CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 64

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Transforming and constructing academic knowledge through online peer feedback in summary writing

Yang, Yu-Fen·2016·Computer Assisted Language Learning
DOI 10.1080/09588221.2015.1016440
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Recognizing that graduate students seldom have the opportunity to participate collaboratively, either in providing or receiving feedback to improve their academic writing skills, this study reports on the design of a computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) system used to investigate how graduate students transform and construct their academic knowledge through peer feedback when involved in summary writing. A sample of 24 graduate students who studied English as a foreign language was grouped into experimental and control groups, 13 and 11 graduate students in each group. The results of this study reveal that integrating the three key elements of a CSCL system facilitated improvement in the experimental group's summary writing. These key elements included (1) acquiring a basic understanding of main ideas by requesting keywords as scaffolds, (2) explicitly observing more proficient peers' writing processes when providing and receiving peer feedback (knowledge transformation), and (3) solving writing problems by revising their own summaries following peer feedback (knowledge construction). Based on the three key elements, the graduate students in the experimental group made more local (i.e., grammatical) and global revisions (i.e., text development, organization, and style) on their own as well as their peers’ summaries, compared with the graduate students in the control group. The effectiveness of online peer feedback on summary writing, in transforming and constructi…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/09588221.2015.1016440

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 4 references

Research works printed but not linked: 39

  1. 10.3200/JOER.97.4.171-185 · DOI
  2. 10.2307/1129901 · DOI
  3. 10.3758/BRM.40.2.540 · DOI
  4. 10.1080/09588221.2014.960942 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Chi F.M., 2001, The role of small-group text talk in EFL reading: A thematic analysis
  6. 10.1016/j.compedu.2005.02.004 · DOI
  7. 10.1080/09588220802447669 · DOI
  8. 10.1016/j.ipm.2007.01.015 · DOI
  9. Ferris D.R., 2003, Response to student writing: Implications for second language graduate students, 10.4324/9781410607201 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Flower, L. & Hayes, J. (1980). The dynamics of composing: Making plans and juggling constraints. In L. Gregg & E. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive process in writing (pp. 30–50). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  11. 10.1006/ceps.1999.1022 · DOI
  12. 10.1016/j.compcom.2007.03.002 · DOI
  13. 10.2307/3586851 · DOI
  14. 10.1016/S0360-1315(02)00019-2 · DOI
  15. Hirvela A., 2004, Connecting reading and writing in second language writing approach, 10.3998/mpub.23736 · DOI
  16. 10.1016/j.jeap.2012.11.005 · DOI
  17. 10.1016/j.linged.2008.06.003 · DOI
  18. 10.1016/j.compedu.2006.01.004 · DOI · Paper page
  19. Kintsch W., 1998, Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition
  20. 10.1037/0033-295X.85.5.363 · DOI · Paper page
  21. 10.1080/09588220802613807 · DOI
  22. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.02.003 · DOI
  23. 10.1080/09588220600803311 · DOI
  24. 10.1080/00461528409529279 · DOI
  25. 10.1016/j.system.2004.11.003 · DOI
  26. 10.1016/j.jslw.2006.01.003 · DOI · Paper page
  27. Patton M.Q., 2002, Qualitative research and evaluation methods
  28. Scardamalia M., 2006, The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences, 97
  29. Skalicky J., 2009, Peer learning framework: A community of practice model
  30. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.06.002 · DOI
  31. 10.2307/747358 · DOI
  32. 10.4324/9781410603678 · DOI
  33. 10.1016/j.compedu.2010.05.021 · DOI
  34. Van Dijk T.A., 1983, Strategies of discourse comprehension
  35. Vygotsky L.S., 1978, Mind in society
  36. 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01059.x · DOI
  37. 10.1080/09588221.2012.701633 · DOI
  38. Yang Y.F., 2013, Language Learning & Technology, 17, 220
  39. 10.1080/09588221.2014.881384 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Yang, Y.-F.
Affiliations
Graduate School of Applied Foreign Languages, National Yunlin University of Science and Technology, Douliu, Taiwan, R. O. C.
Venue
Computer Assisted Language Learning
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2015-04-16
Volume
29
Issue
4
Pages
683-702
ISSN
  • 0958-8221
  • 1744-3210
DOI
10.1080/09588221.2015.1016440
Cited by
64
References
4
Language
en

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review