No abstract

We investigate students' negative perceptions about an online peer assessment system for undergraduate writing across the disciplines. Specifically, we consider the nature of students' resistance to peer assessment; what factors influence that resistance; and how students' perceptions impact their revision work. We do this work by first examining findings from an end-of-course survey administered to 250 students in ten courses across six universities using an online peer assessment system called SWoRD for their writing assignments. Those findings indicate that students have the most positive perceptions of SWoRD in those courses where an instructor graded their work in addition to peers (as opposed to peer-only grading). We then move to an in-depth examination of perceptions and revision work among 84 students using SWoRD and no instructor grading for assessment of writing in one university class. Findings from that study indicate that students sometimes regard peer assessment as unfair and often believe that peers are unqualified to review and assess students' work. Furthermore, students' perceptions about the fairness of peer assessment drop significantly following students' experience in doing peer assessment. Students' fairness perceptions-and drops in those perceptions-are most significantly associated with their perceptions about the extent to which peers' feedback is useful and positive. However, students' perceptions appear to be unrelated to the extent of their revision work. This research fills a considerable gap in the literature regarding the origin of students' negative perceptions about peer assessment, as well as how perceptions influence performance.

No abstract

This article begins to unravel the question, ''What curricular materials work best under what kinds of conditions?'' The authors address this question from the point of view of teachers and their ability to implement mathematics curricula that place varying demands and provide varying levels of support for their learning. Specifically, the authors focus on how teacher capacity (their level of education, experience, and knowledge) and their use of curriculum influence instruction. The study sample is 48 teachers implementing two standards-based mathematics curricula-Everyday Mathematics and Investigations-in two school districts. The data include interviews and surveys with teachers, as well as observations of instruction, over a 2-year period. Findings indicate that teachers' implementation of Investigations was considerably better than teachers' implementation of Everyday Mathematics in terms of maintaining high levels of cognitive demand, attention to student thinking, and mathematical reasoning. These implementation measures were not correlated to measures of teacher capacity across school districts. However, implementation measures were significantly correlated with teachers' lesson preparation that took into account the big mathematical ideas within curriculum. Further qualitative analysis indicated that the Investigations curriculum provided more support to teachers for locating and understanding the big mathematical ideas within lessons compared to Everyday Mathematics.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract