In these studies, we examined the role of elaborations for subjects learning a procedural skill (viz., using a personal computer) from an instructional text. In Experiment 1, we compared two sources of elaborations: those provided by the author and those generated by learners while reading. In the latter condition, subjects were given advance information about the tasks they were to perform so that they would generate more specific task-related elaborations while reading. Each source of elaborations facilitated skill performance. This result contrasts with results of the past experiments testing declarative knowledge in which author-provided elaborations were found to hurt performance. In Experiment 2, the author-provided elaborations were classified into those illustrating the syntax of the operating system commands and those explaining basic concepts and their applicability. Syntax elaborations produced significant facilitation for experienced and novice computer users. Concept elaborations produced no reliable improvement.An important question to both memory theorists and pedagogists is, "What variables will improve the learning and retention of written information?" One such variable that has been the topic of considerable speculation and research is the effect of elaborations (J. R. Anderson & Reder, 1979;Bransford, 1979;Chiesi, Spilich, & Voss, 1979;Craik & Tulving, 1975;Mandl & Ballstaedt, 1981;Mandl, Schnotz, & Tergan, 1984;Reder, 1976Reder, , 1979Weinstein, 1978). In the view of most researchers, there are several reasons why elaborations should help subjects learn and remember the main ideas of a text. Elaborations provide multiple retrieval routes to the essential information by creating more connections to the learner's prior knowledge. If one set of connections is forgotten, it may be possible to retrieve the desired information another way. Furthermore, if the learner forgets an important point, it may be possible to reconstruct it from the information that is still available.Elaborations can arise from two distinct sources: first, the text itself can contain elaborations of the main ideas, and second, the reader can generate them independently while reading. We use the same term for both types, because we define elaborations as any information that supports, clarifies, or further specifies the main points of a text. Elaborations can take many forms, including examples, details, analogies, restatements, and deductions.

been utili they are u comments papers re research h students' c Over 1400 a content results sup comments draw imp students s encourage Keywords M. M., Charney, s: Comparing co f Writing Researc nd copyright: Ea gy, University of PATCHAN, CHARNEY & SCHUNN  INSTRUCTOR VERSUS PEER COMMENTS | 152 Focus of the Problem (kappa = .69) assignmentAddresses problems with the assignment details.combination Addresses more than one focus. high proseAddresses problems that were defined in the rubric. low proseAddresses lower-level problems (such as grammar).

How do comments on student writing from peers compare to those from subject-matter experts? This study examined the types of comments that reviewers produce as well as their perceived helpfulness. Comments on classmates' papers were collected from two undergraduate and one graduate-level psychology course. The undergraduate papers in one of the courses were also commented on by an independent psychology instructor experienced in providing feedback to students on similar writing tasks. The comments produced by students at both levels were shorter than the instructor's. The instructor's comments were predominantly directive and rarely summative. The undergraduate peers' comments were more mixed in type; directive and praise comments were the most frequent. Consistently, undergraduate peers found directive and praise comments helpful. The helpfulness of the directive comments was also endorsed by a writing expert. Keywords: peer feedback; peer reviews; writing in the disciplines; writing assessment; instructional technologyA s Richard Haswell (2005) noted in a recent article, peer review of undergraduate writing seems to be "the least studied of practices now very common in college writing classrooms" (p. 211). In fact, while conducting the first comprehensive review of research on any kind of college-level peer assessment, Keith Topping (1998) found only 67 empirical studies to include. Authors' Note: This work was supported by grants from the Andrew Mellon Foundation and the Provost Office of the University of Pittsburgh to the second author. We thank Andrea Grana and Chioma Azi for their assistance in coding and their helpful advice on earlier versions of this article.His summary of outcomes regarding peer review of writing is cautiously positive: peer review "appears capable of yielding outcomes at least as good as teacher assessment and sometimes better" (p. 262).Even without a solid research base, however, peer review is ubiquitous in 1st-year composition. Composition instructors have come to see peer review as an essential practice, partly because it insures a round of drafting and revising and partly from an assumption that writers benefit both from commenting and from reading comments. However, given the myriad of ways in which peer review is enacted in writing classrooms, it is important to inquire further into the consequences, positive, and negative, of various aspects of the peer review process.Many important questions remain unanswered (Boud, Cohen, & Sampson, 1999;Topping, 1998). Most previous studies have focused on numeric ratings assigned by student peers to analyze their validity and reliability (e.g., Cho & Schunn, 2003;Hughes & Large, 1993; Magin & Helmore, 2000;Mowl & Pain, 1995). However valid and reliable they may be, the value of peer comments for student writers is unknown. Anecdotal evidence suggests that students actually find the task of reading and commenting on peers' papers to be more helpful for revising than attempting to address their peers' suggestions. Students have reported co...

No abstract

No abstract