Quick Search for                   Records found: 133  Page 1 of 7   Records Per Page:
Add
author
title
date
book
journal
pages
keywords
annotation
Review
Tag
Annotate
View McCorckle, Ben; Kay Halasek; Kaitlin Clinnin; Cynthia Selfe  Negotiating world Englishes in a writing-based MOOC  Spring 2016    Composition Studies 44.1  53-71  MOOC; open-access; L2; world Englishes; language-study; pedagogy; distance-learning; turn; peer-review  This article recounts the experiences of a team of faculty, graduate students, and instructional technologists facilitating Rhetorical Composing, a writing-focused Massive Open Online Course (MOOC). When first offering the MOOC, we recognized quickly that we needed to emphasize the global makeup of our learning cohort to foster a stronger sense of community, diminish concerns about peer review, and inform participants about various ways that people all over the world learn English. In response, we developed a curricular unit focusing on "World Englishes" that included video lectures, guest speakers, discussion forums, and an invitation for individuals to submit their own learning experiences. We also designed an in-house peer review software platform, which provided focused training for all participants, regardless of language background. Here, we analyze demographic data for the course, participant writing, and other content generated within the MOOC. 
Review
Tag
Annotate
View Cummings, Lance  Flipping the online classroom: The asynchronous workshop  2016    Business and Professional Communication Quarterly 79.1  81-101  online education, online writing instruction, workshops, web 2.0, distance education, peer review, social media  Using experience teaching several communication and writing classes in Google Apps (Google+, Google Hangouts, Google Drive, etc.), I argue that flipping the classroom online with Web 2.0 technologies can maximize student participation and engagement, while also helping students develop flexible strategies for writing collaboratively and publicly in online spaces. 
Review
Tag
Annotate
View Alexander, Kara Poe; Danielle M. Williams  DMAC after dark: Distributed invention at and beyond DMAC  2015    Computers and Composition 36 [special issue]  32-43  distributed cognition, invention, distribution invention, proximal composing, multimodal composition, technology, social; writing process, pedagogy, peer review, collaboration, DMCA, professional development, composing  Special Issue: CIWIC, DMAC, and Technology Professional Development in Rhetoric and Composition. Editors: Danielle Nicole DeVoss, Cheryl Ball, Cindy Selfe, and Scott DeWitt 
Review
Tag
Annotate
View Corbett, Steven J.    2015  Beyond Dichotomy: Synergizing Writing Center and Classroom Pedagogies; Fort Collins, CO: WAC Clearinghouse and Parlor Press
 
    wcenter, peer review, response, workshops, groups, tutoring, multi-method, research, case study, RAD, writing fellows, supplemental instruction, classroom, pedagogy, teaching, one-to-one    
Review
Tag
Annotate
View Ching, Kory Lawson  The instructor-led peer conference: Teachers as participants in peer response  2014  In Corbett, Steven J.; Michelle LaFrance and Teagan E. Decker (Eds.), Peer Pressure, Peer Power: Theory and Practice in Peer Review and Response for the Writing Classroom; Southlake, TX: Fountainhead Press
 
  15-28  response, peer feedback, group, conferencing, teacher-student, peer-response   
Review
Tag
Annotate
View Gerben, Chris   Make it work: Project Runway as model and metaphor of authority and expertise  2014  In Corbett, Steven J.; Michelle LaFrance and Teagan E. Decker (Eds.), Peer Pressure, Peer Power: Theory and Practice in Peer Review and Response for the Writing Classroom; Southlake, TX: Fountainhead Press
 
  29-42  peer, collaboration, peer review, writing, authority, expertise, mentoring, popular culture   
Review
Tag
Annotate
View Balfour, Stephen P.  Assessing writing in MOOCs: Automated essay scoring and calibrated peer review  2013    Research and Practice in Assessment 08  40-48  machine-scoring, assessment, large-scale, MOOC, online, Calibrated Peer Review, EdX, Coursera, blended evaluation approach  The rapid expansion of MOOCs--massive, open, online courses--has raised questions about how instructors can provide feedback on writing in classes that are able to enroll tens or even hundreds of thousands of students. It also has created a possible area for swift growth in the use of Automated Writing Evaluation (AWE) systems. In this article, Balfour examines the contrasting approaches adopted by the two largest MOOC organizations. EdX, the non-profit organization formed by MIT and Harvard, announced in April 2013 that it would adopt an automated system to provide machine-based feedback on student writing in MOOCs. Meanwhile, Stanford-based Coursera has signaled its skepticism of AWE and continues to use a system of calibrated peer review in which students provide feedback to each other and on their own work using a rubric developed by the course instructor. In a discussion based on a literature review of existing AWE and calibrated peer review systems, Balfour argues that while AWE can provide swift and consistent feedback on some technical aspects of writing, peer review programs have been shown to help students increase confidence in their own composing and improve general learning skills such as the ability to evaluate material. The article suggests that MOOC organizers consider a blended evaluation approach in which students use AWE to address mechanical issues in their writing and employ calibrated peer review as a way to consider broader issues of content and style. Noting that researchers working for system developers dominate much of the existing AWE literature, Balfour also suggests that MOOCs could offer a new site for more independent research into the use of automated evaluation programs. [Norbert Elliot, Anne Ruggles Gere, Gail Gibson, Christie Toth, Carl Whithaus, & Amanda Presswood, Uses and Limitations of Automated Writing Evaluation Software, WPA-CompPile Research Bibliographies, No. 23] 
Review
Tag
Annotate
View Illich, Lindsay  How to see a text: The word cloud peer review  2013  link to full text  Journal of Teaching Writing 28.2  18-Jan  peer-evaluation, peer response, graphic, text-picture, visual, visuality, higher-order concerns, lower-order concerns, schema, teaching-strategy, practice-research, FYC, heuristic, heuristics, frame, learning-strategy, teacher-strategy, revising  Illich argues that analyzing word clouds of students? writing before peer review can help composition students prepare for peer review, particularly for students who are all writing about the same topic. By looking at word clouds before reading, students can frame their reading of the full essay; students see the most commonly used words, allowing them to diagnose higher-order concerns on which students can comment. 
Review
Tag
Annotate
View Olivas, Bernice  Doing it here: Observing Young Scholars in Writing building a legacy of writers helping writers  2013  full text  Young Scholars in Writing 10 (Spring)  11-17  mentorship, peer review, peer review process, writing pedagogy, Writerís Guild, undergraduate research, creative writing, writing process   
Review
Tag
Annotate
View OíRourke, Sean Patrick; Stephen Howard; Andrianna Lee Lawrence  Respondeo etsi mutabor: The comment and response assignment, young scholars, and the promise of liberal education  2013  full text  Young Scholars in Writing 10 (Spring)  27-37  comment and response, controversia, peer feedback, benefits of peer review, Burkean parlor, undergraduate research, liberal education, Young Scholars in Writing   
Review
Tag
Annotate
View Crinon, Jacques  The dynamics of writing and peer review at primary school  2012  link to full text  Journal of Writing Research 04.2  121-154  primary-school, France, Paris, peer-evaluation, data   
Review
Tag
Annotate
View Goldin, Ilya M.; Kevin D. Ashley  Eliciting formative assessment in peer review  2012  link to full text  Journal of Writing Research 04.2  203-237  peer-evaluation, formative, evaluation, response, data   
Review
Tag
Annotate
View Goldin, Ilya M.; Kevin D. Ashley; Christian D. Schunn  Redesigning educational peer review interactions using computer tools: An introduction  2012  link to full text  Journal of Writing Research 04.2  111-119  peer-evaluation, computer, networking, interaction, change   
Review
Tag
Annotate
View Laquintano, Tim  Online book reviews and emerging generic conventions: A situated study of authorship, publishing, and peer review  2012  full text In Bazerman, Charles, Chris Dean, Jessica Early, Karen Lunsford, Suzie Null, Paul Rogers, Amanda Stansell (Eds.), International advances in writing research: Cultures, places, measures, Fort Collins, CO: WAC Clearinghouse, Anderson, SC: Parlor Press    521-538  review-writing, online, digital, genre, convention, authorship, publication, peer-review   
Review
Tag
Annotate
View Likkel, Lauren  Calibrated peer review essays increase student confidence in assessing their own writing  2012    Journal of College Science Teaching 41.3  42-47  Response, peer-review, attitude, confidence, assessment   
Review
Tag
Annotate
View Weiser, Irwin  Peer review in the tenure and promotion process  2012    College Composition and Communication 63.4  645-671  tenure, promotion, department, colleague evaluator, disciplinarity, interinstitutional, outside evaluator, peer-review, review-of-scholarship, review-of-scholarship   
Review
Tag
Annotate
View Bedore, Pamela; Brian O'Sullivan  Addressing instructor ambivalence about peer review and self-assessment  2011  link to full text  WPA: Writing Program Administration 34.2  11-36  retraining, WPA, peer-evaluation, self-evaluation, survey, FYC, focus group, TA-training, JWPA, teacher-opinion, student-opinion, ambivalence   
Review
Tag
Annotate
View Bedore, Pamela; Brian O’Sullivan  Writing centers go to class: Peer review (of our) workshops  2011    Writing Lab Newsletter 35.9-10  1-6  wcenter, peer evaluation, peer critique, peer-critique, peer grading, peer feedback, peer response, student assessment, peer review, Garrison technique, Roger Garrison, workshopping, classroom-based, class tutorial, in-class conference, tutor-training, tutor training, training of tutors, writing center training, consultant training   
Review
Tag
Annotate
View Cope, Bill; Mary Kalantzis; Sarah McCarthey; Colleen Vojak; Sonia Kline  Technology-mediated writing assessments: Principles and processes  2011    Computers and Composition 28.2  79-96  assessment, evaluation, technology, guidelines, contextual, knowledge-making, metacognitive, multimodal, learning-theory, computer-analysis, summative, transformative, peer-evaluation, formative  This companion piece to the Vojak, Kline, Cope, McCarthey, and Kalantzis (2011) analysis of writing assessment software surveys the current state of writing assessment, noting that it is largely summative and does not support student learning. It then posits that technology has the potential to effect a shift toward a greater emphasis on formative assessment and to foster more effective assessment in multiple disciplines. The authors propose six transformations that would make it possible for writing to become central in formative assessment across the curriculum. These transformations are: 1) assessment should be situated in knowledge-making practices like those enacted in various disciplines, and it should balance reading with writing; 2) assessment should measure social cognition rather than emphasize rote memory; 3) assessment should measure metacognition, which is essential for effective use of today's textual and knowledge environments; 4) assessment should be conducted in spaces where learners can represent their knowledge multimodally; 5) assessment should draw upon peer review as well as teacher monitoring to provide rapid formative assessment; 6) assessment should capitalize on the ubiquitous presence of computing capacity to create a great number of formative assessments with the goal of abolishing the functional difference between formative and summative assessment. In addition, this article argues for bringing together these six technology-mediated processes for assessing writing--natural language analytics, corpus comparison, in-text network-mediate feedback, rubric-based review and rating, semantic web processing, and survey psychometrics--in order to link formative and summative assessment. [Norbert Elliot, Anne Ruggles Gere, Gail Gibson, Christie Toth, Carl Whithaus, & Amanda Presswood, Uses and Limitations of Automated Writing Evaluation Software, WPA-CompPile Research Bibliographies, No. 23] 
Review
Tag
Annotate
View Flynn, Elizabeth A.  Re-viewing peer review  2011  link to full text  Writing Instructor (December)    peer-evaluation, history, review-of-scholarship, MLA International Bibliography   
Copyright © 2004-2011 Glenn Blalock and Rich Haswell