English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Because teachers continue to feel conflicted about the role of error in writing instruction, it is important to understand students’ existing capacities for identifying and avoiding error. Student peer review offers a unique way to study how students identify and discuss error in their peers’ drafts, thereby informing intervention both in foundational courses and in courses across the curriculum. This chapter describes a study of student error identification in L1 writing courses in the United States. Students in two sections of a foundational university writing course commented on each other’s drafts using an oral screencast program. Drafts were coded for the 20 most commonly identified errors from a previous corpus study. The 58 screencasts were transcribed and coded for every error (mis)identified by students. Results showed that students identified approximately one-tenth of the errors made by their peers, while approximately one in four errors identified were not actually errors. A comparison of results from the two sections (taught by different instructors) also revealed stark differences in the focus and nature of students’ comments on error. Because both sections of the course were taught to the same outcomes, the results point to the influence of instructional ideology and genre of the writing on students’ constructs of the role of error in peer review.

Correctness Revisited: How Students (Mis)Identify and Comment on Error in Peers� Drafts