Writing in the natural sciences: Understanding the effects of different types of reviewers on the writing process

dc.creator	Patchan, M. M., ., &
dc.creator	Schunn, C. D.
dc.creator	Clark, R. J.
dc.date	2011-01-01T00:00:00Z
dc.date.accessioned	2015-08-12T11:21:32Z
dc.date.available	2015-08-12T11:21:32Z
dc.identifier	2030-1006
dc.identifier	https://doaj.org/article/8ed5caac6c6f4b6b9949f028b89bb350
dc.identifier.uri	http://evidence.thinkportal.org/handle/123456789/29012
dc.description	In undergraduate natural science courses, two types of evaluators are commonly used to assess student writing: graduate-student teaching assistants (TAs) or peers. The current study examines how well these approaches to evaluation support student writing. These differences between the two possible evaluators are likely to affect multiple aspects of the writing process: first draft quality, amount and types of feedback provided, amount and types of revisions, and final draft quality. Therefore, we examined how these aspects of the writing process were affected when undergraduate students wrote papers to be evaluated by a group of peers versus their TA. Several interesting results were found. First, the quality of the students' first draft was greater when they were writing for their peers than when writing for their TA. In terms of feedback, students provided longer comments, and they also focused more on the prose than the TAs. Finally, more revisions were made if the students received feedback from their peers-especially prose revisions. Despite all of the benefits seen with peers as evaluators, there was only a moderate difference in final draft quality. This result indicates that while peer-review is helpful, there continues to be a need for research regarding how to enhance the benefits.
dc.language	English
dc.publisher	University of Antwerp
dc.relation	http://www.jowr.org/Ccount/click.php?id=32
dc.relation	https://doaj.org/toc/2030-1006
dc.rights	CC BY-NC-ND
dc.source	Journal of Writing Research , Vol 2, Iss 3, Pp 365-393 (2011)
dc.subject	peer review
dc.subject	teaching assistant
dc.subject	audience effect
dc.subject	commenting style
dc.subject	revision
dc.subject	Philology. Linguistics
dc.subject	P1-1091
dc.subject	Language and Literature
dc.subject	P
dc.subject	DOAJ:Linguistics
dc.subject	DOAJ:Languages and Literatures
dc.subject	Psychology
dc.subject	BF1-990
dc.subject	Philosophy. Psychology. Religion
dc.subject	B
dc.subject	DOAJ:Psychology
dc.subject	DOAJ:Social Sciences
dc.subject	Special aspects of education
dc.subject	LC8-6691
dc.subject	Education
dc.subject	L
dc.subject	DOAJ:Education
dc.subject	DOAJ:Social Sciences
dc.subject	Philology. Linguistics
dc.subject	P1-1091
dc.subject	Language and Literature
dc.subject	P
dc.subject	DOAJ:Linguistics
dc.subject	DOAJ:Languages and Literatures
dc.subject	Psychology
dc.subject	BF1-990
dc.subject	Philosophy. Psychology. Religion
dc.subject	B
dc.subject	DOAJ:Psychology
dc.subject	DOAJ:Social Sciences
dc.subject	Special aspects of education
dc.subject	LC8-6691
dc.subject	Education
dc.subject	L
dc.subject	DOAJ:Education
dc.subject	DOAJ:Social Sciences
dc.subject	Philology. Linguistics
dc.subject	P1-1091
dc.subject	Language and Literature
dc.subject	P
dc.subject	Psychology
dc.subject	BF1-990
dc.subject	Philosophy. Psychology. Religion
dc.subject	B
dc.subject	Special aspects of education
dc.subject	LC8-6691
dc.subject	Education
dc.subject	L
dc.subject	Philology. Linguistics
dc.subject	P1-1091
dc.subject	Language and Literature
dc.subject	P
dc.subject	Psychology
dc.subject	BF1-990
dc.subject	Philosophy. Psychology. Religion
dc.subject	B
dc.subject	Special aspects of education
dc.subject	LC8-6691
dc.subject	Education
dc.subject	L
dc.subject	Philology. Linguistics
dc.subject	P1-1091
dc.subject	Language and Literature
dc.subject	P
dc.subject	Psychology
dc.subject	BF1-990
dc.subject	Philosophy. Psychology. Religion
dc.subject	B
dc.subject	Special aspects of education
dc.subject	LC8-6691
dc.subject	Education
dc.subject	L
dc.title	Writing in the natural sciences: Understanding the effects of different types of reviewers on the writing process
dc.type	article