Linguistic and review features of peer feedback and their effect on the implementation of changes in academic writing: A corpus based investigation

Journal of Writing Research

Volumn 4, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 177-202

  Leijen, Djuddah A J ^a   Leontjeva, Anna ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TARTU   (Estonia)

Author keywords

Academic writing development; Computer supported peer feedback; Corpus analysis; L2 learners; Machine learning

Indexed keywords

EID: 84875252199     PISSN: 20301006     EISSN: 22943307     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.17239/jowr-2012.04.02.4     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Beason, L. (1993). Feedback and revision in writing across the curriculum classes. Research in the Teaching of English, 27, 395-421.
2. Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Reppen, R. (2006). Corpus linguistics: Investigating language structure and use. New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press.
3. Bouckaert R. R. (2003). Choosing between two learning algorithms based on calibrated tests. In The Twentieth International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML-2003). (pp. 51-58).
4. Breiman, L. (2001). Random forests. Machine Learning, 45(1), 5-32.
5. Bybee, J. L. & Perkins, R., & Pagliuca, W. (1994). The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
6. Chi, M. T. H. (1996). Constructing self-explanations and scaffolded explanations in tutoring. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, S33-S49.
7. Cho, K., Chung, T. R., King, W. R., & Schunn, C. D. (2008). Peer-based computer-supported knowledge refinement: An empirical investigation. Communications of the ACM, 51(3), 83- 88.
8. Cho, K., & MacArthur, C. (2010). Student revision with peer and expert reviewing. Learning and Instruction, 20, 328-338.
9. Cho, K., & Schunn, C. D. (2007). Scaffolded writing and rewriting in the discipline: A web-based reciprocal peer review system. Computers and Education, 48(3), 409-426.
10. Cho, K., Schunn, C. D., & Charney, D. (2006). Commenting on writing: Typology and perceived helpfulness of comments from novice peer reviewers and subject matter experts. Written Communication, 23(3), 260-294.
11. 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. In Center for the Study of Evaluation Technical Report, 526.
12. Davis, J. & Goadrich, M. (2006). The relationship between precision-recall and ROC curves. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning. (pp. 233-240). New York: ACM.
13. Ferris, D. (1997). The influence of teacher commentary on student revision. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 315-319.
14. Flesch, R. (n.d.). How to write plain English. Retrieved from http://www.mang.canterbury.ac.nz/ writing_guide/writing/flesch.shtml
15. Flesch, R. (1948). A new readability yardstick. Journal of Applied Psychology, 32, 221-233.
16. Flower, L., Hayes, J. R., Carey, L., Schriver, K., & Stratman, J. (1986). Detection, diagnosis, and the strategies of revision. College Composition and Communication, 37(1), 16-55.
17. Gilquin, G., Granger, S., & Paquot, M. (2007). Learner corpora: The missing link in EAP pedagogy. In P. Thomson (Ed.). Corpus-based EAP Pedagogy. Special issue of Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6(4), 319-335.
18. Helmbrecht, J. (2001). Politeness distinctions in pronouns. In M. Dryer, M. Haspelmath, D. Gil & B. Comrie (Eds.), World atlas of language structures online. Retrieved from http://wals.info/chapter/45.
19. Ho, T. K. (1998). The random subspace method for constructing decision forests. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence. 20(8), 832-844. Retrieved from http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/ho98random.html.
20. Hu, R. & Atwell, E. (2003). A survey of machine learning approaches to analysis of large corpora. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Shallow Processing of Large Corpora (pp. 45-52). Lancaster University, UK.
21. Hyland, F. (1998). The impact of teacher written feedback on individual writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(3), 255-286.
22. Hyland, F. (2000). ESL writers and Feedback: Giving more autonomy to students. Journal of Language Teaching Research, 4(1), 33-54.
23. Hyland, F. & Hyland, K. (2001). Sugaring the pill; Praise and criticism in written feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(3), 185-212.
24. Hüttner, J. (2010). Purpose-built corpora and student writing. Journal of Writing Research, 2(2), 197-218.
25. Keevallik, L. (2005), Politeness in Estonia: A matter of fact style. In L. Hickey & M. Stewart (Eds.), Politeness in Europe (pp. 203-217). Clevedon etc.: Multilingual Matters.
26. Keevallik, L. & Grzega, J. (2008). A few notes on conversational patterns in Estonian. Journal for EuroLinguistiX, 5, 80-87.
27. Knoblauch, C. H., & Brannon, L. (1981). Teacher commentary on student writing: The state of the art. Freshman English News, 10(2), 1-4.
28. Leki, I. (1990). Coaching from the margins: Issues in written response. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second Language Writing (pp. 57-68). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
29. Manning, C. D., Raghavan, P., Schtze, H. (2008). Introduction to information retrieval. New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press
30. Martinez-Flor, A. (2005). A theoretical review of the speech act of suggesting: Towards taxonomy for its use in FLT. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses, 18, 167-187.
31. Kursa, M. B., & Rudnicki, W. R., (2010). Feature selection with the boruta package. Journal of Statistical Software, 36(11), 1-13. Retrieved from http://www.jstatsoft.org/v36/i11/
32. Moreno, R. (2004). Decreasing cognitive load for novice students: Effects of explanatory versus corrective feedback in discovery-based multimedia. Instructional Science, 32(1), 99-113.
33. Nelson, M. M., & Schunn, C. D. (2009). The nature of feedback: How different types of peer feedback affect writing performance. Instructional Science, 27(4), 375-401.
34. Neuwirth, C.M., Chandhok, R., Charney, D., Wojahn, P., & Kim, L. (1994). Distributed collaborative writing: A comparison of spoken and written modalities for reviewing and revising documents. In Proceedings of the CHI94 Conference on Computer-Human Interaction (pp. 51- 57). Boston: ACM
35. Nguyen, T. (2008). Modifying L2 criticisms: How learners do it? Journal of Pragmatics, 40(4), 768- 791.
36. Pendar, N. & Chapelle, C. (2008). Investigating the promise of learner corpora: methodological issues. CALICO Journal, 25(2), 189-206.
37. Pridemore, D. R., & Klein, J. D. (1991). Control of feedback in computer-assisted instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(4), 27-32.
38. R Development Core Team (2008). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org.
39. Schlitz, S. A. (2010). Introduction to special issue: Exploring corpus-informed approaches to writing research. Journal of Writing Research, 2(2), 91-98.
40. Straub, R. (1997). Students' reactions to teacher comments: An exploratory study. Research in the Teaching of English, 31, 91-119.
41. Strijbos, J.W., Narciss, S., & Dünnebier, K. (2010). 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), 291-303.
42. Topping, K. J. (2010). Methodological quandaries in studying process and outcomes in peer assessment. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 339-343.
43. Tseng, S., & Tsai, C. C. (2007). On-line peer assessment and the role of peer feedback: A study of high school computer course. Computer & Education, 49, 1161-1174.
44. Van den Berg, I., Admiraal, W. F. & Pilot, A. (2006). Peer assessment in university teaching: Evaluating seven course designs. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(1), 19-36.
45. Van der Pol, J., Admiraal, W. F. & Simons, P. R. J. (2006). The affordance of anchored discussion for the collaborative processing of academic texts. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(3), 339-357.
46. Van der Pol, J., Admiraal, W. F. & Simons, P. R. J. (2010). Integrating an evaluation function in online anchored discussion to increase the local relevance of replies. Journal for Computers & Human Behaviour, 26(3), 288-295.
47. Van der Pol, J., Van den Berg, I., Admiraal, W. F. & Simons, P. R. J. (2008). The nature, reception, and use of online peer feedback in higher education. Computers & Education 51, 1804-1817.
48. Xiong, W. & Litman, D. (2010) Identifying problem localization in peer-review feedback. In the Tenth International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems. Pittsburg, PA.
49. Xiong, W. & Litman, D. (2011). Understanding differences in perceived peer-review helpfulness using natural language processing. In Proceedings sixth workshop on innovative use of NLP for building educational applications (pp. 1-10). Portland, OR.
50. Xiong, W. Litman, D. & Schunn, C.D, (2012). Improving research on and instructional quality of peer feedback through natural language processing. Journal of Writing Research, 4(2). 155-176.