Psychology Learning and Teaching

Psychology Learning and Teaching
Volume 13 Number 2 2014
www.wwwords.co.uk/PLAT
129 http://dx.doi.org/10.2304/plat.2014.13.2.129
Perceived Helpfulness of Peer Editing Activities:
first-year students’ views and
writing performance outcomes
PAMELA M. LUDEMANN & DEBORAH McMAKIN
Department of Psychology and Philosophy,
Framingham State University, USA
The perceived value of peer editing to students is unclear. To investigate, first-year students (N = 35)
completed a writing attitudes scale and first writing assignment in September 2012. The expected
writing requirements were explained and handouts provided, as well as subsequent instructor feedback
and grades. A second writing assignment was completed in October with peer editing taking place
before the due date. Perceived helpfulness of giving and receiving peer feedback was evaluated. This
was repeated in November for a third writing assignment. Rating means for both assignments
indicated that students viewed editing a peer’s paper as more helpful in improving their own writing
than receiving a peer’s feedback. For the first assignment, acting as peer editor was negatively
correlated with the assignment grades, but not for the second assignment. With repeated assignments
of similar format, perhaps a single peer editing experience is sufficient for building students’
understanding of expectations and confidence.
Allowing students to submit and revise their written work prior to final instructor grading is a
relatively common practice in higher education and is thought to allow students to demonstrate
best performance (Covill, 2010; Haswell, 2005; Stellmack, Keenan, Sandidge, Sippl, & KonheimKalkstein, 2012). However, providing feedback on rough drafts is time-consuming for instructors
and delays the provision of constructive comments or restricts the number of writing assignments
given (Cho & MacArthur, 2010). Some evidence also suggests that students may not fully
understand the editorial comments provided by instructors, thus not meaningfully implementing
their suggested revisions (Cho, Schunn, & Charney, 2006; Li, Liu, & Zhou, 2011). Use of peer
editing may be a solution to alleviate some of these concerns. Many instructors view peer editing as
having positive effects, including providing students with rapid feedback (Cathey, 2007),
encouraging students to reflect on and understand writing assignments (Cho & MacArthur, 2011;
Liu & Carless, 2006), and leading to improvements in writing skills (Pope, 2001; Topping, 1998).
Research on the effects of writing feedback provided by instructors and students differs to
some degree. Instructors and trained tutors, given their greater topic expertise, tend to provide
more comments and often focus on global writing issues (such as overall organization) than peer
editors. However, these macro-level comments may be difficult for undergraduates to understand
fully and incorporate into revisions (Cho & MacArthur, 2011, Li et al., 2011). Peer feedback,
compared to instructors feedback, tends to be more micro-level focused (such as paragraph by
paragraph) and is often tied to identification and correction of specific mistakes (Kasanga, 2004).
Peers are also more likely than instructors to provide inconsistent or misleading information in
their editing (Li et al., 2011; White & Kirby, 2005). However, peer comments generally include
positive criticisms which may facilitate acceptance of suggestions and boost motivation to improve
(Kasanga, 2004; Lin & Chien, 2009; Weaver, 2006). Motivation to improve has also been noted with
Pamela M. Ludemann & Deborah McMakin
130
peer editing as students feel pressure to avoid embarrassment (Kasanga, 2004). Such differences in
the feedback provided by peers and instructors have not been shown to impact writing skill
outcomes or grades (Kasanga, 2004; Li et al., 2011; Lin & Chien, 2009; Weaver, 2006; White &
Kirby, 2005). Further, analyses of quality or validity of the feedback provided by both students and
instructors have shown few differences overall (Gielen, Tops, Dochy, Onghena, & Smeets, 2010;
Stellmack et al., 2012; Underwood & Tregidgo, 2005).
Despite only small outcome differences, perceptions of feedback quality do differ. Students
consistently report trusting the expertise and feedback provided by their instructors more so than
that of their classmates (Cho & MacArthur, 2011; Covill, 2010; Kasanga, 2004; Kaufman & Schunn,
2011; Lin & Chien, 2009; Zhao, 2010). Concern about the validity of peer comments may affect
students’ decisions as to whether or not to implement suggestions (Underwood & Tregidgo, 2005).
Multiple peers’ reviews (Cho & MacArthur, 2010), training on assignment-specific review processes
or provision of rubrics (Cho & MacArther, 2011; Covill, 2010; Kaufman & Schunn, 2011; Li, Lui, &
Steckelberg, 2009; McGroarty & Zhu, 1997), and stress on critically evaluating feedback relative to
assignment requirements (Li et al., 2011) have all been found to increase student confidence in peer
feedback.
Uncertainty about the quality of peer feedback fits well with the finding that students report
preferring to provide rather than receive peer feedback on their writing (McMakin & Ludemann,
2010; White & Kirby, 2005). As editors, students have an opportunity to see how classmates have
approached a writing assignment as well as mistakes made (Hanrahan & Isaacs, 2001). They are
also able to provide feedback from a reader’s perspective, noting problem areas that may also be
present in their own writing (Ohlsson, 1996). Writing confidence may also play a role in students’
willingness to provide quality and helpful feedback to classmates, as well as acceptance of peer
corrective advice and praise. This study was designed to further examine perceived helpfulness of
providing and receiving peer feedback as related to writing confidence. Consistent with past
research, it was hypothesized that students would find the role of editor more helpful in terms of
writing improvements than the role of author receiving peer feedback. It was also hypothesized
that students rating their peer editing experiences as helpful would receive higher writing
assignment grades than those not finding the peer editing tasks helpful. Writing confidence was
expected to be inversely related to perceived helpfulness of peer editing experiences and positively
related to writing assignment grades.
Method
Participants
First-year students (N = 37) attending a moderate size New England State university were asked to
participate in an evaluation of peer editing experiences. The students were enrolled in two firstyear only sections of General Psychology taught by the same instructor. The classes met four times
per week for 50 minutes per session. The students enrolled in these two sections were first-time
college students with a mean age of 18.08 years (SD = .36). The majority of students were women
(86%) and reported their race as Caucasian (87%). Social science majors were reported by 81% of
the students and 8% indicated ‘undeclared’ status. As first-semester students, college grade point
averages were not available. Students were informed that periodically throughout the semester
they would be completing writing assignments based on class topics (e.g., memory, operant
conditioning) and that preceding some of these assignments, peer editing would take place. To
evaluate the value of receiving and giving peer writing feedback, brief surveys about their peer
editing experiences would be completed with some assignments. Consent forms were distributed
and signed, with 100% agreeing to participate. Students were then asked to create 4-6 digit ‘secret
codes’ that would be used to match their peer editing materials over the course of the semester.
Five students in the two course sections did not complete all parts of the two assignments
involving peer editing and were not included in this study.
Perceived Helpfulness of Peer Editing
131
Measures
To assess writing confidence, the Daly-Miller Writing Apprehension Test (Wat, Daly & Miller,
1975) was used. This 25-item measure is rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree
and 5 = strongly agree). With reverse scoring, a high score indicated greater confidence in writing or
low writing apprehension. Specifically, scores ranging from 26-59 indicate high levels of writing
apprehension, 60-69 indicate no significantly unusual writing apprehension, and 97-130 low levels
of writing apprehension. Reliability analyses for this sample yielded a Cronbach’s alpha of .89.
A 10-item survey was used to collect demographics information and to assess academic
standing (e.g., class status and major).
A 10-item peer editing survey (McMakin & Ludemann, 2010) was used to assess students’
perceived helpfulness of receiving writing feedback from a classmate and providing feedback to a
classmate. The subscale for assessing the role of author receiving feedback included 4 items (e.g.,
How helpful was peer editing as a check on writing style?) and a 6-item subscale that assessed the
role of editor providing feedback (e.g., How helpful was completing peer editing in showing you
what you knew about the writing style?). All items were rated on a 7-point scale (1 = not at all
helpful and 7 = very helpful). High subscale scores indicated greater perceived helpfulness of the role.
