Student revision with peer and expert reviewing

Learning and Instruction

Volumn 20, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 328-338

  Cho, Kwangsu ^a,b   MacArthur, Charles ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI   (United States)

^b Sungkyunkwan University   (South Korea)

^c UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE   (United States)

Author keywords

Expert review; Feedback; Peer review; Peer revision

Indexed keywords

EID: 77949874569     PISSN: 09594752     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.006     Document Type: Article

References (59)

1. Anderson J.R., and Lebiere C. The atomic components of thought (1998), Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ
2. Bandura A. Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory (1986), Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ
3. Bangert-Drowns R.L., Hurley M.M., and Wilkinson B. The effects of school-based writing-to-learn interventions on academic achievement: a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research 74 (2004) 29-58
4. Beach R. The effects of between-draft teacher evaluation versus student self-evaluation on high school students' revising of rough drafts. Research in the Teaching of English 13 (1979) 111-119
5. Beach R., and Friedrich T. Response to writing. In: MacArthur C.A., Graham S., and Fitzgerald J. (Eds). Handbook of writing research (2006), Guilford, New York 222-234
6. Beason L. Feedback and revision in writing across the curriculum classes. Research in the Teaching of English 27 (1993) 395-421
7. Berg E.C. The effect of trained peer response on ESL students' revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing 8 (1999) 215-241
8. Besnard D., and Bastien-Toniazzo M. Expert error in trouble-shooting: an exploratory study in electronics. International Journal of Human Computer Studies 50 (1999) 391-405
9. Boscolo P., and Ascorti K. Effects of collaborative revision on children's ability to write understandable narrative texts. In: Rijlaarsdam G., Allal L., Chanqouy L., and Largy P. (Eds). Revision: Cognitive and instructional processes. Studies in writing Vol. 13 (2004), Kluwer, Boston, MA 157-170
10. Camerer C., Loewenstein G., and Weber M. The curse of knowledge in economic settings: an experimental analysis. The Journal of Political Economy 97 (1989) 1232-1254
11. Carifio J., Jackson I., and Dagostino L. Effects of diagnostic and prescriptive comments on the revising behaviors of community college students. Community College Journal of Research and Practice 25 (2001) 109-122
12. Chase W.G., and Simon H.A. Perception in chess. Cognitive Psychology 4 (1973) 55-81
13. Chi M.T.H., Feltovich P.J., and Glaser R. Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science 5 (1981) 121-152
14. Chiesi H.L., Spilich G.J., and Voss J.F. Acquisition of domain-related information in relation to high and low domain knowledge. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 18 (1979) 257-273
15. Cho, K., Cho, M., & Hacker, D. (in press). Self-monitoring support for learning to write. Interactive Learning Environments.
16. Cho K., Chung T.R., King W.R., and Schunn C.D. Peer-based computer-supported knowledge refinement: an empirical investigation. Communications of the ACM 51 3 (2008) 83-88
17. Cho K., and Schunn C.D. Scaffolded writing and rewriting in the discipline. Computers and Education 48 (2007) 409-426
18. Cho K., Schunn C.D., and Charney D. Commenting on writing: typology and perceived helpfulness of comments from novice peer reviewers and subject matter experts. Written Communication 23 (2006) 260-294
19. Cho K., Schunn C.D., and Wilson R. Validity and reliability of scaffolded peer assessment of writing from instructor and student perspectives. Journal of Educational Psychology 98 (2006) 891-901
20. Clare L.C., Valdes R., and Patthey-Chavez G.G. Learning to write in urban elementary and middle schools: An investigation of teachers' written feedback on student compositions. (Technical Report No. 526) (2000), Center for the Study of Evaluation, University of California, Los Angeles
21. Cohen M., and Riel M. The effect of distant audience on students' writing. American Educational Research Journal 26 (1989) 143-159
22. Cole S., Coats M., and Lentell H. Towards good teaching by correspondence. Open Learning 1 (1986) 16-22
23. Couzijn M. Learning to write by observation of writing and reading processes: effects on learning and transfer. Learning and Instruction 9 (1999) 109-142
24. DiPardo A., and Freedman S.W. Peer response groups in the writing classroom: theoretic foundations and new directions. Review of Educational Research 58 (1988) 119-149
25. Faigley L., and Witte S. Analyzing revision. College Composition and Communication 32 (1981) 400-414
26. Falchikov N., and Goldfinch J. Student peer assessment in higher education: a meta-analysis comparing peer and teacher marks. Review of Educational Research 70 (2000) 287-322
27. Fitzgerald J. Research on revision in writing. Review of Educational Research 57 (1987) 481-506
28. Fitzgerald J., and Markham L.R. Teaching children about revision in writing. Cognition and Instruction 4 (1987) 3-24
29. Freedman S.W. Response to student writing. (Research Report No. 23) (1987), National Council of Teachers of English, Urbana, IL
30. Graham S., and Perin D. A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of Educational Psychology 99 (2007) 445-476
31. Haswell R.H. NCTE/CCCC's recent war on scholarship. Written Communication 22 (2005) 198-223
32. Hayes J.R., Flower L., Schriver K.A., Stratman J., and Carey L. Cognitive processes in revision. In: Rosenberg S. (Ed). Reading, writing, and language processing. Advances in applied psycholinguistics Vol. 2 (1987), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK 176-240
33. Hillocks Jr. G. The interaction of instruction, teacher comment, and revision: teaching the composing process. Research in the Teaching of English 16 (1982) 261-278
34. Holliway D.R., and McCutchen D. Audience perspective in young writers' composing and revising: reading as the reader. In: Allal L., Chanquoy L., and Largy P. (Eds). Revision of written language: Cognitive and instructional processes (2004), Kluwer, Amsterdam 87-101
35. Kali Y., and Ronen M. Assessing the assessors: added value in web-based multi-cycle peer assessment in higher education. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning 3 (2008) 3-32
36. Karabenick S.A. Social influences on metacognition: effects of colearner questioning on comprehension monitoring. Journal of Educational Psychology 88 (1996) 689-703
37. Karegianes M.L., Pascarella E.T., and Pflaum S.W. The effects of peer editing on the writing proficiency of low-achieving tenth grade students. Journal of Educational Research 73 (1980) 203-207
38. Kelley C.M., and Jacoby L.L. Adult egocentrism: subjective experience versus analytic bases for judgment. Journal of Memory and Language 35 (1996) 157-175
39. MacArthur C.A. Best practice in teaching evaluation and revision. In: Graham S., MacArthur C., and Fitzgerald J. (Eds). Best practice in writing instruction (2007), Guilford, New York 141-162
40. MacArthur C.A., Graham S., and Schwartz S. Knowledge of revision and revising behavior among students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly 14 (1991) 61-73
41. MacArthur C.A., Schwartz S.S., and Graham S. Effects of a reciprocal peer revision strategy in special education classrooms. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice 6 (1991) 201-210
42. McCutchen D., Hull G.A., and Smith W.L. Editing strategies and error correction in basic writing. Written Communication 4 (1987) 139-154
43. Marsh H.W., and Ball S. The peer review process used to evaluate manuscripts submitted to academic journals: interjudgmental reliability. Journal of Experimental Education 57 (1989) 151-169
44. Miyake N. Constructive interaction and the iterative process of understanding. Cognitive Science 10 (1986) 151-177
45. Mumford M.D. Social comparison theory and the evaluation of peer evaluations: a review and some applied implications. Personnel Psychology 36 (1983) 867-882
46. National Commission on Writing in American Schools and Colleges. The neglected R: the need for a writing revolution. Retrieved May 24, 2009, from (2003). http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/writingcom/neglectedr.pdf
47. Rucker M.L., and Thompson S. Assessing student learning outcomes: an investigation of the relationship among feedback measures. College Student Journal 37 (2003) 400-404
48. Schneider W., and Shiffrin R.M. Controlled and automatic human information processing: 1. detection, search, and attention. Psychological Review 84 (1977) 1-66
49. Schriver K.A. Evaluating text quality: The continuum from text-focused to reader-focused methods. (Technical Report No. 41) (1990), National Center for the Study of Writing and Literacy, Berkely, CA
50. Smith S. The genre of the end comment: conventions in teacher responses to student writing. College Composition and Communication 48 (1997) 249-268
51. Sommers N.I. Revision strategies of student writers and experienced writers. College Composition and Communication 31 (1980) 378-387
52. SparkNotes. SAT II writing. Retrieved May 24, 2009, from (2002). http://www.sparknotes.com/testprep/books/sat2/writing
53. 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
54. Swaney J.H., Janik C., Bond S.J., and Hayes J.R. Editing for comprehension: Improving the process through reading protocols. (Document Design Project Report No. 14) (1981), Carnegie Mellon University, Communications Design Center, Pittsburgh, PA
55. Topping K. Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research 68 (1998) 249-276
56. Tversky A., and Kahneman D. Availability: a heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology 5 (1973) 207-232
57. Van Steendam E., Rijlaarsdam G., Sercu L., and Van den Bergh H. The effect of instruction type and dyadic or individual emulation on the quality of higher-order peer feedback in EFL. Learning and Instruction 20 4 (2010) 316-327
58. Vedder P. Cooperative learning: A study on processes and effects of cooperation between primary school children (1985), Rijkuniversiteit Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands
59. Zhu W. Effects of training for peer response on students' comments and interaction. Written Communication 12 (1995) 492-528