Toward an Ecological View of

Electronic Peer Review:

Agency, Uptakes, and Transfer
Ann Shivers-McNair
University of Washington
asmcnair@uw.edu

The Graduate Research Network at Computers and Writing
2014
Research Questions
Material rhetorical perspectives on agency
suggest that it is dynamic, fluid, relational,
situational (not possessed), and shared by human
and nonhuman entities in a social space.
Rickert (2013), Dingo (2012), Fleckenstein (2010),
Grabill (2010), Spinuzzi (2008, 2003), Edbauer
(2005)
How can we explore these perspectives on
agency in a case study of electronic peer review in
a first-year writing class?
Case Study: Eli Review in
First-Year Writing
Course: a first-year writing course taken as a
distribution requirement; 20 students, nearly half
of whom self-identified as multilingual
Tool: Eli Review (http://www.elireview.com/)
Total number of peer review sessions: 5 (each tied
to a different writing assignment)
Toward an Ecology of
Student Interactions in Peer
Review
Ratings of
comments
Critical
reflection/survey
Final portfolios
Revision plan
Critical
reflection/survey
Final portfolio
Drafts reviewed
Comments given
Review drafts
Comments
received
Tracing Agency in Interaction
Objects of study Place/time What they can show
Student drafts Eli / prior and during
review session
Students working out
ideas
Student comments (to
and from)
Eli / during and after
review session
How students understand
and respond to each
others writing
Student revision plans Eli / during and after
review
How writers understand
and take up feedback
Survey/critical reflection
on peer review
Web form in class / end of
quarter
How students perceive
their work and
interactions (with each
other and with Eli) in peer
review
Students final portfolios Canvas e-Portfolios/ end
of quarter
How students understand
writing and revision, how
they take up feedback
Snapshots: Instruments
Snapshots: Instruments

Snapshots: Data
The sample sizes in this study were small and did not
meet the assumptions required for parametric
analyses (e.g., normal distribution, equal variances). I
used Wilcoxon Rank Sum tests with
2
approximation
(JMP

Version 11) to compare continuous, dependent
variables between Questions 1 and 2 and between
Questions 5 and 6. Alpha was set at 0.05.
There were 16 responses to each question. I found
there was no significant difference between the
responses in Question 1 and Question 2 (p = 0.18;
2

= 1.81), and there was no significant difference
between the responses in Question 5 and Question 6
(p = 0.77;
2
= 0.08).


Snapshots: Data


Error bars represent standard deviation from the mean.
Snapshots: Quantitative
Analysis
Snapshots: Qualitative
Analysis
Discursive Markers of Uptake
The ratings of my comments did not impact the way
I wrote my comments. After I wrote the comments, I
didn't go back to check what they thought of my
comments.
In the beginning of the class, I got a few ratings that
werent 5s which helped me give more detailed
advice and try to see how I could improve my
feedback.
Implications
Studying the complexity of the in between, the
less-obviously marked pedagogical moments
Agency as an important part of the
transfer/transition phenomenon
Existing studies of students recognizing
pedagogical moments and responding flexibly and
agentively (Nowacek 2011; Adler-Kassner,
Majewski, and Koshnick 2012; Freedman and
Adam 2000)

Moving Forward
Balancing a distributed agency view with a
research site and study objects that are,
ultimately, human-focused
Balancing quantitative data and qualitative data
which objects best illustrate agency-in-interaction?
What theoretical and pedagogical implications
might a study like this have?