Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Students’ perceptions of the impacts of peer ideas in inquiry learning

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Instructional Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Peer ideas can be valuable contributions to scientific inquiry. Divergent peer ideas can enrich students' thinking and encourage curiosity. Meanwhile, similar peer ideas can promote convergent thinking that can reinforce understanding. However, students need guidance in critically evaluating peer ideas in relation to their own, and in recognizing the influence of peers’ ideas. Guided by the Knowledge Integration framework, we explore whether students’ perceptions of the impact of peers’ ideas align with the revisions made to their written explanations. In a technology-rich, classroom-based inquiry unit on cancer cell division, Grade 7 students (N = 144) investigated the effects of different cancer treatments on cell division, and developed explanations for a recommended treatment. We prompted one group of students to visit a class repository to seek peer ideas similar to their own, and another to seek ideas different from their own. Both groups then revised their recommendations. Based on analyses of students' reflections, initial and revised explanations, and pre and posttests, we found that students prompted to seek divergent ideas perceived peers’ ideas to be more impactful, even though both groups of students revised at the same rate and made similar pre to posttest gains. This study suggests a need to attend to students’ perceptions of the roles of their peers, particularly in environments designed to reflect authentic processes of the social construction of scientific knowledge.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. (1999). Knowledge management systems: Issues, challenges, and benefits. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 1, 7. https://doi.org/10.17705/1cais.00107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Albanese, M. A., & Mitchell, S. (1993). Problem-based learning: A review of literature on its outcomes and implementation issues. Academic Medicine: Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 68(1), 52–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, B. J., Lindow, L. E., & Schock, M. D. (2008). Measuring the impact of cooperative learning exercises on student perceptions of peer-to-peer learning: A case study. The Journal of Physician Assistant Education: The Official Journal of the Physician Assistant Education Association, 19(3).

  • Amigues, R. (1988). Peer interaction in solving physics problems: Sociocognitive confrontation and metacognitive aspects. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 45(1), 141–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, R. C., Kulhavy, R. W., & Andre, T. (1971). Feedback procedures in programmed instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 62(2), 148–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, R. C., Kulhavy, R. W., & Andre, T. (1972). Conditions under which feedback facilitates learning from programmed lessons. Journal of Educational Psychology, 63(3), 186–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Association of College & Research Libraries (ACRL). (2015, February 2). Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/ilframework.

  • Asterhan, C. S. C., & Schwarz, B. B. (2009). Argumentation and explanation in conceptual change: Indications from protocol analyses of peer-to-peer dialog. Cognitive Science, 33(3), 374–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Axelrod, R., & Hamilton, W. D. (1981). The evolution of cooperation. Science, 211(4489), 1390–1396.

  • Azevedo, R. (2005). Using hypermedia as a metacognitive tool for enhancing student learning? The role of self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 199–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azevedo, R., & Hadwin, A. F. (2005). Scaffolding self-regulated learning and metacognition: Implications for the design of computer-based scaffolds. Instructional Science, 33(5–6), 367–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Kulik, C.-L.C., Kulik, J. A., & Morgan, M. (1991). The instructional effect of feedback in test-like events. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 213–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barab, S. A., & Hay, K. E. (2001). Doing science at the elbows of experts: Issues related to the science apprenticeship camp. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(1), 70–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barron, B. (2003). When smart groups fail. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(3), 307–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bayley, T., Wheatley, D., & Hurst, A. (2021). Assessing a novel problem-based learning approach with game elements in a business analytics course. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 19(3), 185–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berg, J. M. (2014). The primal mark: How the beginning shapes the end in the development of creative ideas. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 125(1), 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berthold, K., Nückles, M., & Renkl, A. (2007). Do learning protocols support learning strategies and outcomes? The role of cognitive and metacognitive prompts. Learning and Instruction, 17(5), 564–577.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bungum, B., Bøe, M. V., & Henriksen, E. K. (2018). Quantum talk: How small-group discussions may enhance students’ understanding in quantum physics. Science Education, 102(4), 856–877.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, S. K., Witherby, A. E., & Tauber, S. K. (2020). On students’(mis) judgments of learning and teaching effectiveness. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 9(2), 137–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, B., Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2015). Advancing knowledge-building discourse through judgments of promising ideas. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 10(4), 345–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H., De Leeuw, N., Chiu, M.-H., & Lavancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18(3), 439–477.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1998). An empirical test of a taxonomy of responses to anomalous data in science. Journal of Research in Science, 35, 623–654.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cinelli, M., De Francisci Morales, G., Galeazzi, A., Quattrociocchi, W., & Starnini, M. (2021). The echo chamber effect on social media. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(9), e2023301118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2023301118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, H. H., & Schaefer, E. F. (1989). Contributing to discourse. Cognitive Science, 13(2), 259–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, V., Braun, V., & Hayfield, N. (2015). Thematic analysis. Qualitative Psychology: A Practical Guide to Research Methods, 222(2015), 248.

  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cress, U., Barquero, B., Buder, J., & Hesse, F. W. (2005). Social dilemma in knowledge communication via shared databases. In Barriers and biases in computer-mediated knowledge communication (pp. 143–167). https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-24319-4_7

  • De Jonge, K. M. M., Rietzschel, E. F., & Van Yperen, N. W. (2018). Stimulated by novelty? The role of psychological needs and perceived creativity. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 44(6), 851–867.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deschênes, M. (2020). Recommender systems to support learners’ agency in a learning context: A systematic review. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 17(1), 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deslauriers, L., McCarty, L. S., Miller, K., Callaghan, K., & Kestin, G. (2019). Measuring actual learning versus feeling of learning in response to being actively engaged in the classroom. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 116(39), 19251–19257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dillenbourg P. (1999). What do you mean by collaborative learning?. In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative-learning: cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 1–19). Oxford: Elsevier.

  • Dillenbourg, P., Zufferey, G., Alavi, H., Jermann, P., Do-Lenh, S., Bonnard, Q., Cuendet, S., & Kaplan, F. (2011). Classroom orchestration: The third circle of usability. Proceedings of the Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Conference (pp. 510–517).

  • diSessa, A. A. (2014). A history of conceptual change research: Threads and fault lines. In: S. K. R. (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences, 2nd ed. (pp. 88–108). Cambridge University Press.

  • Edge, J. (2006). Computer-mediated cooperative development: Non-judgemental discourse in online environments. Language Teaching Research, 10(2), 205–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engle, R. A., Langer-Osuna, J. M., & McKinney de Royston, M. (2014). Toward a model of influence in persuasive discussions: Negotiating quality, authority, privilege, and access within a student-led argument. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(2), 245–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Escera, C., Alho, K., Winkler, I., & Näätänen, R. (1998). Neural mechanisms of involuntary attention to acoustic novelty and change. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 10(5), 590–604.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2005). Knowledge convergence in computer-supported collaborative learning: The role of external representation tools. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(3), 405–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Förster, J. (2012). GLOMOsys: The how and why of global and local processing. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21(1), 15–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Förster, J., Marguc, J., & Gillebaart, M. (2010). Novelty categorization theory. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4(9), 736–755.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. Computers in Entertainment, 1(1), 20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gijlers, H., & de Jong, T. (2005). The relation between prior knowledge and students’ collaborative discovery learning processes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(3), 264–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guan, T., Wang, L., Jin, J., & Song, X. (2018). Knowledge contribution behavior in online Q&A communities: An empirical investigation. Computers in Human Behavior, 81, 137–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gutwin, C., & Greenberg, S. (2004). The importance of awareness for team cognition in distributed collaboration. In E. Salas & S. M. Fiore (Eds.), Team cognition: Understanding the factors that drive process and performance (pp. 177–201). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10690-009

  • Guy, I. (2015). Social recommender systems. In Recommender systems handbook (pp. 511–543). Springer.

  • Hadwin, A. F., Järvelä, S., & Miller, M. (2017). Self-regulation, co-regulation, and shared regulation in collaborative learning environments. In D. H. Schunk & J. A. Greene (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (2nd ed., pp. 83–106). Routledge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Halatchliyski, I., Kimmerle, J., & Cress, U. (2011). Divergent and convergent knowledge processes on Wikipedia. In Proceedings of the International Conference for the Learning Sciences (pp. 566–570).

  • Hatano, G. (1993). Time to merge Vygotskian and constructivist conceptions of knowledge acquisition. Contexts for Learning: Sociocultural Dynamics in Children’s Development, 153–166.

