This week I deeply critically reviewed one article by Ertmer et. al, 2007, entitled, “Using peer feedback to enhance the quality of student online postings: An exploratory study” for my Critical Research Review #2. To start, it was better developed than the last paper we studied (for CRR 1). I’ll do a deep dive here on the Ertmer article.
The paper begins with an on-point abstract about what the paper will set out to do. It names “the impact of peer feedback used as an instructional strategy to increase the quality of students’ online postings.” It carries through the article. The abstract goes on to state that “little is known about [the] efficacy in online discussions” meaning how students learn in online discussions when using online postings / peer feedback. The authors set out to quantify this with numbers using Bloom’s taxonomy “from pre-course to post-course” and find that students do value peer feedback when it applies to them directly.
The introduction serves as literature review has 6 sections to it, one entitled Introduction, and five subsections called, Role of Feedback in Instruction, Role of Feedback in Online Environments, Advantages to Using Peer Feedback, Challenges to Using Peer Feedback, and ends with Purpose of the Study (which serves as a summary for the introduction / lit review). The Purpose of the Study further ends with three research questions the authors will find answers. For my part, I found it a thorough introduction for the most part. I did want to hear more about instructor feedback as far as what makes it desirable and other alternatives for it. The thesis was split between two different sections in the paper and took up four sentences total. I expected a longer thesis as well.
Next is the Methods section. Here the authors offer an Overview, Role of Researchers, Participants, Context and Procedures, Data Collection (with subsections of Discussion Postings, Pre- and Post-Surveys, and Interviews), Data Analysis, and Validity and Reliability Issues. For my part I found the Methods section even and full with multiple findings, and much food for thought. I did want evidence, perhaps in the Appendix, of what measures the authors took, the rubric they mentioned in Context and Procedures, and so on, but none was offered.
In the Results section, the authors provide for Perceived Value and Impact of Peer Feedback, Instructor vs. Peer Feedback: Perceptions of Value, Perceived Value and Impact of Giving Peer Feedback, Perceived Benefits and Challenges to the Peer Feedback Process, and a Results section Summary. The summary doesn’t do the section justice, in my opinion. I would have liked to have seen much more of a breakdown, as provided in the subsections of the paper (this section) but again, none was given.
In the Discussion section, items explored included Value and Impact of Feedback in an Online Environment, Perception of Value: Peer Vs. Instructor Feedback, Learning by Doing: Benefits to Giving Peer Feedback, and Limitations and Suggestions for Future Work. This section is by no means extensive. I would have liked to see a parallel structure to the Results section here with all of the findings. As it was, I feel work was combined or almost overlooked.
Finally, the Implications and Conclusion section offers bullet points of the work’s findings. It is something I liked reading; it spoke to my mind. Also, it left nothing out.
Overall I found the paper slightly lacking but did like some parts. For example, I would have liked to see the rubric mentioned on page 417, the feedback responses as mentioned on page 420, and a complete, un-split thesis (page 412-413). The methods section met my expectations, particularly the Data Collection section. And as stated, I would have liked more from the Discussion compared to the Results sections.
Abrami-et-al academia AI annotation Artificial Intelligence content-knowledge critical analysis Critical Review designed video ed research EDU800 education education research Erhel Ertmer Harris&Hofer Hrastinski Jamet Kay Kellie's Blog knowledge gap Leu Li-et-al Mills Mishra&Koehler New-Litearcy Niess&al O'Brien online-learning PCK pedagogy Richarson&Swan Saubern&al Singh&Thurman Swartz technology theory TPACK Valverde-Berrocoso-etal video podcasts Villa&al Week7 week8 week11 week12