Triangulation in classroom research: A study of peer revision

Language Learning

Volumn 47, Issue 1, 1997, Pages 1-43

  McGroarty, Mary E ^a   Zhu, Wei ^b  

^a NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0031505434     PISSN: 00238333     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/0023-8333.11997001     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Atkinson, D., & Ramanathan, V. (1995). Cultures of writing: An ethnographic comparison of L1 and L2 university writing/language programs. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 539-568.
2. Brannen, J. (Ed.) 1992. Mixing methods: Qualitative and quantitative research. Hants, UK: Aldershot/Brookfield, VT: Avebury.
3. Carnicelli, T. (1980). The writing conference: A one-to-one conversation. In T. Donovan & B. McClelland (Eds.), Eight approaches to teaching composition (pp. 101-131). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
4. Carson, J., & Nelson, G. (1996). Chinese students' perceptions of ESL peer response group interaction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5, 1-19.
5. Chaudron, C. (1983). Evaluating writing: Effects of feedback on revision. Paper presented at 17th annual TESOL Convention, Toronto, Ontario.
6. Cohen, E. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64, 1-35.
7. Connor, U., & Asenavage, K. (1994). Peer response groups in ESL writing classes: How much impact on revision? Journal of Second Language Writing, 3, 257-276.
8. Cook, T.D. (1985). Postpositivist critical multiplism. In R.L. Shotland & M.M. Mark (Eds.), Social science and social policy (pp. 21-62). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
9. Coulthard, M. (1985). An introduction to discourse analysis. New York: Longman.
10. Davis, K. A. (1995). Qualitative theory and methods in applied linguistics research. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 427-453.
11. Dennis, M.L., Fetterman, D.M., & Sechrest, L. (1994). Integrating qualitative and quantitative evaluation methods in substance abuse research. Evaluation and Program Planning, 17, 419-427.
12. Denzin, N. (1978). Sociological methods: A sourcebook. New York: McGraw-Hill.
13. Dyson, A., & Freedman, S. (1991). Writing. In J. Flood., J. Jensen., D. Lapp., & J. Squire (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts (pp. 754-774). New York: Macmillan.
14. Fassler, B. (1978). The red pen revisited: Teaching composition through student conferences. College English, 40, 186-190.
15. Freedman, S. (1992). Outside-in and inside-out: Peer response groups in two ninth-grade classes. Research in the Teaching of English, 26, 71-107.
16. Gere, A., & Abbott, R. (1985). Talking about writing: The language of writing groups. Research in the Teaching of English, 19, 362-385.
17. Gilles, R., & Snook, L. (Eds.) (1990). A student guide to freshman composition, (11th ed.). Tucson: University of Arizona Bellwether Press.
18. Goldstein, L., & Conrad, S. (1990). Student input and negotiation of meaning in ESL writing conferences. TESOL Quarterly, 24, 443-460.
19. Graner, M. (1987). Revision workshops: An alternative to peer editing groups. English Journal, 76, 40-45.
20. Hacker, T. (1996). The effect of teacher conferences on peer response discourse. Teaching English in the Two-Year College, 23, 112-126.
21. Hale, C., Mallon, J., & Wyche-Smith, S. (1991). Beginning writing groups. [video]. Available from Wordshop Productions, Inc., 3832 N. 7th St., Tacoma, WA 98406.
22. Harris, M. (1987). The ins and outs of conferencing. Writing Instructor, 6, 87-96.
23. Harris, M. (1990). Teacher/student talk: The collaborative conference. In S. Hynds & D. Rubin (Eds.), Perspectives on talk & learning (pp. 149-161). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
24. Hedgcock, J., & Lefkowitz, N. (1992). Collaborative oral/aural revision in foreign language writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1, 255-276.
25. Herrington, A., & Cadman, D. (1991). Peer review and revising in an anthropology course: Lessons for learning. College Composition and Communication, 42, 184-199.
26. Isaac, S. & Michael, W. (1981). Handbook for research in evaluation (2nd ed.) San Diego, CA: EdITS.
27. Jacobs, G. (1987). First experiences with peer feedback on compositions: Student and teacher reaction. System, 15, 325-333.
28. Janesick, V. (1994). The dance of qualitative research design: Metaphor, methodolatry, and meaning. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 209-219). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
29. Karegianes, M., Pascarella, E., & Pflaum, S. (1980). The effects of peer editing on the writing proficiency of low-achieving tenth grade students. The Journal of Educational Research, 73, 203-207.
30. Lockhart, C., & Ng, P. (1995). Analyzing talk in ESL peer response groups: Stances, functions, and content. Language Learning, 45, 605-655.
31. Long, M.H. (1983). Inside the "black box": Methodological issues in classroom research on language learning. In H.W. Seliger & M.H. Long (Eds.), Classroom-oriented research in second language acquisition (pp. 3-35). Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.
32. Mangelsdorf, K. (1992). Peer reviews in the ESL composition classroom: What do the students think? ELT Journal, 46, 274-284.
33. Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. (1995). Designing qualitative research (2nd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
34. McGroarty, M. (1989). The benefits of cooperative learning arrangements in second language instruction. Journal of the National Association for Bilingual Education, 13, 127-143.
35. Mendonca, C., & Johnson, K. (1994). Peer review negotiations: Revision activities in ESL writing instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 745-769.
36. Miles, M., & Huberman, A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
37. Mueller, D. (1986). Measuring social attitudes: A handbook for researchers and practitioners. New York: Teachers College Press.
38. Nelson, G., & Murphy, J. (1992). An L2 writing group: Task and social dimensions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1, 171-193.
39. Nelson, G., & Murphy, J. (1993). Peer response groups: Do L2 writers use peer comments in revising their drafts? TESOL Quarterly, 27, 135-141.
40. Nystrand, M. (1986). The structure of written communication. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
41. Nystrand, M., & Brandt, D. (1989). Response to writing as a context for learning to write. In C. Anson (Ed.), Writing and response: Theory, practice and response (pp. 209-230). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
42. Osgood, C., Suci, G., & Tannenbaum, P. (1957). The measurement of meaning. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
43. Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.) Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
44. Rose, M. (1989). Lives on the boundary. New York: The Free Press.
45. Rothstein-Vandergriff, J., & Gilson, J. (1988). Collaboration with basic writers in the composition classroom. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication, St. Louis, MO.
46. Saunders, W. (1989). Collaborative writing tasks and peer interaction. The International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 101-112.
47. Slavin, R. (1991). Cooperative learning and group contingencies. Journal of Behavioral Education, 1, 105-115.
48. Sommers, E., & Lawrence, S. (1992). Women's ways of talking in teacher-directed and student-directed peer response groups. Linguistics and Education, 4, 1-36.
49. Stanley, J. (1992). Coaching student writers to be effective peer evaluators. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1, 217-233.
50. Stevens, R., Madden, N., Slavin, R., & Farnish, A. (1987). Cooperative integrated reading and composition: Two field experiments. Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 433-454.
51. Tabachnick, B., & Fidell, L. (1989). Using multivariate statistics. New York: Harper Collins.
52. van Lier, L. (1988). The classroom and the language learner. New York: Longman.
53. Villamil, O. & De Guerrero, M. (1996). Peer revision in the L2 classroom: Social-cognitive activities, mediating strategies, and aspects of social behavior. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5, 51-75.