Student revision with peer and expert reviewing

By Kwangsu Cho, Charles A. MacArthur. 2010

457 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Developmental and Educational Psychology, Education

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/51e2374ad8f50aa52e70763d62b221c11518e01e

How researchers see this paper

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

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

In Education

Citations in the corpus

Influences of Self-Regulated Learning Strategy Use on Self-Efficacy in Primary School Students' English Writing in Hong Kong (2018, background): “Cho and MacArthur (2010) found that different types of feedback (e.g., feedback from a single expert, a single peer, or multiple peers) affected the quality of revisions in different ways.”
Dialogue within peer feedback processes: clarification and negotiation of meaning (2018, background): “The quantitative analysis of student drafts in a quasi-experimental design shows that students receiving feedback from multiple peers perform complex revisions of their work and produce higher quality products (Cho & MacArthur, 2010).”
The Effects of Providing and Receiving Peer Feedback on Writing Performance and Learning of Secondary School Students (2020, background): “Peer feedback recipients have also been found to make more revisions not necessarily tied to particular feedback (Path 5; K. Cho & MacArthur, 2010).”
Improving the effectiveness of peer feedback for learning (2009, background): “A third type of intervention is the use of a quality control system that rewards or sanctions assessors for the quality of their feedback (Bloxham & West, 2004; Kali & Ronen, 2008; Searby & Ewers, 1997) or that filters unreliable feedback (Cho & MacArthur, 2010; Rada & Hu, 2002).”
Peer assessment as collaborative learning: A cognitive perspective (2010, methodology): “(2010) as well as Cho and MacArthur (2010) used ‘‘peer revision’’ to describe the phenomenon. Yet differently, Gielen et al. (2010) and Strijbos et al.”
Formative self-and peer assessment for improved student learning: the crucial factors of design, teacher participation and feedback (2018, background): “This indicates there needs to be more help for students to develop evaluative and feedback skills, and learn how to use the feedback they have received and have provided to other peers for their own learning and improvement of their work (Cartney 2010; Cho and MacArthur 2010).”
Rethinking feedback practices in higher education: a peer review perspective (2014, unknown): “However, whilst that research has demonstrated performance improvements, both when students receive feedback reviews from peers (Cho and MacArthur 2010) and when they produce feedback reviews for peers (Cho and Cho 2011), little is known about the learning mechanisms that might account for these…”
Online self-assessment and peer-assessment as a tool to enhance student-teachers’ assessment skills (2018, background): “…that in the process of peer-assessment, the student acquires the ability to see other students’ works from the assessor's viewpoint, distinguishing between high and low-quality work and acquiring a rich set of criteria for assessment, becoming more professional assessors (Cho and MacArthur 2010).”
The impact of formative peer feedback on higher education students’ academic writing: a Meta-Analysis (2018, background): “The second argument relates to the logistic and economic benefits of peer feedback, and revolves around the notion that peer feedback can be available in greater volume and with greater immediacy compared to teacher feedback (Topping 2009; Cho and MacArthur 2010).”
Peer review in higher education: Student perceptions before and after participation (2014, background): “During this study, all reviewers and authors were kept anonymous and each author received multiple reviews as recommended (Cho and MacArthur, 2010; Howard et al., 2010), and this may have contributed to students feeling the feedback their peers provided was reliable and valid.”
Facilitating productive use of feedback in higher education (2013, background): “Instead, there are indications that nondirective feedback and the use of nonindividualized feedback, such as model answers, are more effective in order to improve students’ performance (Cho and MacArthur, 2010; Huxham, 2007).”
Handbook of Research on Learning and Instruction (2011, background): “Although research examining these variables in association with motor skill learning is progressing, at the present time it is not yet possible to draw conclusions about the association between these variables and motor skill development.”
Effective peer assessment processes: Research findings and future directions (2010, background): “Several other contributions in this special issue provide good examples (Cho & MacArthur, 2010; Gielen et al., 2010; Strijbos, Narciss, & Dünnebier, 2010; Van Gennip et al., 2010; Van Steendam, Rijlaarsdam, Sercu, & Van den Bergh, 2010).”
Assessment for learning: a catalyst for student self-regulation (2017, background): “…work and receive feedback from peers. while students appreciate feedback from peers (Falchikov 2005) and as a consequence make revisions to their work (Cho and MacArthur 2010), nicol (2013) argues that having students review and give feedback is a more powerful and effective learning process, as…”