Abstract
This paper provides an analysis of students’ peer assessment conversations in introductory college calculus. Prior research shows that this type of activity can support meaningful student learning. However, previous studies have suggested that students from different groups (e.g., by race or gender) may have different opportunities to participate in such discussion-based activities. Accordingly, this paper explores the participation of students in peer assessment conversations, by focusing on the types of feedback and word choices used by different groups of students, by race and gender. Based on computer-aided textual analysis, this paper provides insights into the types of words used by different students in the class. While there was evidence of inequities in participation between men and women, the results for race were inconclusive. These results suggest that peer conferences have some potential for producing more equitable participation in calculus.
Highlights
Imagine walking through a large-enrollment introductory STEM classroom with hundreds of students trading papers and providing constructive feedback on one another’s problem solving
This paper focuses on mathematics, but the results should generalize to other disciplines, especially given that the focal activity, Peer-Assisted Reflection (PAR) (Reinholz, 2015a), has been used across STEM disciplines
The present study focuses on issues of equity and status in peer feedback conferences, with respect to race and gender
Summary
Imagine walking through a large-enrollment introductory STEM classroom with hundreds of students trading papers and providing constructive feedback on one another’s problem solving. As you walk around the classroom, you overhear a student conferencing with their peer: Part three of your solution is clearly wrong. You didn’t even show units and your answer doesn’t make sense when interpreted physically. You overhear another student: I’m not sure about your response to number two. I have a feeling that you may have computed the distances using an incorrect model of the physical setup. What could you say about the relative status of the speaker and listener in each example based on the words they used? Which words would help you draw inferences? I wonder if you could show more work, and could you explain more to me about what you were thinking? I have a feeling that you may have computed the distances using an incorrect model of the physical setup.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