Two open-ended questions asked for students’ reflections on what was learned during the peer
editing process as author and then as editor. Scale reliability was examined by combining data sets
collected from two additional psychology courses offered in fall 2012 (N = 199), using similar peer
editing procedures and the peer editing survey. Given the variety of course-related assignments, the
first item from the subscale for role of editor related to understanding of assignment requirements
was omitted. Reliability analyses yielded an overall Cronbach’s alpha of .72 and, for the subscales,
.72 for role of author and .77 for role of editor.
Writing Assignments
During the course of the semester, students completed three topic-related writing assignments in
which course concepts were applied via single participant data-collection activities. The first
assignment was on memory using a series of word recall and digit span tasks. Students were
instructed on the specific writing format for all assignments that included a one-page introduction
to the topic at hand with textbook page citations and course-appropriate terminology. This was to
be followed by one paragraph describing briefly the methods of data collection. A one- to two-page
overview of the results and interpretation of the outcomes, again citing the textbook pages and
appropriate-use terminology, was to follow. Assignment 1 was edited and graded solely by the
instructor. The second assignment required application of operant conditioning principles to to
increase or decrease the occurrence of one behavior displayed by a selected target (e.g., pet or
person). The same writing format (as assignment 1) was reviewed again and three days before the
paper was due for instructor grading, the students exchanged drafts for a 20-minute peer editing
class activity. The third assignment was on mental health disorders and students collected data on a
media character. Drafts were peer edited in class, again, three days before they were due for
instructor grading. Before graded assignments 1 and 2 were returned to students, the peer editing
surveys were completed anonymously.
Peer Editing Process
Students were informed a week in advance when peer editing would take place and that
assignment drafts were to be brought to class. Coming prepared for peer editing with a complete
draft comprised 25% of each assignment grade (the peer editing comments were not graded).
Drafts were collected and the writing requirements were again reviewed and questions answered.
Papers were distributed such that no one edited his or her own paper. Peer editing took place for
approximately 20 minutes before drafts were returned to authors. Five minutes were allotted for
reading peers’ written comments and asking for clarification.
Pamela M. Ludemann & Deborah McMakin
132
Procedures
The instructor’s plan to use peer editing as part of some writing assignments during the semester
was explained in the course syllabus and in class. The peer editing activities were required and
students earned course points for being present, prepared, and participating. To maintain
anonymity, students were asked to think of a 4-6 digit ‘secret code’ to use as an identifier on all peer
editing materials. Following informed consent procedures, in accordance with university
Institutional Review Board requirements, students completed the WAT. In mid-September 2012,
the first writing assignment on short-term memory was distributed and explained in class. On the
due date, papers were collected and instructor written feedback and grades were provided. A
second writing assignment of similar format on the topic of operant conditioning was distributed,
explained and completed in October. Peer editing took place during the first 20 minutes of class
before the due date and was monitored by the instructor. The peer editing helpfulness survey and
open-ended items were completed before graded assignments were returned by the instructor.
This sequence of peer editing, helpfulness assessment, and instructor grading with feedback was
repeated in November for a third writing assignment on the topic of mental health disorders. Using
the students’ ‘secret codes’, helpfulness ratings, peer editing comments, and assignment grades
were matched.
Results
Examining scores on the WAT, the students scored a mean of 84.05 (SD = 19.24), with a range of
39-118. The majority of students, 63%, were in the range of not experiencing significant writing
apprehension, 25% into low levels of writing apprehension, and 11% high levels of writing
apprehension. These range representations would suggest that the majority of the students entered
college at least moderately confident in their writing skills.
To examine students’ perceptions of the helpfulness of peer editing in improving their writing
for their General Psychology course, paired sample t-tests were used to compare experiences as
author for writing assignment 2 and 3, and as editor for the same two writing assignments.
