4.2 Article

Charting the routes to revision: An interplay of writing goals, peer comments, and self-reflections from peer reviews

Journal

INSTRUCTIONAL SCIENCE
Volume 45, Issue 5, Pages 679-707

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11251-017-9420-6

Keywords

Goal setting; Self-regulated learning; Reflection; Peer review; Revision

Funding

  1. Institute of Education Sciences [R305A120370]
  2. China National Social Science Fund [17BYY106]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Building upon self-regulated learning theories, we examined the nature of student writing goals and the relationship of these writing goals to revision alone and in combination with two other important sources of students' self-regulated revision-peer comments on their writing, and reflections for their own writing obtained from reviewing others' writing. Data were obtained from a large introductory undergraduate class in the context of two 1000-word writing assignments involving online peer review and a required revision. We began with an investigation of students' free response learning goals and a follow-up quantitative survey about the nature and structure of these writing goals. We found that: (a) students tended to create high-level substantive goals more often, (b) students change their writing goals across papers even for a very similar assignment, and (c) their writing goals divide into three dimensions: general writing goals, genre writing goals, and assignment goals. We then closely coded and analyzed the relative levels of association of revision changes with writing goals, peer comments, reflections from peer review, and combinations of these sources. Findings suggest that high-level revisions are commonly associated with writing goals, are especially likely to occur for combinations of the three sources, and peer comments alone appeared to make the largest contributions to revision.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available