Difference between revisions of "Features/Inquiry learning global chat"
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
*Learning Theorists* | *Learning Theorists* | ||
| + | |||
| + | *A Case For Peer Review* | ||
| + | Why peer review is so important: | ||
| + | |||
| + | Peer review is vital in all areas of industry and in nearly every field or profession. Reviewing the work of peers allows for constructive criticism as well as allowing people to the share ideas through collaboration. It also prevents needless errors prior to sending a piece of work off for formal review. | ||
| + | |||
| + | The value of peer review has been demonstrated, not only in the workplace, but within all levels of education. In fact, peer review has been shown to have dramatically positive effects on student work. A 2008 study conducted by Cho, Cho & Hacker evaluated the writing of over 600 graduate and undergraduate students. “Students who developed successful SM [ie: self-monitoring by way of self-evaluation and peer evaluation] dramatically improved their writing compared with those who did not.” (Cho, Cho & Hacket, 2008). Thurmond affirms the value of students being able to “reflect and share with others” (1999). Likewise, Minsky points to the ability to identify “the most common mistakes” as a significant part of the writing process (2010). | ||
| + | |||
| + | Providing a feedback loop for students allows them to identify areas of weakness, reflect on their approach and revise their work for correctness and clarity. Peer review provides that imperative feedback loop. Instituting peer review at the basic levels of education provides these benefits early on, to improve student work at the fundamental stages. | ||
| + | |||
| + | References: | ||
| + | |||
| + | Cho, K., Cho, M. & Hacker, D. J. (2008). Self-monitoring support for learning to write. Interactive Learning Environments 18(2), 103-113. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Minsky, M. (2010). Questioning “General” Education. Retrieved from: http://web.media.mit.edu/~minsky/ | ||
| + | |||
| + | Thurmond, A.M. (1999). Seymour Papert and Constructionism. Retrieved from:http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~foreman/itec800/finalprojects/annmariethurmond/home.html | ||
*Classroom Use Cases* | *Classroom Use Cases* | ||
Revision as of 23:00, 22 February 2012
Current status
- Targeted release: 0.98
- Last updated: 02/22/12
- Percentage of completion:
Detailed Description
Description:
Benefit to Sugar
- Supporting Constructionism/Constructivism-*
- Learning Theorists*
- A Case For Peer Review*
Why peer review is so important:
Peer review is vital in all areas of industry and in nearly every field or profession. Reviewing the work of peers allows for constructive criticism as well as allowing people to the share ideas through collaboration. It also prevents needless errors prior to sending a piece of work off for formal review.
The value of peer review has been demonstrated, not only in the workplace, but within all levels of education. In fact, peer review has been shown to have dramatically positive effects on student work. A 2008 study conducted by Cho, Cho & Hacker evaluated the writing of over 600 graduate and undergraduate students. “Students who developed successful SM [ie: self-monitoring by way of self-evaluation and peer evaluation] dramatically improved their writing compared with those who did not.” (Cho, Cho & Hacket, 2008). Thurmond affirms the value of students being able to “reflect and share with others” (1999). Likewise, Minsky points to the ability to identify “the most common mistakes” as a significant part of the writing process (2010).
Providing a feedback loop for students allows them to identify areas of weakness, reflect on their approach and revise their work for correctness and clarity. Peer review provides that imperative feedback loop. Instituting peer review at the basic levels of education provides these benefits early on, to improve student work at the fundamental stages.
References:
Cho, K., Cho, M. & Hacker, D. J. (2008). Self-monitoring support for learning to write. Interactive Learning Environments 18(2), 103-113.
Minsky, M. (2010). Questioning “General” Education. Retrieved from: http://web.media.mit.edu/~minsky/
Thurmond, A.M. (1999). Seymour Papert and Constructionism. Retrieved from:http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~foreman/itec800/finalprojects/annmariethurmond/home.html
- Classroom Use Cases*