Rétroaction par les pairs: quelles conditions pour un apport optimal aux apprentissages des étudiantes et étudiants?
DOI :
https://doi.org/10.51657/ric.v6i1.51446Mots-clés :
apprentissage par les pairs, rétroaction par les pairs, évaluation par les pairs, notation par les pairsRésumé
Cet article rend compte d’une revue de la littérature sur la rétroaction par les pairs au regard des conditions qui optimisent et celles qui réduisent son apport à l’apprentissage des étudiantes et des étudiants, qu’iels soient émetteur·trices ou récepteur·trices d’une rétroaction. Les cadres conceptuels adoptés pour cette forme de participation de l’étudiant·e ainsi que les effets repérés sont présentés. Les conditions retracées sont regroupées sous trois composantes de l’activité de rétroaction par les pairs, soit l’intervention de l’enseignante ou de l’enseignant, les interactions entre pairs et la réflexion dans l’action et sur l’action au sein de la classe. Elles forment le cadre pratique de l’activité de rétroaction par les pairs en contexte de classe, incluant les cours à distance. Ce cadre pratique propose ainsi une façon de faire et des éléments à prendre en compte lorsque l’on veut engager les apprenantes et les apprenants de différents niveaux dans cette activité. Au terme, cette revue de la littérature permet de mieux comprendre les apports d’une activité de rétroaction par les pairs réussie, tant pour les étudiant·es qui y participent que pour l’enseignant·e qui les accompagne.
Références
*Ajjawi, R. et Boud. D. (2017). Researching Feedback Dialogue: An Interactional Analysis Approach. Assessment &Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(2), 252–265. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2015.1102863
*Alqassab, M., Strijbos, J.W. et Ufer, S. (2018). Training peer-feedback skills on geometric construction tasks: role of domain knowledge and peer-feedback levels. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 33(11), 11–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-017-0342-0
*Bader, M., Burner, T., Hoem Iversen, S. et Varga, Z. (2019). Student Perspectives on Formative Feedback as Part of Writing Portfolios. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(7), 1017–1028. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02602938.2018.1564811?journalCode=caeh20
Balica, M. (2020). Pourquoi le bien-être est-il si important en période de crise ? Considérations relatives au bien-être pour réussir la transition éducative à l’issue de la pandémie de COVID-19. Rapport de recherche. Service de recherche de l’IB. International Baccalaureate Organization. Royaume Uni. https://ibo.org/contentassets/438c6ba2c00347f0b800c536f7b1fab8/why-well-being-matters-in-time-of-covid-19-fr.pdf
Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., et Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special?. Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389-407.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2006). Toward a psychology of human agency. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 164-180.
Barth, B. (2008). De la pratique à la théorie : apprendre à construire son savoir. Dans Leleux, C. (dir), La philosophie pour enfants : Le modèle de Matthew Lipman en discussion (pp. 161-174). De Boeck Supérieur.
*Boud, D. et Molloy, E. (2013). Rethinking models of feedback for learning: The challenge of design. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38, 698–712. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2012.691462
Bransford, J., Brown, A.L. et Cocking, R.R. (2000). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience and School. Expanded Edition. National Academies Press.
Bruner, J. (1978) The role of dialogue in language acquisition. In A. Sinclair, R. J. Jarvella & W. J. Levell (eds), The child’s conception of language (pp. 241-256). N.Y. Springer-Verlag.
Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of Education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Butler, D.L., et Winne, P. H. (1995). Feedback and Self-Regulated Learning: A Theoretical Synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65(3), 245–81. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543065003245
*Carless, D. et Boud, D. (2018). The development of student feedback literacy: enabling uptake of feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(8), 1315–1325. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1463354.
*Carless, D. et Chan, K.K.H. (2017). Managing dialogic use of exemplars. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(6), 930-941. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02602938.2016.1211246.
Chaiklin, S. (2003) The zone of proximal development in Vygotsky’s analysis of learning and instruction. In A. Kozulin, B. Gindis, V.S. Ageyev, S.M. Miller (Eds), Vygotsky’s educational theory in cultural context (pp. 39–64). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
*Charles, E., Lenton, K., Lasry, N., Dugdale, M., Whittaker, C., Adams, R. et Jackson, P. (2019). Apprendre des erreurs des autres : la rétroaction offerte à des pairs. Présentée dans le cadre du Colloque de l’ARC Pour que la formation de la relève scientifique soit sur toutes les lèvres. Colloque de l’ACFAS 2019. Gatineau.
*Chi, M.T. et Wylie, R. (2014). The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educational Psychologist, 49(4), 219–243. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00461520.2014.965823
*Cho, K., and C. MacArthur. (2011). Learning by Reviewing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(1), 73–84. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021950
*Chong, S. W. (2020). Reconsidering student feedback literacy from an ecological perspective. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 46(1), 92-104, https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1730765
Cole M. W. (2014). Speaking to Read: Meta-Analysis of Peer-Mediated Learning for English Language Learners. Journal of Literacy Research, 46(3):358-382. doi:10.1177/1086296X14552179
Cole, M., et Engeström, Y. (1993). A cultural-historical approach to distributed cognition. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions, psychological and educational considerations (pp. 1–49). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Deci, E., and Ryan, R. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.
DiDonato, N.C. Effective self- and co-regulation in collaborative learning groups: An analysis of how students regulate problem solving of authentic interdisciplinary tasks. Instructional Science, 41, 25–47 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-012-9206-9
Dillenbourg, P. (2002). Over-scripting CSCL: The risks of blending collaborative learning with instructional design. Three worlds of CSCL. Can we support CSCL?, 61‐91.
Doo, M. Y., Bonk, C., et Heo, H. (2020). A Meta-Analysis of Scaffolding Effects in Online Learning in Higher Education. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 21(3), 60-80. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v21i3.4638
*Double, K. S., McGrane, J. A. et Hopfenbeck, T. N. (2020). The impact of peer assessment on academic performance: A meta-analysis of control group studies. Educational Psychology Review, 32, 481–509. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10648-019-09510-3
Engeström, Y., Nuttall, J., et Hopwood, N. (2022) Transformative agency by double stimulation: advances in theory and methodology, Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 30(1), 1-7, DOI: 10.1080/14681366.2020.1805499
*Er, E., Dimitriadis, Y. et Gasevic, D. (2021). A collaborative learning approach to dialogic peer feedback: a theoretical framework. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 46(4), 586-600. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1786497
Fernández, M., Wegerif, R., Mercer, N., et Rojas-Drummond, S. (2002). Re-conceptualizing “scaffolding” and the zone of proximal development in the context of symmetrical col- laborative learning. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 36(2/1), 40-54.
Ferreira, M. M. (2008). Constraints to peer scaffolding [Limitações na colaboração entre pares]. Trabalhos em Linguística Aplicada, [s.l.], 47(1), p.9-29. FapUNIFESP (SciELO). http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/s0103-18132008000100002
*Filius, R.M., de Kleijn, R.A.M., Uijl, S.G., Prins, F.J., van Rijen, H.V.M., et Grobbee, D.E. (2019). Audio peer feedback to promote deep learning in online education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 35, 607–619. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jcal.12363
*Filius, R., de Kleijnb, R.A.R., Uijl, S.G., Prins, F. J., van Rijen, H. V. M., et Grobbee, D.E. (2018). Strengthening dialogic peer feedback aiming for deep learning in SPOCs. Computers & Education, 125, 86-100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.06.004
Fischer, F., Kollar, I., Stegmann, K., & Wecker, C. (2013). Toward a Script Theory of Guidance in Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. Educational Psychologist, 48(1), 56‐66. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2012.748005
*Gaynor, J. W. (2020). Peer review in the classroom: student perceptions, peer feedback quality and the role of assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 45(5), 758-775. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2019.1697424
*Ge, Z.G. (2019). Investigating the effect of real-time multi-peer feedback with the use of a web-based polling software on e-learners’ learning performance. Interactive Learning Environments, https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1643743
Gergen, K. J. (1985). The social constructionist movement in modern psychology. American Psychologist, 40(3), 266-175.
*Gielen, M. et De Wever, B. (2015). Structuring peer assessment: Comparing the impact of the degree of structure on peer feedback content. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 315–325. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0747563215004598
Greeno, J.G. (2006). Learning in activity. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 79–96). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Grossman, P. L., et Stodolsky, S. S. (1994). Chapter 4: Considerations of content and the circumstances of secondary school teaching. Review of Research in Ed., 20(1), 179-221.
