Article | 3:e Utvecklingskonferensen för Sveriges ingenjörsutbildningar; 30 november - 1 december; Campus Norrköping; Linköpings universitet | How Peer-Review Affect Student Learning Linköping University Electronic Press Conference Proceedings
Göm menyn

Title:
How Peer-Review Affect Student Learning
Author:
Christian Lundquist: Department of Electrical Engineering, Linköping University, Linköping Martin Skoglund: Department of Electrical Engineering, Linköping University, Linköping Karl Granström: Department of Electrical Engineering, Linköping University, Linköping Torkel Glad: Department of Electrical Engineering, Linköping University, Linköping
Download:
Full text (pdf)
Year:
2012
Conference:
3:e Utvecklingskonferensen för Sveriges ingenjörsutbildningar; 30 november - 1 december; Campus Norrköping; Linköpings universitet
Issue:
075
Article no.:
019
Pages:
91-97
No. of pages:
7
Publication type:
Abstract and Fulltext
Published:
2012-06-26
Series:
Linköping Electronic Conference Proceedings
ISSN (print):
1650-3686
ISSN (online):
1650-3740
Publisher:
Linköping University Electronic Press; Linköpings universitet


Export in BibTex, RIS or text

No abstract available

3:e Utvecklingskonferensen för Sveriges ingenjörsutbildningar; 30 november - 1 december; Campus Norrköping; Linköpings universitet

Author:
Christian Lundquist, Martin Skoglund, Karl Granström, Torkel Glad
Title:
How Peer-Review Affect Student Learning
References:

[1] J. Liu; D. T. Pysarchik; and W. W. Taylor; “Peer review in the classroom;” BioScience; vol. 52; no. 9; pp. 824–829; Sep. 2002.

[2] L. D. Feisel and A. J. Rosa; “The role of the laboratory in undergraduate engineering education;” Journal of Engineering Education; vol. 94; pp. 121–130; Jan. 2005.

[3] A. Hofstein and V. N. Lunetta; “The role of the laboratory in science teaching: Neglected aspects of research;” Review of Educational Research; vol. 52; no. 2; pp. 201–217; 1982.

[4] ——; “The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twentyfirst century;” Science Education; vol. 88; no. 1; pp. 28–54; Dec. 2004.

[5] J. C. Colosi and C. R. Zales; “Jigsaw cooperative learning improves biology lab courses;” BioScience; vol. 48; no. 2; pp. 118–124; Feb. 1998.

[6] K. Topping; “Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities;” Review of Educational Research; vol. 68; no. 3; pp. 249–276; 1998.

[7] P. A. Kirschner and M. A. M. Meester; “The laboratory in higher science education: Problems; premises and objectives;” Higher Education; vol. 17; pp. 81–98; 1988.

[8] B. H. W. Yung; “Three views of fairness in a school-based assessment scheme of practical work in biology;” International Journal of Science Education; vol. 23; no. 10; pp. 985–1005; Oct. 2001.

[9] K. J. Topping and S. W. Ehly; “Peer assisted learning: A framework for consultation;” Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation; vol. 12; no. 2; pp. 113–132; Jun. 2001.

[10] N. Trautmann; “Interactive learning through web-mediated peer review of student science reports;” Educational Technology Research and Development; vol. 57; no. 5; pp. 685–704; Oct. 2009.

[11] N. J. Pelaez; “Problem-based writing with peer review improves academic performance in physiology.” Advances in physiology education; vol. 26; pp. 174–184; Dec. 2002.

[12] D. E. Berry and K. L. Fawkes; “Constructing the Components of a Lab Report Using Peer Review;” Journal of Chemical Education; vol. 87; no. 1; pp. 57–61; Jan. 2010.

3:e Utvecklingskonferensen för Sveriges ingenjörsutbildningar; 30 november - 1 december; Campus Norrköping; Linköpings universitet

Author:
Christian Lundquist, Martin Skoglund, Karl Granström, Torkel Glad
Title:
How Peer-Review Affect Student Learning
Note: the following are taken directly from CrossRef
Citations:
No citations available at the moment


Responsible for this page: Peter Berkesand
Last updated: 2019-11-06