Nonsignificant differences were obtained. To compare students’ perceptions of the helpfulness of
peer editing as author and editor within each of the writing assignments, paired sample t-tests were
computed. Significant differences were obtained, for writing assignment 2, t (35) = -3.19, p = .003,
and for writing assignment 3, t (35) = -2.49, p = .02. The magnitude of the differences in the means
for both writing assignments were moderate (eta squares = .08 and .07 respectively). Mean ratings
are presented in Table 1. For both writing assignments, the role of peer editor was rated as more
helpful than the role of author receiving peer feedback. Responses to the open-ended items
regarding peer editing experiences showed some differences in the advantages of the roles of
author and editor. Table 2 lists some of the most common written comments.
Table 1. Means and standard deviations for helpfulness rating of peer editing experiences as authors and editors preceding
completion of two writing assignments.
Author Editor t-values df eta2
Writing
assignment 2
4.88 (1.01) 5.66 (1.16) 3.19** 35 .08
Writing
assignment 3
4.90 (1.01) 5.21 (.74) 2.49* 35 .07
Note. * = p < .05, ** p < .01.
An independent samples t-test was used to compare the grades on writing assignments 2 and 3. A
nonsignificant difference was obtained. Mean assignments grades were 35.4 (SD = 4.46) and 35.9
(SD = 4.75), respectively, on a 40-point scale.
Correlations were computed to examine the associations among scores on the WAT,
assignment grades, and ratings of perceived helpfulness of peer editing roles (see Table 3).
WAT scores were not significantly related to assignment grades (rs = -.02 and .12, respectively for
assignments 2 and 3) or ratings of the helpfulness of providing (rs = -.13 and .1, for assignments 2
Perceived Helpfulness of Peer Editing
133
and 3) or receiving peer feedback (rs = .08 and -.03, for assignments 2 and 3). Grades on writing
assignment 2 were strongly negatively associated with perceived helpfulness of the peer editing
role of editor providing feedback to a peer (r = -.71, p = .001), whereas grades on writing
assignment 3 were unrelated to perceived helpfulness of either peer editing role. On writing
assignment 2, perceived helpfulness of receiving peer feedback was nonsignificantly related to
perceived helpfulness of giving peer feedback, whereas for writing assignment 3, helpfulness ratings
of the roles of author and editor were strongly related (r = .67, p = . 001).
Table 2. Students’ comments about the benefits of peer-editing roles of author and editor.
Author role/receiving peer feedback:
Others caught small errors overlooked in proof-reading (n = 19)
Gained information on how to appropriately report information/
use the required assignment format (n = 16)
Received someone else’s suggestions/opinions (n = 8)
Realized the importance of citing sources/text (n = 8)
Grammar improvements (n = 7)
Importance of being clear in reporting information (n = 5)
Reassurance [of doing work correctly] (n = 3)
Editor role/giving peer feedback:
See different writing styles/ways to organize paper (n = 14)
Need to be clear and precise when writing (n = 11)
Finding grammatical and spelling errors (n = 11)
Improved understanding of the expected writing format (n = 10)
Helped to see examples (n = 5)
How to cite sources/text and use terminology (n = 3)
Able to better understand text information (n = 1)
Table 3. Intercorrelations between assignment grades, perceived helpfulness ratings, and WAT scores.

Grade 3
.38*
Editor 2
-.71**
Author 2
.14
Editor 3
–
Author 3
–
WAT
-.02
Assignment
grade 2

Assignment
grade 3
– – – .004 .13 .12
Note. * = p < .05, ** p < .001.
Discussion
This course-based study was designed to examine the value of using peer editing activities with
first-semester college students. Pairing of students within a class for purposes of reviewing drafts of
work is an efficient means of engaging students with the expected writing format. This may be
particularly true of entering first-year students whose writing styles are not quite appropriate to
their chosen college majors and who may be feeling anxious about their first college-level grading
experiences. Furthermore, exchanges of drafts among classmates is relatively simple and does not
require significant amounts of class time when course enrollments are small, as was the case in the
two student groups examined in this report. The potential benefit is better-quality final papers.
