The computer as means of communication for peer-review groups

Abstract

In a scientific-writing course, 15 of 54 students used o review-supporting computer program, PREP-EDITOR (PREP), to communicate with their peers about drafts. In an exploratory study, 10 students were interviewed regularly: 5 used PREP and 5 met face-to-face to exchange comments on drafts. The study showed that use of PREP did not increase time spent on various writing activities. The PREP group reported a large number of computer-related problems, whereas the non-PREP group reported more difficulties with assignments and course organization.It appeared that the technology was omnipresent in PREP users' perception of the course. The system of computer-mediated peer review has many of the drawbacks of "distance learning," but because networks are increasingly used by collaborating authors, we should teach our students how to use them sensibly. COMPUTER-MEDIATED SMALL-GROUP WRITINGOpting for Collaboration' The literature on computer-assisted collaborative writing and writing instruction suggests a wide range of reasons why teachers want their students to write collaboratively. Some of these articles (often citing the work of Bruffee) seem to value collaborative writing because it represents collaborative learning; their goal is, in the first instance, pedagogical. They believe learning in general should take place in an environment that enhances active involvement of students: Collaborative writing groups provide such an environment in a challenging instructional situation. For others (often quoting Bakhtin), the main value of collaborative writing seems to be didactic: These teachers want to make clear to their students that producing written language is communicative.By definition, writing is a social act, part of and contributing to an existing, complex universe of communicative acts. Furthermore, many teachers want to make their students more aware of the process (sometimes conceived as a sociocognitive process, sometimes as a group or organizational process) that to a certain extent determines the outcomes of writing efforts (Flower, 1989;Forman, 1992).

Assessing the Impact of Pen-Based Computing on Students' Peer Review Strategies: Results from the Technical Communication Classroom

“…He found that the lack of proximity led to more rigorous adoption of an editor's "critical terminology" and viewpoint, but also to a frustration at their inability to engage in direct face-to-face conversation. 13 Such articles often simultaneously assessed available software available for peer review and collaborative writing such as PREP-EDIT or Daedalus 11,12 -based around commentary and collaboration tools now integrated within most mainstream word-processing software-or on approaches that did not require specialized software, such as exchange of comments via email or chat rooms. Perhaps most noteworthy in the findings of these studies is the frequency with which, regardless of the details of the virtual environment, instructors encountered difficulties familiar to any practitioner of peer review.…”

Assessing The Impact Of Pen Based Computing On Students’ Peer Review Strategies Using The Peer Review Comment Inventory

“…The only consistent effect they found among the students using computers for peer review was a tendency to focus on technical difficulties rather than course content. 11 Peckham, finding similarly that "disruptive" consequences were more prevalent than "constructive" ones, urged that computer-mediated peer review be blended with more traditional techniques. 12 Marx, writing about a cooperative program in which student writers at distant universities responded to one another's work, perhaps offered the most positive conclusions on the technique in the early 1990s, but still reported mixed results.…”

“…He found that the lack of proximity led to more rigorous adoption of an editor's "critical terminology" and viewpoint, but also to a frustration at their inability to engage in direct face-to-face conversation. 13 Such articles often simultaneously assessed available software available for peer review and collaborative writing such as PREP-EDIT or Daedalus 11,12 -based around commentary and collaboration tools now integrated within most mainstream word-processing software-or on approaches that did not require specialized software, such as exchange of comments via email or chat rooms. Perhaps most noteworthy in the findings of these studies is the frequency with which, regardless of the details of the virtual environment, instructors encountered difficulties familiar to any practitioner of peer review.…”