NotesFAQContact Us
Search Tips
Peer reviewed Peer reviewed
Direct linkDirect link
ERIC Number: EJ886587
Record Type: Journal
Publication Date: 2010
Pages: 28
Abstractor: As Provided
Reference Count: 50
ISSN: ISSN-1086-296X
Comparing Peer Review and Self-Review as Ways to Improve College Students' Writing
Covill, Amy E.
Journal of Literacy Research, v42 n2 p199-226 2010
The effect of three approaches to revision instruction on 61 college students' revision behavior and writing quality was investigated for this article. Students wrote three 5-page papers and received one of three instructional approaches: Formal Peer Review (n = 19), Formal Self-Review (n = 20), or No Formal Review (n = 22). Formal Peer Review students had to outline and critique a peer's first draft, Formal Self-Review students had to outline and critique their own first draft, and No Formal Review students were simply instructed to revise their own first draft to improve clarity and completeness. No difference in writing quality was detected based on instructional approach. No Formal Review students made more revisions from first to final drafts than students in the other two groups, at both the global (summary) and local (sentence) levels of meaning. Students in the No Formal Review condition had the most positive attitude toward the instruction they received. Results suggest that using peer review in college psychology classes, and a formal approach to reviewing, may not improve the quality of students writing but does affect the timing of students' revision behavior (before, rather than after, handing in the first draft) and students' attitudes toward instruction. (Contains 2 tables.)
Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site:
Publication Type: Journal Articles; Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Audience: N/A
Language: English
Sponsor: N/A
Authoring Institution: N/A