Student Perceptions of and Attitudes toward Peer Review

References

• Baker, K. (2016). Peer review as a strategy for improving students’ writing processes. Active Learning in Higher Education, 17(3), 179–192. doi:10.1177/1469787416654794
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bauer, C., Figl, K., Derntl, M., Beran, P. P., & Kablicher, S. (2009). The student view on online peer reviews. SIGCSE Bulletin, 41(3), 26–30. doi:10.1145/1595496.1562892
   Google Scholar
• Beilock, S. L., Rydell, R. J., & McConnell, A. R. (2007). Stereotype threat and working memory: Mechanisms, alleviation, and spillover. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136(2), 256–276. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.136.2.256
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Breuch, L. K. (2004). Virtual peer review: Teaching and learning about writing in the online environments. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
   Google Scholar
• Breuch, L. K. (2005). Enhancing online collaboration: Virtual peer review in the writing classroom. In C. Cook & G. Davie (Eds.), Online education: Global questions, local answers (pp. 141–156). Amityville, NY: Baywood.
   Google Scholar
• Brindley, C., & Scoffield, S. (1998). Peer assessment in undergraduate programmes. Teaching in Higher Education, 3(1), 79–89. doi:10.1080/1356215980030106
   Google Scholar
• Bruffee, K. A. (1984). Collaboration and the ‘conversation of mankind’. College English, 46(7), 635–652. doi:10.2307/376924
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ching, J. L. (2007). Peer response in the composition classroom: An alternative genealogy. Rhetoric Review, 26(3), 303–319. doi:10.1080/07350190701419863
   Google Scholar
• Cho, K., & Schunn, C. (2007). Scaffolded writing and rewriting in the discipline: A web-based reciprocal peer review system. Computers and Education, 48(3), 409–426. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2005.02.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Comer, D., Clark, C., & Canelas, D. (2014). Writing to learn and learning to write across the disciplines: Peer-to-peer writing in introductory level MOOCs. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(5), 2014. doi:10.19173/irrodl.v15i5.1850
   Google Scholar
• DiGiovanni, E., & Naagaswami, G. (2001). Online peer review: An alternative to face-to-face? English Language Teaching Journal, 55(3), 263–272. doi:10.1093/elt/55.3.263
   Google Scholar
• Elbow, P. (1973). Writing without teachers. London, England: Oxford, University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Falchikov, N. (2001). Learning together: Peer tutoring in higher education. Abingdon, England: Routledge Falmer.
   Google Scholar
• Gere, A. R. (1987). Writing groups: History, theory, and implications. Champaign, IL: Illinois University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Guardado, M., & Shi, L. (2007). ESL students’ experiences of online peer feedback. Computers and Composition, 24(4), 443–461. doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2007.03.002
   Google Scholar
• Jones, R. H., Garralda, A., Li, D. C. S., & Lock, G. (2006). International dynamic in online and face to face peer-tutoring sessions for L2 writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(1), 1–23. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2005.12.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liang, J. C., & Tsai, C. C. (2010). Learning through science writing via online peer assessment in a college biology course. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(4), 242–247. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.04.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liang, M. Y. (2010). Using synchronous online peer response groups in EFL writing: Revision related discourse. Language Learning and Technology, 14(1), 45–64.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu, J., & Sadler, R. (2003). The effect and affect of peer review in electronic versus traditional modes on L2 writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2(3), 193–227. doi:10.1016/S1475-1585(03)00025-0
   Google Scholar
• Lu, R., & Bol, L. (2007). A comparison of anonymous versus identifiable e-peer review on college student writing performance and the extent of critical feedback. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 6(1), 100–115.
   Google Scholar
• McLaughlin, P., & Simpson, N. (2004). Peer assessment in first year university: How the students feel. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 30(2), 135–149. doi:10.1016/j.stueduc.2004.06.003
   Google Scholar
• Miller, L. C., Russell, C. L., Cheng, A. L., & Skarbek, A. J. (2015). Evaluating undergraduate nursing students’ self-efficacy and competence in writing: Effects of a writing intensive intervention. Nurse Education in Practice, 15(3), 174–180. doi:10.1016/j.nepr.2014.12.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mulder, R. A., Pearce, J. M., & Baik, C. (2014). Peer review in higher education: Student perceptions before and after participation. Active Learning in Higher Education, 15(2), 157–171. doi:10.1177/1469787414527391
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murray, D. (1968). A writer teaches writing: A practical method of teaching composition. Boston, MA: Houghton.
   Google Scholar
• National Education Association. (2012). Enrollment in distance education courses, by State: Fall 2012. Retrieved May 21, 2017, from the National Education Association Web site https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2014/2014023.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Nicol, D., Thomson, A., & Breslin, C. (2013). Rethinking feedback practices in higher education: A peer review perspective. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(1), 102–122. doi:10.1080/02602938.2013.795518
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steele, C. M. (2011). Whistling Vivaldi: How stereotypes affect us and what we can do. New York, NY:  WW Norton & Company.
   Google Scholar
• Warnock, S. (2009). Teaching writing online: How and why. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
   Google Scholar
• Wen, L. M., & Tsai, C. C. (2006). University students’ perceptions of and attitudes toward (online) peer assessment. Higher Education, 51(1), 27–44. doi:10.1007/s10734-004-6375-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang, Y. F. (2010). Students’ reflection on online self-correction and peer review to improve writing. Computers and Education, 55(3), 1202–1210. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.05.017
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar