A Peer Editor Strategy: Guiding Learning-Disabled Students in Response and Revision

Barbra Stoddard, Charles A. MacArthur

Research in the Teaching of English · 1993 · 109 citations · 24 references

Concepts

TL;DR

The study examined whether a peer‑editing strategy that combines strategy instruction, peer response, and word processing improves revision skills in students with learning disabilities. Students were taught a systematic pair‑based revision strategy that included evaluation criteria, specific revision techniques, a structured listening and responding process, and a multiple‑probe design across pairs assessed the instruction. After instruction, students made more substantive revisions, the proportion of improvement‑rated revisions rose from 47 % to 83 %, second drafts were significantly better, overall final draft quality increased, and gains were maintained at one and two months and generalized to handwritten compositions.

Abstract

This study investigated the effectiveness of an approach to improving revising skills that integrated strategy instruction, peer response, and word processing. Seventh and eighth grade students with learning disabilities were taught a systematic strategy for working in pairs to help each other revise their writing. The strategy was designed to guide students in both the social and cognitive aspects of response and revision. Cognitive support included a set of evaluation criteria, specific revision strategies, and an overall strategy for regulating the revision process. Social interaction was guided by a predictable structure for listening and responding to each others’ writing. A multiple probe design across pairs was used to assess instruction. On the pretests, students made few substantive revisions and did not improve the quality of their papers by revising them. Following instruction, all students made more substantive revisions, the proportion of revisions rated as improvements increased from 47% to 83%, and second drafts were rated as significantly better than first drafts. Furthermore, the overall quality of final drafts increased substantially from pretests to posttests. The gains were maintained at one and two-month maintenance testing and generalized to handwritten compositions.

References

24