Abstract
The article presents a study within the international project named The Social Unit of Learning. This study examines the ways in which students interact with each other when solving an open mathematical problem in small groups (four students a group). Attention is focused on peer feedback, especially on its form and how it affects the process of solving the problem. From our analysis, feedback appears often in the group discussion and takes the form of both positive (confirmation; question asking for clarification, request for clarification, eliciting) and negative reactions (rejection, explained or unexplained objection, doubt, question involving doubt). The analysis also identified a communication pattern that generalizes the course of the group discussion and factors influencing the quality of peer feedback related to the content structure of the problem (thematic, conceptual and competence layer).
References
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 5–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-008-9068-5
Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2004). Working inside the Black Box: Assessment for learning in the classroom. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(1), 8–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170408600105
Boud, D., & Associates. (2010). Assessment 2020: Seven propositions for assessment reform in higher education. Australian Learning and Teaching Council.
Boud, D., & Falchikov, N. (2007). Rethinking assessment in higher education. Kogan Page.
Brousseau, G., & Sarrazy, B. (2002). Glossaire de quelques concepts de la théorie des situations didactiques en mathématiques [English translation V. Warfield]. DAEST, Université Bordeaux 2.
Brousseau, G. (1997). Theory of Didactical situations in mathematics 1970–1990 [Translation from French M. Cooper, N. Balacheff, R. Sutherland, & V. Warfield]. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Chan, M.C. E., & Clarke, D. J. (2017). Structured affordances in the use of open-ended tasks to facilitate collaborative problem-solving. ZDM-The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 49(6), 951–963. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-017-0876-2
Chan, M.C. E., & Clarke, D. J. (2019). Video-based research in a laboratory classroom. In L. Xu, G. Aranda, W. Widjaja & D. Clarke (Eds.), Video-based research in education: Cross-disciplinary perspectives (pp. 107–123). Routledge.
Chan, M.C. E., & Sfard, A. (2020). On learning that could have happened: The same tale in two cities. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 60, Art. 100815. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2020.100815
Chan, M.C. E., Clarke, D. J., & Cao, Y. (2018). The social essentials of learning: An experimental investigation of collaborative problem-solving and knowledge construction in mathematics classrooms in Australia and China. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 30(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-017-0209-3
Chan, M.C. E., Ochoa, X., & Clarke, D. J. (2020). Multimodal learning analytics in a laboratory classroom. In M. Virvou, E. Alepis, G.A. Tsihrintzis, & L.C. Jain (Eds.), Machine learning paradigms: Advances in learning analytics (pp. 131–156). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-13743-4 8
Chiu, M.M. (2008). Flowing toward correct contributions during groups’ mathematics problem-solving: A statistical discourse analysis. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17(3), 415–463. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508400802224830
Clarke, D. J. (2001). Untangling uncertainty, negotiation and intersubjectivity. In D. Clarke (Ed.), Perspectives on practice and meaning in mathematics and science classrooms (pp. 33–52). Kluwer Academic.
Clarke, D. J., & Chan, M. C. E. (2020). Dialogue and shared cognition: An examination of student–student talk in the negotiation of mathematical meaning during collaborative problem-solving. In N. Mercer, R. Wegerif, & L. Major (Eds.), International handbook of research on dialogic education (pp. 581–592). Routledge.
Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64(1), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.2307/1170744
Cohen, E. G., & Lotan, R.A. (2014). Designing groupwork: Strategies for the heterogeneous classroom (3rd ed.). Teachers College Press.
Damon, W., & Phelps, E. (1989). Critical distinctions among three approaches to peer education. International Journal of Educational Research, 13(1), 9–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-0355(89)90013-X
Díez-Palomar, J., Chan, M.C.E., Clarke, D., & Padrós, M. (2021). How does dialogical talk promote student learning during small group work? An exploratory study. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 30 (Part A), 100540. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2021.100540
Francisco, J. (2013). Learning in collaborative settings: Students building on each other’s ideas to promote their mathematical understanding. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 82(3), 417–438. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-012-9437-3
Gillies, R. (2016). Cooperative learning: Review of research and practice. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 41(3), 39–51. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2016v41n3.3 – via eric.ed.gov
Harlen, W., & James, M. (1997). Assessment and learning: Differences and relationships between formative and summative assessment. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 4(3), 365–379. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594970040304
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487
Hendl, J. (2005). Kvalitativní výzkum [Qualitative research]. Portál.
Hesse, F., Care, E., Buder, J., Sassenberg, K., & Griffin, P. (2015). A framework for teachable collaborative problem-solving skills. In P. Griffin, & E. Care (Eds.), Assessment and Teaching of 21st Century Skills, Educational Assessment in an Information Age (pp. 37–56). Springer Science+Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9395-7 2
Isohätälä, J., Näykki, P., Järvelä, S., & Baker, M. J. (2018). Striking a balance: Socio-emotional processes during argumentation in collaborative learning interaction. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 16, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2017.09.003
Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., & Holubec, E. J. (1994). The nuts and bolts of collaborative learning. Interaction Book Company.
Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (1984). Structuring groups for collaborative learning. Organizational Behavior Teaching Review, 9(4), 8–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/105256298400900404
Kaur, B., Anthony, G., Ohtani, M., & Clarke, D. (Eds.). (2013). Student voice in mathematics classrooms around the world. Sense Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6209-350-8
Leikin, R., & Zaslavsky, O. (1999). Cooperative learning in Mathematics. The Mathematics Teacher, 92(3), 240–246.
Lohman, M.C., & Finkelstein, M. (2000). Designing groups in problem-based learning to promote problem-solving skill and self-directedness. Instructional Science, 28(4), 291–307.
Moate, J., Kuntze, S., & Chan, M.C.E. (2021). Students’ participation in peer interaction – Use of material resources as a key consideration. LUMAT: International Journal on Math, Science and Technology Education, 9(1), 29–55.
Novotná, J. (2010). Study of solving word problems in teaching of mathematics. From atomic analysis to the analysis of situations. Germany: LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing.
OECD. (2005). Formative assessment: Improving learning in secondary classrooms. Paris: OECD.
Pellegrino, J.W., Chudowsky, N., & Glaser, R. (Eds.). (2001). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. National Academy Press.
Ross, J.A., & Smyth, E. (1995). Differentiating cooperative learning to meet the needs of gifted learners: A case for transformational leadership. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 19(1), 63–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/016235329501900105
Ruiz-Primo, M.A., & Furtak, E. M. (2006). Informal formative assessment and scientific inquiry: Exploring teachers’ practices and student learning. Educational Assessment, 11(3–4), 237–263.
Silver, E.A. (1995). The nature and use of open problems in mathematics education: Mathematical and pedagogical perspectives, Zentralblatt für didaktik der mathematik. International Reviews on Mathematical Education, 27(2), 67–72.
Slavík, J. (2003). Autonomní a heteronomní pojetí školního hodnocení – aktuální problem pedagogické teorie a praxe [Autonomous and heteronomous assessment – current issue of educational theory and practice]. Pedagogika, 40(1), 5–25.
Slavík, J., Janík, T., Najvar, P., & Knecht, P. (2017). Transdisciplinární didaktika: o učitelském sdílení znalostí a zvyšování kvality výuky napříč obory [Transdisciplinary didactics: about teacher sharing of knowledge and increasing the quality of teaching across disciplines]. Masarykova univerzita, Pedagogická fakulta.
Sluijsmans, D.M.A. (2002). Student involvement in assessment. The training of peer assessment skills [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Open University of the Netherlands, The Netherlands.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Sage.
Nieminen, J.H., Chan, M.C.E., & Clarke, D. J. (2021). What affordances do open-ended real-life tasks offer for sharing student agency in collaborative problem-solving? Educational Studies in Mathematics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-021-10074-9
Tuohilampi, L. (2018). Analyzing engagement in mathematical collaboration: What can we say with confidence? In E. Bergqvist, M. Österholm, C. Granberg & L. Sumpter (Eds.), Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Meeting of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 235–242). Sweden: PME.
Žantovská, I. (2015). Rétorika a komunikace [Rhetoric and communication]. Prague: Dokořán.
Žlábková, I., & Rokos, L. (2013). Pohledy na formativní a sumativní hodnocení žáka v českých publikacích [Formative and summative assessment in Czech publications]. Pedagogika, 58(3), 328–354.