0help\u00a0the\u00a0passage\u00a0from the literature\u00a0review\u00a0to the\u00a0objectives\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0study\u00a0by\u00a0pointing\u00a0more clearly to how previous\u00a0research\u00a0is\u00a0connected with\u00a0the investigated problem. This would\u00a0make\u00a0the\u00a0literature\u00a0review\u00a0more\u00a0coherent\u00a0and provide a\u00a0better\u00a0grounding\u00a0for the study.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \u00a0\u00a0Evaluate the clarity and appropriateness of the research questions or hypotheses.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    6. Research Design and Analysis<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Ertmer et al.’s (2007) use of a case study design is well-suited for examining the impact of peer feedback in an online learning environment, as it provides an in-depth look at the process in a real-world setting. However, the small sample size of 15 participants in the study, and the fact that a single online course was the focus, limit the generalisability of its findings, since such findings may not apply to a wide range of educational settings. This study provides good use of Bloom’s taxonomy by assessing the quality of online postings for consistent critical thinking assessment. Even so, the responses are limited to peer reviews only, and no contribution from instructors could bring a balanced view. Whereas the case study uses qualitative data based on surveys and interviews to investigate students’ perceptions, the inclusion of quantitative measures would have provided a more direct indication of the impact of peer feedback on learning outcomes. In all, while valuable insight into peer feedback has been afforded by the case study design, a mixed-method approach with larger and more diverse sampling, along with different kinds of feedback-including instructors provides strength to this study in relevance and applicability for diverse online learning settings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    7. Critique the appropriateness and adequacy of the study\u2019s design in relation to the research questions or hypotheses.

    <\/strong>These research questions in the Ertmer et al. (2007) study are related to the effectiveness of peer feedback in improving qualities of online discussion posts and students’ perception in perceiving its value. These research questions could be far clearer and more specific. While relevant, the investigation into peer feedback in an online environment has general research questions without specifically stated hypotheses which could shed light on the theoretical framework of the study. The research questions are more specific and, consequently, the objectives clearer if they were something like: “How does peer feedback influence students’ critical thinking in online discussions? ” or “How do students perceive the impact of peer feedback compared to instructor feedback? These pointed questions would then have aligned the review of related literature with the aims of the study and would have resulted in a more focused and coherent research design. Without specific, well-defined research questions, the focus of this study seems somewhat vague since the objectives are inferred from general aims without clearly articulated questions. More guided questions on the aspect of cognitive engagement and interaction would give more backbone to the study and make it better illustrated to the readers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    8. Critique the adequacy of the study\u2019s sampling methods (e.g., choice of participants) and their implications for generalizability.

    <\/strong>The study by Ertmer et al. (2007) is based on a convenience sample of 15 graduate students in one online course in technology integration. Although this enables a detailed analysis of peer feedback under such conditions, it seriously diminishes the generalizability of the study. The small size and specific demographic nature of the sample reduce the applicability of the findings to other student groups, such as undergraduates or students from other academic disciplines. A more diverse and larger sample would provide valuable insights into how peer feedback functions across various educational levels and demographics, making the findings more broadly relevant. Furthermore, the authors do not adequately comment on how this narrow sampling might influence study findings. The limitation of this study is acknowledged by pointing out that future research should be conducted on a much larger and more representative sample to improve the study’s relevance and impact for online education practices.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    9. Critique the adequacy of the study\u2019s procedures and materials (e.g., interventions, interview protocols, data collection procedures).
    <\/strong>In this study, the work of Ertmer et al. (2007) is effective in its procedures and materials but leaves room for further improvements that could have best fitted their research objectives. Scoring of posts using Bloom’s taxonomy ensures consistency in assessing cognitive engagement, while anonymous peer evaluations ensure constructive interaction and a sense of community. However, in the current study, only peer feedback will be relied upon, with no instructors involved, which can lower the perceived quality and depth of feedback. The study would benefit more if there is a clear rationale for such a decision. Also, Bloom’s taxonomy provides a structured framework, but mostly it measures recall and comprehension; hence, it cannot measure deep learning and critical thinking adequately. A limitation of the study is that variety is not found in the types of feedback: the peer feedback alone; other types of explanatory or instructor-guided could reveal additional insight into how feedback impacts learning. Overall, while the procedures align with the goals of the study, expanding the types of feedback and clarifying justifications for methodological choices would further enrich the depth and scope of the study to discuss the role of peer feedback in online learning.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    10. Critique the appropriateness and quality (e.g., reliability, validity) of the measures used.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Appropriate measures were used in the study by Ertmer et al. (2007), including Bloom’s taxonomy to assess student posts and surveys for capturing perceptions of peer feedback; these measures have some important limitations. Bloom’s Taxonomy provides a systematic scheme through which to measure cognitive levels; it does, however, have a primary emphasis on recall and comprehension aspects that may not convincingly reflect critical thinking or deeper learning. This dependence on peer rating raises questions about the reliability of such methods of evaluation, for which students may not have the necessary expertise and consistency. Incorporating other forms of including reflective or explanatory feedback-may yield a more complete picture regarding how feedback influences learning. While interviews and questionnaires provide valuable insights into student perceptions, the study does not include reliability or validity checks for these instruments, which weakens the credibility of the results. Inter-rater reliability checks for peer evaluations, along with measures designed to assess higher-order cognitive engagement, could strengthen the measures. While these measures are appropriate given the aims of the study, their reliability and validity could be enhanced to increase the strength and generalizability of the results.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Interpretation and Implications of Results <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    11. Critique the author\u2019s discussion of the methodological and\/or conceptual limitations of the results.<\/strong>
    <\/strong>Ertmer et al. (2007) address some of the methodological limitations discussed above, making the findings more transparent. The authors note that the small sample size restricts the generalisability of their findings and say that a larger, more heterogeneous sample might render findings more generalizable. The authors also point to the low level of interactivity of the online environment: more interactive tools could have been at work and would yield higher student engagement with deeper insights about the results of peer feedback. They also state the limitation concerning Bloom’s taxonomy, which focuses a bit more on recall than on complex cognitive processes, and the failure to seek instructors’ input about feedback. They do not delve deep enough into the eventual biases of self-reported motivation surveys, which cannot stand for real involvement or critical thinking of the students. While the authors have given an exordial presentation of several limitations in the study, a deeper analysis of these issues might have entailed strengthening the conclusions and offering more robust guidance for future studies on peer feedback in online learning.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    12. How consistent and comprehensive are the author\u2019s conclusions with the reported results?