Specifically, assignment requirements may be clarified by classmate comments and corrections,
under circumstances where students feel less threatened by the ungraded suggestions. For this
group of students, two rounds of peer editing were scheduled as part of course requirements,
preceded by a brief initial assessment of writing confidence and followed each time by ratings of
perceived helpfulness of the peer editing experiences. Space for open-ended responses allowed
students to express their likes and dislikes of the processes.
Overall, helpfulness rating means for both assignments indicated that students viewed editing
a peer’s paper as a more helpful means of improving their own writing than receiving a peer’s
Pamela M. Ludemann & Deborah McMakin
134
feedback. Two examples from the open-ended items included ‘[I was] able to see different writing
styles or ways to organize my paper.’ and ‘It improved my understanding of the expected writing
format.’ These results are consistent with the findings of McMakin and Ludemann (2010) and
White and Kirby (2005). Trust in the ‘expertise’ of classmates and concern about adding errors to
their writing, ultimately lowering their potential grades, were also noted in comments made by
some students, echoing students’ sentiments examined by Lin and Chien (2009), and Kasanga
(2004). Negative student comments included, ‘They [peer editor] may not have understood what I
was writing correctly and tried to change it.’ and ‘I feel he/she [peer editor] may not always be
correct in their suggestions or he/she might miss something in my paper.’ Matching student
concerns, for writing assignment 2, acting as peer editor was negatively correlated with the
assignment grades, but not for the third assignment. It would seem that direct experience with
instructor writing expectations and peer feedback are needed to develop confidence and comfort
with writing and use of feedback. This association was absent by the second peer editing experience
(assignment 3). Thus, perhaps to understand the nature of writing expectations in an introductorylevel college course, where content but not format requirements change, a single peer editing
experience is sufficient for building student writing confidence and competence. Unknown is if this
would be the case for upper-level courses, where writing requirements may warrant multiple
revisions and often include applying professional writing standards and format.
Students appear to only need one peer editing experience to become acquainted with written
assignment expectations, at least when the requirements across the assignments are consistent and
relatively simple. This was the case in General Psychology. Despite changing topics, all assignment
write-ups were to include a textbook-referenced introduction to the overall topic, an overview of
the participants and procedures used to collect a small data sample, a non-interpretative review of
findings, and a final summary comparing and contrasting findings to the norms reported in their
textbook. Given such writing requirements, students did find it beneficial to have an opportunity to
have classmates read through a draft of their papers and to read classmates’ papers. Open-ended
responses were largely positive and indicated that both peer editing roles provided opportunities
for students to view models of how the assignments might be written and some indication of
whether they were approaching a reasonable approximation.
Whether beneficial effects of peer editing might occur beyond the initial experience with
changing or increasingly demanding draft requirements, as is common in the writing of term
papers with multiple drafts, is not known. It would seem that in such situations, repetitive peer
editing opportunities might be rated as increasingly helpful. This was the finding of Stellmack et al.
(2012) when evaluating the benefits of self-critiques and peer reviews in research methods course
where APA-style writing requirements were stressed. However, in courses involving one-time
writing assignments with common underlying requirements, one peer review may suffice for most
students, potentially saving class time for other activities. What is not known is if an understanding
of writing assignment requirements contributes to improvements in student writing quality.
Qualitative analyses of the peer editing comments provided by peer editors compared to post peer
editing instructor feedback would seem to be a means to examine writing improvements beyond
assignment understanding.
