NCTE/CCCC’s Recent War on Scholarship

Haswell, Richard H.

doi:10.1177/0741088305275367

Cited by 121 publications

(70 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A 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.…”

Section: Abstract: Peer Feedback; Peer Reviews; Writing In the Discipmentioning

confidence: 99%

Commenting on Writing

Cho

Schunn

Charney

2006

Written Communication

162

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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...

show abstract

Section: Abstract: Peer Feedback; Peer Reviews; Writing In the Discipmentioning

confidence: 99%

Commenting on Writing

Cho

Schunn

Charney

2006

Written Communication

162

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Along with this critique, some composition researchers believe that human experiences such as literacy development are best expressed through narrative and descriptions of individual experiences rather than through quantified data (Berkenkotter, 1993;Roberts-Miller, 2002;Driscoll, 2009). Others contend that for research to be most meaningful it must be replicable and data-driven (Johanek, 2000;Haswell, 2005;Discoll & Perdue, 2012). The scope of this article does not allow for a detailed discussion of this debate, but the lack of critique leveled at Schwegler and Shamoon's methods may be better understood in light of these variations in composition research methods.…”

Section: Disciplinary Contexts and Research Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why Do I Have to Write That?: Compositionists Identify Disconnects between Student and Instructor Conceptions of Research Writing that Can Inform Teaching

Baer¹

2014

EBLIP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

the terms of the Creative Commons-AttributionNoncommercial-Share Alike License 2.5 Canada (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ca/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly attributed, not used for commercial purposes, and, if transformed, the resulting work is redistributed under the same or similar license to this one. AbstractObjectives -This classic article discusses research-based writing assignments. Schwegler and Shamoon sought to identify differences between college students' and college instructors' conceptions of research and research paper assignments, particularly in terms of their purpose and process. The authors also sought to identify common features of academic research writing that could inform writing instruction about research writing.Design -Qualitative interviews with college instructors and students about their views of the research process and about forms of research writing. Instructors were also interviewed about evaluation standards for academic research papers.Setting -Unspecified, though the description suggests a college or university in the United States.Subjects -College instructors and college students. (Number of subjects unspecified.)Methods -The authors, a university writing program director and a writing program instructor, conducted one-on-one interviews with college instructors and students about their views of research and the research paper. Questions focused on conceptions of the research process, the purposes of research, and the forms that research writing takes. Instructors were also asked about standards for effective evaluation of research papers.The limited description of the research methods and interview questions employed in

show abstract

“…The method has been used extensively in various fields (Turner & Pérez-Quiñones, 2009;Falchikov & Goldfinch 2000;Liu & Hansen 2002;Dossin 2003;Carlson & Berry 2005;Anewalt 2005;Hundhausen et al 2009;Turner, Pérez-Quiñones, Edwards, & Chase, 2010;Liou & Peng, 2009;Goldin & Ashley, 2011;Gehringer, Ehresman, Conger, & Wagle, 2007), having a long history in writing instruction and relevant courses at the college level (DiPardo & Freedman, 1988;Haswell, 2005;Cho & MacArthur, 2010).…”

Section: Peer Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

How to improve the peer review method: Free-selection vs assigned-pair protocol evaluated in a computer networking course

Papadopoulos

Λάγκας

Demetriadis

2012

Computers & Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study provides field research evidence on the efficiency of a "free-selection" peer review assignment protocol as compared to the typically implemented "assignedpair" protocol. The study employed 54 sophomore students who were randomly assigned into three groups: Assigned-Pair (AP) (the teacher assigns student works for review to student pairs), Free-Selection (FS) (students are allowed to freely explore and select peer work for review), and No Review (NR) (control group). AP and FS student groups studied and reviewed peer work in the domain of Computer Networking, supported by a web-based environment designed to facilitate the two peer review protocols. Our results indicate that students following the Free Selection protocol demonstrate (a) better domain learning outcomes, and (b) better reviewer skills, compared to the AP condition. Overall, the study analyzes the benefits and shortcomings of the FS vs. AP review assignment protocol, providing evidence that the FS condition can be multiply beneficial to students who engage in peer review activities.

show abstract

NCTE/CCCC’s Recent War on Scholarship

Cited by 121 publications

References 29 publications

Commenting on Writing

Commenting on Writing

Why Do I Have to Write That?: Compositionists Identify Disconnects between Student and Instructor Conceptions of Research Writing that Can Inform Teaching

How to improve the peer review method: Free-selection vs assigned-pair protocol evaluated in a computer networking course

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About