Question: Three conditions. Which produced more revisions?
Source: Covilla, A. E. (2010). Comparing peer review and self-review as ways to improve college students’
writing. Journal of Literacy Research, 42(2), 199–226.
Answer: “Compares the effects of three different types of revision instruction on 61 college students’ revisions and writing quality: Formal Peer Review—outline and critique a peer’s draft; Formal Self-Review—outline and critique their own draft; and No Formal Review—simply revise their draft to enhance organization and clarity. There were no significant differences in writing quality between the three treatment groups. The No Formal Review students made more revisions than students in the other groups and had the most positive attitude toward instruction. Suggests that peer review or formal self-assessment may not necessarily enhance writing quality.”
Comment: I like the simplicity of the directions for revision in the No Formal Review condition. RayS.
Title: “Annotated Bibliography of Research in the Teaching of English.” Richard Beach et al. Research in the Teaching of English (November 2010), Internet. Note: The editors of RTE said that so much research was available they did not want to burden the paper edition of the journal with it, so they relegated their annotated reports on research to the Internet.