Is critical peer feedback better facilitate online interaction thancomplimentary feedback affective feedback: Social network analysis
Sun-ae Shin
Chung-ang University, South Korea
yuca505@skku.edu
Hae-deok Song
Chung-ang University, South Korea
hsong@cau.ac.kr

Abstract: Interaction is an essential element for meaningful learning, it is necessary to Strategy
to facilitate this even when performing an online assignment. In this study, we are expecting
interaction among students is increased, that we can to reduce the burden and difficulty of theassignment of individual learner, to improve academic achievement. We conducted an online
peer feedback strategic to facilitate interaction among students, and examined the effect. We
separate the students into 2 groups, One for complement peer feedback in affective domain and the otherfor critical peer feedback in cognitive domain. As a result, interaction of a group of critical feedback
showed more strong and substantial network in centralities, node type, and density. Thus, in order tofacilitate the interaction was proved that it is possible to utilize the cognitive feedback is more effective.
Keywords: Online peer feedback, critical feedback, complement feedback, Social Networking Analysis

Introduction
The interaction is required for learning. It is difficult to receive specific feedback from an instructor forindividual assignment to a person and this tends to be left as a personal assignment for a learner to achieve credits.
To this end, there have been various discussions about stimulating interaction among learners beyond the limit oflectures by utilizing the blended learning based on offline in university lectures(Akkoyunlu,& Yilmaz-Soylu, 2008;Ginns & Ellis, 2007) but there have been few studies on which strategies may be specifically implemented.
Especially, interaction among students play role of the positive stimulus to learning as they feel theintimacy and sense of unity and social presence. Students can have the opportunity of reflection of their own learning
process through feedback activities(Hmelo, Guzadail & Turns, 1998). Nelson & Schunn(2009) separated feedback toaffective domain and cognitive domain. Cognitive domain contains a critical feedback, affective domain contains acomplimentary feedback. In order to know the effect of each feedback on the learning process, I think that it isnecessary to how interaction is started, or has changed, to figure out the pattern.
The purpose of the study is to reduce difficulties and burden on individual assignment for learners bystimulating interaction among learners and categorizes feedback into complement feedback for affective domain andcritical peer feedback for cognitive domain as strategies to enhance the academic achievement through feedback
among learners. In addition, the study investigates subsequent differences from these interactions.
Methods
The experiment was performed for 30 university students who attended 'Education Method andEngineering' class of the education track at university in Seoul and separated the students into 2 groups: one forcomplement feedback and the other for critical and corrective feedback. Then, the environment was provided for therespondents to perform their individual assignments online and proposed the same assignment completed for 3 weeks.
The researcher led the participants to propose their assignments twice, peer learners to form more than 2 feedback
results per person and analyzed the study results.
Measures
The researcher inspected the interaction using the logs left online as matrix and analyzed them withNetminer 4. In addition, SPSS 17.0 Windows was implemented to compare differences between the 2 groups.
The summary of the results from the experiment is as follows.
Results
First, analysis of the centralities in the interaction showed that the group with critical peer feedback more
evenly exchanged feedback than its counterpart.
Table 1Results of Centralities
Centralities
Outdegree

Indegree

PeriodFirst week
Secondary week
Total
First week
Secondary week
otal

Complement peer feedback
MSD
0.121
0.108
0.126
0.115
0.247
0.187
0.121
0.112
0.126
0.107
0.247
0.140Critical peer feedback
MSD
0.200
0.175
0.117
0.083
0.267
0.317
0.200
0.139
0.117
0.065
0.317
0.136

In addition, it was found out that the centralities depended on the period of assignment process. The
primary concentration of the group with complement reached 0.121 and was lower than that of the secondary one(0.126). Meanwhile, the group with critical peer feedback showed higher concentration (0.200) for the primary
assignment and the secondary concentration (0.117).
Second, the analysis of interaction node type showed that the complement feedback group had 9 ordinarytypes (64.28%), 4 receiver types (28.57%) and 1 transmitter type (7.14%) and its counterpart had 14 ordinary types(87.5%) and 2 receiver types (12.5%). It means that the ordinary type was dominated and had stable roles in thegroup with critical and corrective feedback compared to the complement feedback group in the note type, showing
less biased information.
Table 2Results of Node Type
Node Type
IsolateTransmitter
ReceiverCarrier
Ordinary

Complement peer feedback.
14.
9

Critical peer feedback.
.
2.
14Third, the analysis of network density and diversity among interactions depending on feedback types
under the blended learning environment showed that the network density of the group with critical and corrective
feedback was higher (density = 0.254) than its counterpart (density = 0.236). It may suggest that the critical andcorrective feedback stimulated more interactions compared to the complement feedback as shown in the centric andconcentration features.
Table 3Comparison of inclusiveness and density

Network

Density

InclusivenessComplement peer
feedback

0.236

1

Critical peer feedback

0.254

1Conclusion
The conclusion of the study is as follows based on the results above.
The interaction in the group with critical and corrective feedback showed more stronger and substantialnetwork in the aspects of centralities, node types, density and diversity. This enables to assume that the critical peer
feedback, rather than the complement peer feedback, stimulates more interactions in case of providing feedback
among learners. Therefore, the study suggests that it is more effective for an instructor to provide critical peer
feedback, rather than the complement feedback, to stimulate interaction through feedback among learners in case ofproviding online assignments.

Reference
Akkoyunlu, B., & Yilmaz-Soylu, M. (2008). A Study of Student's Perceptions in a Blended Learning
Environment Based on Different Learning Styles.Educational Technology & Society, 11(1), 183-193.
Ginns, P., & Ellis, R. (2007). Quality in blended learning: Exploring the relationships between on-line andface-to-face teaching and learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(1), 53-64.
Hmelo, E. C., Guzdail M., & Turns, J. (1998). Computer-Support for Collaborative Learning : Learning toSupport Student engagement. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 9(2), 107-129.
Nelson, M. M. & Schunn, C. D. (2009). The nature of feedback: How different types of peer feedback
affect writing performance. Instructional Science, 37, 275-401.