Advertisement

Journal of Computers in Education

, Volume 6, Issue 3, pp 385–415 | Cite as

An online peer assessment approach to supporting mind-mapping flipped learning activities for college English writing courses

  • Chi-Jen LinEmail author
Article

Abstract

English is the important international language in the world. In Asia, many non-English-speaking countries regard English writing education as one of the primary goals of English education reform. Faced with this trend, teachers tried to train students to master the skills of English writing to cope with the global villages in the twenty first century. In the flipped classroom, although students could effectively receive out-of-class and in-class opportunities for exercises to improve learning; however, summarizing, organizing, even evaluating others’ writing remain difficult tasks for students. In order to develop students’ learner autonomy or high-level thinking skills to achieve the goal of English teaching, the use of mind-mapping learning strategy is known an effective knowledge construction tool for helping students’ organizational thinking and paraphrasing in English writing skills. Besides, many previous studies have considered the peer assessment an effective learning strategy in the writing classrooms to provide students with a teacher’s perspective view to think and evaluate writing. Therefore, this research developed an online peer assessment approach to supporting mind-mapping flipped classrooms. Moreover, an experiment has been conducted to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed approach on students’ English learning analytics such as time involvement and learning reflections. It is important that educators could continuously create the online peer assessment learning environment for learners and aim for the goals to help learners become more critical, independent, and autonomous in English language learning.

Keywords

Flipped learning Peer assessment Mind mapping Learner autonomy English writing 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study is supported in part by the Ministry of Science and Technology of the Republic of China under Contract numbers MOST-107-2511-H-011-005-MY2.

