Critical Thinking in Gifted Childrens' Offline and Online Peer Feedback

Year 2013, Volume: 4 Issue: 1, 66 - 80, 01.03.2013

Myriah T. Miller Jill Olthouse

Abstract

This comparative study identified the differences between gifted children’s offline and online peer feedback within a summer talented writer’s workshop. Researchers analyzed ten students’ writings for degrees of critical thinking evident in their feedback. Online feedback included students’ writings in social writing sites Storybird.com and KidBlog. Offline feedback was submitted on a teacher designed rubric, and then incorporated into a revised manuscript using Microsoft Word. Critical thinking was defined as the three upper tiers of Bloom’s Taxonomy: analysis, and evaluation, and synthesis. Each comment in students' online and offline feedback was coded according to one of the levels of Bloom's Taxonomy. In addition, interpretative summaries were written describing how students used feedback within each category. Results indicated that critical thinking (specifically analysis and evaluation) was more evident in the responses that were structured opposed to those that were in the social media contexts. There was also evidence of an increased amount of informal dialogue in the online feedback opposed to the structured feedback. Online writing technologies are seen to be most successful when teachers' expectations for critical thinking and students' desire for informal positive feedback are combined; this success depends on the presence of a skilled teacher and supportive peers, rather than on the presence of a specific technology tool.

Keywords

Critical thinking, Educational technology, Peer feedback, Bloom’s Taxonomy, Gifted Students, Social Media, Writing

References

• Baxter, P. & S. Jack. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report, 13(4), 544-559.
• Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: David McKay, 19, 56.
• Bran, R. (2010). Message in a bottle Telling stories in a digital world. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences , 2 (2), 1790-1793.
• Chen, N., Wei, C., Wu, K., & Uden, L. (2009). Effects of high level prompts and peer assessment on online learners’ reflection levels. Computers & Education , 52 (2), 283-291.
• Ertmer, P. A., Richardson, J. C., Belland, B., Camin, D., Connolly, P., Coulthard, G., Lei, K., & Mong, C. (2007).Using peer feedback to enhance the quality of student online postings: An exploratory study. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(2), 412-433.
• Flower, L., Hayes, J., Carey, L., Schriver, K., &Stratman, J. (1986).Detection, diagnosis, and the strategies of revision. College Composition and Communication, 37(1), 16-55.
• Gay, L. R., Mills, G. E., &Airasian, P., (2012). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and applications (10thed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
• Graham, S., McKeown, D., Kiuhara, S., & Harris, K. (2012).A meta-analysis of writing instruction for students in the elementary grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, No pagination specified.
• Halpern, D. F. (1998).Teaching critical thinking for transfer across domains: Dispositions, skills, structure training, and metacognitive monitoring. American Psychologist, 53(4), 449-55.
• Jonassen, D., Carr, C., & Yueh, H. (1998).Computers as mindtools for engaging learners in critical thinking. TechTrends, 43(2), 24-32.
• Katsarou, E. (2009). A multiliteracy intervention in a contemporary "mono-literacy" school in Greece. International journal of learning, 16(5), 55-65.
• Kaufman, J. C., Gentile, C. A., & Baer, J. (2005). Do gifted student writers and creative writing experts rate creativity the same way?. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49(3), 260-270.
• Keh, C. L. (1990). Feedback in the writing process: A model and methods for implementation. ELT Journal, 44(4), 294-304.
• MacArthur, C., Schwartz, S., & Graham, S. (1991). Effects of a reciprocal peer revision strategy in special education classrooms. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice. 6(4), 201-210.
• New London Group. A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. (1996). Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60-92.
• Olthouse, J. M. & Miller, M. T. (2012). Teaching talented writers with Web 2.0 tools. Teaching Exceptional Children, 45(2), 6-14.
• Patchan, M. (2011). Peer review of writing: Learning from revision using peer feedback and reviewing peers’ texts (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Pittsburgh. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
• Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Piirto, J. (1992). Understanding those who create. Dayton, OH. Ohio Psychology Press.
• Prensky, M. (2001) Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon. 9(5), 1-6.
• Rideout, V., Foehr, U., & Roberts, D. 2010. Generation M2: Media in the lives of 8 to 18 year olds. Kaiser Family Foundation. Menlo Park, California.
• Shoffner, M., De Oliveira, L. C., & Angus, R. (2010). Multiliteracies in the secondary English classroom: Becoming literate in the 21st century. English Teaching: Practice and Critique 9(3), 75-89.
• Smutny, J. (2011). Challenge your top students. Instructor, 121(3), 30-35.
• Stoddard, B. & MacArthur, C. (1993). A peer editor strategy: Guiding learning-disabled students in response and revision. Research in the Teaching of English, 27(1), 76-103.
• Topping, K. J. (2009). Peer assessment. Theory into Practice, 48(1), 20-27.
• Vie, S. (2008). Digital divide 2.0:“Generation M” and online social networking sites in the composition classroom. Computers and Composition , 25 (1), 9-23.
• Vincent, J. (2006). Children writing: Multimodality and assessment in the writing classroom.
• Literacy , 40(1), 51--57.
• Yagelski, R. (1995). The role of classroom context in the revision strategies of student writers. Research in the Teaching of English, 29(2), 216-238.
• Yang, Y. (2012). Multimodal Composing in Digital Storytelling. Computers and Composition , 29(3), 221--238.
• Yarrow, F. & Topping, K. J. (2001). Collaborative writing: The effects of metacognitive prompting and structured peer interaction. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(2), 261–282.
• Correspondence: Myriah T. Miller, Department of Special Education, West Virginia University,
• Morgantown, West Virginia, United States