Peer feedback in an online dissertation writing workshop

Autores
Álvarez, Guadalupe; Colombo, Laura Marina; Difabio, Hilda Emilia
Año de publicación
2021
Idioma
inglés
Tipo de recurso
artículo
Estado
versión publicada
Descripción
The article examines ‘in-text feedback’ and ‘overall feedback’ (KUMAR; STRACKE, 2007) on dissertation chapter drafts as well as students’ opinion about giving and receiving feedback, both before and after taking part in the peer revision activities proposed in an online dissertation writing workshop. It used a mixed method approach. The comments were categorized using qualitative analysis; then, the categories are quantified and differences between proportions were analyzed using a Z test to determine if the difference between categories were statistically significant. In addition, students’ opinions on feedback were qualitatively analyzed. As regards the in-text comments, with statistical significance, most of them consisted of basic feedback, referred to the textual model (mainly linguistic aspects) and had a directive pragmatic function. In the overall peer feedback, the textual model also prevailed but comments also included issues linked to the communicative situation and the research and a higher level of substantiated comments was noticed. This can be related to what students affirmed about the feedback received before and after the workshop: the perspectives of their peers allowed them to objectify the text or even delve into a critical evaluation of their own dissertation work. Additionally, peers’ comments allow them to redo the writing actions that took place in the making of their first draft (e.g. drafting the paragraphs, structuring the discourse, thinking about whole sections) but this time, actions were informed by different perspective, which led to an improvement of the text at different levels.
Fil: Álvarez, Guadalupe. Universidad Nacional de General Sarmiento. Instituto del Desarrollo Humano; Argentina
Fil: Colombo, Laura Marina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Filosofía y Letras. Instituto de Lingüística; Argentina
Fil: Difabio, Hilda Emilia. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Mendoza; Argentina. Centro de Investigaciones de Cuyo; Argentina
Materia
VIRTUAL LEARNING
DISSERTATION WRITING
PEER FEEDBACK
Nivel de accesibilidad
acceso abierto
Condiciones de uso
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ar/
Repositorio
CONICET Digital (CONICET)
Institución
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
OAI Identificador
oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/167546
Acceder
id CONICETDig_4a08242c845426d86b42b2ec7f2f89ba
oai_identifier_str oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/167546
network_acronym_str CONICETDig
repository_id_str 3498
network_name_str CONICET Digital (CONICET)
spelling Peer feedback in an online dissertation writing workshopÁlvarez, GuadalupeColombo, Laura MarinaDifabio, Hilda EmiliaVIRTUAL LEARNINGDISSERTATION WRITINGPEER FEEDBACKhttps://purl.org/becyt/ford/5.3https://purl.org/becyt/ford/5The article examines ‘in-text feedback’ and ‘overall feedback’ (KUMAR; STRACKE, 2007) on dissertation chapter drafts as well as students’ opinion about giving and receiving feedback, both before and after taking part in the peer revision activities proposed in an online dissertation writing workshop. It used a mixed method approach. The comments were categorized using qualitative analysis; then, the categories are quantified and differences between proportions were analyzed using a Z test to determine if the difference between categories were statistically significant. In addition, students’ opinions on feedback were qualitatively analyzed. As regards the in-text comments, with statistical significance, most of them consisted of basic feedback, referred to the textual model (mainly linguistic aspects) and had a directive pragmatic function. In the overall peer feedback, the textual model also prevailed but comments also included issues linked to the communicative situation and the research and a higher level of substantiated comments was noticed. This can be related to what students affirmed about the feedback received before and after the workshop: the perspectives of their peers allowed them to objectify the text or even delve into a critical evaluation of their own dissertation work. Additionally, peers’ comments allow them to redo the writing actions that took place in the making of their first draft (e.g. drafting the paragraphs, structuring the discourse, thinking about whole sections) but this time, actions were informed by different perspective, which led to an improvement of the text at different levels.Fil: Álvarez, Guadalupe. Universidad Nacional de General Sarmiento. Instituto del Desarrollo Humano; ArgentinaFil: Colombo, Laura Marina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Filosofía y Letras. Instituto de Lingüística; ArgentinaFil: Difabio, Hilda Emilia. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Mendoza; Argentina. Centro de Investigaciones de Cuyo; ArgentinaUniversidade Estadual de Londrina2021-10info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501info:ar-repo/semantics/articuloapplication/pdfapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/11336/167546Álvarez, Guadalupe; Colombo, Laura Marina; Difabio, Hilda Emilia; Peer feedback in an online dissertation writing workshop; Universidade Estadual de Londrina; Signum; 24; 1; 10-2021; 47-621516-30832237-4876CONICET DigitalCONICETenginfo:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.5433/2237-4876.2021v24n1p47info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesshttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ar/reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas2025-11-05T10:17:31Zoai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/167546instacron:CONICETInstitucionalhttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/Organismo científico-tecnológicoNo correspondehttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/oai/requestdasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.arArgentinaNo correspondeNo correspondeNo correspondeopendoar:34982025-11-05 10:17:31.737CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicasfalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Peer feedback in an online dissertation writing workshop
title Peer feedback in an online dissertation writing workshop
spellingShingle Peer feedback in an online dissertation writing workshop
Álvarez, Guadalupe
VIRTUAL LEARNING
DISSERTATION WRITING
PEER FEEDBACK
title_short Peer feedback in an online dissertation writing workshop
title_full Peer feedback in an online dissertation writing workshop
title_fullStr Peer feedback in an online dissertation writing workshop
title_full_unstemmed Peer feedback in an online dissertation writing workshop
title_sort Peer feedback in an online dissertation writing workshop
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv Álvarez, Guadalupe
Colombo, Laura Marina
Difabio, Hilda Emilia
author Álvarez, Guadalupe
author_facet Álvarez, Guadalupe
Colombo, Laura Marina
Difabio, Hilda Emilia
author_role author
author2 Colombo, Laura Marina
Difabio, Hilda Emilia
author2_role author
author
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv VIRTUAL LEARNING
DISSERTATION WRITING
PEER FEEDBACK
topic VIRTUAL LEARNING
DISSERTATION WRITING
PEER FEEDBACK
purl_subject.fl_str_mv https://purl.org/becyt/ford/5.3
https://purl.org/becyt/ford/5
dc.description.none.fl_txt_mv The article examines ‘in-text feedback’ and ‘overall feedback’ (KUMAR; STRACKE, 2007) on dissertation chapter drafts as well as students’ opinion about giving and receiving feedback, both before and after taking part in the peer revision activities proposed in an online dissertation writing workshop. It used a mixed method approach. The comments were categorized using qualitative analysis; then, the categories are quantified and differences between proportions were analyzed using a Z test to determine if the difference between categories were statistically significant. In addition, students’ opinions on feedback were qualitatively analyzed. As regards the in-text comments, with statistical significance, most of them consisted of basic feedback, referred to the textual model (mainly linguistic aspects) and had a directive pragmatic function. In the overall peer feedback, the textual model also prevailed but comments also included issues linked to the communicative situation and the research and a higher level of substantiated comments was noticed. This can be related to what students affirmed about the feedback received before and after the workshop: the perspectives of their peers allowed them to objectify the text or even delve into a critical evaluation of their own dissertation work. Additionally, peers’ comments allow them to redo the writing actions that took place in the making of their first draft (e.g. drafting the paragraphs, structuring the discourse, thinking about whole sections) but this time, actions were informed by different perspective, which led to an improvement of the text at different levels.
Fil: Álvarez, Guadalupe. Universidad Nacional de General Sarmiento. Instituto del Desarrollo Humano; Argentina
Fil: Colombo, Laura Marina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Filosofía y Letras. Instituto de Lingüística; Argentina
Fil: Difabio, Hilda Emilia. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Mendoza; Argentina. Centro de Investigaciones de Cuyo; Argentina
description The article examines ‘in-text feedback’ and ‘overall feedback’ (KUMAR; STRACKE, 2007) on dissertation chapter drafts as well as students’ opinion about giving and receiving feedback, both before and after taking part in the peer revision activities proposed in an online dissertation writing workshop. It used a mixed method approach. The comments were categorized using qualitative analysis; then, the categories are quantified and differences between proportions were analyzed using a Z test to determine if the difference between categories were statistically significant. In addition, students’ opinions on feedback were qualitatively analyzed. As regards the in-text comments, with statistical significance, most of them consisted of basic feedback, referred to the textual model (mainly linguistic aspects) and had a directive pragmatic function. In the overall peer feedback, the textual model also prevailed but comments also included issues linked to the communicative situation and the research and a higher level of substantiated comments was noticed. This can be related to what students affirmed about the feedback received before and after the workshop: the perspectives of their peers allowed them to objectify the text or even delve into a critical evaluation of their own dissertation work. Additionally, peers’ comments allow them to redo the writing actions that took place in the making of their first draft (e.g. drafting the paragraphs, structuring the discourse, thinking about whole sections) but this time, actions were informed by different perspective, which led to an improvement of the text at different levels.
publishDate 2021
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2021-10
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501
info:ar-repo/semantics/articulo
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/11336/167546
Álvarez, Guadalupe; Colombo, Laura Marina; Difabio, Hilda Emilia; Peer feedback in an online dissertation writing workshop; Universidade Estadual de Londrina; Signum; 24; 1; 10-2021; 47-62
1516-3083
2237-4876
CONICET Digital
CONICET
url http://hdl.handle.net/11336/167546
identifier_str_mv Álvarez, Guadalupe; Colombo, Laura Marina; Difabio, Hilda Emilia; Peer feedback in an online dissertation writing workshop; Universidade Estadual de Londrina; Signum; 24; 1; 10-2021; 47-62
1516-3083
2237-4876
CONICET Digital
CONICET
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.5433/2237-4876.2021v24n1p47
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ar/
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ar/
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Universidade Estadual de Londrina
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Universidade Estadual de Londrina
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)
instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
reponame_str CONICET Digital (CONICET)
collection CONICET Digital (CONICET)
instname_str Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
repository.name.fl_str_mv CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
repository.mail.fl_str_mv dasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.ar
_version_ 1847977751460446208
score 13.082534

Publicaciones similares