The effects of trained peer review on EFL students’ revision types and writing quality
By Hui-Tzu Min. 2006
541 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Subfields: Education, Language and Linguistics, Literature and Literary Theory
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/8d26e3b35743affef7385bb0e1281bf20c6bd18d
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Education
In Language and Linguistics
In Literature and Literary Theory
Citations in the corpus
- The development of student feedback literacy: the influences of teacher feedback on peer feedback (2019, background): “Even before the term student feedback literacy was coined (Sutton 2012), many studies had recognised the necessity of preparing students for peer feedback, and had designed training procedures and examined the effects of those procedures (e.g. Min 2005, 2006).”
- The development of student feedback literacy: enabling uptake of feedback (2018, unknown): “Reviewers demonstrated improvement in composing specific and relevant feedback, and receivers evidenced uptake of peer feedback (Min 2006).”
- A Peer Review Training Workshop: Coaching Students to Give and Evaluate Peer Feedback (2010, methodology): “However, despite these advantages, the current literature in support of the usefulness of peer review activities is inevitably undermined by some empirical evidence indicating a low ratio of incorporation of peer feedback into students’ subsequent revisions (Miao, Badger, & Zhen, 2006; Min, 2006; Pa”
- Dialogue within peer feedback processes: clarification and negotiation of meaning (2018, background): “Also, Min (2005, 2006), in common with other studies, mainly focuses on the provision of written peer feedback without analysing the dialogic interaction between peers.”
- Peer feedback in second language writing (2005–2014) (2016, background): “How to change student perceptions through peer feedback training is a worthwhile area for future research (Min 2006; Rahimi 2013).”
- Is training student reviewers worth its while? A study of how training influences the quality of students’ feedback and writing (2013, background): “In addition, literature indicates that the students who receive feedback from trained peers incorporate more comments into their revisions (Stanley, 1992), and this kind of feedback, in turn, leads to the improvement of the quality of student writing (Berg, 1999; Hu, 2005; Min, 2006).”
- The effect of instruction type and dyadic or individual emulation on the quality of higher-order peer feedback in EFL (2010, methodology): “In peer assessment, peer review sheets are frequently used to make criteria more accessible to students and to prompt revision strategies (Min, 2006; Mittan, 1989).”
- Understanding student engagement with peer feedback on master’s theses: a Macau study (2019, background): “While research on peer feedback in writing at university/college level has proliferated over the past decades, scholars have conducted less research on peer feedback in second language (L2) academic and scholarly writing (Min 2006; Hu and Lam 2010; Yu and Lee 2014; Yu and Hu 2017).”
- Understanding EFL students’ participation in group peer feedback of L2 writing: A case study from an activity theory perspective (2015, methodology): “The analysis of revisions took a text analysis approach (Min, 2006), comprising the number of responders’ comments used in revisions, the number of total revisions, the ratios of peer-triggered revisions, types of revisions (i.e. language form, content, and text structure) and quality of revisions…”
- The assessment cycle: a model for learning through peer assessment (2016, background): “This scaffolding is crucial because peer assessment is a novel activity for students (Min 2006; Smith, Cooper, and Lancaster 2002; Topping 2009).”