Peer and self-assessment practices for writing across the curriculum: learner-differentiated effects on writing achievement

References

• Andrade, H. L., & Boulay, B. A. (2003). Role of rubric-referenced self-assessment in learning to write. Journal of Educational Research, 97(1), 21–34.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andrade, H. L., Du, Y., & Mycek, K. (2010). Rubric‐referenced self‐assessment and middle school students’ writing. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 17(2), 199–214.
   Google Scholar
• Andrade, H. L., Du, Y., & Wang, X. (2008). Putting rubrics to the test: The effect of a model, criteria generation, and rubric-referenced self-assessment on elementary school students’ writing. Educational Measurement, 27(2), 3–13.
   Google Scholar
• Applebee, A. N., & Langer, J. A. (with Wilcox, K.C., Nachowitz, M., Mastroianni, M.P., & Dawson, C.). (2013). Writing instruction that works: Proven methods for middle and high school classrooms. New York, NY: Teachers College Press; Berkeley, CA: National Writing Project.
   Google Scholar
• Baer, A. L. (2008). Creating a shared definition of good and bad writing through revision strategies. Middle School Journal, 39(4), 46–53.
   Google Scholar
• Baker, K. M. (2016). Peer review as a strategy for improving students’ writing process. Active Learning in Higher Education, 17(3), 1–14.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bardine, F., & Fulton, P. (2008). Analyzing the benefits of revision memos during the writing and revision process. Clearing House, 81(4), 149–154.
   Google Scholar
• Belanoff, P. (2001). Silence: Reflection, literacy, learning, and teaching. College Composition and Communication, 52(3), 399–428.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bosley, D., Morgan, M., & Allen, N. (1990). An essential bibliography on collaborative writing. The Bulletin, 53, 27–33.
   Google Scholar
• Boud, D. (1989). The role of self-assessment in student grading, assessment and evaluation. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 14(1), 20–30.
   Google Scholar
• Boud, D. (2013). Enhancing learning through self-assessment. London and Philadelphia: Kogan Page.
   Google Scholar
• Boud, D., & Falchikov, N. (2006). Aligning assessment with long-term learning. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(4), 399–413.
   Google Scholar
• Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101.
   Google Scholar
• Cheng, W., & Warren, M. (1997). Having second thoughts: Student perceptions before and after a peer assessment exercise. Studies in Higher Education, 22(2), 233–239.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cho, K., & MacArthur, C. (2011). Learning by Reviewing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(1), 73–84.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cho, K., Schunn, C. D., & Charney, D. (2006). Commenting on writing: Typology and perceived helpfulness of comments from novice peer reviewers and subject matter experts. Written Communication, 23, 260–294.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cho, K., Schunn, C. D., & Wilson, R. W. (2006). Validity and reliability of scaffolded peer assessment of writing from instructor and student perspectives. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(4), 894–901.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Diltz, J. (2006). Words to voice: Three approaches for student self evaluation. Teaching English in the Two-Year College, 34(1), 41–45.
   Google Scholar
• Dochy, F., Segers, M., & Sluijsmans, D. (1999). The use of self-, peer, and co-assessment in higher education: A review. Studies in Higher Education, 24(3), 33l–350.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duijnhouwer, H., Prins, F. J., & Stokking, K. M. (2012). Feedback providing improvement strategies and reflection on feedback use: Effects on students’ writing motivation, process, and performance. Learning and Instruction, 22(3), 171–184.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Erickson, F. (1992). Ethnographic microanalysis of interaction. In M. LeCompte (Ed.), The handbook of qualitative research in education (pp. 48–72). San Diego: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Falchikov, N. (1995). Peer feedback marking: Developing peer assessment. Innovations in Education and Training International, 32(2), 175–187.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Falchikov, N., & Boud, D. (1989). Student self-assessment in higher education: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 59, 395–430.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Falchikov, N., & Goldfinch, J. (2000). Student peer assessment in higher education: A meta-analysis comparing peer and teacher marks. Review of Educational Research, 70(3), 287–322.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Falchikov, N., & Magin, D. (1997). Detecting gender bias in peer marking of students’ group process work. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 22(4), 385–396.
   Google Scholar
• Fallows, S., & Chandramohan, B. (2001). Multiple approaches to assessment: Reflections on use of tutor, peer and self-assessment. Teaching in Higher Education, 6(2), 229–246.
   Google Scholar
• Gielen, S., Peeters, E., Dochy, F., Onghena, P., & Struyven, K. (2010). Improving the effectiveness of peer feedback for learning. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 304–315.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graham, S., Harris, K., & Hebert, M. A. (2011). Informing writing: The benefits of formative assessment. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.
   Google Scholar
• Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2016). A path to better writing: Evidenced-based practices in the classroom. The Reading Teacher, 69(4), 359–365.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). Writing next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in middle and high schools. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.
   Google Scholar
• Griffee, D. T. (1995). A longitudinal study of student feedback: Self-assessment, course evaluation and teacher evaluation. Birmingham, Alabama: Longman.
   Google Scholar
• Hacker, D. J., Bol, L., & Bahbahani, K. (2008). Explaining calibration accuracy in classroom contexts: The effects of incentives, reflection and explanatory style. Metacognition and Learning, 3, 101–121.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hanrahan, S. J., & Isaacs, G. (2001). Assessing self- and peer assessment: The students’ views. Higher Education Research and Development, 20, 53–73.
   Google Scholar
• Harris, K. R., Graham, S., Mason, L. H., & Friedlander, B. (2008). Powerful writing strategies for all students. Baltimore: Brookes.
   Google Scholar
• Holt, M. (1992). The value of written peer criticism. College Composition and Communication, 43(3), 384–392.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaufman, J., & Schunn, C. (2011). Students’ perceptions about peer assessment for writing: Their origin and impact on revision work. Instructional Science, 39, 387–406.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindenman, H., Camper, M., Jacoby, L. D., & Enoch, J. (2018). Revision and reflection: A study of (dis)connections between writing knowledge and writing practice. College Composition and Communication, 69(4), 581–611.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Magin, D. (2001). Reciprocity as a source of bias in multiple peer assessment of group work. Studies in Higher Education, 26, 53–63.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McLeod, S. G., Brown, G. C., McDaniels, P. W., & Sledge, L. (2009). Improving writing with a PAL: Harnessing the power of peer assisted learning with the reader’s assessment rubrics. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 20(3), 488–493.
   Google Scholar
• Mowl, G., & Pain, R. (1995). Using self and peer assessment to improve students’ essay writing: A case study from geography. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 32(4), 324–335.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Center for Education Statistics. (2012). The nation’s report card: Writing 2011 (NCES 2012-470). Washington, DC: Author.
   Google Scholar
• National Writing Project. (2018). Writing our future: 2017 National writing project annual report. Berkeley, CA: National Writing Project.
   Google Scholar
• Nicol, D., & MacFarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199–218.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nicol, D., Thomson, A., & Breslin, C. (2014). Rethinking feedback practices in higher education: A peer review perspective. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(1), 102–122.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nielsen, K. (2014). Self-assessment methods in writing instruction: A conceptual framework, successful practices and essential strategies. Journal of Research in Reading, 37, 1–16.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nielsen, K. (2015). Teaching writing in adult literacy: Practices to foster motivation and persistence and improve learning outcomes. Adult Learning, 26(4), 143–150.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Orsmond, P., Merry, S., & Callaghan, A. (2004). Implementation of a formative assessment model incorporating peer and self-assessment. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 41(3), 273–290.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Orsmond, P., Merry, S., & Reiling, K. (2002). The use of exemplars and formative feedback when using student derived marking criteria in peer and self-assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 27(4), 309–323.
   Google Scholar
• Pajares, F. (2003). Self-efficacy beliefs, motivation, and achievement in writing: A review of the literature. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 19, 139–158.
   Google Scholar
• Philippakos, Z. A. (2017). Giving feedback: Preparing students for peer review and self-evaluation. The Reading Teacher, 71(1), 13–22.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Price, E. (2005). A study to determine the effect peer review has on writing skills within a developmental reading class at a small community college (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN.
   Google Scholar
• Rijlaarsdam, G. (1987). Effects of peer assessment on writing performance, writing processes, and psychological variables. Paper presented at the 38th Annual Meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication, Austin, TX.
   Google Scholar
• Rubio, O., & Szescy, E. (1997). Microethnography and technology: Building collaborative relationships. (CD-ROM). In New Links for New Times Cyber-Symposium. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.
   Google Scholar
• Sandmann, A. (2006). Nurturing thoughtful revision using the focused question card strategy. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 50, 20–28.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schunn, C., Godley, A., & DeMartino, S. (2016). The reliability and validity of peer review of writing in high school AP English classes. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 60(1), 13–23. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.525
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, J.A, & Eatough, V. (2007). Interpretative phenomenological analysis. In E. Lyons & A. Coyle (Eds.), Analysing qualitative data in psychology (pp. 35-50). London: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Sommers, N., & Saltz, L. (2004). The novice as expert: Writing the freshman year. College Composition and Communication, 5(6), 124–149.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spandel, V. (2000). Creating writers. New York: Longman.
   Google Scholar
• Stefani, L. A. J. (1994). Peer, self-, and tutor assessment: Relative reliabilities. Studies in Higher Education, 19, 69–75.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Topping, K. (1998). Peer assessment between students in college and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 249–276.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Topping, K. (2003). Self and peer assessment in school and university: Reliability, validity and utility. In M. Segers, F. Dochy, & E. Cascallar (Eds.), Optimising new modes of assessment: In search of qualities and standards (pp. 55–87). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
   Google Scholar
• Topping, K. (2010). Peers as a source of formative assessment. In H. L. Andrade & G. J. Cizek (Eds.), Handbook of formative assessment (pp. 61–74). New York & Abingdon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Topping, K., Nixon, J., Sutherland, J., & Yarrow, F. (2000). Paired writing: A framework for effective collaboration. Reading, 34, 79–89.
   Google Scholar
• Warne, B. M. (2008). Writing steps: A recursive and individual experience. English Journal, 97(5), 23–27.
   Google Scholar
• Yang, M., Badger, R., & Yu, Z. (2006). A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback in a Chinese EFL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(3), 179–200.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar