Full metadata
Title
Scientific explanations: peer feedback or teacher feedback
Description
Writing scientific explanations is increasingly important, and today's students must have the ability to navigate the writing process to create a persuasive scientific explanation. One aspect of the writing process is receiving feedback before submitting a final draft. This study examined whether middle school students benefit more in the writing process from receiving peer feedback or teacher feedback on rough drafts of scientific explanations. The study also looked at whether males and females reacted differently to the treatment groups. And it examined if content knowledge and the written scientific explanations were correlated. The study looked at 38 sixth and seventh-grade students throughout a 7-week earth science unit on earth systems. The unit had six lessons. One lesson introduced the students to writing scientific explanations, and the other five were inquiry-based content lessons. They wrote four scientific explanations throughout the unit of study and received feedback on all four rough drafts. The sixth-graders received teacher feedback on each explanation and the seventh-graders received peer-feedback after learning how to give constructive feedback. The students also took a multiple-choice pretest/posttest to evaluate content knowledge. The analyses showed that there was no significant difference between the group receiving peer feedback and the group receiving teacher feedback on the final drafts of the scientific explanations. There was, however, a significant effect of practice on the scores of the scientific explanations. Students wrote significantly better with each subsequent scientific explanation. There was no significant difference between males and females based on the treatment they received. There was a significant correlation between the gain in pretest to posttest scores and the scientific explanations and a significant correlation between the posttest scores and the scientific explanations. Content knowledge and written scientific explanations are related. Students who wrote scientific explanations had significant gains in content knowledge.
Date Created
2011
Contributors
- Lange, Katie (Author)
- Baker, Dale (Thesis advisor)
- Megowan, Colleen (Committee member)
- Middleton, James (Committee member)
- Arizona State University (Publisher)
Topical Subject
- science education
- curriculum development
- peer editing
- Peer review
- scientific arguments
- scientific explanations
- teacher review
- writing in science
- Feedback (Psychology)
- Science--Study and teaching (Middle school)
- English language--Composition and exercises--Study and teaching (Middle school)
- English language
Resource Type
Extent
vii, 77 p. : ill. (some col.)
Language
eng
Copyright Statement
In Copyright
Primary Member of
Peer-reviewed
No
Open Access
No
Handle
https://hdl.handle.net/2286/R.I.9383
Statement of Responsibility
by Katie Lange
Description Source
Viewed on April 26, 2012
Level of coding
full
Note
thesis
Partial requirement for: M.A., Arizona State University, 2011
bibliography
Includes bibliographical references (p. 46-48)
Field of study: Curriculum and instruction (Science education)
System Created
- 2011-08-12 05:00:49
System Modified
- 2021-08-30 01:51:37
- 3 years 2 months ago
Additional Formats