Peer review re-viewed: Investigating the Juxtaposition of composition student's eye movements and peer-review processes

Research in the Teaching of English

Volumn 41, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 304-335

  Paulson, Eric J ^a   Alexander, Jonathan ^a   Armstrong, Sonya ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 34147110393     PISSN: 0034527X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (69)

1. Alexander, J., & Barber, M. (2005). Argument now. New York. Longman.
2. Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination. In P. Morris (Ed.), The Bakhtin reader (pp. 74-87). London: Edward Arnold.
3. Bean, J. (1979). A method of peer-evaluation of student writing. College Composition and Communication, 30, 301-302.
4. Berkenkotter, C. (1983). Student writers and their audiences: Case studies of the revising decisions of three college freshman. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Canadian Council of Teachers of English, Montreal, Canada. (ERIC Document No. ED236618)
5. Berkenkotter, C. (1984). Student writers and their sense of authority over texts. College Composition and Communication, 35, 312-319.
6. Broman, T. (2005). The science of peer review. Retrieved September 8, 2005 from http://mendota.english.wisc.edu/~WAC/page.jsp?id= 145&c_type=category&c_id=21
7. Brooke, R. E. (1991). Writing and sense of self: Identity negotiation in writing workshops. Urbana, IL: NCTE.
8. Carpenter, P. A., & Just, M. A. (1983). What your eyes do while your mind is reading. In K. Rayner (Ed.), Eye movements in reading: Perceptual and language processes (pp. 275-307). New York. Academic Press.
9. Chaffin, R., Morris, R. K., & Seely, R. E. (2001). Learning new word meanings from context: A study of eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 27, 225-235.
10. Cho, K., & Schunn, C. D. (in press). Scaffolded writing and rewriting in the discipline: A web-based reciprocal peer review system. Computers & Education.
11. Danis, F. (1982). Weaving the web of meaning: Interaction patterns in peer-response groups. San Francisco, CA: Conference on College Composition and Communication. (ERIC Document No. ED214202)
12. Danis, M. F. (1988). Catching the drift: Keeping peer-response groups on track. College Composition and Communication, 39, 356-358.
13. DiPardo, A., & Freedman, S. W. (1988). Peer response groups in the writing classroom: Theoretic foundations and new directions. Review of Educational Research, 58, 119-149.
14. Dodge, R. (1900). Visual perceptions during eye movement. Psychological Review, 7, 454-465.
15. Dossin, M. M. (2003). Among friends: Effective peer critiquing. The Clearing House, 76, 206-207.
16. Ehrlich, S. F., & Rayner, K. (1981). Contextual effects on word perception and eye movements during reading. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 20, 641-655.
17. Elbow, P. (1973). Writing without teachers. New York. Oxford University Press.
18. Elbow, P. (1981). Writing with power. New York. Oxford University Press.
19. Fisher, D. F, & Shebilske, W. L. (1985). There is more that meets the eye than the eye mind assumption. In R. Groner, G. W. McConkie, & C. Menz (Eds.), Eye movements and human information processing (pp. 149-157). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
20. Foreman, J. (2000). The leading edge of webcentric writing instruction. Retrieved September 8, 2005, from http://www.centerdigitaled.com/converge/?pg=magstory8dd=3386
21. Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (1982). Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 178-210.
22. Freedman, S. W. (1992). Outside-in and inside-out: Peer response groups in two ninth-grade classes. Research in the Teaching of English, 26, 71-107.
23. George, D. (1984). Working with peer groups in the composition classroom. College Composition and Communication, 35, 320-326.
24. Gere, A. R. (1990). Talking in writing groups. In S. Hynds & D. L. Rubin (Eds.), Perspectives on talk and learning (pp. 115-128). Urbana, IL: NCTE.
25. Gere, A. R., & Stevens, R. S. (1985). The language of writing groups: How oral response shapes revision. In S. W. Freedman (Ed.), The acquisition of written language. Response and revision (pp. 85-105). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
26. Glenn, C., Goldthwaite, M. A., & Connors, R. (2003). The St. Martin's guide to teaching writing. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's.
27. Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays in face-to-face behavior. Chicago: Aldine.
28. Harris, C. E. (1986). Effective strategies in peer evaluation. (ERIC document No. ED272897)
29. Hewett, B. L. (2000). Characteristics of interactive oral and computer-mediated peer group talk and its influence on revision. Computers and Composition, 17, 265-288.
30. Holt, M. (1992). The value of written peer criticism. College Composition and Communication, 43, 384-392.
31. Huey, E. B. (1908/1968). The psychology and pedagogy of reading. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
32. Johnson, R. (2001). The next frontier of the student-centered classroom: Teaching students to recognize quality writing through the use of peer evaluation. (ERIC Document No. ED463813)
33. Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). A theory of reading: From eye fixations to comprehension. Psychological Review, 87, 329-354.
34. Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1987). The psychology of reading and language comprehension. Newton, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
35. Karegianes, M. L., Pascarella, E. T., & Pflaum, S. W. (1980). The effects of peer editing on the writing proficiency of low-achieving tenth grade students. Journal of Educational Research, 73, 203-207.
36. Kastman-Breuch, L. (2004). Virtual peer-review: Teaching and learning about writing in online environments. New York. SUNY Press.
37. McAlexander, P, (2000). Developmental classroom personality and response to peer review. Research and Teaching in Developmental Education, 17, 4-12.
38. Mendonca, C. O., & Johnson, K. E. (1994). Peer-review negotiations: Revision activities in ESL writing instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 745-769.
39. Micciche, L. R. (2004). Making a case for rhetorical grammar. College Composition and Communication, 55, 716-737.
40. Morrison, R. E. (1984). Manipulation of stimulus onset delay in reading: Evidence for parallel programming of saccades. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10, 667-682.
41. Murau, A. M. (1993). Shared writing: Students' perceptions and attitudes of peer review. Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 9, 71-79.
42. Neubert, G., & McNelis, S. (1990). Peer response: Teaching specific revision suggestions. The English Journal, 79(5), 52-56.
43. Newkirk, T. (1984). Direction and misdirection in peer response. College Composition and Communication, 35, 301-311.
44. Nystrand, M., & Brandt, D. (1989). Response to writing as a context for learning to write. In C. M. Anson (Ed.), Writing and response: Theory, Practice, and Research (pp. 209-230). Urbana, IL: NCTE.
45. Paton, F. (2002). Approaches to productive peer-review. In D. Roen, L. Yena, V. Pantoja, E. Waggoner, & S. K. Miller (Eds.), Strategies for teaching first-year composition (pp. 290-301). Urbana, IL: NCTE.
46. Paulson, E. J. (2002). Are oral reading word omissions and substitutions caused by careless eye movements? Reading Psychology, 23, 45-66.
47. Rayner, K. (1997). Understanding eye movements in reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 1, 317-339.
48. Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 372-422.
49. Rayner, K., & Pollatsek, A. (1989). The psychology of reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
50. Rubin, L. (2002). "I just think maybe you could... ": Peer critiquing through online conversations. Teaching English in the Two-Year College, 29, 382-392.
51. Schaffer, J. (1996). Peer response that works. Journal of Teaching Writing, 15, 81-90.
52. Shaughnessy, M. P. (1977). Errors and expectations: A guide for the teacher of basic writing. New York. Oxford University Press.
53. Sherrard, W. R. (1994). An empirical study of peer bias in evaluations: Students rating students. Journal of Education for Business, 70, 43-47.
54. Sitko, B. M. (1992). Writers meet their readers in the classroom: Revising after feedback. In M. Secor & D. Charney (Eds.), Constructing rhetorical education (pp. 278-294). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
55. Sitko, B. M. (1993). Exploring feedback: Writers meet readers. In A. M. Penrose & B. M. Sitko (Eds.), Hearing ourselves think: Cognitive research in the college writing classroom (pp. 170-187). New York. Oxford University Press.
56. Smit, D. W. (2004). The end of composition studies. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
57. Spigelmire, L. (1981). A peer review process for developmental writers. Exercise Exchange, 26, 20-23.
58. Thomas, D. K. (1986). A transition from speaking to writing: Small-group writing conferences. (ERIC Document No. ED269761)
59. Tobin, L. (1993). Writing relationships: What really happens in the composition class. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Heinemann.
60. Topping, K (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68, 249-276.
61. Vatalaro, P. (1990). Putting students in charge of peer review. Journal of Teaching Writing, 9, 21-29.
62. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
63. Wallace, D. L., & Ewald, H. R. (2000). Mutuality in the rhetoric and composition classroom. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
64. Williams, J. D. (2003). Preparing to teach writing: Research, theory, and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
65. Williams, J. M. (1981). The phenomenology of error. College Composition and Communication, 32, 152-68.
66. Wixon, V., & Stone, P. (1977). Getting it out, getting it down: Adapting Zoellner's talk-write. Seattle, WA: NCTE. (ERIC Document No. ED140354)
67. Wolverton, G. S., & Zola, D. (1983). The temporal characteristics of visual information extraction during reading. In K. Rayner (Ed.), Eye movements in reading: Perceptual and language processes (pp. 41-51). New York. Academic Press.
68. Zhu, W. (1995). Interaction and feedback in mixed peer response groups. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 251-276.
69. Zola, D. (1984). Redundancy and word perception during reading. Perception & Psychophysics, 36, 277-284.