Teaching writing for learning at university: a proposal based on collaborative review / Enseñar a escribir para aprender en la universidad: una propuesta basada en la revisión colaborativa
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online September, 2016
Teaching writing for learning at university: a proposal based on collaborative review / Enseñar a escribir para aprender en la universidad: una propuesta basada en la revisión colaborativa
This study analyses the relationship between collaborative review and final quality of a text, as part of an intervention in which writing was used as an epistemic tool and students acted alternately as writers and reviewers. Participants included 49 psychology students, who wrote three successive versions of an argumentative synthesis. They received feedback from peers and the teacher for each of these versions. The quality of the final text, suggestions for change provided by the teacher and student reviewers on 196 drafts and the evolution of the texts during the review process were analysed. Results indicated differences regarding the type of comments and the impact on the final text, identified certain aspects of collaborative review that predicted the quality of the final text and showed the existence of different writer and reviewer profiles that had a differential impact on the quality of the final text.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BazermanC.LittleJ.BethelL.ChavkinT.FouquetteD.GarufisJ. (2005). Reference guide to writing across the curriculum. West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press.
2.
BazermanC.RussellD. R. (1994). Landmark essays on writing across the curriculum (Vol. 6). Davis, CA: Hermagoras.
3.
BoscoloP.MasonL. (2001). Writing to learn, writing to transfer. In RijlaarsdamG.TynjäläP.MasonL.LonkaK., (Volume Eds.), Studies in writing, volume 7, writing as a learning tool: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 83–104). Dordrecth: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
4.
CaffarellaR. S.BarnettB. G. (2000). Teaching doctoral students to become scholarly writers: The importance of giving and receiving critiques. Studies in Higher Education, 25, 39–52. doi:10.1080/030750700116000
5.
CampsA.CastellóM. (2013). La escritura académica en la universidad. REDU. Revista de Docencia Universitaria, 11, 17–36.
6.
CarlinoP. (2002). Enseñar a escribir en la universidad: Cómo lo hacen en Estados Unidos y por qué. Revista Iberoamericana De Educación, 2, 57–67.
7.
CarlinoP. (2013). Alfabetización académica diez años después. Revista Mexicana de Investigación Educativa, 18, 355–381.
8.
CastellóM. (2011). Projecte Investigador i Docent (Càtedra no publicada). Barcelona: Facultat de Psicologia, Ciències de l’Educació i de l’Esport.
9.
CastellóM. (2015). La investigación sobre escritura académica en los procesos de enseñanza-aprendizaje en la universidad española. Cultura y Educación, 27, 465–476. doi:10.1080/11356405.2015.1072362
10.
CastellóM.DonahueC. (Eds.). (2012). University writing: Selves and texts in academic societies. Volume Series in Writing. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group.
11.
CastellóM.GonzálezD.IñestaA. (2010). La regulación de la escritura académica en el doctorado: El impacto de la revisión colaborativa en los textos. Revista Española de Pedagogía, 247, 521–537.
12.
CastellóM.IñestaA. (2012). Texts as artifacts-in-activity: Developing authorial identity and academic voice in writing academic research papers. In CastellóM.DonahueC. (Eds.), Studies in writing, volume 24, university writing: Selves and texts in academic societies (pp. 179–200). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
13.
CastellóM.IñestaA.PardoM.LiesaE.Martínez-FernándezR. (2012). Tutoring the end-of-studies dissertation: Helping psychology students find their academic voice when revising academic texts. Higher Education, 63, 97–115. doi:10.1007/s10734-011-9428-9
14.
ChenC. W. (2010). Graduate students’ self-reported perspectives regarding peer feedback and feedback from writing consultants. Asia Pacific Education Review, 11, 151–158. doi:10.1007/s12564-010-9081-5
15.
ChoK.McArthurC. A. (2010). Student revision with peer and expert reviewing. Learning and Instruction, 20, 328–338. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.006
16.
ChoK.SchunnC. D. (2007). Scaffolded writing and rewriting in the discipline: A web-based reciprocal peer review system. Computers & Education, 48, 409–426. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2005.02.004
17.
ChoK.SchunnC. D.CharneyD. (2006). Commenting on writing. Written Communication, 23, 260–294. doi:10.1177/0741088306289261
CorcellesM.CanoM.BañalesG.VegaN. (2013). Enseñar a escribir textos científico-académicos mediante la revisión colaborativa: El trabajo final de grado en Psicología. REDU.Revista de Docencia Universitaria, 11, 79–104.