  • Hayes, J. R. (2004). What triggers revision? In Studies in writing (pp. 9–20). Springer.

  • Hoadley, C. M. (2004). Fostering productive collaboration offline and online: learning from each other. In M. C. Linn, E. A. Davis, & P. Bell (Eds.), Internet Environments for Science Education (pp. 173–202). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hong, H.-Y., Chen, B., & Chai, C. S. (2016). Exploring the development of college students’ epistemic views during their knowledge building activities. Computers & Education, 98, 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howe, C. (2009). Collaborative group work in middle childhood. Human Development, 52(4), 215–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janssen, J., Erkens, G., & Kanselaar, G. (2007). Visualization of agreement and discussion processes during computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(3), 1105–1125.

  • Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1999). Making cooperative learning work. Theory into Practice, 38(2), 67–73.

  • Kali, Y. (2006). Collaborative knowledge building using the Design Principles Database. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(2), 187–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kapur, M., Voiklis, J., & Kinzer, C. K. (2008). Sensitivities to early exchange in synchronous computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) groups. Computers & Education, 51(1), 54–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaufman, J. H., & Schunn, C. D. (2011). Students’ perceptions about peer assessment for writing: Their origin and impact on revision work. Instructional Science, 39(3), 387–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keil, F. C. (2006). Explanation and understanding. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 227–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, A. (1992). Comparison of self-questioning, summarizing, and notetaking-review as strategies for learning from lectures. American Educational Research Journal, 29(2), 303–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kobbe, L., Weinberger, A., Dillenbourg, P., Harrer, A., Hämäläinen, R., Häkkinen, P., & Fischer, F. (2007). Specifying computer-supported collaboration scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(2), 211–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koomen, M. H., Rodriguez, E., Hoffman, A., Petersen, C., & Oberhauser, K. (2018). Authentic science with citizen science and student-driven science fair projects. Science Education, 102(3), 593–644.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krajcik, J. S., & Mun, K. (2014). Promises and challenges of using learning technologies to promote student learning of science. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science Education (Vol. II, pp. 351–374). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D. (1989). Children and adults as intuitive scientists. Psychological Review, 96(4), 674–689.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. S., & Hacking, I. (2012). The structure of scientific revolutions: 50th Anniversary. Chicago University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kulhavy, R. W., & Wager, W. (1993). Feedback in programmed instruction: Historical context and implications for practice. In J. V. Dempsey & S. G. C. (Eds.), Interactive instruction and feedback (pp. 3–20). Educational Technology Publications.

  • Laland, K. N. (2004). Social learning strategies. Learning & Behavior, 32(1), 4–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langer, J. A., & Applebee, A. N. (1987). How writing shapes thinking: A study of teaching and learning. NCTE Research Report (No. 22). National Council of Teachers of English. Retrieved from https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=_EZnPTPhkaoC

  • Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, H. S., Liu, O. L., & Linn, M. C. (2011). Validating measurement of knowledge integration in science using multiple-choice and explanation items. Applied Measurement in Education, 24(2), 115–136.

  • Lee, H.-S., Pallant, A., Pryputniewicz, S., Lord, T., Mulholland, M., & Liu, O. L. (2019). Automated text scoring and real-time adjustable feedback: Supporting revision of scientific arguments involving uncertainty. Science Education, 103(3), 590–622.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leggett Dugosh, K., & Paulus, P. B. (2005). Cognitive and social comparison processes in brainstorming. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41(3), 313–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linn, M. C. (2006). The knowledge integration perspective on learning and instruction. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of: The learning sciences (pp. 243–264). Cambridge University Press.

  • Lisman, J. E., & Grace, A. A. (2005). The hippocampal-VTA loop: Controlling the entry of information into long-term memory. Neuron, 46(5), 703–713.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, O. L., Lee, H. S., Hofstetter, C., & Linn, M. C. (2008). Assessing knowledge integration in science: Construct, measures, and evidence. Educational Assessment, 13(1), 33–55.

  • Liu, O. L., Lee, H. S., & Linn, M. C. (2011). Measuring knowledge integration: Validation of four-year assessments. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48, 1079–1107. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20441

  • Longino, H. E. (2020). Science as social knowledge. Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Magnusson, P. R., Wästlund, E., & Netz, J. (2016). Exploring users’ appropriateness as a proxy for experts when screening new product/service ideas. The Journal of Product Innovation Management, 33(1), 4–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matuk, C., & Linn, M. C. (2018). Why and how do middle school students exchange ideas during science inquiry?. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 13(3), 263–299.

  • Matuk, C. F., Linn, M. C., & Eylon, B. S. (2015). Technology to support teachers using evidence from student work to customize technology-enhanced inquiry units. Instructional science, 43(2), 229–257.

  • Matuk, C., McElhaney, K., Chen, J., Lim-Breitbart, J., Kirkpatrick, D., & Linn, M. (2016). Iteratively refining a science explanation tool through classroom implementation and stakeholder partnerships. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 7(2).

  • McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2008). Inquiry and scientific explanations: Helping students use evidence and reasoning. Science as Inquiry in the Secondary Setting, 121–141.

  • Miller, G. A., & Chapman, J. P. (2001). Misunderstanding analysis of covariance. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 110(1), 40–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moskaliuk, J., Kimmerle, J., & Cress, U. (2012). Collaborative knowledge building with wikis: The impact of redundancy and polarity. Computers & Education, 58(4), 1049–1057.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mussweiler, T. (2003). Comparison processes in social judgment: Mechanisms and consequences. Psychological Review, 110(3), 472–489.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, Board on Science Education, & Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K-12 Science Education Standards. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academies Press.

  • NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states. National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nijstad, B. A., Stroebe, W., & Lodewijkx, H. F. M. (2006). The illusion of group productivity: A reduction of failures explanation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36(1), 31–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paulus, P. B., Coursey, L. E., & Kenworthy, J. B. (2019). Divergent and convergent collaborative creativity. In The Palgrave handbook of social creativity research (pp. 245–262). Springer.

  • Pedhazur, E. J. (1997). Multiple regression in behavioral research: Explanation and prediction. Harcourt Brace College Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perry, J., Lundie, D., & Golder, G. (2019). Metacognition in schools: What does the literature suggest about the effectiveness of teaching metacognition in schools? Educational Review, 71(4), 483–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pieger, E., & Bannert, M. (2018). Differential effects of students’ self-directed metacognitive prompts. Computers in Human Behavior, 86, 165–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Purzer, S., Moore, T. J., & Dringenberg, E. (2018). Engineering cognition: a process of knowledge acquisition and application. In Cognition, metacognition, and culture in STEM education (pp. 167–190). Springer International Publishing.

  • Raes, A., Schellens, T., & De Wever, B. (2014). Web-based collaborative inquiry to bridge gaps in secondary science education. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(3), 316–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rau, M. A., Bowman, H. E., & Moore, J. W. (2017). An adaptive collaboration script for learning with multiple visual representations in chemistry. Computers & Education, 109, 38–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raviv, A., Cohen, S., & Aflalo, E. (2019). How should students learn in the school science laboratory? The benefits of cooperative learning. Research in Science Education, 49(2), 331–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reigeluth, C. M. (2013). Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. 2). Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Reiser, B. J., & Tabak, I. (2014). Scaffolding. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 44–62). Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Roscoe, R. D., & Chi, M. T. H. (2008). Tutor learning: The role of explaining and responding to questions. Instructional Science, 36(4), 321–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salomon, G., & Globerson, T. (1987). Skill may not be enough: The role of mindfulness in learning and transfer. International Journal of Educational Research, 11, 623–637.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (2005). The quality of students’ use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 23–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2014). Knowledge building and knowledge creation: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences, 2, 397–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schauble, L. (1996). The development of scientific reasoning in knowledge-rich contexts. Developmental Psychology, 32(1), 102.

  • Schwartz, B. B., Neuman, Y., & Biezuner, S. (2000). Two wrongs may make a right… if they argue. Cognition and Instruction, 18(4), 461–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slavin, R. E. (1996). Research on cooperative learning and achievement: What we know, what we need to know. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21(1), 43–69.

  • Slotta, J. D., & Linn, M. C. (2009). WISE Science: Web-based Inquiry in the Classroom. Technology, Education--Connections. Teachers College Press. 1234 Amsterdam Avenue, New York, NY 10027.

  • Soeharto, S., Csapó, B., Sarimanah, E., Dewi, F. I., & Sabri, T. (2019). A review of students’ common misconceptions in science and their diagnostic assessment tools. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia, 8(2), 247–266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Srifi, M., Oussous, A., Ait Lahcen, A., & Mouline, S. (2020). Recommender systems based on collaborative filtering using review texts—a survey. Information. An International Interdisciplinary Journal, 11(6), 317.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stroupe, D. (2014). Examining classroom science practice communities: How teachers and students negotiate epistemic agency and learn science-as-practice. Science Education, 98(3), 487–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Szewkis, E., Nussbaum, M., Rosen, T., Abalos, J., Denardin, F., Caballero, D., Tagle, A., & Alcoholado, C. (2011). Collaboration within large groups in the classroom. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(4), 561–575. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-011-9123-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsovaltzi, D., Judele, R., Puhl, T., & Weinberger, A. (2017). Leveraging social networking sites for knowledge co-construction: Positive effects of argumentation structure, but premature knowledge consolidation after individual preparation. Learning and Instruction, 52, 161–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsui, A. B. M., & Ng, M. (2000). Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(2), 147–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Dijk, A. M., Gijlers, H., & Weinberger, A. (2014). Scripted collaborative drawing in elementary science education. Instructional Science, 42(3), 353–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Volet, S., Vauras, M., Salo, A.-E., & Khosa, D. (2017). Individual contributions in student-led collaborative learning: Insights from two analytical approaches to explain the quality of group outcome. Learning and Individual Differences, 53, 79–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warren, B., Ballenger, C., Ogonowski, M., Rosebery, A. S., & Hudicourt-Barnes, J. (2001). Rethinking diversity in learning science: The logic of everyday sense-making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(5), 529–552.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webb, N. M., Nemer, K. M., & Zuniga, S. (2002). Short circuits or superconductors? Effects of group composition on high-achieving students’ science assessment performance. American Educational Research Journal, 39(4), 943–989.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weinberger, A., Stegmann, K., & Fischer, F. (2007). Knowledge convergence in collaborative learning: Concepts and assessment. Learning and Instruction, 17(4), 416–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weinberger, A., Stegmann, K., & Fischer, F. (2010). Learning to argue online: Scripted groups surpass individuals (unscripted groups do not). Computers in Human Behavior, 26(4), 506–515.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wen, M. L., & Tsai, C.-C. (2006). University students’ perceptions of and attitudes toward (online) peer assessment. Higher Education, 51(1), 27–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-004-6375-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitebread, D., Bingham, S., Grau, V., Pasternak, D. P., & Sangster, C. (2007). Development of metacognition and self-regulated learning in young children: Role of collaborative and peer-assisted learning. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 6(3), 433–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, M., DeBarger, A. H., Montgomery, B. L., Zhou, X., & Tate, E. (2012). Exploring middle school students’ conceptions of the relationship between genetic inheritance and cell division. Science Education, 96(1), 78–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, M. (2009). Measuring progressions: Assessment structures underlying a learning progression. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 716–730.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wylie, R., & Chi, M. T. H. (2014). 17 The self-explanation principle in multimedia learning. Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang, M., Badger, R., & Yu, Z. (2006). A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback in a Chinese EFL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(3), 179–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zamel, V. (1982). Writing: The process of discovering meaning. TESOL Quarterly, 16(2), 195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zengilowski, A., Schuetze, B. A., Nash, B. L., & Schallert, D. L. (2021). A critical review of the refutation text literature: Methodological confounds, theoretical problems, and possible solutions. Educational Psychologist, 56(3), 175–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, C.-M., & Kuh, G. D. (2004). Adding value: Learning communities and student engagement. Research in Higher Education, 45(2), 115–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

Funding was provided by National Science Foundation (Grant no. 1119670), New York University.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Steinhardt School of Culture, Education and Human Development, New York University, Brooklyn, NY, USA

    Camillia Matuk

  2. Graduate School of Education, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, USA

    Marcia C. Linn

Authors
  1. Camillia Matuk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marcia C. Linn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Camillia Matuk.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Matuk, C., Linn, M.C. Students’ perceptions of the impacts of peer ideas in inquiry learning. Instr Sci 51, 65–102 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-022-09607-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-022-09607-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation