Journal of Writing Research earli | contact
journal description
aims and scope
open access
editorial board
current issue
back issues
early view
special issue
most downloaded
peer review policy
related websites


Writing in the natural sciences: Understanding the effects of different types of reviewers on the writing process

Patchan, M. M., Schunn, C. D., & Clark, R. J.
Journal of Writing Research 2(3), 365-393

In undergraduate natural science courses, two types of evaluators are commonly used to assess student writing: graduate-student teaching assistants (TAs) or peers. The current study examines how well these approaches to evaluation support student writing. These differences between the two possible evaluators are likely to affect multiple aspects of the writing process: first draft quality, amount and types of feedback provided, amount and types of revisions, and final draft quality. Therefore, we examined how these aspects of the writing process were affected when undergraduate students wrote papers to be evaluated by a group of peers versus their TA. Several interesting results were found. First, the quality of the students' first draft was greater when they were writing for their peers than when writing for their TA. In terms of feedback, students provided longer comments, and they also focused more on the prose than the TAs. Finally, more revisions were made if the students received feedback from their peers-especially prose revisions. Despite all of the benefits seen with peers as evaluators, there was only a moderate difference in final draft quality. This result indicates that while peer-review is helpful, there continues to be a need for research regarding how to enhance the benefits.

PDF | doi: 10.17239/jowr-2011.02.03.4

Export citation: EndNote | BibTeX

For readers
free subscription
alert service
full text
For authors
guide for authors
submit article
For reviewers
guide for reviewers
submit review
Repository login
home contact