    <\/strong>Ertmer et al. (2007) support the findings by the following conclusions: peer feedback maintains the quality of the online discussions as the scores remained consistent over time. Thus, the findings that will be presented support the conclusion that peer feedback does indeed sustain engagement but may not necessarily increase the quality of posts significantly. However, there are a couple of gaps in the discussion. Whereas students valued giving and receiving feedback, the preference for instructor feedback is noted without a serious attempt at probing its root causes; obviously, that would go a step further in reaping better insights into the dynamics of peer and instructor feedback. The study also underlines peer feedback’s role but does not fully explore the limitations of using Bloom’s taxonomy in the measurement of complex cognitive engagement. Overall, the conclusions match up with the results, but further unpacking of these nuances would yield much stronger contributions the study makes toward improved peer feedback in online learning.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    13. How well did the author relate the results to the study\u2019s theoretical base?
    <\/strong>Ertmer et al. (2007) successfully relate their findings to the theoretical base of the study, namely, Cognitive Load Theory, Intrinsic Motivation Theory, and Vygotsky’s social constructivist theory which focuses on learning by social interaction. They show how peer feedback encourages reflection and critical thinking and also reduces cognitive load since the responsibility of giving feedback is divided among students themselves. This study also aligns with the 2006 formative assessment principles by Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick explained above, in which peer feedback supports self-regulation and motivation by encouraging students to assess their own and other people’s work. However, its reliance on feedback from a tutor showed the partial ability to fulfill motivation, depicting a situation where peer assessment fails to provide satisfaction and learning requirements. The study strongly relates findings to its theoretical framework; however, a more in-depth analysis of preference for instructor feedback could provide a fuller understanding of how peer feedback interacts with cognitive and motivational factors in online learning.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    14. In your view, what is the significance of the study, and what are its primary implications for theory, future research, and practice?<\/strong>
    Ertmer et al. (2007) indicated that peer feedback, on the one hand, is necessary for online education as it maintains discussion quality and promotes interactive learning, while on the other hand, students appear to favor instructor feedback. The findings suggest the need for clearer guidelines and rubrics to increase the value and effectiveness of peer feedback. This supports social constructivist theory in cooperative learning and critical thinking by promoting structured responses using Bloom’s taxonomy. Future research could investigate different samples and alternative methods for delivering feedback, such as reflective or instructor-guided peer feedback. On a practical level, training students in how to give feedback can enhance the reliability of peer assessments themselves and blur the distinction between peer and instructor input in online learning environments.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    References:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Ertmer, P. A., Richardson, J. C., Belland, B., Camin, D., Connolly, P., Coulthard, G., Lei, K., & Mong, C. (2007). Using peer feedback to enhance the quality of student online postings: An exploratory study. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12<\/em>(3), 412\u2013433. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1111\/j.1083-6101.2007.00331.x<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Mory, E. H. (1992). The use of informational feedback in instruction: Implications for future research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 40<\/em>(3), 5\u201320. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/BF02296837<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31<\/em>(2), 199\u2013218. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/03075070600572090<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes<\/em>. Harvard University Press.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Using peer feedback to enhance the quality of student online postingsErtmer et al. (2007) The study by Ertmer et al. in 2007 examines the effect of peer feedback on student online discussion in terms of its quality, tackling a key issue in online learning \u2013 encouraging active participation when the conditions are devoid of any …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-748","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/wafaealhajali.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/748"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/wafaealhajali.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/wafaealhajali.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wafaealhajali.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wafaealhajali.ca\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=748"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/wafaealhajali.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/748\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":796,"href":"https:\/\/wafaealhajali.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/748\/revisions\/796"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/wafaealhajali.ca\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=748"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}