“We learn from each other”: peer review writing practices in English for Academic Purposes

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 67-91
Author(s):  
Stergiani Kostopoulou ◽  
Fergus O’Dwyer
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Academic Writing ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Self Regulation ◽  
English For Academic Purposes ◽  
Student Writing ◽  
Active Involvement ◽  
Transmission Of Knowledge ◽  
Writing Practices ◽  
Foundation Programme

Abstract This evidence-based, procedural paper outlines academic writing peer review practices conducted by Pre-Master’s Pathway and pre-undergraduate Foundation programme students at two Irish universities. The theoretical framework section presents the view that formative teacher feedback on student writing alone is insufficient, suggesting sustainable feedback through transmission of knowledge via student-generated feedback. We outline the peer review process, providing learners’ reactions focusing on what went well and what can be improved. This provides an outline of possible processes for others to use in their context, with a discussion of relevant considerations. Issues discussed include how to enhance the quality of peer feedback and maximize its impact on student learning. The ultimate aim of the practices is to improve the experience of the learners, and better facilitate their readiness for forthcoming modules in Irish universities. Overall peer review practices develop emerging academic writers, and should be considered in foundational, pre-sessional and beginning stages of learning in undergraduate, and those returning to Masters programmes. Peer review practices require active involvement and collaboration, and can improve self-regulation capabilities of emerging academic writers. The practices effectively encourage the transmission of socially constructed knowledge regarding their capabilities, and ultimately lead to improved self-efficacy and general writing abilities of learners.

scholarly journals Expressions of Criticality in Expert and Student Writing: A Corpus Contrastive Analysis of Literature Reviews

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 19
Author(s):  
Muna Liyana Binti Mohamad Tarmizi ◽  
Anealka Aziz Hussin
Keyword(s):  
Literature Review ◽  
Academic Writing ◽  
Applied Linguistics ◽  
English For Academic Purposes ◽  
Student Writing ◽  
Contrastive Analysis ◽  
Student Writers ◽  
Research Journal ◽  
Literature Reviews ◽  
Integral Role

Literature review in academic writing plays an integral role in demonstrating writers’ knowledge about a field of study as well as in informing the writers of influential researchers and research groups in the field. More importantly, writers are expected to critically analyze previous studies related to their topic. Despite its importance to the academic text, student writers find it challenging to establish a critical stance and to provide evaluative judgment when reviewing the literature. This paper presents a contrastive analysis of student and expert writers’ expressions of criticality in literature review sections of 8 applied linguistics master theses from UiTM (a Malaysian public university) and 62 literature reviews of research journal articles from a similar field (i.e., Language and Communication, English for Academic Purposes and Applied Linguistics). Corpus techniques are used to identify the most common expressions of criticality used by these two groups of writers. The corpus was analyzed using detailed consistency analysis and concordance software from WordSmith Tools (Scott, 2012). Findings revealed that student writers prefer to use hedges and boosters to express criticality and the evaluations they make tend to sound more reporting rather than analyzing and synthesizing the resources critically. Results from this study are beneficial for constructing pedagogical instructions and guidelines for student writers in their critical analysis of the literature review.

scholarly journals Digital Writing, Word Processors and Operations in Texts: How Student Writers Use Digital Resources in Academic Writing Processes

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 43-58
Author(s):  
Sofia Hort
Keyword(s):  
Academic Writing ◽  
Meaning Making ◽  
Student Writing ◽  
Digital Writing ◽  
Student Writers ◽  
Fine Grained ◽  
Writing Processes ◽  
Writing Practices ◽  
Academic Genre ◽  
Word Processors

This study explores the use of digital technologies in the writing of an academic assignment. Fine-grained studies on student writing processes are scarce in previous research. In relation to the increasing demands on students’ writing, as well as the debate on students’ poor writing (Malmström, 2017), these issues are important to address. In this study, screen captures of five students’ essay processes are analyzed. The results show that students handle text at different levels: they make use of one or more word processors, arrange texts spatially on screens and use resources to operate directly in texts. Above all these actions seem to meet the need to move and navigate within one’s own text, an aspect that could be especially important in relation to the academic genre and for handling texts as artifacts in activity (Castelló & Iñesta, 2012; Prior, 2006). The results of the study point to the importance of making digital writing practices visible, especially those that could create possibilities to intertwine digital texts, thereby enhancing potentials for academic writing and meaning-making.

Student Perceptions of the Peer Review Process in Student Writing Projects

1997 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 249-263 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark G. Simkin ◽  
Nari K. Ramarapu
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Student Perceptions ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Student Writing ◽  
Total Quality ◽  
Review System ◽  
Student Views ◽  
Term Papers ◽  
High Degree

The process of academic peer review—i.e., students evaluating each other's work—can help instructors address a host of higher institutional objectives, not the least of which is the total quality management of collegiate teaching. But more is known about this process from the viewpoint of instructors than from the perspective of students. The purpose of this study was to formally examine student views of a specific peer-review system in which undergraduates assigned final grades to each other's term papers. A survey instrument revealed a high degree of comfort with the process, as well as some insights into why a few students were uncomfortable with it.

scholarly journals The Development of Academic Vocabulary in International Foundation Students’ Assessed Academic Writing

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Dana Therova
Keyword(s):  
United Arab Emirates ◽  
Academic Writing ◽  
University Student ◽  
Student Writing ◽  
Academic Vocabulary ◽  
Writing Style ◽  
Foundation Programme ◽  
Written Assignments ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Academic Year

Despite extensive research into academic vocabulary in university student writing, little is known about academic vocabulary in international foundation-level students’ assessed academic writing. Considering that academic vocabulary is regarded as a key element of academic writing style and written assignments are one of the main forms of assessment in university contexts, this is an important omission. This study addresses this gap by employing a corpus-based approach to investigate the development of academic vocabulary in assessed academic writing produced by international students (N=193) in a foundation(gateway) programme over an academic year in the context of a British university based in England and its overseas campuses in the United Arab Emirates and Mauritius. The findings show an increase in the usage of academic vocabulary over the course of the foundation programme and highlight the impact of the assignment topic and brief.

Register in English for Academic Purposes and English for Specific Purposes

2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 168-198
Author(s):  
Susan Conrad
Keyword(s):  
Academic Writing ◽  
Engineering Students ◽  
Civil Engineering ◽  
English For Academic Purposes ◽  
English For Specific Purposes ◽  
Student Writing ◽  
Workplace Writing ◽  
Writing Project ◽  
Register Variation ◽  
English Grammar

Abstract Susan Conrad, Professor of Applied Linguistics at Portland State University (USA), contributes this article on the applications of register research to English for Academic Purposes (EAP) and English for Specific Purposes (ESP). Her research focuses on topics including academic register variation, discipline-specific language, student and workplace writing, and grammar and writing pedagogy. Since the 1990s, her work has advocated for and exemplified the ways in which register-based descriptions can facilitate language teaching, including building awareness of register variation in learners and novice writers themselves. This focus is illustrated in her book Real Grammar: A Corpus-Based Approach to English (Conrad & Biber 2009, Pearson Longman), which takes many of the major register-based patterns of variation in English grammar (described in the Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English, Biber et al. 1999) and translates them into practical grammar lessons for language learners, making explicit how grammar use is mediated by register. Her applied focus is also evident in her work as Principal Investigator for the Civil Engineering Writing Project <http://www.cewriting.org/>. The project, funded by the National Science Foundation, addresses the writing needs of Civil Engineering students through corpus-based register comparisons (of university student writing, practitioner workplace writing, and published academic writing), applying the results to the development and evaluation of pedagogical materials that improve students’ preparation for writing in the workplace.

scholarly journals Academic literacies twenty years on: a community-sourced literature review

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Hilsdon ◽  
Cathy Malone ◽  
Alicja Syska
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Literature Review ◽  
Academic Writing ◽  
English For Academic Purposes ◽  
Student Writing ◽  
Academic Literacies ◽  
Diverse Range ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Learning Development ◽  
Professional Fields

In 1998, the paper ‘Student writing in higher education: an academic literacies approach’ by Mary Lea and Brian Street reinvigorated debate concerning ‘what it means to be academically literate’ (1998, p.158). It proposed a new way of examining how students learn at university and introduced the term ‘academic literacies’. Subsequently, a body of literature has emerged reflecting the significant theoretical and practical impact Lea and Street’s paper has had on a range of academic and professional fields. This literature review covers articles selected by colleagues in our professional communities of the Association for Learning Development in Higher Education (ALDinHE), the association for lecturers in English for Academic Purposes (BALEAP), and the European Association of Teachers of Academic Writing (EATAW). As a community-sourced literature review, this text brings together reviews of wide range of texts and a diverse range of voices reflecting a multiplicity of perspectives and understandings of academic literacies. We have organised the material according to the themes: Modality, Identity, Focus on text, Implications for research, and Implications for practice. We conclude with observations relevant to these themes, which we hope will stimulate further debate, research and professional collaborations between our members and subscribers.

scholarly journals Assessing peer review pattern and the effect of face-to-face and mobile-mediated modes on students’ academic writing development

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ali Akbar Khomeijani Farahani ◽  
Majid Nemati ◽  
Mostafa Nazari Montazer
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Academic Writing ◽  
Writing Development ◽  
English For Academic Purposes ◽  
Assessment Criteria ◽  
First Year ◽  
Lexical Resources ◽  
Review Group ◽  
Face To Face ◽  
The Face

Abstract This study examines the distribution of peer review in face-to-face and mobile-mediated peer review groups and their effects on students’ revision skills and academic writing development. Seventy-two first-year English for academic purposes (EAP) students participated in an 18-session IELTS academic writing course in a Canadian university the mobile-mediated peer review group (MMPR) used Telegram to exchange peer comments synchronously, while the face-to-face peer review group (FFPR) did peer review in the classroom. An adapted analytic scheme (Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2, 193–227, 2003) and the IELTS academic writing assessment criteria were used to conceptualize the peer comments in terms of frequency, area, type, nature, and IELTS assessment categories. Results indicated that the total number of comments, the percentage of revision-oriented comments and actual revisions made by the MMPR group were statistically more significant than those by the FFPR group. Furthermore, the MMPR group made more local revision-oriented comments than that of FFPR. However, the revision-oriented suggestion in local areas was the most distributed type of comment made by both groups. Regarding the IELTS assessment criteria, the FFPR group made more comments on task achievement and coherence and cohesion, whereas the comments made by the MMPR group targeted more lexical resources, and grammatical range and accuracy. In addition, the results showed that both MMPR and FFPR groups developed their IELTS academic writing skills while the MMPR mode of collaboration outperformed the FFPR.

Nurturing Student Writing Knowledge, Self-Regulation, and Attitudes in Higher Education

2022 ◽  
pp. 27-53
Author(s):  
Eleni Meletiadou
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Undergraduate Students ◽  
Academic Writing ◽  
Peer Assessment ◽  
Self Regulation ◽  
Student Writing ◽  
Learning Needs ◽  
Strong Impact ◽  
Writing Performance ◽  
Post Test

Self-assessment (SA) is regarded as a prestigious method of formative assessment in higher education. The present study explored the use of SA as an inclusive practice aiming to help students improve their writing performance, self-regulation, and attitudes. Forty-four undergraduate students attended an academic writing module for one semester. Students had all used peer assessment (PA) during the previous semester and were then asked to use SA. The lecturer provided training, mentoring, and coaching throughout the implementation taking into consideration students' individual learning needs. Students' pre-test and post-test scores showed that SA improved undergraduate students' writing performance more than PA. The findings from students' pre- and post-implementation survey revealed that SA had a strong impact on students' self-regulation. Considering the findings from the students' focus group discussions final essays and self-reflective journals, SA was challenging but developed students' autonomy, critical thinking, and sense of personal accountability significantly.

The Student Editorial Board of Methods of Information in Medicine

2007 ◽  
Vol 46 (06) ◽  
pp. 623-624 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. Haux ◽  
T. Y. Leong ◽  
A. McCray ◽  
D. Aronsky
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Health Informatics ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Official Journal ◽  
Training Experience ◽  
Related Field ◽  
Informative Feedback ◽  
Active Involvement ◽  
International Graduate

Summary Objective : Peer review is a critical process in the publication of scientific findings; trainees and young investigators, however, have few opportunities to learn systematically how to review manuscripts. Journal editors have an opportunity to engage trainees and young investigators in the peer review process early during their career. Methods : Methods of Information in Medicine, an official journal of the International Medical Informatics Association, is initiating a Student Editorial Board. The journal invites applications from international graduate and post-doctoral training programs that have a focus on health informatics, biomedical informatics, or a related field. Results : Each year up to six trainees will be invited to join the Student Editorial Board. The trainees will go through a mentored training experience that includes an active involvement in the various aspects of peer review during their one to two-year term of appointment. Conclusions : The journal expects that the Student Editorial Board will benefit trainees and young investigators in becoming skilled reviewers and engaged peers who can offer professional, constructive, and informative feedback and enhance the process of scientific communication.

scholarly journals Rethinking Peer Review: Expanding the Boundaries for Community-Engaged Scholarship

2013 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Sherril B. Gelmon ◽  
Cathy M. Jordan ◽  
Sarena D. Seifer
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Working Group ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Self Regulation ◽  
Professional Associations ◽  
Engaged Scholarship ◽  
Ethical Considerations ◽  
Engagement Process ◽  
Community Engaged Scholarship

Peer review in the academic arena is the evaluation of a scholar or a scholarly work by peers— typically, qualified members of the scholar’s discipline or profession with similar or greater competence, expertise, or rank. Peer review serves as a mechanism of self-regulation within a field or an institution in order to assure quality and may be applied to a product of scholarship, to scholars and their bodies of work, or to programs and organizations. Special considerations arise when peer review is undertaken in the context of community-engaged scholarship (CES), since CES generally involves partners outside the academy, and the typical concerns of peer review (such as rigorous methods, participant risks and benefits, and significance of findings for the field) are complemented by equivalent and sometimes greater concerns for the quality of the engagement process, community level ethical considerations, and benefit to the community. This article, authored by some of the founding members of the Working Group on Rethinking Peer Review, explores these issues and invites readers to contribute to this discussion by considering questions about the appropriateness of conventional peer review mechanisms and who should be considered “peers” in reviewing products of CES and the work of community-engaged scholars. The Working Group hopes others will initiate discussions within their own institutions, professional associations, journals, and other settings todebate the notion of peer review and determine if expanded concepts are feasible. Through these various activities, the authors hope to begin seeing changes in the peer review process that embrace community expertise and enhance the quality and impact of CES.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document