Leveraging the potential of peer feedback in an academic writing activity through sense-making support

European Journal of Psychology of Education

Volumn 33, Issue 1, 2018, Pages 165-184

  Wichmann, Astrid ^a   Funk, Alexandra ^a   Rummel, Nikol ^a  

^a RUHR UNIVERSITY BOCHUM   (Germany)

Author keywords

Academic writing; Feedback uptake; Peer assessment

Indexed keywords

EID: 85029005893     PISSN: 02562928     EISSN: 18785174     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10212-017-0348-7     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Alamargot, D., & Chanquoy, L. (2001). Through the models of writing. Dordrecht-Boston- London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
2. Allal, L., & Chanquoy, L. (2004). Revision revisited introduction. In L. Allal, L. Chanquoy, & P. Largy (Eds.), Revision and cognitive instructional processes: Studies in writing (Vol. Vol. 13, pp. 1–7). Norwell: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
3. Berthold, K., Nückles, M., & Renkl, A. (2007). Do learning protocols support learning strategies and outcomes? The role of cognitive and metacognitive prompts. Learning and Instruction, 17, 564–577.
4. Boero, R., & Novarese, M. (2012). Feedback and learning. Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning, 1282–1285.
5. Cho, K., & MacArthur, C. (2010). Student revision with peer and expert reviewing. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 328–338.
6. Erikson, E. H. (1959). Vertrauen gegen Urmisstrauen. Rezeption und Weiterentwicklung der Psychoanalyse. In F. Baumgart (Ed.), Entwicklungs- und Lerntheorien: Erläuterungen - Texte - Arbeitsaufgaben 2007, (pp. 87-93). Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt.
7. Esselborn-Krumbiegel, H. (2010). Kapitel 3-5. In H. Esselborn-Krumbiegel (Ed.), Richtig wissenschaftlich schreiben. Wissenschaftssprache in Regeln und Übungen (pp. 23–74). Paderborn: Schöningh.
8. Falchikov, N. (1986). Product comparisons and process benefits of collaborative peer group and self-assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 11(2), 146–166.
9. Falchikov, N., & Goldfinch, J. (2000). Student peer assessment in higher education: A meta-analysis comparing peer and teacher marks. Review of Educational Research, 70(3), 287–322.
10. Fitzgerald, J. (1987). Research on revision in writing. Review of Educational Research, 57(4), 481–506.
11. 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.
12. Funk, A. L. (2016). Unterstützung der Reflexion beim Empfangen von Online Peer-Feedback (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://www.ub.rub.de/katalog/titel/2980650
13. Goldin, I. M., Ashley, K., & Schunn, C. D. (2012). Redesigning educational peer review interactions using computer tools: An introduction. Journal of Writing Research, 4(2), 111–119.
14. Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2007). Best practices in teaching planning. In S. Graham, C. A. MacArthur, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Best practices in writing instruction (pp. 119–140). New York: Guilford Press.
15. Hammer, R., Ronen, M., & Kohen-Vacs, D. (2010). Stressed yet motivated: Web-based peer assessed competition as an instructional approach in higher education. In K. Gomez, L. Lyons, & J. Radinsky (Eds.), Learning in the disciplines: Proceedings of the 9th international conference of the learning sciences, Vol. 1 (pp. 65–72). Chicago: IL.
16. Hayes, J. R. (2004). What triggers revision? In L. Allal, L. Chanquoy, & P. Largy (Eds.), Revision: Cognitive and instructional processes (pp. 9–20). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
17. Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. (1986). Writing research and the writer. American Psychologist, 41, 1106–1113.
18. Hayes, J. R., Flower, L., Schriver, K. A., Stratman, J., & Carey, L. (1987). Cognitive processes in revision. In S. Rosenberg (Ed.), Advances in applied psycholinguistics. Reading, writing, and language processing (Vol. Vol. II). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
19. Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 254–284.
20. Koedinger, R., & Aleven, V. (2007). Exploring the assistance dilemma in experiments with cognitive tutors. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 239–264.
21. Kollar, I., & Fischer, F. (2010). Peer assessment as collaborative learning: A cognitive perspective. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 344–348.
22. Kornmeier, M. (2008). Wissenschaftlich schreiben leicht gemacht für Bachelor, Master, Dissertation. Bern, Stuttgart, Wien: Haupt Verlag.
23. Krämer, W. (1999). Wie schreibe ich eine Seminar- oder Examensarbeit? Frankfurth/Main, New York: Campus Verlag.
24. Kruse, O. (2010). Lesen und Schreiben. Wien: Verlag Huter und Roth KG.
25. Li, L., Liu, X., & Steckelberg, A. L. (2010). Assessor or assessee: How student learning improves by giving and receiving peer feedback. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(3), 525–536.
26. MacArthur, C. A., Graham, S., & Fitzgerald, J. (2006). Handbook of writing research. New York: Guilford Press.
27. Moodle Pty. Ltd. (2013). Moodle (Version 2.3.3) [Learning environment software]. Retrieved from https://moodle.org/.
28. Nelson, M. M., & Schunn, C. D. (2009). The nature of feedback: How different types of peer feedback affect writing performance. Instructional Science, 37, 375–401.
29. Newell, A., & Simon, H. (1972). Human Problem Solving. Englewood Cliffs.: Prentice-Hall.
30. Proske, A., Narciss, S., & McNamara, D. (2010). Computer-based scaffolding to facilitate students development of expertise in academic writing. Journal of Research in Reading, 33(1), 1–17.
31. Roscoe, R. D., & Chi, M. T. H. (2007). Understanding tutor learning: Knowledge-building and knowledge-telling in peer tutors’ explanations and questions. Review of Educational Research, 77, 534–574.
32. Schraw, G. (1998). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instructional Science, 26, 113–125.
33. Sweller, J. (2005). Implications of cognitive load theory for multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning (19-30). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
34. Topping, K. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 249–276.
35. Topping, K. J. (2003). Self and peer assessment in school and university: Reliability, validity and utility. In M. S. R. Segers, F. J. R. C. Dochy, & E. C. Cascallar (Eds.), Optimizing new modes of assessment: In search of qualities and standards (pp. 55–87). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
36. Van der Pol, J., van den Berg, B. A. M., Admiraal, W. F., & Simons, P. R. J. (2008). The nature, reception, and use of online peer feedback in higher education. Computers and Education, 51, 1804–1817.
37. Van Gennip, N., Segers, M., & Tillema, H. (2010). Peer assessment as a collaborative learning activity: The role of interpersonal variables and conceptions. Learning & Instruction, 20(4), 280–290.
38. Van Zundert, M., Sluijsmans, D., & van Merriënboer, J. (2010). Effective peer assessment processes: Research findings and future directions. Learning & Instruction, 20, 270–279.
39. Zariski, A. (1996). Student peer assessment in tertiary education: Promise, perils and practice. Proceedings of the 5th annual teaching learning forum, (Perth: Murdoch). In J. Abbott & L. Willcoxson (Eds.), Teaching and learning within and across disciplines (pp. 189–200). Murdoch: Perth.
40. Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 329–339.