You are here:

Online Peer Review: What’s role got to do with it? PROCEEDINGS

, New York City College of Technology, United States ; , Hunter College, United States

EdMedia + Innovate Learning, in Lisbon, Portugal ISBN 978-1-880094-89-1 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC


This study explored the use of a tailored online writing program for first-year undergraduate students at an urban college of technology. The program facilitated group peer review focusing on feedback-on-feedback in meaningful and technologically elegant ways. Students in a composition class were divided into two groups. One group acted as first reviewers and the other group acted as second reviewers in a process of linear, two-person blind review. In contrast to a comparison group, these online peer reviewers improved their own writing proficiency with statistical significance. While there were no significant differences in writing gains between online reviewer groups, patterns seem to be emerging of role effects in terms of micro and macro-level areas of writing proficiency.


Lansiquot, R. & Rosalia, C. (2011). Online Peer Review: What’s role got to do with it?. In T. Bastiaens & M. Ebner (Eds.), Proceedings of ED-MEDIA 2011--World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications (pp. 1094-1103). Lisbon, Portugal: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved November 17, 2018 from .

View References & Citations Map


  1. Bruffee, K. (1978). The Brooklyn Plan: Attaining intellectual growth through peer-group tutoring. Liberal Education, 64, 447– 468.
  2. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  3. Elbow, P. (1998). Writing with power: Techniques for mastering the writing process (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
  4. Flower, L. (1993). Problem-solving strategies for writing (4th ed.). New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
  5. Graner, M. (1987). Revision workshops: An alternative to peer editing groups. The English Journal, 76, 40–45.
  6. Lundstrom, K., & Baker, W. (2009). To give is better that to receive: The benefits of peer review to the reviewer’s own writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 30-43.
  7. Marcus, H. (1984). The writing center: Peer tutoring in a supportive setting. The English Journal, 73, 66–67.
  8. Paulus, T.M. (1999). The effect of peer and teacher feedback on student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 265-289.
  9. Rosalia, C., & Llosa, L. (2009). Assessing the quality of online peer feedback in L2 writing. In P.L. Torres& R. Marriott (Eds.), Handbook of Research on E-Learning Methodologies of Language Acquisition (pp. 322-338). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact