Scaffolded writing and rewriting in the discipline: A web-based reciprocal peer review system

Computers and Education

Volumn 48, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 409-426

  Cho, Kwangsu ^a   Schunn, Christian D ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH   (United States)

Author keywords

Adult learning; Architectures for educational technology system; Distributed learning environments; Improving classroom teaching; Post secondary education

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHMS; COMPUTER ARCHITECTURE; CURRICULA; DISTRIBUTED COMPUTER SYSTEMS; STUDENTS; TEACHING;

ADULT LEARNING; ARCHITECTURES FOR EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS; IMPROVING CLASSROOM TEACHING; POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION;

TECHNICAL WRITING;

EID: 33751338014     PISSN: 03601315     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2005.02.004     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Ackerman, J. M. (1990). Reading, writing, and knowing: the role of disciplinary knowledge in comprehension and composing. National Center for the Study of Writing Technical Report 40.
2. Camerer C., Lowenstein G., and Weber M. The curse of knowledge in economic settings: an experimental analysis. Journal of Political Economy 97 (1989) 1232-1254
3. Cho, K. (2004). When multi-peers give better advance than an expert: the type and impact of feedback given by students and an expert on student writing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh.
4. Cho, K., & Schunn, C. D. (2003). Validity and reliability of peer assessments with a missing data estimation technique. In Proceedings of ED-Media 2003, Hawaii, USA.
5. Cho, K., Schunn, C. D., & Lesgold, A. (2002). Comprehension monitoring and regulation in distance collaboration. In Proceedings of cognitive science conference, George Mason University, Virginia, USA.
6. Cohen A.D., and Cavalcanti M.C. Giving and getting feedback on composition: a comparison of teacher and student verbal report. Evaluation and Research in Education: The Durham and Newcastle Research Review 63-73 (1987)
7. Cohen M., and Riel M. The effect of distant audiences on students' writing. American Educational Research Journal 26 (1989) 143-159
8. Coupe N. Evaluating teachers' responses to children's writing. In: Harris J., and Willkinson J. (Eds). Reading children's writing: A linguistic view (1986), Allen and Uniwin, London
9. Crampton C. The mutual knowledge problem and its consequences for dispersed collaboration. Organization Science 12 3 (2001) 346-371
10. Flower L., Hayes J.R., Carey L., Schriver K., and Stratman J. Detection diagnosis and the strategies of revision. College Composition and Communication 37 1 (1986) 16-55
11. Galegher J., and Kraut R.E. Computer-mediated communication for intellectual teamwork: An experiment in group writing. In: Rada R. (Ed). Groupware and authoring (1996), Academic Press, New York
12. Hartman K., Neuwirth C.M., Kiesler S., Sproull L., Cochran C., Palmquist M., et al. Pattern of social interaction and learning to write: some effects of network technologies. In: Collins M., and Berge Z.L. (Eds). Computer mediated communication and the online classroom. Higher education Vol. 2 (1995), Hampton Press Inc., Cresskill, NJ
13. In: Jonassen D.H. (Ed). Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (1996), Simon & Schuster Macmillan, New York
14. Kiesler S., and Cummings J.N. What do we know about proximity and distance in work groups? A legacy of research. In: Hinds P., and Kiesler S. (Eds). Distributed work (2002), MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
15. Magin D. Reciprocity as a source of bias in multiple peer assessment of group work. Studies in Higher Education 26 1 (2001) 53-63
16. Markman E.M. Realizing that you don't understand: elementary school children's awareness of inconsistencies. Child Development 50 (1979) 643-655
17. McCutchen D. Knowledge processing and working memory: implications for a theory of writing. Educational Psychologist 35 1 (2000) 13-23
18. NAEP. (1998). Writing report card for the Nation and the States. U.S. department of Education, National center for Education Statistics. Available from www.nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard.
19. National Commission on Writing in American Schools and Colleges. (2003). The neglected R. Available from www.writingcommission.org/report.html.
20. Otero J., and Kintsch W. Failures to detect contradictions in a text: what readers believe versus what they read. Psychological Science 3 4 (1992) 229-235
21. Rada R., Michailidis A., and Wang W. Collaborative hypermedia in a classroom setting. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia 3 1 (1994) 21-36
22. Rosenthal R., and Rosnow R.L. Essentials of behavioral research: methods and data analysis. 2nd ed. (1991), McGraw-Hill, New York
23. Schriver, K. A. (1990). Evaluating text quality: the continuum from text-focused to reader-focused methods. Technical Report No. 41, National Center for the Study of Writing and Literacy.
24. Sperling, M., & Freedman, S. W. (1987). A good girl writes like a good girl: written response and clues to the teaching/learning process. Technical Report No. 3, National Center for the Study of Writing.
25. Sproull L., and Kiesler S. Connections: new ways of working in the networked organization (1991), MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
26. Vera, A. H., Kvan, T., West, R. L., & Lai, S. (1998). Expertise, collaboration and bandwidth. In Proceeding of CHI 1998 (pp. 503-510).
27. Webb N. Group collaboration in assessment: multiple objectives, processes, and outcomes. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 17 (1995) 239-261
28. Wess, R. C. (1980). Publishing student writing: an in-class model. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the conference on college composition and communication, Washington, DC. Eric reproduction services number: ED 185 564.
29. Zammuner V.L. Individual and cooperative computer-writing and revising: who gets the best results?. Learning and Instruction 5 (1995) 101-124