Learning from reviewing peers’ concept maps in an inquiry context: commenting or grading, which is better?

In peer assessment, both receiving feedback and giving feedback (reviewing peers’ products) have been found to be beneficial for learning. However, the different ways to give feedback and their influence on learning have not been studied enough. This experimental study compared giving feedback by writing comments and by grading, to determine which contributes more to the feedback providers’ learning. Secondary school students from Russia (n = 51) and the Netherlands (n = 42) gave feedback on concept maps during a physics lesson. The lesson was given in an online inquiry learning environment that included an online lab. Students gave feedback in a special Peer Assessment tool, which also provided assessment criteria. Findings indicate that post-test knowledge scores were higher for students from the commenting group. The difference between the groups was largest for the low prior knowledge students. Possible educational implications and directions for further research are discussed

Longitudinal assessment of digital literacy in children: Findings from a large Dutch single-school study

This article reports on a three-year longitudinal study that portrayed the development of children's digital literacy skills. A sample of 151 fifth- and sixth-graders was tested three times at yearly intervals to monitor how their skills to collect, create, transform, and safely use digital information progressed. Results at the group level showed a steady linear increase in all four skills, but individual children tended to alternate substantial growth in one year with minimal progress during the next or vice versa. Children made most progress in their ability to collect information whereas their ability to create information improved the least. Development of most skills was moderately related and independent of gender, grade level, migration background, and improvements in reading comprehension and math. Children's socioeconomic status was weakly associated with the ability to collect and safely use information, but not with the other two digital literacy skills

Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence for Designing Accessible Cultural Heritage

This paper reviews the literature concerning technology used for creating and delivering accessible museum and cultural heritage sites experiences. It highlights the importance of the delivery suited for everyone from different areas of expertise, namely interaction design, pedagogical and participatory design, and it presents how recent and future artificial intelligence (AI) developments can be used for this aim, i.e.,improving and widening online and in situ accessibility. From the literature review analysis, we articulate a conceptual framework that incorporates key elements that constitute museum and cultural heritage online experiences and how these elements are related to each other. Concrete opportunities for future directions empirical research for accessibility of cultural heritage contents are suggested and further discusse

The influence of prior knowledge on the effectiveness of guided experiment design

Inquiry learning is an effective learning approach if learners are properly guided. Its effectiveness depends on learners’ prior knowledge, the domain, and their relationship. In a previous study we developed an Experiment Design Tool (EDT) guiding learners in designing experiments. The EDT significantly benefited low prior knowledge learners. For the current study the EDT was refined to also serve higher prior knowledge learners. Two versions were created; the “Constrained EDT” required learners to design minimally three experimental trials and apply CVS before they could conduct their experiment, and the “Open EDT” allowed learners to design as many trials as they wanted, and vary more than one variable. Three conditions were compared in terms of learning gains for learners having distinct levels of prior knowledge. Participants designed and conducted experiments within an online learning environment that (1) did not include an EDT, (2) included the Constrained EDT, or (3) included the Open EDT. Results indicated low prior knowledge learners to benefit most from the Constrained EDT (non-significant), low-intermediate prior knowledge learners from the Open EDT (significant), and high-intermediate prior knowledge learners from no EDT (non-significant). We advocate guidance to be configurable to serve learners with varying levels of prior knowledge

An exploratory study into graduate students' attitudes towards peer assessment

In recent decades, many researchers have been working on the effectiveness of peer assessment in higher education. Being a useful teaching tool, peer assessment enables students to actively participate in learning and create a student-centered learning environment. Many studies focused on the influence of peer assessment on student learning, however, few studies have explored indicators that teachers can use to identify potential problems regarding students’ attitudes towards students’ feedback and peer review process. Thus, this is an exploratory study, trying to understand indicators for success and problems regarding students’ peer feedback process. We had 93 international students performing three peer-feedback assignments (each assignment of around 2000 words and each review of at least 250 words) on the topics of digital transformation, design thinking, and leadership in an Innovation and Entrepreneurship Basic course. For each of the tasks, students completed questionnaires about their attitudes towards peer assessment in general, providing peer assessment and the usefulness of the received peer assessment. We investigate the correlation between students’ performance, students’ assignment lengths, and students’ reviews lengths and attitude questionnaire items and we present the correlations we observed. These correlations can serve as first indicators to teachers to detect potential problems with peer assessment and get insights into student’s perceptions of the peer assessment process