Hadwin, A. F., Oshige, M., Gress, C. L. Z., et Winne, P. H. (2010). Innovative ways for using gStudy to orchestrate and research social aspects of self-regulated learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(5), 794–805. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2007.06.007
*Hwang, G-J, Tu, N-T et Wang, X-M. (2018). Creating interactive e-books through learning by design: The impacts of guided peer-feedback on students’ learning achievements and project outcomes in science courses. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 21(1), 25-36, http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=psyc15&NEWS=N&AN=2018-04131-002
*Huisman, B., Saab, N., Van Driel, J. et Van Den Broek, P. (2018). Peer feedback on academic writing: Undergraduate students’ peer feedback role, peer feedback perceptions and essay performance. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(6), 955–968. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02602938.2018.1424318
*Ibarra-Sáiz, M. S., Rodríguez-Gómez, G., et Boud, D. (2020). Developing student competence through peer assessment: the role of feedback, self-regulation and evaluative judgement. Higher Education, 80(1), 137-156.
*Ion, G., Cano-Garcia, E. et Fernández-Ferrer, M. (2017). Enhancing self-regulated learning through using written feedback in higher education. International Journal of Educational Research, 85, 1-10. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0883035516310795
Jacquot, J-P. (2008). Évaluation par les pairs : un travail d’étudiant ? : Faire participer les étudiants à leur notation. Questions de pédagogie dans l’enseignement supérieur, 301-307. https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00292316/
*Johnson, J-A. (2019). The effect of online cross-age peer tutoring on student self-efficacy in middle school stem. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 80(7-A(E)). http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=psyc16&NEWS=N&AN=2019-41130-126
Kajamaa, A., et Kumpulainen, K. (2019) Young people, digital mediation, and transformative agency, special issue (part 1), Mind, Culture, and Activity, 26(3), 201-206, DOI: 10.1080/10749039.2019.1652653
*Kartono et Shora, R.Y. (2020). Effectiveness of Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning with Peer Feedback on Achieving Students’ Mathematical Reasoning Capabilities. International Journal of Instruction, 13(3), 555–570. https://smartlib.umri.ac.id/assets/uploads/files/9aed1-iji_2020_3_38.pdf
*Kasch, J., van Rosmalen, P., Lohr, A., Klemke, R., Antonaci, A. et Kalz, M. (2021). Students’ perceptions of the peer-feedback experience in MOOCs. Distance Education, 42, 145-163. *https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2020.1869522
*Langan, D., Higgins, J. P., Jackson, D., Bowden, J., Veroniki, A. A., Kontopantelis, E., Viechtbauer, W. et Simmonds, M. (2019). A comparison of heterogeneity variance estimators in simulated random‐effects meta‐analyses. Research synthesis methods, 10(1), 83-98.
* Lai, C. L., et Hwang, G. J. (2015). An interactive peer-assessment criteria development approach to improving students' art design performance using handheld devices. Computers & Education, 85, 149-159.
*Lee, Y-F, Lin, C-J, Hwang, G-J, Fu, Q-K et Tseng, W-H. (2021). Effects of a mobile-based progressive peer-feedback scaffolding strategy on students’ creative thinking performance, metacognitive awareness, and learning attitude. Interactive Learning Environments, https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.1916763
Lewis, M. (1990). The development of intentionality and the role of consciousness. Psychological Inquiry, 1, 231–247.
*Li, H., Xiong, Y., Hunter, C.V., Guo, X. et Tywoniw, R. (2020). Does peer assessment promote student learning? A meta-analysis. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 45(2), 193–211. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02602938.2019.1620679
*Lira-Gonzales, M-L., Nassaji, H. et Chao, K. W. (2021). L’impact de la rétroaction par les pairs entraînés au moyen d’un blogue pour améliorer l’écriture en français langue seconde (FLS). Formation et profession, 29(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.18162/fp.2021.602
*López-Pellisa T, Rotger N. et Rodríguez-Gallego, F. (2021). Collaborative Writing at Work: Peer Feedback in a Blended Learning Environment. Education and Information Technologies, 26(1),1293-1310. http://dx.doi.org.acces.bibl.ulaval.ca/10.1007/s10639-020-10312-2
Marion, C. (2018). Transfert des connaissances: proposition d’un modèle centré sur la prise en compte des personnes. Thèse de recherche inédite. UQAM.
