SpringerLink
Log in

Charting the routes to revision: An interplay of writing goals, peer comments, and self-reflections from peer reviews

  • Published:
Instructional Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Building upon self-regulated learning theories, we examined the nature of student writing goals and the relationship of these writing goals to revision alone and in combination with two other important sources of students’ self-regulated revision—peer comments on their writing, and reflections for their own writing obtained from reviewing others’ writing. Data were obtained from a large introductory undergraduate class in the context of two 1000-word writing assignments involving online peer review and a required revision. We began with an investigation of students’ free response learning goals and a follow-up quantitative survey about the nature and structure of these writing goals. We found that: (a) students tended to create high-level substantive goals more often, (b) students change their writing goals across papers even for a very similar assignment, and (c) their writing goals divide into three dimensions: general writing goals, genre writing goals, and assignment goals. We then closely coded and analyzed the relative levels of association of revision changes with writing goals, peer comments, reflections from peer review, and combinations of these sources. Findings suggest that high-level revisions are commonly associated with writing goals, are especially likely to occur for combinations of the three sources, and peer comments alone appeared to make the largest contributions to revision.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Germany)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Baikadi, A., Schunn, C., & Ashley, K. (2015). Understanding revision planning in peer-reviewed writing. In Paper presented at the 8th international conference on educational data mining. Madrid, Spain.

  • Beason, L. (1993). Feedback and revision in writing across the curriculum classes. Research in the Teaching of English, 27(4), 395–422.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berg, E. C. (1999). The effects of trained peer response on ESL students’ revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(3), 215–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bogolin, L., Harris, L., & Norris, L. (2003). Improving writing through the use of goal setting (Unpublished Master of Arts action research project). Chicago: Saint Xavier University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler, D. L. (1998). The strategic content learning approach to promoting self-regulated learning: A report of three studies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 682–697.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, W., & Warren, M. (1997). Having second thoughts: Students perceptions before and after a peer assessment exercise. Studies in Higher Education, 22(2), 233–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cho, K., & MacArthur, C. (2010). Student revision with peer and expert reviewing. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 328–338. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cho, K., & MacArthur, C. (2011). Learning by reviewing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(1), 73–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cho, K., & Schunn, C. D. (2007). Scaffolded writing and rewriting in the discipline: A web-based reciprocal peer review system. Computers & Education, 48, 409–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cho, K., Schunn, C. D., & Wilson, R. (2006). Validity and reliability of scaffolded peer assessment of writing from instructor and student perspectives. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(4), 891–901.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crinon, J. (2012). the dynamics of writing and peer review at primary school. Journal of Writing Research, 4, 121–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dave, A. M., & Russell, D. R. (2010). Drafting and revision using word processing by undergraduate student writers: Changing conceptions and practices. Research in the Teaching of English, 44(4), 406–434.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwins, S. D. (1995). Increasing reflective writing and goal setting skills on high ability six grade mathematics students (Unpublished master thesis). Fort Lauderdale, FL: Nova Southeastern University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faigley, L., & Witte, S. (1981). Analyzing revision. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 400–414.

    Article  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, 287–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferreti, R., MacArthur, C., & Dowdy, N. (2000). The effects of an elaborated goal on the persuasive writing of students with learning disabilities and their normally achieving peers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 694–702.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitzgerald, J. (1987). Research on revision in writing. Review of Educational Research, 57(4), 481–506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32, 365–387.

