Commenting on writing: Typology and perceived helpfulness of comments from novice peer reviewers and subject matter experts

Written Communication

Volumn 23, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 260-294

  Cho, Kwangsu ^a,c   Schunn, Christian D ^a   Charney, Davida ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI   (United States)

Author keywords

Instructional technology; Peer feedback; Peer reviews; Writing assessment; Writing in the disciplines

Indexed keywords

EID: 33745018833     PISSN: 07410883     EISSN: 15528472     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0741088306289261     Document Type: Review

References (41)

1. Applebee, A. N. (1981). A study of writing in the secondary school. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
2. Artemeva, N., & Logie, S. (2002). Introducing engineering students to intellectual teamwork: The teaching and practice of peer feedback in the professional communication classroom. Language and Learning across the Disciplines, 6, 62-85.
3. Atwater, L. A., Waldman, D., Atwater, D., & Cartier, P. (2000). An upward feedback field experiment: Supervisor's cynicism, follow-up and commitment to subordinates. Personnel Psychology, 53, 275-297.
4. Beason, L. (1993). Feedback and revision in writing across the curriculum classes. Research in the Teaching of English, 27, 395-421.
5. Boud, D., Cohen, R., & Sampson, J. (1999). Peer learning and assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 24(4), 413-427.
6. Butler, R. (1987). Task-involving and ego-involving properties of evaluation: Effects of different feedback conditions on motivational perceptions, interest, and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(4), 474-481.
7. Cho, K., & Schunn, C. D. (2003). Validity and reliability of peer assessments with a missing data estimation technique. Proceedings of ED-Media 2003, 1511-1514.
8. Cho, K., & Schunn, C. D. (in press). Scaffolded writing and rewriting in the discipline. Computers & Education.
9. Cho, K., & Schunn, C. (2005). The SWoRD system (Version 3.0) [Computer software]. Pittsburg, PA: Learning Research and Development, University of Pittsburgh. Available at http://ladybug.lrdc.pitt.edu/ sword.
10. Clare, L. C., Valdes, R., & Patthey-Chavez, G. G. (2000). Learning to write in urban elementary and middle schools: An investigation of teachers' written feedback on student compositions. Center for the Study of Evaluation Technical Report, 526.
11. Cohen, M., & Riel, M. (1989). The effect of distant audience on students' writing. American Educational Research Journal, 26(2), 143-159.
12. Cole, S., Coats, M., & Lentell, H. (1986). Towards good teaching by correspondence. Open Learning, 1(1), 16-22.
13. Coupe, N. (1986). Evaluating teachers' responses to children's writing. (pp. 122-144). In J. Harris & J. Wilkinson (Eds.), Reading children's writing: A linguistic view. London: Allen and Unwin.
14. Dragga, S. (Ed.). (1992). The technical writing repertoire. Lubbock, TX: Association of Teachers of Technical Writing.
15. Faigley, L. (1989). Judging writing, judging selves. College Composition and Communication, 40, 395-412.
16. Fife, J. M., & O'Neill, P. (2001). Moving beyond the written comment: Narrowing the gap between response practice and research. College Composition and Communication, 53(2), 300-321.
17. Freedman, S. W. (1987). Peer response groups in two ninth-grade classrooms (Tech. Rep. No. 12). Berkeley: University of California.
18. Graner, M. H. (1985). Revision techniques: Peer editing and the revision workshop. Dissertation Abstracts International, 47, 109.
19. Gee, T. (1972). Students' responses to teachers' comments. Research in the Teaching of English, 6, 212-221.
20. Haswell, R. H. (2005). NCTE/CCCC's recent war on scholarship. Written Communication, 22, 198-223.
21. Hughes, I. E., & Large, B. J. (1993). Staff and peer-group assessment of oral communication skills. Studies in Higher Education, 18, 379-385.
22. Johnstone, K. M., Ashbaugh, H., & Warfield, T. D. (2002). Effects of repeated practice and contextual-writing experience on college students' writing skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 305-315.
23. Leki, I. (1995). Good writing: I know it when I see it. In D. Belcher & G. Braine (Eds.), Academic writing in a second language: Essays on research and pedagogy (pp. 23-46). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
24. Magin, D., & Helmore, P. (2001). Peer and teacher assessment of oral presentation skills: How reliable are they? Studies in Higher Education, 26, 287-298.
25. Mittan, R. (1989). The peer response process: Harnessing students' communicative power. In D. Johnson & D. Roen (Eds.), Richness in writing: Empowering ESL students (pp. 207-219). New York: Longman.
26. Mowl, G., & Pain, R. (1995). Using self and peer assessment to improve students' essay writing - A case-study from geography. Innovations in Education and Training International, 32, 324-335.
27. Neuwirth, C. M., Chandook, R., Charney, D., Wojahn, P., & Kim, L. (1994). Distributed collaborative writing: A comparison of spoken and written modalities for reviewing and revising documents. Proceedings of the Computer-Human Interaction '94 Conference, April 24-28, 1994, Boston Massachusetts (pp. 51-57). New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
28. Richer, D. L. (1992). The effects of two feedback systems on first year college students' writing proficiency. Dissertation Abstracts International, 53, 2722-2722.
29. Rucker, M. L., & Thompson, S. (2003). Assessing student learning outcomes: An investigation of the relationship among feedback measures. College Student Journal, 37, 400-404.
30. Seidman, E. (1968). Marking students' compositions: Implications of achievement motivation theory. Dissertation Abstracts International, 28, 2605-A.
31. Shrauger, J. S., & Schoenemann, T. J. (1979). Symbolic interactionist view of self-concept: Through the looking glass darkly. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 3, 549-573.
32. Smith, S. (2003). The role of technical expertise in engineering and writing teachers' evaluations of students' writing. Written Communication, 20, 37-80.
33. Smith, S. (1997). The genre of the end comment: Conventions in teacher responses to student writing. College Composition and Communication, 48, 249-268.
34. Smyth, K. (2004). The benefits of students learning about critical evaluation rather than being summatively judged. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 29(3), 370-378.
35. Sommers, N. I. (1980). Revision strategies of student writers and experienced writers. College Composition and Communication, 31, 378-387.
36. Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1986). Reducing social context cues: Electronic mail in organization communication. Management Science, 32, 1492-1512.
37. Stevens, A. E. (1973). The effects of positive and negative evaluation on the written composition of low performing high school students. Dissertation Abstracts International, 34, 1778-A.
38. Straub, R. (1997). Students' reactions to teacher comments: An exploratory study. Research in the Teaching of English, 31, 91-119.
39. Sue-Chan, C., & Latham, G. P. (2004). The relative effectiveness of external, peer, and self-coaches. Applied Psychology: An international Review, 53(2), 260-278.
40. Taylor, W., & Hoedt, K. (1966). The effect of praise upon the quality and quantity of creative writing. Journal of Educational Research, 60, 80-83.
41. Topping, K. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 249-276.