Peer review as a strategy for improving students’ writing process

Baker, Kimberly

doi:10.1177/1469787416654794

Cited by 107 publications

(113 citation statements)

References 59 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

100

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…[5][6][7] Peer review has been consistently shown to increase students' writing performance as well as their learning retention. 8,9 Peer review has been shown to be an especially effective learning for English-language learners, even when their peer partners are also non-native speakers of English. 10,11 Students' consistent performance increase is generally attributed to a cluster of interrelated practical and cognitive factors.…”

Section: Background and Rationalementioning

confidence: 99%

“…1 Substantive revision is a key practice of experts that we must often scaffold in students, and peer review serves as an organizing circumstance for such revisions with minimal investment of class time for turnaround. 8,11,12 Curricular economy belies a deeper factor for the consistent gains that students make through peer review activities. In addition to increasing feedback and revision cycles, peer review activities increase reflection around writing in ways that iterations do not.…”

Section: Background and Rationalementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Providing meaningful feedback to a peer is an intensely metacognitive process that requires students to clarify and articulate their own writing values and solve complex problems of meaning-making and expression. 6,8,[13][14][15] Previous studies have shown that the true beneficiary of peer review is not the receiver, but the reviewer, 13 and the quality of a student's reviews of peer work is positively correlated with the increase in quality of the student's own work. 15 One of the major perceived drawbacks of peer review is that students and faculty alike often express skepticism that student feedback will be of sufficiently high quality and validity to positively inform one another's writing performance.…”

Section: Background and Rationalementioning

confidence: 99%

“…First, better and more reliable feedback occurs when more students review a given piece of writing (for example, see ref [2]). Second, student assessments are more reliable and valid when students are given a structure upon which to evaluate, such as a rubric or coaching (for examples, see refs [8,17]). …”

Section: Background and Rationalementioning

confidence: 99%

“…8,11,12 Curricular economy belies a deeper factor for the consistent gains that students make through peer review activities. In addition to increasing feedback and revision cycles, peer review activities increase reflection around writing in ways that iterations do not.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Implementation of Peer Review to Enhance Written and Visual Communication Learning in Bioengineering Capstone Reports

Hendricks¹,

Taylor²,

Pulford³

2017 ASEE Annual Conference &Amp; Exposition Proceedings

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

University of Washington include introductory and honors courses in bioengineering, tissue and protein engineering lab courses, bioengineering ethics, leadership, and bioengineering capstone writing and research/design courses. She is committed to enhancing diversity and inclusivity in engineering, and creating opportunities for undergraduate students to engage in K-12 educational outreach. Dr. Hendricks has over a decade of experience leading educational outreach and summer camp programs at both Duke University and the University of Washington. Dr. Alyssa Catherine Taylor, University of WashingtonAlyssa C. Taylor is a lecturer in the Department of Bioengineering at the University of Washington. She received a B.S. in biological systems engineering at the University of California, Davis, and a Ph.D. in biomedical engineering at the University of Virginia. Taylor's teaching activities are focused on developing and teaching core introductory courses and technical labs for bioengineering undergraduates, as well as coordinating the capstone design sequence for the BIOE Department at the University of Washington. Taylor currently pursues educational research and continuous improvement activities, with the ultimate goal of optimizing bioengineering curriculum design and student learning outcomes. Implementation of Peer Review to Enhance Written and Visual Communication Learning in Bioengineering Capstone ReportsIn addition to technical skill development, engineering undergraduate curricula must also foster development of effective communication skills. The capstone report often plays an instrumental role in this development, as it comprises both the final assessment of student communication performance and it is the most significant opportunity for active learning of in-discipline communication skills. Peer review has been proposed as an ideal means to provide students with much-needed formative feedback. [1][2][3] In addition, peer review has the potential to increase student interpersonal communication skills and metacognition, provided that the review activity is structured to encourage constructive contributions and reflection.In this paper, we build on our previous work-in-progress 4 describing the implementation of a peer review strategy integrated throughout the year-long capstone experience that allows students to obtain formative feedback and build transferable communication skills and insights. Students completed a workshop series of scaffolded communication critique, small-group formative peer review, and reflection. First, students were guided to collaborate as a class to generate rubric for sections of the capstone report, as well as guidelines for constructive and effective peer feedback. Next, students used these codes to provide feedback in small groups. When students submitted their revised draft, they included a cover letter describing their reflection on peer feedback and the changes they made due to peer review.The novelty of our specific approach to peer review lies in the combination of three qu...

show abstract