McCaslin, M., et Hickey, D. T. (2001). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: A Vygotskian view. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 227–252). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
*Michinov, N. Anquetil, É et Michinov, E. (2020). Guiding the use of collective feedback displayed on heatmaps to reduce group conformity and improve learning in peer instruction. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 1026-1037.
*Min, H. T. (2006). The effects of trained peer review on EFL students’revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 118–141. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S106037430600004X
*Misiejuk, K., Wasson, B. et Egelandsdal, K. (2021). Using learning analytics to understand student perceptions of peer feedback, Computers in Human Behavior,117, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106658
*Molloy, E., Boud, D. et Henderson, H. (2020). Developing a learning-centred framework for feedback literacy, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 45(4), 527-540. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2019.1667955
* Mulder, R. A., Pearce, J. M. et Baik, C. (2014). Peer review in higher education: Student perceptions before and after participation. Active Learning in Higher Education, 15, 157–171. https://doi.org/10.1177/146978741452739
Nadeau-Tremblay, S., Tremblay, M., Laferrière, T., et Allaire, S. (2022). Les enjeux et défis d’accompagnement d’enseignantes et d’enseignants dans l’évaluation des apprentissages à l’aide de technologies collaboratives au primaire et au secondaire. Médiations et médiatisations, 9, 7-27. https://revue-mediations.teluq.ca/index.php/Distances/article/view/249/208
* Neugebauer, J., Ray, D.G. et Sassenberg, K. (2016). When being worse helps: The influence of upward social comparisons and knowledge awareness on learner engagement and learning in peer-to-peer knowledge exchange. Learning and Instruction, 44, 41-52. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959475216300202
*Nicol, D., Thomson, A. et Breslin, C. (2014). Rethinking Feedback Practices in Higher Education: A Peer Review Perspective. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(1), 102–122. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02602938.2013.795518
Nixon, R. S., Hill, K. M. et Luft, J. A. (2017). Secondary science teachers’ subject matter knowledge development across the first 5 years. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 28(7), 574-589.
O’Donovan, B., Rust, C. et Price, M. (2016). A Scholarly Approach to Solving the Feedback Dilemma in Practice. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(6), 938–949. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2015.1052774
Ontario Centre of Excellence for Child (OCEC) et Youth Mental Health et Childrens’ Mental Health Ontaio (CMHO). (2020). Le retour à l’école durant la COVID-19 : Considérations pour les prestataires de services communautaires en santé mentale des enfants et des jeunes de l’Ontario. Rapport de recherche. Ontario. https://cmho.org/wp-content/uploads/Le-retour-a-l-ecole-durant-la-COVID-19.pdf
*O’Neill, T., Larson, N., Smith, J., Donia, M., Deng, C., Rosehart, W. et Brenna, R. (2019). Introducing a scalable peer feedback system for learning teams. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(6), 848-862. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1526256
*Patchan, M.M., Schunn, C.D. et Correnti, R.J. (2016). The nature of feedback: How peer feedback features affect students’ implementation rate and quality of revisions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(8), 1098–1120.
Pea, R. D. (2004). The social and technological dimensions of scaffolding and related theoretical concepts for learning, education, and human activity. The Journal for the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 423–451.
Pellegrino, J. W., Chudowsky, N. et Glaser, R. (Eds.). (2001). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
*Popta, E.V., Kral, M., Camp, G., Martens, R.L. et Simons, R.J. (2016). Exploring the value of peer feedback in online learning for the provider. Educational Research Review, 20, 24–34.
*Rico-Juan, JR, Gallego, A-J et Calvo-Zaragoza, J. (2019). Automatic detection of inconsistencies between numerical scores and textual feedback in peer-assessment processes with machine learning. Computers & Education, 140, https://doi-org.acces.bibl.ulaval.ca/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103609
*Ridge, B.L. et Lavigne. A.L. (2020). Improving Instructional Practice through Peer Observation and Feedback. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 28(61). https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2763-4551
*Robinson, S., Pope, D. et Holyoak, L. (2013). Can we meet their expectations? Experiences and perceptions of feedback in first year undergraduate students. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(3), 260–272. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2011.629291
Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: cognitive development in social context. New York: Oxford University Press.
* Roy, M. et Michaud, N. (2018). L’autoévaluation et l’évaluation par les pairs en enseignement supérieur : promesses et défis. Formation et profession, 26(2), 54-65. http://dx.doi.org/10.18162/fp.2018.458
* Rowe, A. D. (2017). Feelings about feedback: the role of emotions in assessment for learning. In D. Carless, S. M. Bridges, C. K. Y. Chan, & R. Glofcheski (Eds.), Scaling up assessment for learning in Higher Education (pp. 159–172). Singapore: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-3045-1_11
Russo, K., Soares, R., Magnan, M.-O. et Borri-Anadon, C. (2020). Droit à la santé ou droit à l’éducation ? Inégalités en éducation pendant la première vague de la Covid-19 au Québec. Québec : Chaire-réseau de recherche sur la jeunesse du Québec (CRJ).
Ryan, R.M. et Deci, L. E. (2000). Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and New Directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54–67. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1020
Sadler, D. R. (2010). Beyond Feedback: Developing Student Capability in Complex Appraisal. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), 535–550. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930903541015
Salomon, G. (1993). No distribution without individuals’ cognition: A dynamic interactional view. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 111–138). New York: Cambridge University Press.
*Sanchez-Marti, A., Munoz, M, José, L. et Ion, G. (2019). Design and validation of a questionnaire about learning perception through peer feedback in higher education. Revista Iberoamericana de Diagnóstico y Evaluación Psicologica, 53(4), 113-128.
Sannino, A. (2015). The Principle of Double Stimulation: A Path to Volitional Action. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 6, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2015.01.001
Scardamalia, M., et Bereiter, C. (1991). Higher Levels of Agency for Children in Knowledge-Building: A Challenge for the Design of New Knowledge Media. Journal of the Learning Sciences 1(1), 37-68.
*Schell, J.A. et Butler, A.C. (2018). Insights From the Science of Learning Can Inform Evidence-Based Implementation of Peer Instruction. Front. Educ., 3(33). https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2018.00033
*Schunn, C.D., Godley, A.J. et DeMartino, S. (2016). The reliability and validity of peer review of writing in high school AP English classes. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 60(1), 13–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.525
* Scott, T.M., Gage, N., Hirn, R. et Han, H. (2019). Teacher and student race as a predictor for negative feedback during instruction. School Psychologist, 34(1), 22–31. https://doi.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fspq0000251
Smit, J., A. A. van Eerde, H., et Bakker, A. (2013). A conceptualisation of whole-class scaffolding. British Educational Research Journal, 39(5), 817–834. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3007
Smith, M. K., Wood, W. B., Adams, W. K., Wieman, C., Knight, J. K., Guild, N. et al. (2009). Why peer discussion improves student performance on in-class concept questions. Science 323, 122–124. https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.1165919
*Steen-Utheim, A. et Wittek, A.L. (2017). Dialogic feedback and potentialities for student learning. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction. 15, 18–30. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2210656116302033
*Strijbos, J.W. et Sluijsmans, D. (2010). Unravelling peer assessment: Methodological, functional, and conceptual developments. Learning and Instruction, 20, 265–269. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959475209000735
*Taras, V., Tullar, W., Steel, P., O’Neil, T. et McLarnon, M. (2016). Free-Riding in Global Virtual Teams: An Experimental Study of Antecedents and Strategies to Minimize the Problem. Paper presented at the Academy of International Business annual conference, New Orleans, LA. Best Research Methods Paper Award. New Orleans, 27–30.
*Topping, K. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 249–276. https://doi.org/10.2307/1170598
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (2020). Education and COVID-19:challenges and opportunities. Document en ligne. https://en.ccunesco.ca/idealab/education-and-covid-19-challenges-and-opportunities
*van Blankenstein, F.M., Trutescu, G.O, van der Rijst, R. et Saab, N. (2019). Immediate and delayed effects of a modeling example on the application of principles of good feedback practice: a quasi-experimental study. Instructional Science, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-019-09482-5
* van den Berg, Y.H. et Cillessen, A.H. (2013). Computerized sociometric and peer assessment- An Empirical and practical evaluation. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 37(1), 68-76. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0165025412463508
van de Pol, J., Volman, M., et Beishuizen, J. (2010). Scaffolding in Teacher–Student Interaction: A Decade of Research. Educ Psychol Rev, 22, 271–296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9127-6
*van Gennip, N.A.E., Segers, M. S. R., et Tillema, H. H. (2010). Peer assessment as a collaborative learning activity: The role of interpersonal variables and conceptions. Learning and Instruction. https://doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.010
*van Popta, E., Kral, M., Camp, G., Martens, R.L. et Simons, P.R.J. (2017). Exploring the value of peer feedback in online learning for the provider. Educational Research Review, 20, 24-34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2016.10.003
*van Zundert, M., Sluijsmans, D., et van Merriënboer, J. (2010). Effective peer assessment processes: Research findings and future directions. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 270–279.
Villamil, O.S., t de Guerrero, M.C.M. (2006). Sociocultural theory: A framework for understanding the socio-cognitive dimensions of peer feedback. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Context and issues. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Harvard University Press.
*Wang, A.I. (2015). The wear out effect of a game-based student response system. Computers et Education, 82, 217–227. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360131514002516
Wertsch, J.V (1997). Vygotsky and the formation of the mind. MA: Cambridge Press.
Whitley, J., Beauchamp, M.H. et Brown, C. (2021). The impact of COVID-19 on the learning and achievement of vulnerable Canadian children and youth. FACETS, 6(1), 1693-1713. https://doi.org/10.1139/facets-2021-0096
*Wichmann, A., Funk, A., Rummel, N. (2018). Leveraging the potential of peer feedback in an academic writing activity through sense-making support. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 33(1), 165–184. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-017-0348-7
Winne, P. H. (2010). Improving measurements of self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 45(4), 267–276. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2010.517150
*Winstone, N. E., Nash, R. A., Parker, M. et Rowntree, J. (2017). Supporting Learners’ Agentic Engagement with Feedback: A Systematic Review and a Taxonomy of Recipience Processes. Educational Psychologist, 52(1), 17-37. https://doi:10.1080/00461520.2016.1207538
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., et Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child. Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines, 17(2), 89–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x
Wu, Y. et Schunn, C.D. (2020). From feedback to revisions: Effects of feedback features and perceptions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 60, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.101826
*Wu, Y. et Schunn, C.D. (2021). The effects of providing and receiving peer feedback on writing performance and learning of secondary school students. American Educational Research Journal, 58(3), 492–526, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.3102/0002831220945266?journalCode=aera
Yang, M., et Carless, D. (2013). The Feedback Triangle and the Enhancement of Dialogic Feedback Processes. Teaching in Higher Education, 18(3), 285–297. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2012.719154
*Yang, Y. F. (2016). Transforming and constructing academic knowledge through online peer feedback in summary writing. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(4), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2015.1016440
*Yousef, A.M.F., Wahid, U., Chatti, M.A., Schroeder, U. et Wosnitza, M. (2015). The effect of peer assessment rubrics on learner’s satisfaction and performance within a blended MOOC environment. In M. Helfert, M. T. Restivo, S. Zvacek & J. Uhomoibhi (Eds.), Computer Supported Education: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (pp.148–159). Science and Technology Publications. https://doi.org/10.5220/0005495501480159
*Zheng, L., Cui, P., Li, X. et Huang, R. (2018). Synchronous Discussion between assessors and assessees in web-based peer assessment: Impact on writing performance, feedback quality, meta-cognitive awareness and self-efficacy. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(3), 500-514. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02602938.2017.1370533
Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning. J. Educ. Psychol, 81, 329–339. https://doi.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F0022-0663.81.3.329
Zimmerman, B. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: a social cognitive perspective. In Handbook of Self-Regulation, eds M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich, and M. Zeidner. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
*Zhu, Q. et Carless, D. (2018). Dialogue within peer feedback processes: Clarification and negotiation of meaning. Higher Education Research & Development, 37(4), 883-897. https://doi:10.1080/07294360.2018.1446417.
*Zong, Z., Chun, C.D. et Wang, Y. (2021). What aspects of online peer feedback robustly predict growth in students’task performance? Computers in Human Behavior, 124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106924.
* Zou, Y., Schunn, C.D., Wang, Y. et Zhang, F. (2018). Student attitudes that predict participation in peer assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(5),800–811. https://www.lrdc.pitt.edu/Schunn/papers/ZouAEHE-attitudes.pdf
Téléchargements
Publié
Numéro
Rubrique
Licence
© Caroline Marion, Thérèse Laferrière, Delphine Tremblay-Gagnon 2022
Cette œuvre est sous licence Creative Commons Attribution - Pas d'Utilisation Commerciale - Pas de Modification 4.0 International.