    Article  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, 304–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1994). The role and development of self-regulation in the writing process. In D. Schunk & B. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues and educational applications (pp. 203–228). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., MacArthur, C., & Schwartz, S. (1995). Effects of goal setting and procedural facilitation on the revising behavior and writing performance of students with writing and learning problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(2), 230–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). Writing next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in middle and high school—a report to the Carnegie corporation of New York. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartberg, Y., Gunersel, A. B., Simspon, N. J., & Balester, V. (2008). Development of student writing in biochemistry using Calibrated Peer Review. The Journal of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 8, 29–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, J. R., Flower, L., Schriver, K. A., Stratman, J. F., & Carey, L. (1987). Cognitive processes in revision. In S. Rosenberg (Ed.), Advances in applied psycholinguistics (Vol. 2, pp. 176–240)., Reading, writing, and language learning New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hull, G. A. (1981). Effects of self-management strategies on journal writing by college freshmen. Research in the Teaching of English, 15(2), 135–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katstra, J., Tollefson, N., & Gilbert, E. (1987). The effects of peer evaluation on attitude toward writing and writing fluency of ninth grade students. Journal of Educational Research, 80(3), 168–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaufman, J. H., & Schunn, C. D. (2011). Students’ perceptions about peer assessment for writing: their origin and impact on revision work. Instructional Science, 39, 387–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, N.-F., & Carless, D. (2006). Peer feedback: The learning element of peer assessment. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(3), 279–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lundstrom, K., & Baker, W. (2009). To give is better than to receive: The benefits of peer review to the reviewer’s own writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 30–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matsuhashi, A., & Gordon, E. (1985). Revision, addition, and the power of the unseen text. In S. W. Freedman (Ed.), The acquisition of written language: Response and revision (pp. 226–249). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mendonςa, C. O., & Johnson, K. E. (1994). Peer review negotiations: Revision activities in ESL writing instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 28(4), 745–769.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Assessment of Educational Progress & Educational Testing Service. (1986). The writing report card: Writing achievement in American schools. Princeton, NJ: National Assessment of Educational Progress.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Commission on Writing in American Schools and Colleges. (2003). The neglected "R," Theneed for a writing revolution. New York: The College Board.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, M. M., & Schunn, C. D. (2009). The nature of feedback: How different types of peer feedback affect writing performance. Instructional Science, 27(4), 375–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Page-Voth, V., & Graham, S. (1999). Effects of goal setting and strategy use on the writing performance and self-efficacy of students with writing and learning problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2), 230–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Panadero, E., Romero, M., & Strijbos, J.-W. (2013). The impact of a rubric and friendship on peer assessment: Effects on construct validity, performance, and perceptions of fairness and comfort. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 39, 195–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patchan, M. (2011). Peer review of writing: Learning from revision using peer feedback and reviewing peers’ texts (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paulus, T. M. (1999). The effect of peer and teacher feedback on student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(3), 265–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Persky, H. R., Dane, M. C., & **, Y. (2003). The nation’s report card: Writing 2002 (NCES 2003-529). US Department of Education. Institute of Education Sciences. National Center for Education Statistics. Washington DC: Government Printing Office.

  • Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 451–502). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, P. M., & Good, E. (2006). The impact of self-and peer-grading on student learning. Educational Assessment, 11(1), 1–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sawyer, R. J., Graham, S., & Harris, K. (1992). Direct teaching, strategy instruction, and strategy instruction with explicit self-regulation: Effects on the composition skills and self-efficacy of students with learning disabilities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(3), 340–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scardamillia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1986). Research on written composition. In C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 778–803). New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schunk, D. H., & Swartz, C. W. (1993). Goals and progress feedback: Effects on self-efficacy and writing achievement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 18(3), 337–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schunn, C. D. (2016). Writing to learn and learning to write through SWoRD. In S. A. Crossley & D. S. McNamara (Eds.), Adaptive Educational Technologies for Literacy Instruction. NY: Taylor & Francis, Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silver, M. S. (2013). Use of teacher-supported goal setting to improve writing quality, quantity and self-efficacy in middle school writers (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Eugene, OR: University of Oregon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, H., Cooper, A., & Lancaster, L. (2002). Improving the quality of undergraduate peer assessment: A case for student and staff development. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 39(1), 71–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sommers, N. (1980). Revision strategies of student writers and experienced adult writers. College Composition and Communication, 31, 378–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stallard, C. K. (1974). An analysis of the behavior of good student writers. Research in the Teaching of English, 8, 206–218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Top**, K. J. (2005). Trends in peer learning. Educational Psychology, 25(6), 631–645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Top**, K. J., & Fisher, A. M. (2003). Computerised formative assessment of reading comprehension: Field trials in the UK. Journal of Research in Reading, 26(267), 179.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tseng, S., & Tsai, C. (2007). On-line peer assessment and the role of the peer feedback: A study of high school computer course. Computers & Education, 49, 1161–1174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van den Boom, G., Paas, F., van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & van Gog, T. (2004). Reflection prompts and tutor feedback in a web-based learning environment: effects on students’ self-regulated learning competence. Computers in Human Behavior, 20, 551–567.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Velzen, J. H. (2002). Instruction and self-regulated learning: promoting students’ (self-) reflective thinking. Dissertation. Leiden, The Netherlands: Universiteit Leiden.

  • Villamil, O. S., & De Guerrero, M. C. M. (1998). Assessing the impact of peer revision on L2 writing. Applied Linguistics, 19, 491–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wooley, R. S., Was, C., Schunn, C. D., & Dalton, D. (2008). The effects of feedback elaboration on the giver of feedback. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society.

  • Yang, Y., & Meng, W. (2013). The effects of online feedback training on students’ text revision. Language Learning & Technology: A Refereed Journal for Second and Foreign Language Educators, 17(2), 220.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B. J. (1994). Impact of self-regulatory influences on writing course attainment. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 845–862.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(2), 64–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B. J. (2013). From cognitive modeling to self-regulation: A social cognitive career path. Educational Psychologist, 48(3), 135–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B. J., & Kitsantas, A. (1999). Acquiring writing revision skill: Shifting from process to outcome self-regulatory goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 241–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B. J., & Kitsantas, A. (2002). Acquiring writing revision and self-regulatory skill through observation and emulation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 660–668.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B. J., & Risemberg, R. (1997). Becoming a self-regulated writer: A social cognitive perspective. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, 73–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Work on this project was funded by grants R305A120370 from the Institute of Education Sciences and 17BYY106 from the China National Social Science Fund.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Foreign Languages, Northeast Normal University, 5268 Renmin Street, Changchun, 130024, Jilin, China

    Fuhui Zhang

  2. Learning Research and Development Center, University of Pittsburgh, 3939 O’Hara Street, Room 821, Pittsburgh, PA, 15260, USA

    Christian D. Schunn

  3. Learning Research and Development Center, University of Pittsburgh, 3939 O’Hara Street, Room 726, Pittsburgh, PA, 15260, USA

    Alok Baikadi

Authors
  1. Fuhui Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christian D. Schunn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Alok Baikadi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christian D. Schunn.

Appendices

Appendix 1: peer review task, involving comment prompts and rating rubrics

Interestingness

Comment on whether the application or issue is likely to be interesting to many readers, and whether the author presented the research in a compelling way. Be specific about where problems occurred and suggest ways to improve.


Interesting research presentation To what extent did the author make the presented research interesting to a general audience?

  1. 7

    Excellent. Everyone would find the research presentation interesting

  2. 6

    Between good and excellent

  3. 5

    Good. Most people would find the research presentation interesting

  4. 4

    Between ok and good.

  5. 3

    Ok. Only people who think about this research would find the research presentation interesting

  6. 2

    Between poor and ok.

  7. 1

    Poor. Almost nobody would find the research presentation interesting


Interestingness of application To which extent is the application interesting to many readers?

  1. 7

    Excellent. Everyone would find this application interesting

  2. 6

    Between good and excellent

  3. 5

    Good. Almost everyone would find this application interesting

  4. 4

    Between ok and good

  5. 3

    Ok. Only people who often think about this application would be interested

  6. 2

    Between poor and ok

  7. 1

    Poor. Very few people would find this application interesting

Good research explanation

To what extent was the research explained clearly and accurately? Be specific about where problems occurred and suggest possible improvements.

Clear research explanations To what extent was the explanation of research clear for a general audience?

  1. 7

    Excellent. Everyone would correctly understand the provided explanation

  2. 6

    Between good and excellent

  3. 5

    Good. Most people would correctly understand the provided explanation

  4. 4

    Between ok and good

  5. 3

    Ok. Some people would be confused by some key part

  6. 2

    Between poor and ok

  7. 1

    Poor. Many people would be confused by some key part

Accurate research explanation To what extent was the explanation of the research consistent with the research literature? Was some research discussed in class or the book that was obviously relevant to the application topic not included?

  1. 7

    Excellent. The presented research was entirely correct and included all relevant aspects.

  2. 6

    Between good and excellent.

  3. 5

    Good. The presented research was entirely accurate but missed some relevant research.

  4. 4

    Between ok and good.

  5. 3

    Ok. Some of the presented research was not quite accurate.

  6. 2

    Between poor and ok.

  7. 1

    Poor. Much of the presented research was not accurate.

Images and graphics

To what extent were the included images (pictures, tables, graphs) useful in supporting the narrative and accurately conveying information to a general audience. If no images were included, what kinds of images would be useful additions? Be specific about problems and suggest possible improvements.


Image narrative support To what extent were the included images (pictures, tables, graphs) useful in supporting the narrative?

  1. 7

    Excellent. The images were very helpful in getting the point across.

  2. 6

    Between good and excellent.

  3. 5

    Good. The images helped somewhat in getting the point across.

  4. 4

    Between ok and good.

  5. 3

    Ok. The images were interesting eye-candy.

  6. 2

    Between poor and ok.

  7. 1

    Poor. No images included or they were just confusing.

Image accuracy To what extent were the included images (pictures, tables, graphs) accurately conveying information to a general audience.

  1. 7

    Excellent. The images would be understood correctly by everyone.

  2. 6

    Between good and excellent.

  3. 5

    Good. Some people might misunderstand the images.

  4. 4

    Between ok and good.

  5. 3

    Ok. The images actively causes some misunderstandings.

  6. 2

    Between poor and ok.

  7. 1

    Poor. No images included or they are seriously inaccurate.

Research application connection

To what extent was the connection between the research findings and the application area logical and complete (no obvious counterarguments)? Be specific about problems and suggestion possible improvements.


Research application logic quality To what extent was the connection between the research findings and the application area logical and complete (no obvious counterarguments)?

  1. 7

    Excellent. The proposed application of the research was logical and not ignoring obvious counterarguments.

  2. 6

    Between good and excellent.

  3. 5

    Good. The proposed application of the research was logical but ignored an obvious counterargument.

