How Digital and Oral Peer Feedback Improves High School Students’ Written Argumentation—A Case Study Exploring the Effectiveness of Peer Feedback in Geography

Abstract

This article approaches written argumentation as a concept of promoting geographical literacy. It is argued that student-centered peer feedback is an effective method with which to improve individual students’ argumentative texts. This research uses a case-study design, which analyzed how high school students in different pairs improve their argumentation text under subject-specific criteria. For the feedback process, a subject-specific feedback sheet for students has been designed for them to review their partner’s argumentative text. The findings mainly suggest two outcomes: Different kinds of feedback in terms of interaction, content and argumentative integration of text material lead to text improvement, and that there are varying complexities of feedback acceptance in terms of subject-specific criteria. The results provide a deeper insight into how students can be prepared and rewarded for producing qualitatively high and effective feedback on argumentative texts in socio-scientific contexts with a strong focus on the (linguistic) skills they need for these procedures.

Learning the Disciplines Through Linguistic Feedback: Contribution to the Development of a Discipline-Specific, Formative Evaluation of Students’ Assignments

“…The researchers find that feedback leads to more precise writing about the acid-base concept. Finally, Morawski and Budke (2019) investigate the extent to which the use of peer feedback in the subject of geography may improve students' written argumentation. A list of three stages of feedback was designed to scaffold the peer feedback.…”

Critique and the video production classroom: providing students the skills to navigate new media literacies

“…Through my time in two video production classrooms I found that a focus on teaching argumentative and inquiry practices can be used as scaffolding for students to learn the methods of critique allowing them increased agency in the process. Although "argumentation" may presume a negative interaction, rhetoricians recognize argumentation as the prime mode for moving thinking forward (Lunsford et al, 2012;Morawski and Budke, 2019;Leitao, 2000). Although Lynch et al (1997) claim that argumentation is synonymous with "agonistic inquiry" or "confrontational cooperation," Hillocks (1982) separates the two discourse moves in recognizing inquiry as "a consciously adopted procedure used to investigate phenomena in various unrelated disciplines" (p. 662).…”

Argumentar Cientificamente:

“…O estudo de Morawski & Budke (2019) sugere que quando os alunos discutem as ideias, ganham em raciocínio. Entre os resultados obtidos, os pesquisadores destacaram que houve um impacto positivo em um grupo de estudantes depois da revisão dos argumentos pelos pares.…”