Scaffolded writing and rewriting in the discipline: A web-based reciprocal peer review system

By Kwangsu Cho, Christian D. Schunn. Comput. Educ., 2007

562 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Communication, Developmental and Educational Psychology, Education

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/333bd2fb01491b600e9cb593d670fcb36d7ffe8f

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Communication

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

In Education

Citations in the corpus

Students’ perceptions about peer assessment for writing: their origin and impact on revision work (2011, background): “Additionally, in their research on writing improvements among university students in a Research Methods class, Cho and Schunn (2007) noted significantly more writing improvement among a group of students who received feedback on their writing drafts only from six peers compared to another group of…”
Juxtapeer: Comparative Peer Review Yields Higher Quality Feedback and Promotes Deeper Reflection (2018, background): “At its best, peer review provides substantial benefit to both learners and instructors: reviewers gain experience providing constructive feedback on open-ended work [6,32], reviewees receive comments based on the diverse perspectives of multiple peers [10,48], and instructors reduce their feedback a”
From monologue to dialogue: improving written feedback processes in mass higher education (2010, background): “In peer commenting and in collaborative authorship students produce feedback comments, they are not just receiving them (Cho and Schunn 2007; Elbow and Sorcinelli 2006).”
Improving the effectiveness of peer feedback for learning (2009, background): “…criteria (Orsmond, Merry, & Reiling, 2002), (b) the number of peer assessors by comparing a single peer assessor versus multiple peer assessors (Cho & Schunn, 2007), (c) the training of peer assessors in assessment skills (Sluijsmans et al., 2002), (d) methods of teaching students how to…”
A design framework for enhancing engagement in student-centered learning: own it, learn it, and share it (2016, background): “Cho and Schunn (2007) found that undergraduate students’ informal science learning improved when they received feedback from multiple peers versus those who only received feedback from a single expert.”
The Routledge Handbook of English for Academic Purposes (2016, background): “Central to Benesch’s (1996) approach was to connect the classroom and curriculum to the wider social and political world her students inhabited, shaping the course to the needs of the student.”
Peer reviewers learn from giving comments (2011, methodology): “In addition, feedback on review comments may improve the quality of review ( Cho and Schunn 2007 ).”
Understanding the benefits of providing peer feedback: how students respond to peers’ texts of varying quality (2015, background): “as effective as an instructor’s feedback (Topping 2005), if not more effective (Cho and Schunn 2007).”
Training Advanced Writing Skills: The Case for Deliberate Practice (2009, background): “SWoRD (scaffolded writing and rewriting in the discipline) is a Web-based reciprocal peer review system designed to support practice at writing assignments in the major (Cho & Schunn, 2007).”
The development of science activities via on-line peer assessment: the role of scientific epistemological views (2009, background): “The positive effects on student performance were clearly illustrated, which were consistent with numerous studies showing the favorable impacts of peer assessment on student work (Barak and Rafaeli 2004; Cho and Schunn 2007; Tsai et al. 2002).”
The nature of feedback: how different types of peer feedback affect writing performance (2009, methodology): “Papers were reviewed and graded, not by the instructor, but rather anonymously by peers who used the ‘‘Scaffolded Writing and Rewriting in the Discipline’’ (SWORD) system (for more details, see Cho and Schunn 2007).”
Seven Affordances of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning: How to Support Collaborative Learning? How Can Technologies Help? (2016, unknown): “Rather, all their interactions occur on the artifacts as they exchange reviews and comments on one another’s work (Cho & Schunn, 2007).”
Does peer assessment promote student learning? A meta-analysis (2020, background): “…the effect size of peer assessment appeared to be larger when a student was both an assessor and assessee instead of being an assessor only or assessee only (Cho and Schunn 2007); when assessors and assessees were matched at random; or when peers ratings were anonymous (Kane and Lawler 1978).”
The impact of formative peer feedback on higher education students’ academic writing: a Meta-Analysis (2018, background): “Peer feedback has conventionally been compared to alternative feedback sources such as teaching staff, both in terms of its outcomes (e.g., Topping 1998; Cho & Schunn 2007) and in terms of the reliability and validity of these outcomes (e.g., Falchikov and Goldfinch 2000).”