References

  1. Aidinopoulou, V., & Sampson, D. G. (2017). An action research study from implementing the flipped classroom model in primary school history teaching and learning. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 20(1), 237.Google Scholar
  2. Bean, J. C. (2011). Engaging ideas: The professor’s guide to integrating writing, critical thinking, and active learning in the classroom. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  3. Beaumont, J. (2012). Focus on writing 4. New York: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  4. Bergmann, J., & Sams, A. (2012). Flip the Classroom. Washington, DC: International Society for Technology in Education.Google Scholar
  5. Bergmann, J., & Sams, A. (2014). Flipped learning: Gateway to student engagement. Washington, DC: International Society for Technology in Education.Google Scholar
  6. Bouyias, Y., & Demetriadis, S. (2012). iArgue: a web-based argumentation environment integrating collaboration scripting support and flexible fading techniques. In N. Pinkwart & B. M. McLaren (Eds.), Educational technologies for teaching argumentation skills (pp. 198–224). Sharjah: Benthame Science Publisher.Google Scholar
  7. Bouzidi, L., & Jaillet, A. (2009). Can online peer assessment be trusted? Educational Technology & Society, 12(4), 257–268.Google Scholar
  8. Calkins, A., Conley, D., Heritage, M., Merino, N., Pecheone, R., Pittenger, L., et al. (2018). Five elements for assessment design and use to support student autonomy. Students at the center: Deeper learning research series. Boston, MA: Jobs for the Future.Google Scholar
  9. Cambridge English Language Assessment. (2016). Assessing writing performance-level B1. Retrieved from: https://www.cambridgeenglish.org/images/cambridge-english-assessing-writing-performance-at-level-b2.pdf.
  10. Carnell, B. (2016). Aiming for autonomy: Formative peer assessment in a final-year undergraduate course. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(8), 1269–1283.Google Scholar
  11. Çevik, Y. D. (2015). Assessor or assessee? Investigating the differential effects of online peer assessment roles in the development of students’ problem-solving skills. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 250–258.Google Scholar
  12. Cevik, Y. D., 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, 23–35.Google Scholar
  13. Chang, C.-C., Tseng, K.-H., Chou, P.-N., & Chen, Y.-H. (2011a). Reliability and validity of Web-based portfolio peer assessment: A case study for a senior high school’s students taking computer course. Computers & Education, 57, 1306–1316.Google Scholar
  14. Chang, C.-C., Tseng, K.-H., & Lou, S.-J. (2011b). A comparative analysis of the consistency and difference among teacher-assessment, student self-assessment and peer-assessment in a web-based portfolio assessment environment for high school students. Computers & Education, 58, 303–320.Google Scholar
  15. Chang, S. H., Yu, L. C., Kuo, Y. K., Mai, Y. T., & Chen, J. D. (2015). Applying online peer assessment with total quality management to elevate project-based learning performance. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 14(3), 379–390.Google Scholar
  16. Chen, T. (2016). Technology-supported peer feedback in ESL/EFL writing classes: A research synthesis. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(2), 365–397.Google Scholar
  17. Chen Hsieh, J. S., Wu, W. C. V., & Marek, M. W. (2017). Using the flipped classroom to enhance EFL learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 30(1–2), 1–21.Google Scholar
  18. Chen, N. S., Wei, C. W., Wu, K. T., & Uden, L. (2009). Effects of high level prompts and peer assessment on online learners’ reflection levels. Computers & Education, 52(2), 283–291.Google Scholar
  19. 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, 78–84.Google Scholar
  20. Cheng, W., & Warren, M. (2005). Peer assessment of language proficiency. Language Testing, 22(1), 93–121.Google Scholar
  21. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  22. Everhard, C., & Murphy, L. (Eds.). (2015). Assessment and autonomy in language learning. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  23. 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.Google Scholar
  24. Fantuzzo, J. W., Dimeff, L. A., & Fox, S. L. (1989). Reciprocal peer tutoring: A multimodal assessment of effectiveness with college students. Teaching of Psychology, 16(3), 133–135.Google Scholar
  25. Foldnes, N. (2016). The flipped classroom and cooperative learning: Evidence from a randomized experiment. Active Learning in Higher Education, 17(1), 39–49.Google Scholar
  26. Fu, Q. K., Lin, C. J., & Hwang, G. J. (2019a). Research trends and applications of technology-supported peer assessment: A review of selected journal publications from 2007 to 2016. Journal of Computers in Education, 6(2), 191–213.Google Scholar
  27. Fu, Q. K., Lin, C. J., Hwang, G. J., & Zhang, L. (2019b). Impacts of a mind mapping-based contextual gaming approach on EFL students’ writing performance, learning perceptions and generative uses in an English course. Computers & Education, 137, 59–77.Google Scholar
  28. Gettinger, M. (1984). Achievement as a function of time spent in learning and time needed for learning. American Educational Research Journal, 21(3), 617–628.Google Scholar
  29. Guardado, M., & Shi, L. (2007). ESL students’ experiences of online peer feedback. Computers and Composition, 24(4), 443–461.Google Scholar
  30. Han, I., & Shin, W. S. (2016). The use of a mobile learning management system and academic achievement of online students. Computers & Education, 102, 79–89.Google Scholar
  31. Hillocks, G. (2010). “EJ” in focus: Teaching argument for critical thinking and writing: An introduction. The English Journal, 99(6), 24–32.Google Scholar
  32. Hou, H.-T., & Chang, K. E. (2007). An analysis of peer assessment online discussions within a course that uses project-based learning. Interactive learning environments, 15(3), 237–251.Google Scholar
  33. Hsia, L. H., Huang, I., & Hwang, G. J. (2016). Effects of different online peer-feedback approaches on students’ performance skills, motivation and self-efficacy in a dance course. Computers & Education, 96, 55–71.Google Scholar
  34. Hsu, T. C. (2018). Behavioural sequential analysis of using an instant response application to enhance peer interactions in a flipped classroom. Interactive Learning Environments, 26(1), 91–105.Google Scholar
  35. Hsu, T. C. (2019). Using a concept mapping strategy to improve the motivation of EFL students in Google Hangouts Peer-Tutoring Sessions with native speakers. Interactive Learning Environments, 27(2), 272–285.Google Scholar
  36. Hulsman, R. L., & van der Vloodt, J. (2015). Self-evaluation and peer-feedback of medical students’ communication skills using a web-based video annotation system Exploring content and specificity. Patient Education and Counseling, 98(3), 356–363.Google Scholar
  37. Hwang, G. J., Kuo, F. R., Chen, N. S., & Ho, H. J. (2014). Effects of an integrated concept mapping and web-based problem-solving approach on students’ learning achievements, perceptions and cognitive loads. Computers & Education, 71, 77–86.Google Scholar
  38. Hwang, G. J., Yang, T. C., Tsai, C. C., & Yang, Stephen J. H. (2009). A context-aware ubiquitous learning environment for conducting complex science experiments. Computers & Education, 53(2), 402–413.Google Scholar
  39. Kim, M., & Ryu, J. (2013). The development and implementation of a web-based formative peer assessment system for enhancing students’ metacognitive awareness and performance in ill-structured tasks. Educational Technology Research and Development, 61(4), 549–561.Google Scholar
  40. Lai, C. L., & Hwang, G. J. (2016). A self-regulated flipped classroom approach to improving students’ learning performance in a mathematics course. Computers & Education, 100, 126–140.Google Scholar
  41. Liang, J.-C., & Tsai, C.-C. (2010). Learning through science writing via online peer assessment in a college biology course. Internet and Higher Education, 13, 242–247.Google Scholar
  42. Lin, C. J., & Hwang, G. J. (2018). A learning analytics approach to investigating factors affecting EFL students’ oral performance in a flipped classroom. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 21(2), 205–219.Google Scholar
  43. Lin, C. J., Hwang, G. J., Fu, Q. K., & Chen, J. F. (2018). A flipped contextual game-based learning approach to enhancing EFL students’ English business writing performance and reflective behaviors. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 21(3), 117–131.Google Scholar
  44. Liu, C. C., Lu, K. H., Wu, L. Y., & Tsai, C. C. (2016). The impact of peer review on creative self-efficacy and learning performance in Web 2.0 learning activities. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 19(2), 286–297.Google Scholar
  45. Lo, C. K., & Hew, K. F. (2017). A critical review of flipped classroom challenges in K-12 education: Possible solutions and recommendations for future research. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 12(1), 4.Google Scholar
  46. Mueller, A., Johnston, M., Bligh, D., & Wilkinson, J. (2002). Joining mind mapping and care planning to enhance student critical thinking and achieve holistic nursing care. International Journal of Nursing Terminologies and Classifications, 13(1), 24–27.Google Scholar
  47. Nematipour, M. (2012). A study of Iranian EFL learners’ autonomy level and its relationship with learning style. English Linguistics Research, 1(1), 126–136.Google Scholar
  48. Noroozi, O., Biemans, H., & Mulder, M. (2016). Relations between scripted online peer feedback processes and quality of written argumentative essay. The Internet and Higher Education, 31, 20–31.Google Scholar
  49. Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  50. O’Flaherty, J., & Phillips, C. (2015). The use of flipped classrooms in higher education: A scoping review. The internet and higher education, 25, 85–95.Google Scholar
  51. Oncu, S. (2015). Online peer evaluation for assessing perceived academic engagement in higher education. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics Science and Technology Education, 11(3), 535–549.Google Scholar
  52. Pally, M. (1997). Critical thinking in ESL: An argument for sustained content. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6(3), 293–311.Google Scholar
  53. Putra, P. P. (2012). The use of mind mapping strategy in the teaching of writing at SMAN 3 Bengkulu, Indonesia. International Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 2(21), 60–68.Google Scholar
  54. Ramon-Casas, M., Nuño, N., Pons, F., & Cunillera, T. (2019). The different impact of a structured peer-assessment task in relation to university undergraduates’ initial writing skills. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(5), 653–663.Google Scholar
  55. Sams, A., & Bergmann, J. (2013). Flip your students’ learning. Educational leadership, 70(6), 16–20.Google Scholar
  56. Strayer, J. F. (2012). How learning in an inverted classroom influences cooperation, innovation and task orientation. Learning Environments Research, 15(2), 171–193.Google Scholar
  57. Suñol, J. J., Arbat, G., Pujol, J., Feliu, L., Fraguell, R. M., & Planas-Lladó, A. (2016). Peer and self-assessment applied to oral presentations from a multidisciplinary perspective. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(4), 622–637.Google Scholar
  58. Tarighat, S., & Khodabakhsh, S. (2016). Mobile-assisted language assessment: Assessing speaking. Computers in Human Behavior, 64, 409–413.Google Scholar
  59. Topping, K. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of educational research, 68(3), 249–276.Google Scholar
  60. Tseng, S. C., & Tsai, C. C. (2007). On-line peer assessment and the role of the peer feedback: A study of high school computer course. Computers & Education, 49(4), 1161–1174.Google Scholar
  61. Van der Pol, J., Admiraal, W. F., & Simons, P. R. J. (2010). Peer evaluation in online anchored discussion for an increased local relevance of replies. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(3), 288–295.Google Scholar
  62. Wang, B. T. (2016). Applying PBL and ZUVIO to enhance English learning motivation. International Journal of Cyber Society and Education, 9(1), 1–16.Google Scholar
  63. Xiao, Y., & Lucking, R. (2008). The impact of two types of peer assessment on students’ performance and satisfaction within a Wiki environment. The Internet and Higher Education, 11(3–4), 186–193.Google Scholar
  64. Xie, K. (2013). What do the numbers say? The influence of motivation and peer feedback on students’ behavior in online discussions. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(2), 288–301.Google Scholar
  65. Yang, Y. F., & Tsai, C. C. (2010). Conceptions of and approaches to learning through online peer assessment. Learning and Instruction, 20(1), 72–83.Google Scholar
  66. Yu, F.-Y., & Sung, S. (2016). A mixed methods approach to the assessor’s targeting behavior during online peer assessment: effects of anonymity and underlying reasons. Interactive learning environments, 24(7), 1674–1691.Google Scholar
  67. Yu, F. Y., & Wu, C. P. (2011). Different identity revelation modes in an online peer-assessment learning environment: Effects on perceptions toward assessors, classroom climate and learning activities. Computers & Education, 57(3), 2167–2177.Google Scholar
  68. Yu, F. Y., & Wu, C. P. (2013). Predictive effects of online peer feedback types on performance quality. Educational Technology & Society, 16(1), 332–341.Google Scholar
  69. Zhang, L., & Li, X. X. (2004). A comparative study on learner autonomy between Chinese students and West European students. Foreign Language World, 4, 15–23.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Beijing Normal University 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Liberal Arts and Social SciencesNational Taiwan University of Science and TechnologyTaipeiTaiwan

Personalised recommendations