Triangulation in Classroom Research: A Study of Peer Revision

McGroarty, Mary; Wei, Zhu

doi:10.1111/0023-8333.11997001

Cited by 80 publications

(66 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…One of the areas warranting further investigation with entering first-year college students is how varied their editorial comments are during peer editing tasks. A number of researchers have compared student and instructor comments on matching writing drafts and found many similarities (Gielen et al, 2010;Stellmack et al, 2012;Underwood & Tregidgo, 2005), particularly when steps are taken to increase understanding of assignment and grading requirements and the seriousness of the peer editing processes and when sufficient feedback is received (Cho & MacArther, 2011;Covill, 2010;Kaufman & Schunn, 2011;Li et al, 2009;McGroarty & Zhu, 1997). Given the variety of writing feedback, by type and amount, on the drafts collected in this study and by other researchers examining peer editing, issues of importance would seem to be quality of peer feedback (e.g., clarity of student writing suggestions, correction accuracy), and quality of the models provided by novice writers.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Concern about the validity of peer comments may affect students' decisions as to whether or not to implement suggestions (Underwood & Tregidgo, 2005). Multiple peers' reviews (Cho & MacArthur, 2010), training on assignment-specific review processes or provision of rubrics (Cho & MacArther, 2011;Covill, 2010;Kaufman & Schunn, 2011;Li, Lui, & Steckelberg, 2009;McGroarty & Zhu, 1997), and stress on critically evaluating feedback relative to assignment requirements (Li et al, 2011) have all been found to increase student confidence in peer feedback.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Perceived Helpfulness of Peer Editing Activities: First-Year Students' Views and Writing Performance Outcomes

Ludemann

McMakin

2014

Psychology Learning & Teaching

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The perceived value of peer editing to students is unclear. To investigate, first-year students (N = 35) completed a writing attitudes scale and first writing assignment in September 2012. The expected writing requirements were explained and handouts provided, as well as subsequent instructor feedback and grades. A second writing assignment was completed in October with peer editing taking place before the due date. Perceived helpfulness of giving and receiving peer feedback was evaluated. This was repeated in November for a third writing assignment. Rating means for both assignments indicated that students viewed editing a peer's paper as more helpful in improving their own writing than receiving a peer's feedback. For the first assignment, acting as peer editor was negatively correlated with the assignment grades, but not for the second assignment. With repeated assignments of similar format, perhaps a single peer editing experience is sufficient for building students' understanding of expectations and confidence.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Perceived Helpfulness of Peer Editing Activities: First-Year Students' Views and Writing Performance Outcomes

Ludemann

McMakin

2014

Psychology Learning & Teaching

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Once again, for these studies focusing on CAPR, we identified the mode of peer feedback exchanges based on the technological tools used: synchronous, asynchronous, or a combination of synchronous and asynchronous CAPR. Out of the 37 reviewed studies, 15 previous studies focused on FFPR only (Stanley, 1992;Beason, 1993;Mendonca & Johnson, 1994;Lockhart & Ng, 1995;Zhu, 1995;Mendonca & Johnson, 1994;Villamil & De Guerrero, 1996;McGroarty & Zhu, 1997;De Guerrero & Villamil, 2000;Zhu, 2001;Min, 2005;Cho & Cho, 2011;Lina & Samuel, 2013;Vorobel & Kim, 2014;Hanjani & Li, 2014). On the other hand, an equal number of studies (N = 15) concentrated on CAPR only (Tuzi, 2004;Hewett, 2006;Guardado & Shi, 2007;Liang, 2008Liang, , 2010Liou & Peng, 2009;Ho & Usaha, 2009;Anderson, Bergman, Bradley, Gustafsson, & Matzke, 2010;Cha & Park, 2010;Ho, 2010;Ho & Usaha, 2013;Bradley, 2014;Razak & Saeed, 2014;Pham & Usaha, 2015;Saeed & Ghazali, 2016).…”

Section: Data Collectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Peer/group review in writing, also known as peer response, peer revision (McGroarty & Zhu, 1997), peer feedback (Zhu, 2001;Hyland & Hyland, 2006) or peer evaluation (Stanley, 1992), has attracted the attention of many second language (L2) and foreign language (FL) writing practitioners and researchers (Hedge, 2001;Hyland & Hyland, 2006;Hu & Lam, 2010). This is because peer review fits well within the process approach to writing instruction in English as Second/Foreign Language (ESL/EFL) contexts.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A review of previous studies on ESL/EFL learners’ interactional feedback exchanges in face-to-face and computer-assisted peer review of writing

