The effect of instruction type and dyadic or individual emulation on the quality of higher-order peer feedback in EFL

Learning and Instruction

Volumn 20, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 316-327

  Van Steendam, Elke ^a,c   Rijlaarsdam, Gert ^b,d   Sercu, Lies ^c   Van den Bergh, Huub ^b,d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ANTWERP   (Belgium)

^b UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^c UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

^d UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Collaborative learning; Collaborative revision; Emulation; Modelling; Observational learning; Peer feedback; Strategy instruction in revision

Indexed keywords

EID: 77949873465     PISSN: 09594752     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.009     Document Type: Article

References (64)

1. Alamargot D., and Chanquoy L. Through the models of writing (2001), Kluwer, Dordrecht, the Netherlands
2. Baker S., Gersten R., and Scanlon D. Procedural facilitators and cognitive strategies: tool for unravelling the mysteries of comprehension and the writing process, and for providing meaningful access to the general curriculum. Learning Disabilities: Research and Practice 17 (2002) 65-77
3. Barron B. When smart groups fail. The Journal of the Learning Sciences 12 (2003) 307-359
4. Bereiter C., and Scardamalia M. The psychology of written composition (1987), Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ
5. Berg E.C. The effects of trained peer response on ESL students' revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing 8 (1999) 215-241
6. Boscolo P., and Ascorti K. Effects of collaborative revision on children's ability to write understandable narrative texts. In: Allal L., Chanquoy L., and Largy P. (Eds). Revision: Cognitive and instructional processes. In: Rijlaarsdam G. (Ed). Studies in writing Vol. 13 (2004), Kluwer, Dordrecht, the Netherlands 157-170
7. Braaksma M., Rijlaarsdam G., and Van den Bergh H. Observational learning and the effects of model-observer similarity. Journal of Educational Psychology 94 (2002) 405-415
8. Broekkamp H., and Van den Bergh H. Attention strategies in revising a foreign language text. In: Rijlaarsdam G., Van den Bergh H., and Couzijn M. (Eds). Theories, models and methodology in writing research (1996), Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam 170-181
9. Chenoweth N.A., and Hayes J.R. Fluency in writing: generating text in L1 and L2. Written Communication 18 (2001) 80-98
10. Cho K., and MacArthur C. Student revision with peer and expert reviewing. Learning and Instruction 20 4 (2010) 328-338
11. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. [Revised edition] (1977), Academic, New York
12. Couzijn M. Learning to write by observation of writing and reading processes: effects on learning and transfer. Learning and Instruction 9 (1999) 109-142
13. De Guerrero M.C.M., and Villamil O. Social-cognitive dimensions of interaction in L2 peer revision. The Modern Language Journal 78 (1994) 484-496
14. De La Paz S. Managing cognitive demands for writing: comparing the effects of instructional components in strategy instruction. Reading and Writing Quarterly 23 (2007) 249-266
15. Dicamilla F.J., and Anton M. Repetition in the collaborative discourse of L2 learners: a Vygotskyan perspective. Canadian Modern Language Review 53 (1997) 609-633
16. Dillenbourg P. What do you mean by 'collaborative leaning'?. In: Dillenbourg P. (Ed). Collaborative learning: Cognitive and computational approaches (1999), Elsevier, Oxford 1-19
17. Englert C., Mariage T.V., and Dunsmore K. Tenets of sociocultural theory in writing instruction research. In: MacArthur C.A., Graham S., and Fitzgerald J. (Eds). Handbook of writing research (2006), Guilford, New York 208-221
18. Faigley L., and Witte S. Analysing revision. College Composition and Communication 32 (1981) 400-414
19. Fitzgerald J. Towards knowledge in writing: Illustration from revision studies (1992), Springer, New York
20. Flynn, E. (1982, November). Effects of peer critiquing and model analysis on the quality of biology student laboratory reports. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council of Teachers of English, Washington, DC, USA (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 234 403).
21. Gielen S., Peeters E., Dochy F., Onghena P., and Struyven K. Improving the effectiveness of peer feedback for learning. Learning and Instruction 20 4 (2010) 304-315
22. Goldstein H. Multilevel statistical models. 3rd ed. (2003), Arnold, London
23. Graham S. Executive control in the revising of students with learning and writing difficulties. Journal of Educational Psychology 89 (1997) 223-234
24. Graham S., and Perin D. A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of Educational Psychology 99 (2007) 445-476
25. Graham S., Schwartz S., and MacArthur C. Learning disabled and normally achieving students' knowledge of the writing and the composing process, attitude to writing and self-efficacy. Journal of Learning Disabilities 26 (1993) 237-249
26. Hayes J.R. A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In: Levy C.M., and Ransdell S. (Eds). The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences and applications (1996), Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ 1-27
27. Hayes J.R., Flower L.S., Schriver K.A., Stratman J., and Carey L. Cognitive processes in revision. In: Rosenberg S. (Ed). Reading, writing, and language processing. Advances in psycholinguistics Vol. 2 (1987), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK 176-240
28. Hillocks Jr. G. Research on written composition: New directions for teaching (1986), ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills, Urbana, IL
29. Hox J. Multilevel analysis: techniques and applications (2002), Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ
30. Kieft M., Rijlaarsdam G., and Van den Bergh H. An aptitude-treatment interaction approach to writing-to-learn. Learning and Instruction 18 (2008) 379-390
31. Kirschner F., Paas F., and Kirschner P.A. Individual and group-based learning from complex cognitive tasks: effects on retention and transfer. Computers in Human Behavior 25 (2009) 306-314
32. Leki I. Potential problems with peer responding in ESL writing classes. CATESOL Journal 3 (1990) 5-17
33. MacArthur C.A., Graham S., and Harris K.R. Revision with struggling writers. In: Allal L., Chanquoy L., and Largy P. (Eds). Revision: Cognitive and instructional processes. In: Rijlaarsdam G. (Ed). Studies in writing Vol. 13 (2004), Kluwer, Dordrecht, the Netherlands 125-137
34. McCutchen, D., Kerr, S., & Francis, M. (1994, April). Editing and revising: Effects of knowledge of topic and error location. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA, USA.
35. Mangelsdorf K., and Schlumberger A. ESL student response stances in a peer-review task. Journal of Second Language Writing 1 (1992) 235-254
36. Mendonca C.O., and Johnson K.E. Peer review negotiations: revision activities in ESL writing instruction. TESOL Quarterly 28 (1994) 745-769
37. Min H.T. Training students to become successful peer reviewers. System 33 (2005) 293-308
38. Min H.T. The effects of trained peer review on EFL students' revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing 15 (2006) 118-141
39. Mittan R. The peer review process: harnessing students' communicative power. In: Johnson D.M., and Roen D.H. (Eds). Richness in writing: Empowering ESL students (1989), Longman, New York 207-219
40. Olson V.L.B. The revising process of sixth-grade writers with and without peer feedback. Journal of Educational Research 84 (1990) 22-29
41. Oxford University Press. Oxford computer-based Quick Placement Test (QPT) (2001), Author, Oxford, UK
42. Rasbash J., Charlton C., Browne W.J., Healy M., and Cameron B. MLwiN (Version 2.10). [Computer software] (2009), Centre for Multilevel Modelling, Bristol, UK
43. Rijlaarsdam G., Braaksma M., Couzijn M., Janssen T., Kieft M., and Broekkamp H. Psychology and the teaching of writing in 60 minutes. In: Tomlinson P., Dockrell J., and Winne P. (Eds). Pedagogy - Teaching for learning. BJEP monograph Series II, No. 3 (2005), The British Psychological Society, Leicester, UK 127-153
44. Rijlaarsdam G., and Couzijn M. What do writers learn from peer comments on argumentative texts?. In: Camps A., and Milian M. (Eds). Metalinguistic activity in learning to write. In: Rijlaarsdam G., and Espéret E. (Eds). Studies in writing Vol. 6 (2000), Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam 167-202
45. Rijlaarsdam G., and Couzijn M. Writing and learning-to-write. A double challenge. In: Simons R., Van der Linden J., and Duffy T. (Eds). New learning (2000), Kluwer, Dordrecht, the Netherlands 157-190
46. Rouiller Y. Collaborative revision and metacognitive reflection in a situation of narrative text production. In: Allal L., Chanquoy L., and Largy P. (Eds). Revision: Cognitive and instructional processes. In: Rijlaarsdam G. (Ed). Studies in writing Vol. 13 (2004), Kluwer, Dordrecht, the Netherlands 171-187
47. Scardamalia M., and Bereiter C. The development of evaluative, diagnostic and remedial capabilities in children's composing. In: Martlew M. (Ed). The psychology of written language. Developmental and educational perspectives (1983), Wiley & Sons, New York 67-95
48. Schunk D.H. Social cognitive theory and self-regulated learning. In: Schunk D.H., and Zimmerman B.J. (Eds). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theory, research and practice (1989), Erlbaum, London 83-110
49. Schunk D.H., and Zimmerman B.J. Social origins of self-regulatory competence. Educational Psychologist 32 (1997) 195-208
50. Silva T. Toward an understanding of the distinct nature of L2 writing: the ESL research and its implications. TESOL Quarterly 27 (1993) 657-677
51. Snijders T.A.B., and Bosker R.J. Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modelling (1999), Sage, London
52. Sommers N. Revision strategies of student writers and experienced writers. College Composition and Communication 31 (1980) 378-387
53. Stanley J. Coaching student writers to be effective peer evaluators. Journal of Second Language Writing 1 (1992) 217-233
54. Stevenson M., Schoonen R., and De Glopper K. Revising in 2 languages: a multi-dimensional comparison of online writing revisions in L1 and FL. Journal of Second Language Writing 15 (2006) 201-233
55. Stoddard B., and MacArthur C.A. A peer editor strategy: guiding learning disabled students in response and revision. Research in the Teaching of English 27 (1993) 76-103
56. Storch N. Collaborative writing: product, process, and students' reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing 14 (2005) 153-173
57. Strijbos J.W., Narciss S., and Dünnebier K. Peer feedback content and sender's competence level in academic writing revision tasks: Are they critical for feedback perceptions and efficiency?. Learning and Instruction 20 4 (2010) 291-303
58. Tang G., and Thitecott J. Peer response in ESL writing. TESL-Canada-Journal 16 2 (1999) 20-38
59. Topping K., and Ehly S. Introduction to peer-assisted learning. In: Topping K., and Ehly S. (Eds). Peer-assisted learning (1998), Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ 1-23
60. Yarrow F., and Topping K. Collaborative writing: the effects of metacognitive prompting and structured peer interaction. British Journal of Educational Psychology 71 (2001) 261-282
61. Zammuner V.L. Individual and cooperative computer-writing and revising: who gets the best results?. Learning and Instruction 5 (1995) 101-124
62. Zellermayer M., Olshtain E., and Cohen J. The development of elaborative skills: teaching basic writing students to make the commitment to audience and topic. Linguistics and Education 3 (1991) 359-383
63. Zimmerman B., and Kitsantas A. Acquiring writing revision and self-regulatory skill through observation and emulation. Journal of Educational Psychology 94 (2002) 660-668
64. Zhu W. Effects of training for peer response on students' comments and interaction. Written Communication 12 (1995) 492-528