Yang, Yu-Fen. "A Reciprocal Peer Review System to Support College Students' Writing." British Journal of Educational Technology 42.4 (2011): 687-700. Web. 6 June 2014.
The purpose of this study was to create an online environment in which students could use a reciprocal peer review system in order to improve the texts of fellow students. The researcher created a process of peer review based on the theory of cognitive apprenticeship in which knowledge transfer works through several processes: modeling, coaching, scaffolding, articulation, reflection, and exploration. These processes could be used to encourage peer review. In the modeling phase, students could look at the work of other students and model their own text based on their peers’ writing. In the process of coaching, students could make grammar revisions, as these local errors may not be noticed by the original writer. In the scaffolding phase, students make suggestions about how to improve the paper globally, either by suggesting content changes or organizational changes. Articulation involves providing reasoning behind any suggestions a student may make. In reflection, students can compare their own writing process with that of their peers. Exploration involves choosing which suggestions to incorporate into their own paper.
A total of 95 students participated in the study. These students were from three English as a Foreign Language (EFL) writing classes and were in their third year at a university of science and technology in Taiwan. The artifacts collected for the study were first drafts, final drafts, and reflective journals. Most students in the class found that the process of peer review was helpful and appreciated the interaction.
Overall, this article would be helpful for an online writing instructor. While many articles have worked on the implicit notion that peer review, like any other type of writing, is a process, having the article explicitly name it as a process is definitely a helpful way of approaching peer review. Unfortunately, one of the clear drawbacks from this article is that the software used in the study is not explicitly named, nor is it thoroughly detailed. Many of the functions students use are named and explained, but it is not clear what programs they are using. By calling the peer review process a an online system, the article gives an impression that there was software developed specifically for students to use in this study, but that may not be the case. Several word processing programs could be involved, or it could be one piece of software. It still provides some ways to use certain tools in software for peer review, for example, allowing other students to look at the difference between drafts in the work of their peers. The idea that students should give reasons for making suggestions and write reflective journals about their process is not a new one, but definitely one to consider in applying a process of peer review in an online writing classroom.
Shantal, I thought that this was a very interesting an useful article to review. I think that approaching the teaching of peer review as a process would bring the attention to this aspect of writing that is usually treated as an afterthought, final step, or hoop that must be jumped through. Also, teaching peer review in this way can help students become more self-reflective readers of their own work. You did a good job of identifying gaps in the article as well. Since the article was published in a educational technology journal, it seems counterproductive not to discuss the specific technologies that the article references.
ReplyDeleteI also agree that peer review is a valuable tool in writing instruction. Further, I’m also in agreement with you, Shantal, in that Yang’s essay would have been more valuable had he explicitly named the peer review tool he utilized in his study. As writing instructors (hell, instructors in general), it is imperative that we try to assist other instructors and share our knowledge and experience with them. Having first-hand accounts of specific tools, practices, and/or methodologies not only make us all more confident instructors, but inarguably benefit’s our students as well. I’ve never heard of “cognitive apprenticeship,” but I do like its use in this essay.
ReplyDeleteThis process-based approach would seem to make use of commonly used peer review practices, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen it used in a sequential manner like this. I wonder, though, how many instructors are able to devote this much time on the course schedule to peer reviewing, as it seems it would take quite a lot of time to conduct them with this sequential model. It does sound intriguing, but I agree with you that while peer review, and reflective journaling are not new to writing classrooms, if in fact Yang had a custom-designed program or used some combination of extant programs, it would have been more practically useful to other instructors had he provided more information about his actual technological content.