Saeed

Ghazali

Aljaberi

2018

Int J Educ Technol High Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper is a review of previous studies on learners' interactional feedback exchanges in face-to-face peer review (FFPR) and computer-assisted peer review (CAPR) of English as Second/Foreign Language (ESL/EFL) writing. The review attempted to (1) identify the patterns of interactional feedback, (2) search an empirical evidence of learners' incorporation of peer interactional feedback in their text revisions and (3) identify the factors affecting learners' interactional feedback as reported in these previous studies. To achieve this, a search of previous studies on peer review in writing from 1990 to 2016 was conducted. However, only 37 out of 58 peer reviewed studies were extensively reviewed and systematically analyzed by two independent coders. The findings showed that in terms of the language functions, learners' interactional feedback exchanges are categorized as (1) exploratory (showing learners' reflection and interpretation of the task), (2) procedural (showing how learners handle the task of revising their texts) and (3) social (showing how learners maintain good relationships). In relation to the nature and focus areas, learners' interactional feedback exchanges are revision-oriented (targeting problems or errors in written texts) and non-revision-oriented (do not target any problems). Results of some previous reviewed studies also provided evidence of learners' integration of peer feedback into their text revisions. However, peer interactional feedback is affected by several factors: training learners on feedback, mode of peer review, type of written tasks, learners' roles in peer review activties, learners' proficiency in English and other factors, including learners' gender differences and configuration of peer review dyads as well as context of peer review. Synthesizing the findings of the reviewed studies, we proposed a dual space-interactional feedback model that comprises the learning space and the social space of interactional feedback in peer review. Several pedagogical, research and technological implications were also drawn from the major findings. Future researchers should pay attention to both spaces of interactional feedback and identify further factors affecting interactional feedback in peer review.

show abstract

“…Research indicated concerns about their ability to evaluate their peers' work (Cheng & Warren, 1997). It is suggested that training for learners is effective in mitigating these concerns (McGroarty & Zhu, 1997). Another suggestion is to provide feedback training programs to improve the accountability of peer reviewers (Ferris, 2014).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effects of University English Writing Classes Focusing on Self and Peer Review on Learner Autonomy

Lee¹

2017

The Journal of AsiaTEFL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The study aimed to investigate the effects of English writing classes focusing on self and peer review on learner autonomy at a Korean university, leading to finding ways to improve the quality of the English writing classes. An English writing class consisting of 29 students majoring in English language was organized and lessons were provided over a period of seven weeks. An online questionnaire was conducted to identify students' perceptions of the effects of the English writing class on motivation, responsibility, ability to make choices in learning activities, and engagement in learning activities. An open-ended questionnaire was also conducted with four students, the teacher who implemented the program, and one academic professional in L2 writing instruction. It was found that the English writing class focusing on self and peer review had positive effects on students' perception of students' and teachers' responsibilities and English learning activities outside classrooms while it had moderate effects on their motivation and English learning activities inside the classroom. Secondly, the results of the open-ended questionnaire to the students and the teachers implied that students' writing competences might improve. In addition, more systematic learner training needs to be provided to increase the effects of the class, particularly the effects of self and peer review. Finally, it was found that the clarity of the responsibility between teachers and students did not lead to the increase of the ability to choose the learning activities. Attention needs to be paid to how to increase the ability. Keywords: English writing, self review, peer review, learner autonomy IntroductionSince the importance of English speaking ability is high in Korean society, the psychological and economic burden of the people is also very high, and the English education gap is deepening (Kim, 2011). In particular, university students are required to have English proficiency, which is an important factor of preparing for employment. However, it is generally accepted that the university entrance examination in Korea has made English education at elementary and middle school focus on how to solve various types of questions rather than communicative activities. This has caused graduates from high schools to be equipped with insufficient English ability and have much anxiety about English. Hence it is a reality that anxiety is big while confidence is low. College English education is causing more problems. As the growing social demand for English has increased, the need to improve English competence at universities has also increased. The problem is that English education at universities is non-systematic and inefficient (Lee, 2014). Therefore, the issues of the increasing gap among regions and classes, and the cost of private education have been raised as a serious problem not only in primary and secondary schools but also in universities.It is necessary to make efforts to improve English education in universities, but the simple extensio...

show abstract

Triangulation in Classroom Research: A Study of Peer Revision

Cited by 80 publications

References 30 publications

Perceived Helpfulness of Peer Editing Activities: First-Year Students' Views and Writing Performance Outcomes

Perceived Helpfulness of Peer Editing Activities: First-Year Students' Views and Writing Performance Outcomes

A review of previous studies on ESL/EFL learners’ interactional feedback exchanges in face-to-face and computer-assisted peer review of writing

The Effects of University English Writing Classes Focusing on Self and Peer Review on Learner Autonomy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About