Examining writing confidence, it had been expected that students entering college with welldeveloped writing skills would not rate peer editing as particularly helpful and would earn high
grades on writing assignments. Surprisingly, there was no association between the baseline writing
apprehension measure and perceived helpfulness of peer editing ratings or assignment grades. This
lack of effect may in part be the result of the small sample and overall low level of self-reported
writing apprehension. However, Fowler and Kroll (1980) raised questions about what is measured
by the WAT and whether it was the appropriate measure to use when evaluating writing
achievement. A more sensitive measure of writing ability or confidence may be needed. Some type
of baseline measure would seem necessary when comparing entering students’ writing needs. Firstyear students do not have college-level academic records and college entrance scores and high
school transcript information is typically not readily available to instructors. Instructors are thus
‘blind’ to the potentially varied writing abilities and anxieties of enrolled first-year students.
Despite the apparent one-time only benefits of peer editing and the uncertainty of whether
writing confidence impacts early college-level writing development, it is interesting that students
did rate peer editing as beneficial, particularly the role of editor. As editor, top favorable comments
Perceived Helpfulness of Peer Editing
135
made by students in the open-ended items were that they appreciated the opportunity to see how
someone else reported information and how citations should be done. Such opportunities were
reported as confirming confidence in their own writing, being beneficial for catching small errors
they had overlooked, and clarifying parts of the writing requirements that were not fully
understood. In contrast, the role of receiving peer comments received some negative written
comments, including lack of trust in peer writing ability and fear of making changes suggested by
peers that could result in low grades. One of the areas warranting further investigation with
entering first-year college students is how varied their editorial comments are during peer editing
tasks. A number of researchers have compared student and instructor comments on matching
writing drafts and found many similarities (Gielen et al., 2010; Stellmack et al., 2012; Underwood &
Tregidgo, 2005), particularly when steps are taken to increase understanding of assignment and
grading requirements and the seriousness of the peer editing processes and when sufficient
feedback is received (Cho & MacArther, 2011; Covill, 2010; Kaufman & Schunn, 2011; Li et al.,
2009; McGroarty & Zhu, 1997). Given the variety of writing feedback, by type and amount, on the
drafts collected in this study and by other researchers examining peer editing, issues of importance
would seem to be quality of peer feedback (e.g., clarity of student writing suggestions, correction
accuracy), and quality of the models provided by novice writers. Future studies could assess how
students rate the quality of peer feedback and investigate if quality of feedback varies over the
course of multiple peer reviews. The quality of peer feedback, for not only for improving grades,
but for overall writing development and personal sense of writing self-efficacy, warrants
investigation.
References
Cathey, C. (2007). Power of peer review: An online collaborative learning assignment in social psychology.
Teaching of Psychology, 34(2), 97-99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00986280701291325
Cho, K., & MacArthur, C. (2010). Student revision with peer and expert reviewing. Learning and Instruction,
20, 328-338. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.006
Cho, K., & MacArthur, C. (2011). Learning by reviewing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(1), 73-84.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0021950
Cho, K., Schunn, C. D., & Charney, D. (2006). Commenting on writing: Typology and perceived helpfulness
of comments from novice peers reviewers and subject matter experts. Written Communication, 23(3),
260-294. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0741088306289261
Covill, A. E. (2010). Comparing peer review and self-review as ways to improve college students’ writing.
Journal of Literacy Research, 42, 199-266. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10862961003796207
Daly, J., & Miller, M. (1975). The empirical development of an instrument to measure writing apprehension.
Research in the Teaching of English, 12, 242-249.
Fowler, B., & Kroll, B. M. (1980). Relationship of apprehension about writing to performance as measured by
grades in a college course on composition. Psychological Reports, 46, 583-586.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1980.46.2.583
Gielen, S., Tops, L., Dochy, F., Onghena, P., & Smeets, S. (2010). A comparative study of peer and teacher
feedback and of various peer feedback forms in a secondary school writing curriculum. British
Educational Research Journal, 36(1), 143-162. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01411920902894070
Hanrahan, S. J., & Isaacs, G. (2001). Assessing self- and peer-assessment: The students’ views. Higher Education
Research & Development, 20(1), 53-70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07294360123776
Haswell, R. H, (2005). NCTE/CCCC’s recent war on scholarship, Writer Communication, 22, 198-223.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0741088305275367
Kasanga, L. A. (2004). Students’ response to peer and teacher feedback in a first-year writing course. Journal of
Language Teaching, 38(1), 64-98. http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/jlt.v38i1.6028
Kaufman, J. H., & Schunn, C. D. (2011). Students’ perceptions about peer assessment for writing: Their
origin and impact on revision work. Instructional Science, 30, 387-406. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11251-
010-9133-6
Li, L., Liu, X., & Steckelberg, A. L. (2009). Assessor or assesse: How student learning improves by giving and
receiving peer feedback. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(3), 525-536.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.00968.x
Pamela M. Ludemann & Deborah McMakin
136
Li, L., Liu, X., & Zhou, Y. (2011). Give and take: A re-analysis of assessor and assessee’s roles in technologyfacilitated peer assessment. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(3), 376-384.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01180.x
Lin, G. H. C., & Chien, P. S. C. (2009). An investigation into effectiveness of peer feedback. Journal of Applied
Foreign Fortune Institute of Technology, 3, 79-87.
Liu, N. F., & Carless, D. (2006). Peer feedback: The learning element of peer assessment. Teaching in Higher
Education, 11(3), 279-290. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13562510600680582
McGroarty, M. E., & Zhu, W. (1997). Triangulation in classroom research: A study of peer revision. Language
Learning, 47(1), 1-43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.11997001
McMakin, D., & Ludemann, P. M. (2010, January). Assessing the benefits of peer editing: A follow-up study and
comparison of student perceptions by type of writing assignment. Poster presented at the 32nd Annual National
Institute on the Teaching of Psychology, St Pete Beach, FL.
Ohlsson, S. (1996). Learning from performance errors. Psychology Review, 103(2), 241-262.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.103.2.241
Pope, N. (2001). An examination of the use of peer rating for formative assessment in the context of the
theory of consumption values. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 26(3), 235-246.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02602930120052396
Stellmack, M. A., Keenan, N. K., Sandidge, R. R., Sippl, A. L., & Konheim-Kalkstein, Y. L. (2012). Review,
revise, and resubmit: The effects of self-critique, peer review, and instructor feedback on student writing.
Teaching of Psychology, 39(4), 235-244. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0098628312456589
Topping, K. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational
Research, 68(3), 249-276. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00346543068003249
Underwood, J. S., & Tregidgo, A. P. (2005). Improving student writing through effective feedback: Best
practices and recommendations. Journal of Teaching Writing, 22(2), 73-97.
Weaver, M. R. (2006). Do students value feedback? Student perceptions of tutors’ written responses.
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(3), 379-394.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02602930500353061
White, T. L., & Kirby, B. J. (2005). Tis’ better to give than to receive: An undergraduate peer review project.
Teaching of Psychology, 32(4) 259-261.
Zhao, H. (2010). Investigating learners’ use and understanding of peer and teacher feedback on writing: A
comparative study in a Chinese English writing classroom. Assessing Writing, 15, 3-17.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2010.01.002
PAMELA M. LUDEMANN is a professor of psychology at Framingham State University. She
earned her PhD in Developmental Psychology at Purdue University. Her research interests include
college students’ academic behaviors and experiences with peer editing, cheating, and bullying. Her
teaching interests include general psychology for first-year students, research methods and
integrating study abroad experiences into psychology coursework. Correspondence:
[email protected]
DEBORAH McMAKIN is an assistant professor of psychology at Framingham State University.
She earned her EdD in Educational Leadership at the University of Massachusetts Lowell. Her
research interests include college students’ experiences with peer editing and the maintenance and
change of pre-service teachers’ views of cultural differences over the course of their field
experiences. Her teaching interests include child development for pre-service teachers, research
methods and promoting intercultural development during field experiences. Correspondence:
[email protected]
Manuscript received 01 October 2013
Revision accepted for publication 20 February 2014