Written Communication Oct 2024

Student Experiences With Peer Review and Revision for Writing-to-Learn in a Chemistry Course Context

Solaire A. Finkenstaedt-Quinn University of Michigan–Ann Arbor ; Safron L. Milne ; Michael N. Petterson University of Michigan–Ann Arbor ; Jasen Chen ; Ginger V. Shultz University of Michigan–Ann Arbor

Abstract

Peer review is useful for providing students with formative feedback, yet it is used less frequently in STEM classrooms and for supporting writing-to-learn (WTL). While research indicates the benefits of incorporating peer review into classrooms, less research is focused on students’ perceptions thereof. Such research is important as it speaks to the mechanisms whereby peer review can support learning. This study examines students’ self-reported approaches to and perceptions of peer review and revision associated with WTL assignments implemented in an organic chemistry course. Students responded to a survey covering how they approached peer review and revision and the benefits they perceived from participating in each. Findings indicate that the assignment materials guided students’ approaches during both peer review and revision. Furthermore, students described various ways both receiving feedback from their peers and reading their peers’ drafts were beneficial, but primarily connected their revisions to receiving feedback.

Journal
Written Communication
Published
2024-10-01
DOI
10.1177/07410883241263542
CompPile
Search in CompPile ↗
Open Access
Closed
Topics
revision
Export
BibTeX RIS

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (0)

No articles in this index cite this work.

References (73) · 19 in this index

  1. 10.1002/tea.3660310910
     ↗
  2. Anderson et al. (2016)
    How to Create High-Impact Writing Assignments That Enhance Learning and Develop…
    Across the Disciplines
  3. 10.3200/CTCH.53.1.27-31
     ↗
  4. Anson et al. (2017)
    Assessing peer and instructor response to writing: A corpus analysis from an ex…
    Assessing Writing
  5. 10.1037/xap0000119
     ↗
Show all 73 →
  1. 10.1021/acs.jchemed.2c00945
     ↗
  2. 10.37514/PER-B.2009.2324.2.14
     ↗
  3. Bereiter C. (1987)
    The psychology of written composition
  4. 10.1021/acs.jchemed.1c00660
     ↗
  5. 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
     ↗
  6. 10.1080/02602938.2018.1463354
     ↗
  7. Chang (2016)
    Two Decades of Research in L2 Peer Review
    Journal of Writing Research
  8. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.006
     ↗
  9. 10.1037/a0021950
     ↗
  10. Cho et al. (2006)
    Commenting on Writing: Typology and Perceived Helpfulness of Comments from Novi…
    Written Communication
  11. 10.1007/s11251-010-9146-1
     ↗
  12. 10.1080/02602938.2020.1730765
     ↗
  13. 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00018
     ↗
  14. 10.1021/acs.jchemed.2c00313
     ↗
  15. Finkenstaedt-Quinn S. A. (2022)
    CBE - Life Sciences
  16. 10.1039/C9RP00292H
     ↗
  17. 10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c01482
     ↗
  18. Finkenstaedt-Quinn et al. (2021)
    Utilizing Peer Review and Revision in STEM to Support the Development of Concep…
    Written Communication
  19. 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00711
     ↗
  20. 10.20429/ijsotl.2023.17118
     ↗
  21. Finkenstaedt-Quinn et al. (2024)
    Reading, receiving, revising: A case study on the relationship between peer rev…
    Assessing Writing
  22. 10.1007/BF00119655
     ↗
  23. Gere et al. (2019)
    Writing and Conceptual Learning in Science: An Analysis of Assignments
    Written Communication
  24. 10.1039/D0RP00266F
     ↗
  25. 10.1187/cbe.17-10-0212
     ↗
  26. Han Y., Hyland F. (2019). Learner engagement with written feedback: A sociocognitive perspective. In Hyland F…
  27. Hanjani (2021)
    Insights into the cognitive processes of trained vs untrained EFL peer reviewer…
    Assessing Writing
  28. 10.3102/003465430298487
     ↗
  29. 10.1080/02602938.2018.1545896
     ↗
  30. 10.1080/02602938.2018.1424318
     ↗
  31. Johnson et al. (2017)
    College student perceptions of writing errors, text quality, and author charact…
    Assessing Writing
  32. 10.1007/s11251-010-9133-6
     ↗
  33. Kim (2023)
    “Sorry, I don’t good English”: Japanese L2 students’ written peer feedback in t…
    Journal of Writing Research
  34. Klein (2015)
    Mediators and Moderators in Individual and Collaborative Writing to Learn
    Journal of Writing Research
  35. Klein P. D. (2015)
    Handbook of writing research
  36. Klein et al. (2016)
    Trends in Research on Writing as a Learning Activity
    Journal of Writing Research
  37. Leijen et al. (2012)
    Linguistic and review features of peer feedback and their effect on implementat…
    Journal of Writing Research
  38. Lu et al. (2023)
    The relationship between peer feedback features and revision sources mediated b…
    Assessing Writing
  39. 10.1016/j.jslw.2008.06.002
     ↗
  40. 10.1002/sce.21454
     ↗
  41. 10.1039/C8RP00090E
     ↗
  42. 10.17226/13165
     ↗
  43. 10.1007/s11251-008-9053-x
     ↗
  44. 10.1080/02602931003786559
     ↗
  45. 10.1080/03075070600572090
     ↗
  46. 10.1080/02602938.2021.1924620
     ↗
  47. 10.1080/02602938.2013.795518
     ↗
  48. Patchan et al. (2009)
    A validation study of students’ end comments: Comparing comments by students, a…
    Journal of Writing Research
  49. Patchan et al. (2016)
    Understanding the benefits of receiving peer feedback: A case of matching abili…
    Journal of Writing Research
  50. 10.1039/D1RP00181G
     ↗
  51. 10.1080/03075079.2010.483513
     ↗
  52. Prior P. (2006)
    Handbook of research on writing
  53. Pritchard et al. (2017)
    Comparison of Online and Face-to-Face Peer Review of Writing
    Computers and Composition
  54. 10.1187/cbe.11-08-0064
     ↗
  55. 10.1021/bk-2013-1145.ch009
     ↗
  56. 10.1039/C8RP00260F
     ↗
  57. 10.3102/0034654307313795
     ↗
  58. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.008
     ↗
  59. 10.1080/00405840802577569
     ↗
  60. 10.1016/j.compedu.2008.06.001
     ↗
  61. 10.1039/D1RP00007A
     ↗
  62. 10.1039/D1RP00301A
     ↗
  63. 10.1039/C9RP00185A
     ↗
  64. 10.1080/00461520.2016.1207538
     ↗
  65. 10.3102/0002831220945266
     ↗
  66. Yallop et al. (2021)
    The affect and effect of asynchronous written feedback comments on the peer fee…
    Journal of Writing Research
  67. 10.1039/D3RP00197K
     ↗
  68. Zhu (1995)
    Effects of Training for Peer Response on Students' Comments and Interaction
    Written Communication
CrossRef global citation count: 1 View in citation network → Build reading path →

Related Articles

  1. Computers and Composition Jun 2026
    Student perceptions of screen recording and screencast assignments in first-year writing ↗
    Julie Townsend; Melanie Gagich
    first-year composition writing pedagogy revision
  2. Assessing Writing Apr 2026
    An ecological approach to L2 learners’ engagement with written feedback ↗
    Zaibo Long; Jinfen Xu
    revision
  3. Assessing Writing Apr 2026
    L2 learners’ engagement with AI-generated feedback on writing ↗
    Xinyu Ma; Cong Zhang; Icy Lee
    revision
  4. Computers and Composition Mar 2026
    Chinese EFL learners’ engagement with ChatGPT feedback on academic writing: A case study in Malaysia ↗
    Zhang Kailin; Murad Abdu Saeed
    writing pedagogy revision qualitative research artificial intelligence multilingual writers
  5. Written Communication Feb 2026
    Reading Medium and Communicative Purpose in Writing: Effects on Pausing Behaviour and Text Quality, Controlling for Reading Comprehension and Executive Functions ↗
    Ángel Valenzuela; Cristian A. Rojas-Barahona; Ramón D. Castillo; Ladislao Salmerón
    discourse analysis curriculum design revision assessment