Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

What Works in Writing With Peer Response? A Review of Intervention Studies With Children and Adolescents

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Educational Psychology Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Peer response is viewed as an important aspect of writing instruction. Several meta-studies indicated that peer response is effective. However, these studies did not focus on the specific aspects of peer response that made it effective. The present review analyzes the effects of instructional factors accompanying peer response in 26 studies on writing proficiency. Three theoretical perspectives are distinguished: a cognitive, a social-cognitive, and a genre perspective underlying the reviewed studies. In all studies, additional instruction in strategies, rules for interaction, genre knowledge, or a combination of these instructional aspects to writing with peer response is provided. Peer response with such additional instruction seems effective compared with individual writing. Recommendations for future investigations are directed to methodological issues for comparing the effects of separate instructional components for writing with peer response. In addition, it is advised to direct future studies towards more controlled research into the effects of instruction in genre knowledge on writing with peer response.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson, J. (2007). Everyday editing. Inviting students to develop skill and kraft in Writers’ Workshop. Portland: Stenhouse.

  • Andrews, R., Torgerson, C., Low, G., & McGuinn, N. (2009). Teaching argument writing to 7- to 14-years olds: an international review of evidence of successful practise. Cambridge Journal of Education, 39(3), 291–310. doi:10.1080/03057640903103751.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Badger, R., & White, G. (2000). A process genre approach to teaching writing. ELT Journal, 54(2), 153–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: a social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bazerman, C. (1994). Systems of genres and the enactment of social intentions. In A. Freedman & P. Medway (Eds.), Genre and the new rhetoric (pp. 79–101). London: Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boscolo, P., & Ascorti, K. (2004). Effects of collaborative revision on children’s ability to write understandable narrative texts. In G. Rijlaarsdam, L. Allal, L. Changqouy, & P. Largy (Eds.), Revision: cognitive and instructional processes (pp. 157–172). Boston: Kluwer. Studies in Writing, 13.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bracewell, & Robert, J. (1992). Investigating the control of writing skills. In J. R. Hayes, R. E. Young, M. L. Matchett, M. McCoffrey, C. Cochran, & T. Hajduk (Eds.), Reading empirical research studies: the rhetoric of research (pp. 436–465). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruffee, K. A. (1973). Collaborative learning: some practical models. College English, 34(5), 634–643.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruffee, K. A. (1984). Collaborative learning and the "Conversation of mankind". College English, 46(7), 635–652.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buss, K., & Karnowski, L. (2002). Reading and writing nonfiction genres. Newark: International Reading Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calkins, L. M. (1994). The art of teaching writing (2nd ed.). Portsmouth: Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carter, R. (2003). Language awareness. ELT Journal, 57, 64–65. doi:10.1093/elt/57.3.251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carter, M., Ferzli, M., & Wiebe, E. (2004). Teaching genre to English first-language adults: a study of the laboratory report. Research in the Teaching of English, 38(4), 395–419.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cazden, C. (1991). Metalinguistic awareness revisited: its contribution to the child’s appropriation of form. Paper presented at the Australian Reading Association Conference.

  • Chapman, M. (2006). Preschool through elementary writing. In P. Smagorinsky (Ed.), Research on composition. Multiple perspectives on two decades of change (pp. 15–47). New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chinn, C., O’Donnel, A., & Jinks, T. (2000). The structure of discourse in collaborative learning. The Journal of Experimental Education, 69(1), 77–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christie, F. (1992). Literacy in Australia. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 12, 142–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corden, R. (2002). Developing reflective writers in primary schools: findings from partnership research. Educational Review, 54(3), 250–276. doi:10.1080/0031191022000016310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corden, R. (2003). Writing is more than ‘exciting’: equipping primary children to become reflective writers. Reading Literacy and Language, 37(1), 18–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corden, R. (2007). Developing reading-writing connections: the impact of explicit instruction of literary devices on the quality of children’s narrative writing. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 21(3), 269–289. doi:10.1080/02568540709594594.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daiute, C. A., & Dalton, V. (1993). Collaboration between children learning to write. Can novices be masters? Cognition and Instruction, 10(4), 281–333. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci1004_1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Devitt, A. J. (1991). Intertextuality in tax accounting: generic, referential, and functional. In C. Bazerman & J. Paradis (Eds.), Textual dynamics of the professions (pp. 336–357). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dinsmore, D. L., Alexander, P. A., & Loughlin, S. M. (2008). Focusing the conceptual lens on metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning. Educational Psychology Review, 20, 391–409. doi:10.1007/s10648-008-9083-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donovan, C. A., & Smolkin, L. B. (2011). Supporting informational writing in the elementary grades. The Reading Teacher, 64(6), 406–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dorn, L. J., & Soffos, C. (2001). Scaffolding young writers: a writers’ workshop approach. Portland: Stenhouse.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duran, D., & Monereo, C. (2008). The impact of peer tutoring on the improvement of linguistic competence. School Psychology International, 24(4), 481–499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyson, A. H., & Freedman, S. W. (1990). On teaching writing: a review of the literature (Occasional Paper 20). Berkeley: Center for the Study of Writing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elbow, P. (1973). Writing without teachers. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Englert, C., Raphael, T., Anderson, L., Anthony, H., & Stevens, D. (1991). Making strategies and self-talk visible: writing instruction in regular and special education classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 28(2), 337–372. doi:10.3102/00028312028002337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Englert, C., Raphael, T., & Anderson, L. (1992). Socially mediated instruction: improving students’ knowledge and talk about writing. The Elementary School Journal, 92(4), 411–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erkens, G., Jaspers, J., Prangsma, M., & Kanselaar, G. (2005). Coordination processses in computer supported collaborative writing. Computers in Human Behavior, 21, 463–486. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2004.10.038.

  • Ferguson-Patrick, K. (2007). Writers develop skills through collaboration: an action research approach. Educational Action Research, 15(2), 159–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, E. (1994). Joint composition at the computer: learning to talk about writing. Computers and composition, 11, 251–262.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flavell, J. H. (1971). First discussant’s comments: what is memory development the development of? Human Development, 14, 272–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: a new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906–911.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flower, L. S., & Hayes, J. R. (1980). The dynamics of composing: making plans and juggling constraints. In L. Gregg & E. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 31–50). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flowerdew, J. (1993). An educational, or process-approach to the teaching of professional genres. ETL Journal, 47, 305–316.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forman, J., & Rymer, J. (1999). The genre system of the Harvard case method. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 13, 373–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gee, J. (1996). The future of the social turn: social minds and the new capitalism. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 32, 261–268.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gere, A. (1987). Writing groups: history, theory and implication. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gillet, J. W., & Beverly, L. (2001). Directing the writers’ workshop: an elementary teacher’s handbook. New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, G., Roswell, B., & Michaels, H. (1996). Can assessment mirror instruction? A look at peer response and revision in a large-scale writing test. Educational Assessment, 3(4), 287–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, E. E., & Gordon, E. H. (1990). Centuries of tutoring: a history of alternative education in America and Western Europe. Lanham: University Press of America.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2000). The role of self-regulation and transcription skills in writing and writing development. Educational Psychologist, 99(3), 445–476.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Mason, L. (2005). Improving the writing performance, knowledge, and self-efficacy of struggling young writers: the effect of self-regulated strategy development. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30(2), 207–241. doi:10.16/j.cedpsych.2004.08.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). A meta-analyses of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 445–476. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graves, D. H. (1983). Writing: teachers and children at work. Portsmouth: Heinemann Educational Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halliday, M. A. K. (1975). Learning how to mean. London: Arnold.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic. London: Arnold.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Arnold.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar (3rd ed.). London: Arnold.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hairston, M. (1982). The winds of change: Thomas Kuhn and the revolution in the teaching of writing. College Composition and Communication, 33(1), 76–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, J. R. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In C. M. Levy & S. Randel (Eds.), The Science of writing. Theories, methods, individual differences and applications (pp. 1–27). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hillocks, G. (1984). What works in teaching composition: a meta-analysis of experimental treatment studies. American Journal of Education, 93, 133–170. Chicago: University Press.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hillocks, G. (1986). Research on written composition. Urbana, IL: National Conference on Research in English (NCRE), and Eric Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills. doi:10.1177/0741088308317815.

