How Students Read Student Papers

Newkirk, Thomas

doi:10.1177/0741088384001003001

Cited by 22 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Its use in essays might sound natural and, therefore, not be considered worthy of correction, particularly if students did not have a meaningful model of the desired language form or were not specifically directed to revise for language. Although this highlights Newkirk's (1984) concern regarding the disparity between factors monitored in feedback provided by instructors versus that provided by peers, the results do not imply that such variables cannot be brought under the control of cognitive apprenticeship procedures.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 65%

“…Although using peer collaborations in writing is not new, findings are still mixed and incomplete (DiPardo & Freedman, 1987;Gere, 1987 (Gere & Abbott, 1985;Gere & Stevens, 1985;Nystrand, 1986); others have reported no success (Berkenkotter, 1984;Newkirk, 1984). A major problem with many of these studies is that, in field research with WR students, the structure and controls of laboratory studies have seldom been incorporated; conversely, many of the laboratory studies using collaborative approaches with college students have been artificial in the (short) duration of their treatment procedures and their (lack of) integration with existing classroom activities and curricular demands.…”

Section: Kinslermentioning

confidence: 96%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Structured Peer Collaboration: Teaching Essay Revision to College Students Needing Writing Remediation

Kinsler¹

1990

Cognition and Instruction

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 65%

Section: Kinslermentioning

confidence: 96%

Structured Peer Collaboration: Teaching Essay Revision to College Students Needing Writing Remediation

Kinsler¹

1990

Cognition and Instruction

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Nystrand and Brandt (1989) observe that intensive peer review (small groups meeting three times per week) used with college students has numerous beneficial effects, especially compared to writing only for the teacher. However, Newkirk (1984) found that college students evaluate their peers' writing using criteria that are not necessarily consistent with teachers' criteria. In other words, what students value in others' writing may conflict with what teachers look for.…”

Section: Résumémentioning

confidence: 97%

Comparing Peer Review and Self-Review as Ways to Improve College Students' Writing

Covill

2010

Journal of Literacy Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effect of three approaches to revision instruction on 61 college students' revision behavior and writing quality was investigated for this article. Students wrote three 5-page papers and received one of three instructional approaches: Formal Peer Review (n D 19), Formal Self-Review (n D 20), or No Formal Review (n D 22). Formal Peer Review students had to outline and critique a peer's first draft, Formal Self-Review students had to outline and critique their own first draft, and No Formal Review students were simply instructed to revise their own first draft to improve clarity and completeness. No difference in writing quality was detected based on instructional approach. No Formal Review students made more revisions from first to final drafts than students in the other two groups, at both the global (summary) and local (sentence) levels of meaning. Students in the No Formal Review condition had the most positive attitude toward the instruction they received. Results suggest that using peer review in college psychology classes, and a formal approach to reviewing, may not improve the quality of students writing but does affect the timing of students' revision behavior (before, rather than after, handing in the first draft) and students' attitudes toward instruction.

show abstract

“…A s is the case with previous studies on peer and self-ratings of different performance and abilit y, these studies generated consiste nt and moderate correlations with teacher evaluation, along with some noteworthy insights concerning the gaps in evaluatio n criteria among rate rs. For example, Newkirk (1984) found instructors and peer-raters seemed to set different criteria for what constitutes a good essay. Sullivan and H all (1997) 34 Peer rating in E FL writin g reported self-raters took into account effort when self-asse ssing their papers.…”

Section: H Idetoshi Saito and Tom Ok O Fujita 33mentioning

confidence: 99%

Characteristics and user acceptance of peer rating in EFL writing classrooms

Saito

Fujita

2004

Language Teaching Research

102

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Lack of research on the characteristics of peer assessment in E FL writing may inh ibit teachers from appreciating the utility of this inno vative assessment. This study addr essed the followin g research questions: (1) H ow similar are peer, self-and teacher ratings of E FL writing?; (2) D o students favour peer ratings?; and (3) D oes peer feedb ack influence students' attitudes about peer rating? Forty-seven college students stud ying E nglish writing in a Japanese college were assigned to write two essays. E ach essay was commented on and rated by two teachers, three peers and the writers themselves. Stude nts also completed a five-item qu estionnaire about their attitud es regarding peer rating. Peer and teacher ratings were found to correlate significantly. The results of the question naire indicated that students had favou rable attitudes towards peer rating. A regression analysis suggested that peer feedback did not influ ence stud ents' favour able attitud es abo ut the feedb ack. I IntroductionG rowing inte rest in the use of alternative assessment in the foreign and second language le arning (F/SL) field seems to have stim ula ted publication of resource books (Brown, 1998; O 'Malley and Valdez Pierce, 1996) and a collection of research papers (E kbatani and Pierson, 2000) on this topic. These books give a wide array of examples and offer valuable advice for language teachers employing alternative assessments in an everyday class. E choing this trend, the number of stu dies on peer review and portfolio assessm ent in F/SL writin g has swelled rapidly. In general these stu dies support the benefits of using peer review as an aid in © Arnold 2004 10.1191/1362168804lr133oa A ddress for correspondence: H idetoshi Saito, Hokusei G akuen U niversity, D epartment of E conomics, 2-3-1 O yachi-nishi, A tusbetsuku, Sapporo 004-8631 Japan; e-mail: saitoh@ hokusei.ac.jp L anguage Teaching R esearch 8,1 (2004); pp. 31-54 revision of F/SL writin g. Most studies, however, have not utilize d peer rating; rather they have focused on how much and what kind of peer comments or teachers' comments were incorporated into students' further revision (e.g., Connor and A senavage, 1994; Villamil and D e G uerrero, 1998). A few major differences in the two areas of writing research involving peers should be clarified at the outset. First, while the so-called peer review studies qualita tively analyse peer comments, the studies on peer rating of writin g employ rating scales of some kind, thus producing quantitative data. Secondly, peer review is not necessarily undertaken for use in assessm ent, while peer rating is intended for assessment. In other words, studies of peer review and peer ratin g differ in respect to research purposes and methods, although some overla p does exist.In contrast with the increasing number of studies concerning peer review in L2 writing, research on peer ratin g remains unexamined. Little is known about the characteristics of peer assessment as well as student reaction to this practice, altho...

show abstract

How Students Read Student Papers

Cited by 22 publications

References 0 publications

Structured Peer Collaboration: Teaching Essay Revision to College Students Needing Writing Remediation

Structured Peer Collaboration: Teaching Essay Revision to College Students Needing Writing Remediation

Comparing Peer Review and Self-Review as Ways to Improve College Students' Writing

Characteristics and user acceptance of peer rating in EFL writing classrooms

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About