Teachers as co-authors of student writing: How teachers’ initiating texts influence response and revision in an online space

Magnifico, Alecia Marie; Woodard, Rebecca; McCarthey, Sarah J.

doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2019.01.005

Cited by 22 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This is in line with other previous studies which reported that students in technology-enhanced environments take part more in making revisionoriented peer review (Bradley, 2014;Ho, 2015;Liou & Peng, 2009;Pham & Usaha, 2015). However, in a recent study by Magnifico et al (2019), the number of students' non-revision comments such as cheerleading and praising were more prevalent in online peer review sessions. Furthermore, the majority of revision-oriented comments were local in both MMPR and FFPR.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

“…In other words, the two modes of peer review were successful at assisting students in identifying local writing issues, while the MMPR group made more local revisions than the FFPR group. The low percentage of both global and local actual revisions in the MMPR group corroborates with other similar studies which reported low revision rates in synchronous peer review environments (Liou & Peng, 2009;Liu & Sadler, 2003;Magnifico et al, 2019). Several factors might contribute to this low revision rate in this study: First, the nature of the IELTS as a high-stakes test make students rely on teacher's comments rather than peers since an incorrect revision reduces their band score.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

“…Both FFPR and MMPR made more local comments in total. Unlike some previous studies which reported the role of online peer review in identifying the global areas of writing (Bradley, 2014;Guardado & Shi, 2007;Hewett, 2006;Magnifico, Woodard, & McCarthey, 2019;Saeed & Ghazali, 2016), or the one by Chang (2012) who reported a balanced number of local and global comments. The findings of this study corroborate those which reported higher percentage of local comments in CMPR groups (Chang, 2009;Hanjani & Li, 2014;Ho, 2015;Liu & Sadler, 2003).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 61%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Assessing peer review pattern and the effect of face-to-face and mobile-mediated modes on students’ academic writing development

Farahani¹,

Nemati²,

Montazer³

2019

Lang Test Asia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examines the distribution of peer review in face-to-face and mobilemediated peer review groups and their effects on students' revision skills and academic writing development. Seventy-two first-year English for academic purposes (EAP) students participated in an 18-session IELTS academic writing course in a Canadian university the mobile-mediated peer review group (MMPR) used Telegram to exchange peer comments synchronously, while the face-to-face peer review group (FFPR) did peer review in the classroom. An adapted analytic scheme (Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2, 193-227, 2003) and the IELTS academic writing assessment criteria were used to conceptualize the peer comments in terms of frequency, area, type, nature, and IELTS assessment categories. Results indicated that the total number of comments, the percentage of revision-oriented comments and actual revisions made by the MMPR group were statistically more significant than those by the FFPR group. Furthermore, the MMPR group made more local revisionoriented comments than that of FFPR. However, the revision-oriented suggestion in local areas was the most distributed type of comment made by both groups. Regarding the IELTS assessment criteria, the FFPR group made more comments on task achievement and coherence and cohesion, whereas the comments made by the MMPR group targeted more lexical resources, and grammatical range and accuracy. In addition, the results showed that both MMPR and FFPR groups developed their IELTS academic writing skills while the MMPR mode of collaboration outperformed the FFPR.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 61%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Assessing peer review pattern and the effect of face-to-face and mobile-mediated modes on students’ academic writing development

Farahani¹,

Nemati²,

Montazer³

2019

Lang Test Asia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some studies (30.3%) also examined students' integration of peer feedback in their revised work (Akiyama, 2017;Dressler, Chu, Crossman & Hilman, 2019;Jurkowski, 2018, Leijen, 2017Magnifico, Woodard & McCarthey, 2019;van den Bos & Tan , 2019;Vorobel & Kim, 2017;Walker, 2015;Yang, 2015;Yu, 2019).…”

Section: Leaning Behaviourmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Of all the 33 peer feedback studies included in the final synthesis, 25 studies (75.8%) were conducted in the context of student writing, which include essays of different format such as 120-word (Zheng, Cui, Li & Huang, 2017), 500-word (Chang , 2015) and 4-paragraph essay (Shang, 2019) and different genres, such as argumentative essay (Latifi, Noroozi, Hatami & Biemans, 2019;Leijen, 2017;van den Bos & Tan, 2019), narrative writing (Wu, 2019), imaginative story (Chwo, 2015), personal expressive writing (Pritchard & Morrow, 2017), descriptive essay Vorobel & Kim (2017), persuasive essay (Magnifico, Woodard & McCarthey, 2019), reaction paper Wu, Petit & Chen, 2015), problem-solution essay (Grant, 2016), report writing (Cheng, Liang, & Tsai, 2015;Dressler, Chu, Crossman, & Hilman, 2019;Walker, 2015), summary writing Yang (2015), abstract writing (Gielen & De Wever, 2015), research proposal writing (Al Qunayeer, 2019), thesis/ dissertation (Yu, 2019), term paper (Jurkowski, 2018 ), a book chapter (Qing, 2019), reflective reviews and other assignments (Gaynor, 2019). Chang, 2016;Chwo, 2015;Grant, 2016;Latifi, Noroozi, Hatami & Biemans, 2019;Leijen, 2017;Magnifico, Woodard & McCarthey, 2019;Shang, 2019;Pritchard & Morrow, 2017;van den Bos & Tan, 2019;Vorobel & Kim, 2017;Wu, 2019;Wu, Petit & Chen, 2015;…”

Section: Classroom Context In Technology-supported Peer Feedback Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Peer Feedback in Technology-Supported Learning Environment: A Comprehensive Review

Lam¹,

Habil²

2020

IJARBSS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, a review of literature was undertaken to explore peer feedback studies in technologysupported learning environment. The objectives are to: (1) find out the extent to which technologysupported peer feedback has been studied in different contexts of teaching and learning (2) identify the opportunities/ affordances offered by technology-supported peer feedback activity and (3) summarize the potential challenges/ constraints of technology-supported peer feedback activity. Articles related to peer feedback practices conducted with the use of technology were searched from two databases: ScienceDirect and Taylor & Francis Online from 2015 to 2019. Of the final 33 articles selected for full review, 25 studies (75.8%) were conducted in the context of student writing and the three most productive research lines identified are different types/ characteristics of peer feedback, students' perceptions on their experience of doing peer feedback activity and the impacts of peer feedback on students' learning performance. Five most dominant affordances of technologysupported peer feedback activity were identified as follows: (1) opportunities to get high-quality feedback for student learning (2) promoting students' deep self-reflection (3) convenience and ease (4) creating a safe and supportive learning environment and (5) opportunities to get peer support through interaction. Meanwhile, four main challenges were summarized as: (1) students' lack of confidence to provide feedback (2) the lack of constructive peer feedback (3) students' lack of trust in their peers' ability to provide feedback and (4) students' lack of active response to peer feedback. Some recommendations arising from the review are also discussed in this paper.

show abstract

Online Teaching Method of Conductive Characteristics of Graphene Materials Based on Big Data Mining

Wang

Zhang

2021

Lecture Notes of the Institute for Computer Sciences, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Teachers as co-authors of student writing: How teachers’ initiating texts influence response and revision in an online space

Cited by 22 publications

References 31 publications

Assessing peer review pattern and the effect of face-to-face and mobile-mediated modes on students’ academic writing development

Assessing peer review pattern and the effect of face-to-face and mobile-mediated modes on students’ academic writing development

Peer Feedback in Technology-Supported Learning Environment: A Comprehensive Review

Online Teaching Method of Conductive Characteristics of Graphene Materials Based on Big Data Mining

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About