  • Hoogeveen, M. (2010). Writing with peer response using genre knowledge. A classroom intervention study. Thesis University of Twente. Enschede: University of Twente. doi:10.3990/1.9789036534895.

  • Hoogeveen, M. (2012). Writing with peer response using genre knowledge; a classroom intervention study. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Twente, The Netherlands. doi:10.3990/1.97889036534895.

  • Kos, R., & Maslowski, C. (2001). Second graders perceptions of what’s important in writing. The Elementary School Journal, 101(5), 567–584.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumpulainen, K. (1994). Collaborative writing with computers and chlidren’s talk: a cross cultural study. Computers and Compositiom, 11(3), 263–273.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, M., & Wray, D. (1995). Writing frames: scaffolding children’s non-fiction writing in a range of genres. University of Exeter: EXEL. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9345.1996.tb00161.x.

  • Liut, J., & Hansen, J. (2002). Peer response in second language writing classrooms. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Louth, R., McAllister, H., & McAllister, A. (1993). The effects of collaborative writing techniques on freshman writing and attitudes. The Journal of Experimental Education, 61, 215–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacArthur, C. A., Graham, S., & Schwartz, S. (1991). Knowledge of revision and revising behavior among students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 14, 61–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, J., Christie, F., & Rothery, J. (1987). Social processes in education: a reply to Sawyer and Watson (and others). In Reid (Ed.), The place of genre in learning: current debates (Typereader Publication 1). Geelong: Deaking University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Masney, D. (1997). Linguistic awareness and writing: exploring the relationship with language awareness. Language Awareness, 6(2/3), 105–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCormick Calkins, L. (1986). The art of teaching writing (1st ed.). Portsmouth: Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCormick, C. M., Busching, B. A., & Potter, E. F. (1992). Children’s knowledge about writing: the development and use of evaluative criteria. In M. Pressley, K. R. Harris, & J. T. Suthrie (Eds.), Promoting academic competence and literacy in school (pp. 313–336). San Diego: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCutchen, D., Teske, P., & Bankston, C. (2008). Writing and Cognition: implications of the cognitive architecture for learning to write and writing to learn. In C. Bazerman (Ed.), Handbook of research on writing. History, society, school, individual, context (pp. 451–470). New York: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Medcalf, J., Glynn, T., & Moore, D. (2004). Peer tutoring in writing: a school systems approach. Educational Psychology in Practise, 20(2), 157–178. doi:10.1080/02667360410001691071.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, C. R. (1984). Genre as social action. The Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70(2), 151–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murray, D. (1980). Writing as a process. In T. R. Donovan & V. W. McClelland (Eds.), Eight approaches to teaching composition (pp. 3–20). Urbana: National Council of Teachers of English.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mullen, M.P. (2003). Excellence in elementary editing. Wisconsin. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED479069).

