This article focuses on the use of online interactive peer feedback in higher education and identifies the successful uptake of feedback as important aspect. We investigate the link between the nature of students' feedback, the way it is evaluated by the receiver, and its consecutive use for the revision of students' products. Two separate studies were conducted to investigate the link between these three variables across different educational contexts and tools. Both studies showed a significant relationship between feedback containing concrete suggestions and a successful uptake of the feedback. Regarding the different tools that were used, these concrete suggestions were more often produced in the Annotation system than in the Blackboard discussion forum, the latter showing more evaluative forms of feedback. We also found significant relationships between elements of both the nature and the reception of feedback on the one hand, and the use of this feedback by the receiver on the other hand. * Title Page --anything identifying the author should be on this page. AbstractThis article focuses on the use of online interactive peer feedback in higher education

A system for Banchored discussion^is compared with a system for traditional forum discussion (Blackboard), and their collaborative and communicative affordances for the collaborative processing of academic texts are investigated. Results show that discussion in the system for anchored discussion is more directed at processing the meaning of texts than discussion in the traditional forum, which is more oriented towards the sharing of personal opinions and experiences. This difference in orientation produces a more constructive collaboration in the system for anchored discussion, versus a more debate-like collaboration in the forum discussion. Additionally, while messages in the traditional forum resemble usual discussion or email conversation and contain social and regulative comments, discussion in the system for anchored discussion is seen to be more efficient and Bto-the-point.'' We conclude that for collaborative text comprehension by undergraduate students, anchored discussion might be more suitable than traditional forum discussion. Finally, the observed differences can be explained by the stronger defined collaborative context in the system for anchored discussion, which focuses participants_ collaborative intentions and their frames of reference.

No abstract

No abstract

Abstract:This paper reports a theory-driven experimental study for designing and evaluating two different forms of attention-guidance functionalities integrated into an anchored-discussion system. Using social constructivism as a motivating theory, we constructed a theoretical framework that emphasizes the importance of students' attention allocation in online learning conversations and its influence on message quality and interaction patterns. The development of the functionalities, named faded instructor-led and peer-oriented attention guidance, aimed to direct students' attention toward instructional materials' central domain principles while offering them an open learning environment in which they could choose their own topics and express their own ideas. We evaluated the functionalities with heat map analysis, repeated measures general linear model analysis, and sequence analysis to assess the utility of the developed functionalities. Results show that attention guidance helped students more properly allocate their attention in online learning conversations. Furthermore, we found that the improved attention allocation led to better quality of students' online learning conversations. We discuss implications for researchers and practitioners who wish to promote more fruitful online discussions.