20.
DystheO. (2002). The learning potential of a web-mediated discussion in a university course. Studies in Higher Education, 27, 339–352. doi:10.1080/03075070220000716
21.
DystheO.LillejordS. (2012). From Humboldt to Bologna: Using peer feedback to foster productive writing practices among online master students. International Journal of Web Based Communities, 8, 471–485. doi:10.1504/IJWBC.2012.049561
22.
GardnerS.NesiH. (2013). A classification of genre families in university student writing. Applied Linguistics, 34, 25–52. doi:10.1093/applin/ams024
23.
GielenM.De WeverB. (2015). Scripting the role of assessor and assessee in peer assessment in a wiki environment: Impact on peer feedback quality and product improvement. Computers & Education, 88, 370–386. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2015.07.012
24.
GielenS.PeetersE.DochyF.OnghenaP.StruyvenK. (2010). Improving the effectiveness of peer feedback for learning. Learning and Instruction, 20, 304–315. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.007
25.
González-LamasJ.CuevasI.MateosM. (2016). Arguing from sources: Design and evaluation of a programme to improve written argumentation and its impact according to students’ writing beliefs/Argumentar a partir de fuentes: diseño y evaluación de un programa para mejorar la argumentación escrita y su impacto en función de las creencias acerca de la escritura académica que mantienen los estudiantes. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 39, 49–83.
26.
HylandK. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. London & New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.
27.
HylandK. (2009). Writing in the disciplines: Research evidence for specificity. Taiwan International ESP Journal, 1, 5–22.
28.
HylandK. (2015). Teaching and researching writing. New York: Routledge.
29.
KleinP.BoscoloP.KirkpatrickL.GelatiC. (Eds.). (2014). Writing as a learning activity. Leiden/Boston: Brill.
30.
LeaM. R. (2004). Academic literacies: A pedagogy for course design. Studies in Higher Education, 29, 739–756. doi:10.1080/0307507042000287230
31.
LillisT.HarringtonK.LeaM.MitchellS. (2016). Working with academic literacies: Case studies towards transformative practice. Fort Collins, CO: The WAC Clearinghouse/Parlor Press. Retrived fromhttp://wac.colostate.edu/books/lillis/.
32.
MacArthurC. A.PhilippakosZ. A.IanettaM. (2015). Self-regulated strategy instruction in college developmental writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107, 855–867. doi:10.1037/edu0000011
33.
MinH. T. (2006). The effects of trained peer review on EFL students’ revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 118–141. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2006.01.003
34.
NelsonM. M.SchunnC. D. (2009). The nature of feedback: How different types of peer feedback affect writing performance. Instructional Science, 37, 375–401. doi:10.1007/s11251-008-9053-x
35.
NicolD.ThomsonA.BreslinC. (2014). Rethinking feedback practices in higher education: A peer review perspective. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39, 102–122. doi:10.1080/02602938.2013.795518
36.
RollinsonP. (2005). Using peer feedback in the ESL writing class. ELT Journal, 59, 23–30. doi:10.1093/elt/cci003
37.
RussellD. R.LeaM. R.ParkerJ.StreetB.DonahueT. (2009). Exploring notions of genre in ‘academic literacies’ and ‘writing across the curriculum’: Approaches across countries and contexts. In BazermanC.BoniniA.FigueiredoD. (Eds.), Genre in a changing world. Perspectives on writing (pp. 459–491). Fort Collins, CO: The WAC Clearinghouse/Parlor Press.
38.
SwalesJ. (2004). Research genres: Explorations and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
39.
TolchinskyL. (2013). La escritura académica en las disciplinas. Barcelona: Octaedro/ICE.
40.
Van SteendamE.RijlaarsdamG. C. W.Van Den BerghH. H.SercuL. (2014). The mediating effect of instruction on pair composition in L2 revision and writing. Instructional Science, 42, 905–927. doi:10.1007/s11251-014-9318-5
41.
VenablesA.SummitR. (2003). Enhancing scientific essay writing using peer assessment. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 40, 281–290. doi:10.1080/1470329032000103816
42.
YangM.BadgerR.YuZ. (2006). A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback in a Chinese EFL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 179–200. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2006.09.004
