Open Access
Issue
SHS Web of Conferences
Volume 18, 2015
ICoLASS 2014 – USM-POTO International Conference on Liberal Arts & Social Sciences
Article Number 05002
Number of page(s) 17
Section Education
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20151805002
Published online 10 July 2015
  1. Allaei, S.K. & Connor, U. (1990). Exploring the dynamics of cross-cultural collaboration in writing classrooms. The Writing Instructor, 10, 19–28
  2. Blasingame, J., & Bushman, J. H. (2005). “Teaching writing in middle and secondary schools”. Saddle River, N J: Pearson.
  3. Chandle, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 students’ writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, p.276–296.
  4. Carson, J.G. & Nelson, G.L. (1996). Chinese students’ perceptions of ESL peer response group interaction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5, 1–19. [CrossRef]
  5. Chaudron, C. (1984). “The effects of feedback on students’ composition revisions”. RELC Journal 15(2), 1–14. [CrossRef]
  6. Cho, K., Chung, T.R., King W.R. & Schunn, C. (2008). “Peer-Based Computer Supported Knowledge Refinement: An Empirical Investigation”. Communication of the ACM, 51(3),83–88. [CrossRef]
  7. Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning’ in J. P. Lantolf and G. Appel (eds.). Vygotskian Approaches to Second Language Research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
  8. Elbow, Peter. Writing without Teachers. New York: Oxford, 1973.
  9. Faigley, Lester. “Nonacademic writing: The social perspective.” In Writing in Nonacademic Settings, pp. 231–340.
  10. Less Odell and Dixie Goswami (Eds.) New York: Guilford Press, 1985.
  11. Franklin, K. (2010). “Thank you for sharing: Developing Students’ social skill to Improve Peer Writing Conferences”. English Journal ,79–84.
  12. Hansen, J.G. & Liu, L. (2005). “Guiding Principles for Effective Peer Response”. ELT Journal, 59, 31–38 [CrossRef]
  13. Hu, G. (2005). Using peer review with Chinese ESL student writers. Language Teaching Research, 9(3),321–342. [CrossRef]
  14. Keppell, M., Au, E. Ma, A. & Chan, (2006) Peer learning and learning-oriented assessment in technology-enhanced environments. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol. 31, No. 4, August 2006, pp. 453–464 [CrossRef]
  15. Knight, L.V. and Steinbach, T (2011) Adapting Peer Review to an Online Course: An Exploratory Case Study. Journal of Information Technology Education Volume 10, p.81–100.
  16. Legge, Anne L. (1980). “Small groups in college writing classes: Why and how,”.
  17. Lu, R. And Bol, L. (2007). A comparison of anonymous versus identifiable e-peer review on college student writing performance and the extent of critical feedback. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 6(2),p.100–115
  18. Mendonça, C.O. & Johnson, K.E. (1994). Peer review negotiations: Revision activities in ESL writing instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 745–769. [CrossRef]
  19. Neubert, G.A. & McNelis, S.J. (1990). Peer Response: Teaching Specific Revision Suggestions. English Journal, p.52–56. [CrossRef]
  20. Rollinsons, P. (2005). “Using Peer Feedback in the ESL Writing Class”. ELT Journal, 59, 23–30 [CrossRef]
  21. Stritjbos, JW, Narciss, S. and Dunnebier, K. (2010). Peer feedback content and sender’s competence level in academic writing revision tasks: Are they critical for feedback perceptions and efficiency. Language and Instruction 20, p. 291–303. [CrossRef]
  22. Tsui, A.B.M & Ng, M. (2000). “Do Secondary L2 Writers Benefit from Peer Comments?” Journal of second Language Writing,9(2),147–170 [CrossRef]
  23. Villamil, O.S. & de Guerrero, M.C.M. (1996). Peer revision in the second language classroom: Social-cognitive activities, mediating strategies and aspects of social behaviour. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5, 51–75. [CrossRef]
  24. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press.
  25. Wessa, P and De Rycker, A. (2010). Reviewing Peer Reviews – A Rule-based approach. Proceedings of 5th International Conference on e-learning, ICEL, Penang, p408–418.
  26. Wood, D. and Kurel. F (2008). Engaging students in reflective practice through a process of formative peer review and peer assessment. ATN Assessment 08: Engaging Students with Assessment.

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.