Group items tagged

Interested in learning more about SWoRD, an online peer review system. Article highlights: -praise, punisment/reward, direction -learning vs. performance (transfer) -cognitive and affective domains -summary, specificity, problem identification, proposed solution, localization -MODEL: summarization, feedback specificity, explanations, scope, affective language -coding scheme: Table 2 -FINDINGS: Problem understanding: a writer was more likely to understand the problem if a solution was offered, the location of the problem/solution was given, or the feedback included a summary; but the writer was more likely to misunderstand the problem if an explanation for that problem is included (negative effect). -FINDINGS: Implementation: feedback was more likely to be implemented if a solution was provided. -Feedback: information at a higher level is more important than focusing on local issues, and affective language is not very important for performance; goals & reflection also important -CONCLUSION: Feedback should include a summary of the performance, specific instances in which the problematic behavior occurred, and suggestions in how to improve performance. -CONCLUSION: instructor feedback explanations may help; peer feedback explanations appears unhelpful. -REVIEWING GUIDELINES with rubrics -- Appendix A Thanks for sharing!

Scaffolded Writing and Rewriting in the Discipline (SWoRD) SWoRD STUDENT FAQ: http://www.lrdc.pitt.edu/sword/studentfaq.htm Cho & Schunn. (2005). Scaffolded writing and rewriting in the discipline: A web-based reciprocal peer review system. Computers & Education. http://www.lrdc.pitt.edu/schunn/research/papers/cho-schunn-CE.pdf Cho &. Schunn. (2004). The SWoRD is Mightier than the Pen: Scaffolded Writing and Rewriting in the Discipline. Fourth IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT'04), pp.545-549. Mulder & Pierce. (2007). PRAZE: Innovating teaching through online peer review. ascilite. http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/singapore07/procs/mulder.pdf interesting tangent on peer review: Blogosphere beats peer review in the case of stealth creationist paper: http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2009/02/blogosphere-beats-peer-review-in-case.html