Iterative co-evaluation with a rubric of narrative texts in Primary Education / Coevaluación iterativa con rúbrica de textos narrativos en la Educación Primaria

References / Referencias

• Alonso-Tapia, J., & Panadero, E. (2010). Effect of self-assessment scripts on self-regulation and learning. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 33(3), 385–397.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andrade, H., & Du, Y. (2005). Student perspectives on rubric-referenced assessment. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 10(3), 1–11.
   Google Scholar
• Arter, J. A., & McTigue, J. (2001). Scoring Rubrics In The Classroom: Using Performance Criteria For Assessing And Improving Student Performance. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bannert, M. (2009). Promoting self-regulated learning through prompts. Zeitschrift Fur Padagogische Psychologie, 23(2), 139–145.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benítez, R. (2008). La evaluación de las narraciones escritas: una perspectiva holística focalizada. Enunciación, 13, 28–37.
   Google Scholar
• Bereiter, C. & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hilsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Bissell, A. N., & Lemons, P. R. (2006). A New Method For Assessing Critical Thinking In The Classroom. Bioscience, 56(1), 66–72.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Butterfield, E., Hacker, D. & Alberstong, L. (1996). Environmental, cognitive and metacognitive influences of text revision: Assessing the evidence. Educational Psychology Review, 8(3), 239–297.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Camps, A. (1990). Modelos del proceso de redacción: algunas implicaciones para la enseñanza. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 49, 3–17.
   Google Scholar
• Cassany, D. (1999). Construir la escritura. Barcelona: Paidós.
   Google Scholar
• Castelló, M. (2002). De la investigación sobre el proceso de composición a la enseñanza de la escritura. Revista Signos, 35(51–52), 149–162.
   Google Scholar
• Chen, C. H. (2010). The implementation and evaluation of a mobile self- and peer-assessment system. Computers & Education, 55(1), 229–236.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, N. S., Wei, C. W., Wu, K. T., & Uden, L. (2009). Effects of high level prompts and peer assessment on online learners’ reflection levels. Computers & Education, 52, 283–291.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chou, M. C. (1999). How peer negotiations shape revisions. In J. Katchen, & Y. N. Leung (Eds.), The Proceedings of the Seventh International Symposium on English Teaching (pp. 349–359). Taipei: The Crane Publishing Co.
   Google Scholar
• Cuetos, F., Ramos, J. L,. & Ruano, E. (2002). PROESC: Batería de evaluación de los procesos de escritura. Madrid: TEA Ediciones.
   Google Scholar
• De la Paz, S., & Graham, S. (2002). Explicitly teaching strategies, skills and knowledge: writing instruction in middle school classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 291–304.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Faigley, L., & Witte, S. P. (1981). Analyzing revision. College Composition and Communication, 32, 400–414.
   Google Scholar
• Fidalgo, R., & García, J. N. (2008). El desarrollo de la competencia escrita a través de una enseñanza metacognitiva de la escritura. Cultura y Educación, 20(3), 325–346.
   Google Scholar
• Fitzgerald, J. (1987). Research on revision in writing. Review of educational research, 57, 481–506.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flower, L., & Hayes J. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365–387.
   Google Scholar
• Gabucio, F., Martí, E., Enfedaque, J., Gilabert, S., & Konstantinidou, A. (2010). Niveles de comprensión de las tablas en alumnos de primaria y secundaria. Cultura y Educación, 22(2), 183–197.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gallavan, N. G., & Kottler, E. (2009). Constructing rubrics and assessing progress collaboratively with social studies students, social studies students. The Social Studies, 100(4), 154–158.
   Google Scholar
• Gallego, J. L. (2012). Cómo estructuran el contenido de la escritura alumnos de Educación Primaria. Contextos educativos, 15, 9–26.
   Google Scholar
• Gelbal, S., & Kelecioglu, H. (2007). Ögretmenlerin Ölçme Degerlendirme Yöntemleri Hakkindaki Yeterlik Algilari Ve Karsilastiklari Sorunlar. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Egitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 33, 135–145.
   Google Scholar
• Graham, S., Gillespie, A., & McKeown, D. (2013). Writing: importance, development, and instruction. Reading & Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 26(1), 1–15.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graham, S., & Harris, K. (2000). The role of self-regulation and transcription skills in writing and writing development. Educational Psycologist, 35(1), 3–12.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graham, S., Harris, K., & Mason, L. (2005). Improving the writing performance, knowledge and self-efficacy of struggling young writers: the effects of self-regulated, strategy development. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30, 207–241.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Hebert, M. (2011). Informing writing: The benefits of formative assessment. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellence in Education.
   Google Scholar
• Graham, S., & Hebert, M. (2010). Writing to reading: Evidence for how writing can improve reading. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellence in Education.
   Google Scholar
• Graham, S., & Hebert, M. (2011). Writing-to-read: A meta-analysis of the impact of writing and writing instruction on reading. Harvard Educational Review, 81, 710–744.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). A Meta-Analysis of Writing Instruction for Adolescent Students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 445–476.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harris, K. R., Graham, S., & Mason, L. H. (2006). Improving the wraiting, Self-Regulated Strategy Development With and Without Peer Support. American Educational Research Journal, 43(2), 295–340.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hayes, J. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In C. M. Levi & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The Science of Writing: Theories, methods, individual differences and applications (pp. 1–27). Mahwah, NJ: Lawerence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Hayes, J. R. (2006). New Directions in Writing Theory. In C. Mac Arthur, S. Graham & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.). Handbook of writing research. New York: The Guildford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jonsson A., & Svingby, G. (2007). The Use Of Scoring Rubrics: Reliability, Validity And Educational Consequences, Educational Research Review, 2, 130–144.
   Google Scholar
• Kirschner, P. A., Beers, P. J., Boshuizen, H. P. A., & Gijselaers, W. H. (2008). Coercing shared knowledge in collaborative learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 403–420.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knoch, U., Read, J., & von Randow, J. (2007). Re-training writing raters online: How does it compare with face-to-face training? Assessing Writing, 12(1), 26–43.
   Google Scholar
• Kutlu, Ö., Bilican, S., & Yildirim, Ö. (2010). A study on the primary school teachers’ attitudes towards rubrics with reference to different variables. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 5398–5402.
   Google Scholar
• Lucero, M., & Montanero, M. (2012). Aprender a aprender colaborando. VI Encuentro Estatal de Orientación: “Innovación y buenas prácticas” (Abstract published in CD).
   Google Scholar
• Martínez, I., Martín, E., & Mateos, M. (2011). Enseñar a leer y escribir para aprender en la Educación Primaria. Cultura y Educación, 23(3), 399–414.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Min, H. (2006). The effects of trained peer review on EFL students’ revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 118–141.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ochoa-Angrino, S., Aragón, L., Correa, M., & Mosquera, S. (2008). Funcionamiento metacognitivo de niños escolares en la escritura de un texto narrativo antes y después de una pauta de corrección conjunta [Versión electrónica], Acta Colombiana de Psicología, 11(2), 77–88.
   Google Scholar
• Panadero, E., Alonso-Tapia, J., & Huertas, J. A. (2012). Rubrics and self assessment scripts effects on self-regulation, learning and self-efficacy in secondary education. Learning and Individual Differences (0). doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2012.04.007.
   Google Scholar
• Panadero, E., & Jonsson, A. (2013). The use of scoring rubrics for formative assessment purposes revisited: A review. Educational Research Review, 9(0), 129–144.
   Google Scholar
• Paulus, T. (1999). The effect of peer and teacher feedback on student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(3), 265–289.
   Google Scholar
• Peterson, S. (2003). Peer response and students’ revisions of their narrative writing. L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 3(3), 239–272.
   Google Scholar
• Puustinen, M., & Pulkkinen, L (2001). Models of Self-regulated Learning: A review. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 45(3), 269–283.
   Google Scholar
• Piolat, A. (1991). Effect of Word processing on text revision. Language and Education, 5, 255–272.
   Google Scholar
• Ramos, J. L., Cuadrado, I., & Iglesias, B. (2005). La composición escrita en el alumnado de Educación Primaria y Secundaria. Cultura y Educación, 17(3), 239–251.
   Google Scholar
• Rogers, L., & Graham, S. (2008). A meta-analysis of single subject design writing intervention research. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 879–906.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ross-Fisher, R. L. (2005). Developing effective success rubrics. Kappa Delta Pi, 41(3), 131–135.
   Google Scholar
• Saito, H., & Miwa, K. (2007). Construction of a learning environment supporting learners’ reflection: a case of information seeking on the Web. Computers & Education, 49, 214–229.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sánchez, E. (1998). Comprensión y redacción de textos. Barcelona: Edebé.
   Google Scholar
• Schamber, J. F., & Mahoney, S. L. (2006). Assessing And Improving The Quality Of Group Critical Thinking Exhibited In The Final Projects Of Collaborative Learning Groups. Journal Of General Education, 55(2), 103–137.
   Google Scholar
• Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2007). Influencing children’s self-efficacy and self-regulation of reading and writing through modeling. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 23, 7–25.
   Google Scholar
• Stanley, J. (1992). Coaching student writers to be effective peer evaluators. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1(3), 217–233.
   Google Scholar
• Thorndyke, P. W. (1977). Cognitive structures in comprehension and memory of narrative discourse. Cognitive Psychology, 9, 77–110.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tsui, A. B. M., & Ng, M. (2000). Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(2), 147–170.
   Google Scholar
• Vass, E., Littleton, K., Miell, D., & Jones, A. (2008). The discourse of collaborative creative writing: peer collaboration as a context for mutual inspiration. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 3(3), 192–202.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wiggins, G. (1989). A True Test: Toward More Authentic And Equitable Assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 79, 703–713.
   Google Scholar
• Yan, C. M. W., McBride-Chang, C., Wagner, R. K., Zhang, J., Wong, A. M. Y., & Shu, H. (2012). Writing quality in Chinese children: speed and fluency matter. Reading and Writing, 25(7), 1499–1521.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang, Y. (2010). Students’ reflection on online self-correction and peer review to improve writing. Computers & Education, 55, 1202–1210.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yarrow, F., & Topping, K. (2001). Collaborative writing: The effects of metacognitive prompting and structured peer interaction. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 261–282.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhu, W. (1995). Effects of training for peer response on students’ comments and interaction. Written Communication, 1(4), 492–528.
   Google Scholar
• Zimmerman, B., & Reisemberg, R. (1997). Becoming a self-regulated writer: A social cognitive perspective. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, 73–101.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar