The effect of instruction type and dyadic or individual emulation on the quality of higher-order peer feedback in EFL

By E. Steendam, Gert Rijlaarsdam, Lies Sercu *, H. van den Bergh. 2010

140 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Developmental and Educational Psychology, Language and Linguistics, Literature and Literary Theory

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/cf7626ce9446106c55811b8c88cc59e9319ed72f

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 Language and Linguistics

In Literature and Literary Theory

Citations in the corpus

Anonymity as an instructional scaffold in peer assessment: its effects on peer feedback quality and evolution in students’ perceptions about peer assessment skills (2018, background): “Peer feedback quality can be approached in two ways: (a) in terms of accuracy, consistency across assessors, and/or concordance with teacher feedback (Van Steendam et al. 2010) or (b) in terms of content and/or style characteristics (Gielen et al. 2010).”
Improving the effectiveness of peer feedback for learning (2009, methodology): “…the training of peer assessors in assessment skills (Sluijsmans et al., 2002), (d) methods of teaching students how to provide peer feedback (Van Steendam et al., 2010), (e) the matching principles for peers (Van den Berg, Admiraal, & Pilot, 2006), and (f) teacher support for peer feedback (Van…”
Peer feedback in second language writing (2005–2014) (2016, background): “Quantitative studies like experimental and quasi-experimental studies in particular have been adopted to address the effectiveness of peer feedback on student text revisions and writing performance (Kamimura 2006; Trautmann 2006; Lundstrom & Baker 2009; Van Steendam et al. 2010; Baleghizadeh & Arab ”
Peer assessment without assessment criteria (2014, background): “The promotion and valuing of peer learning (Slavin 1991) is a common motivation for implementing and studying peer assessment (Topping 2003; Gielen et al. 2011; Kollar and Fischer, 2010; van Steendam et al. 2010; van Zundert, Sluijsmans and van Merriënboer 2010).”
Peer assessment as collaborative learning: A cognitive perspective (2010, background): “When task performance is conducted more interactively, discursive processes such as explaining (Webb, 1989), arguing (Andriessen, Baker, & Suthers, 2003) or questioning (King, 1997) may facilitate high-level cognitive processing.”
Peer reviewers learn from giving comments (2011, background): “Previous studies showed that observing a writing or revision model and emulating the model are much beneficial for novice writers (Couzijn 1999; Van Steendam et al. 2010; Zimmerman and Kitsantas 2002).”
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.”