  • Nagy, W., Berninger, V. W., & Abbott, R. D. (2006). Contributions of morphology beyond phonology to literacy outcomes of upper elementary and middle-school students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 134–147. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nixon, J. G., & Topping, K. J. (2001). Emergent writing: the impact of structured peer interaction. Educational Psychology, 21(1), 41–59. doi:10.1080/01443410020019821.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olson, V. B. (1990). The revising process of sixth grade writers with and without peer-feedback. The Journal of Educational Research, 84(1), 22–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Payne, D. G., & Wenger, M. J. (1998). Cognitive psychology. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, S. (2003). Peer response and student’s revisions of their narrative writing. L1—Educational Studies in language and Literature, 3(3), 239–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pintrich, P. R. (2000). Multiple goals, multiple pathways: the role of goal orientations in learning and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(3), 544–555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prater, D. L., & Bermudez, A. B. (1992). Using peer response groups with limited English proficient writers. Bilingual Research Journal, 17(1/2), 99–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prior, P. (2006). A socio-cultural theory of writing. In C. S. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research. New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rayers, C. (1987). Writing should be sharing. Reading, 21(2), 115–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, P. (1991). Language as personal resource and as social construct: competing views of literacy pedagogy in Australia. Educational Review, 4(2), 171–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roen, D., Gogging, M., & Clary-Lemon, J. (2008). Teaching of writing and writing teachers trough the ages. In C. Bazerman (Ed.), Handbook of research on writing. History, society, school, individual, text (pp. 347–365). New York: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rose, D. (2009). Writing as linguistic mastery: the development of genre-based literacy pedagogy. In R. Beard, D. Myhill, J. Riley, & M. Nystrand (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of writing development (pp. 151–166). London: SAGE. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2011.03.001.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rouiller, Y. (2004). Collaborative revision and metacognitive reflection in a situation of narrative text production. In L. Allal, L. Chanquoy, & P. Largy (Eds.), Studies in writing (pp. 171–187). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rijlaarsdam, G. (1986). Effecten van leerling respons op aspecten van stelvaardigheid. SCO Rapport 88. Amsterdam: SCO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sims, D. (2001). Improving elementary school students’ writing using reading and writing integration strategies. Illinois. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED454502).

  • Stoddard, B., & MacArthur, C. A. (1993). A peer editor strategy: guiding learning disabled students in response and revision. Research in the Teaching of English, 27(1), 76–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sutherland, J. A., & Topping, K. J. (1999). Collaborative creative writing in eight-year olds: comparing cross-ability fixed role and same-ability reciprocal role pairing. Journal of Research in Reading, 22(2), 154–179. doi:10.1111/1467-9817.00080.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swales, J. (1990). Genre-analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tompkins, G. (1990). Teaching writing: balancing process and product. Columbus: Merrill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Topping, K. (1995). Paired reading, spelling and writing: the handbook for teachers and parents. London: Cassell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Topping, K., & Ehly, S. (1998). Introduction to peer-assisted learning. In K. Topping & S. Ehly (Eds.), Peer-assisted learning (pp. 1–25). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toth, G.M. (1997). The effect of cross-age peer grouping on the writing achievement of sixth and first grade students. (Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED405593).

  • Wyatt-Smith, C. (1997). Teaching and assessing writing: an Australian perspective. English in Education, 31(3), 8–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vygotski, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yarrow, F., & Topping, K. J. (2001). Collaborative writing: the effects of metacognitive prompting and structured peer interaction. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(2), 261–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zammuner, V. L. (1995). Individual and cooperative computer-writing and revising: who gets the best results? Learning and Instruction, 5, 101–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B. J., & Risemberg, R. (1997). Research for the future: becoming a self-regulated writer: a social cognitive Perspective. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, 73–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department for Primary Education, National Institute for Curriculum Development (SLO), P.O. Box 2041, 7500, CA, Enschede, The Netherlands

    Mariëtte Hoogeveen

  2. Kohnstamm Institute, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands

    Amos van Gelderen

Authors
  1. Mariëtte Hoogeveen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Amos van Gelderen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mariëtte Hoogeveen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hoogeveen, M., van Gelderen, A. What Works in Writing With Peer Response? A Review of Intervention Studies With Children and Adolescents. Educ Psychol Rev 25, 473–502 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-013-9229-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-013-9229-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation