The Effect of Peer Review to the Improvement of Gifted Elementary Science Students' Open Inquiry

동료평가가 초등과학영재의 개방적 탐구 개선에 끼치는 영향

  • Received : 2016.10.24
  • Accepted : 2016.12.27
  • Published : 2016.12.31


The purpose of this study is to figure out gifted elementary science students' improvement in performing open inquiry after peer review. In this study, gifted fifth-grade students performed open inquiry and review of each other as peers after the inquiry. Students' inquiries were evaluated and the influences of the feedback from the peer reviews were analyzed in relation to the inquiry performances. As a result of this study, three key points were discovered: First, the evaluation score increased with frequent feedback or long discussions. On the other hand, with less feedback, the evaluation score didn't rise. Second, there were three types of improvement in inquiry related to peer review: No. 1 was improvement after feedback given by themselves. No. 2 was reflection of feedback given to other groups. As a last type, No. 3 was that the students learned from other groups' presentation without any feedback and improved their inquiry. Third, there were five kinds of giving feedback; (1) feedback understanding the inquiry correctly, (2) insufficiency of peer's inquiry without deep thought. (3) on the usefulness of the inquiry, (4) on the scientific and logic validity through critical thinking, and (5) how to develop the inquiry. In these kinds of feedback, the fourth kind of feedback (4) occurred most frequently but the fifth (5) occurred rarely. It means peer review helps students develop their critical thinking ability and teachers should encourage students to give peers feedback of the fifth kind.


open inquiry;peer review;scientific communication


  1. Ausubel, D. P. (1963). The Psychology of Meaningful Verbal Learning: An Introduction to School Learning. New York: New York Grune & Stratton.
  2. Bang, J., Choi, C., Choi, W., & Jeong, D. (2006). The Effects of Inquiry Learning Applying Open-Ended Hypothesis-Testing Learning Model: On the 'Metals and Their Applications' Unit in Chemistry I. Journal of the Korean Chemical Society, 50(5), 385-393.
  3. Bell, L. R., Smetana, L., & Binns, I. (2005). Simplifying inquiry instruction: assessing the inquiry level of classroom activities. Science Teacher, 72(2), 30-33.
  4. Cavagnetto, A., Hand B. M., & Lori Norton-Meier (2010). The nature of elementary student science discourse in the context of the science writing heuristic approach. International Journal of Science Education, 32(4), 427-449.
  5. Center of Science, Mathmatics and Engineering Education(CSMEE) (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: A Guide for Teaching and Learning. Washington D. C.: National Academy Press.
  6. Chaudron, C. (1984). The effects of feedback on students' composition revisions. RELC Journal, 15, 1-14.
  7. Hedgecock, J., & Lefkowitz, N. (1992). Collaborative oral/aural revision in foreign language writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1, 255-276.
  8. Herron, M. D. (1971). The nature of scientific inquiry. School Review, 79(2), 171-212.
  9. Kastra, J. (1987). Effects of peer evaluation on attitudes toward writing fluency of 9th graders. Journal of Educational Research, 80, 168-172.
  10. Kim, H., & Song, J. (2004). The Exploration of Open Scientific Inquiry Model Emphasizing Students' Argumentation. The Korean Association for Science Education, 24(6), 1216-1234.
  11. Kim, S., Jeoung, J., & Chun, J. (2010). Development and Application of Evaluation Criteria for Free Inquiry Activity Reports of Elementary School Students. The Korean Society of Elementary Science Education, 29(1), 69-85.
  12. Lee, E., & Kang, S. (2008). The Effect of SWH Application on Problem-Solving Type Inquiry Modules Through Student-Student Verbal Interactions. The Korean Association for Science Education, 28(2), 130-138.
  13. Lee, H., & Lee, J. (2010). The Effect of the Specific Open-Inquiry Lesson on the Elementary Students' Science-related Attitude, Science Process Skill and the Instructing Teachers' Cognition about Open-Inquiry. The Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 34(2), 405-420.
  14. Lee, J., & Kim, S. (2012). Effects of the Peer Review Activities on the Inquiry Experiments Regarding Plant Transpiration. Biology Education, 40(4), 494-510.
  15. Lee, Y., & Kim, D. (2010). The Effects of Free Inquiry Method Based on PBL on Science Process Skill and Self-Directed Learning Characteristics. The Korean Society of Earth Science Education, 3(3), 239-247.
  16. Leki, I. (1990). Coaching from the margins: Issues in written response. In Kroll, B.(Ed.), Second Language Writing: Research Insights for the Classroom. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  17. Lunetta, V. N. (1997). The role of laboratory in school science. In Tobin, D. & Fraser, B. J.(Eds.), International handbook of science education, Dordrecht, the Nethelands: Kluwer.
  18. Mangelsdorf, K. (1992). Peer reviews in the ESL composition classroom: What do the students think? ELT Journal, 46, 274-284.
  19. Nancy, M. T. (2009). Interactive learning through web-mediated peer review. Education Tech Research, 57, 685-704.
  20. National Research Council(NRC) (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: a guide for teaching and learning. Washington, D. C.: National Academy Press.
  21. Park, J., Kim, J., & Bae, J. (2001). The Effect of Free Inquiry Activities on the Science Process Skills and Scientific Attitudes of Elementary School Students. The Korean Society of Elementary Science Education, 20(2), 271-280.
  22. Park, S., Kang, S., & Jang, E. (2010). The Effect of Peer Review Activities on Qualitative Changes in Lab Reports. The Korean Association for Science Education, 30(8), 988-1001.
  23. Roth, W. M. (1995). Authentic school science. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.
  24. Schwab, J. J. (1960). Inquiry - the science teacher and the educator. The Science Teacher, 27(10), 6.