  4. 4

    Between ok and good.

  5. 3

    Ok. The proposed application of the research has some logical leaps.

  6. 2

    Between poor and ok.

  7. 1

    Poor. The proposed application did not follow at all from the research.

Writing quality

Comment on any issues related to document organization, appropriateness of work choice for the topic and audience, or violations of Standard Written English.


Organization The order developed and sustained within and across paragraphs using transitions and including an introduction and conclusion.

  1. 7

    Excellent. Sophisticated arrangement of content with transitions that supports following the main narrative.

  2. 6

    Between good and excellent.

  3. 5

    Good. Functional arrangement of content that sustains a logical order with some use of supporting transitions

  4. 4

    Between ok and good.

  5. 3

    Ok. Confusing or inconsistent arrangement of content or poor use transition markers

  6. 2

    Between poor and ok.

  7. 1

    Poor. Little control of arrangement and structure


Word Choice Words convey the intended message in a precise, interesting, and natural way. The words are powerful and engaging.

  1. 7

    Excellent All important content words are chosen precisely and the general tone of these words is engaging and natural to the topic and audience.

  2. 6

    Between good and excellent.

  3. 5

    Good. A few words are imprecise or unnatural in this context

  4. 4

    Between ok and good.

  5. 3

    Ok. Many words are imprecise or unnatural in this context

  6. 2

    Between poor and ok.

  7. 1

    Poor. The prose is boring or very ambiguous because of poor word choice.


Writing Conventions The writer demonstrates a good grasp of Standard Written English conventions (e.g., spelling, punctuation, capitalization, grammar, usage, paragraphing) and uses these conventions effectively to enhance readability.

  1. 7

    Excellent. Demonstrates facility with the conventions of standard written English and has no minor errors.

  2. 6

    Between good and excellent.

  3. 5

    Good. Generally demonstrates control with the conventions of Standard Written English but may have some errors.

  4. 4

    Between ok and good.

  5. 3

    Ok. Contains occasional major errors or frequent minor errors in grammar, usage, or mechanics that sometimes interfere with meaning.

  6. 2

    Between poor and ok.

  7. 1

    Poor. Contains serious errors in grammar, usage, or mechanics that frequently obscure meaning.

Appendix 2: learning goal survey

To what extent was each of the goals important to you for the second paper?

Please circle the rating on the right that most closely approximates your agreement with each statement.

Statements of writing goals

As I wrote my paper, I especially tried to…

    

1. Convey information that is novel to a general audience.

YES!

Yes

No

NO!

2. Convey information that is counter-intuitive to a general audience.

YES!

Yes

No

NO!

3. Convey information that is not commonly told to a general audience.

YES!

Yes

No

NO!

4. Follow the style of a newspaper article.

YES!

Yes

No

NO!

5. Convey a single overall focus.

YES!

Yes

No

NO!

6. Make ideas understandable to a general audience using specific examples.

YES!

Yes

No

NO!

7. Make ideas understandable to a general audience using personal or real life examples.

YES!

Yes

No

NO!

8. Illustrate information to a general audience with pictures, tables and graphs.

YES!

Yes

No

NO!

9. Convey information in plain, easy to understand language instead of difficult jargons or terms.

YES!

Yes

No

NO!

10. Explain the research in a way that is entirely consistent with the research literature.

YES!

Yes

No

NO!

11. Explain the research thoroughly by including research that is obviously relevant to the application topic.

YES!

Yes

No

NO!

12. Use fewer words in expressing each idea.

YES!

Yes

No

NO!

13. Cut some irrelevant ideas to keep the 1000 word limit.

YES!

Yes

No

NO!

14. Cut down to below 1000 word limit even if I have to remove important content.

YES!

Yes

No

NO!

15. Have a good flow between sentences and paragraphs.

YES!

Yes

No

NO!

16. Show good reasoning underlying the main ideas.

YES!

Yes

No

NO!

17. Show a strong connection between the research findings and the application.

YES!

Yes

No

NO!

18. Use words in a precise way.

YES!

Yes

No

NO!

19. Use words in a natural way.

YES!

Yes

No

NO!

20. Use words in a newspaper style.

YES!

Yes

No

NO!

21. Use only grammatically correct sentences.

YES!

Yes

No

NO!

22. Write sentences in a newspaper style.

YES!

Yes

No

NO!

23. Adhere to writing conventions like punctuation, spelling, capitalization etc.

YES!

Yes

No

NO!

Which was the most important goal? Write the statement #: _______

Specify any other goals in your writing not covered above:

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhang, F., Schunn, C.D. & Baikadi, A. Charting the routes to revision: An interplay of writing goals, peer comments, and self-reflections from peer reviews. Instr Sci 45, 679–707 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-017-9420-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-017-9420-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation