The Evolution of Calibrated Peer Review™

Russell, Arlene A.

doi:10.1021/bk-2013-1145.ch009

Cited by 15 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Peer review provides an opportunity for students to learn from one another both when reading their peer’s work before giving feedback and when receiving feedback ( Lundstrom and Baker, 2009 ) and is known to enhance learning ( Timmerman, 2008 ; Patchan et al ., 2009 ; Cho and MacArthur, 2010 ; Russell, 2013 ; Klein, 2015 ; Zhang et al ., 2017 ). When peer review is guided by a detailed rubric, as it was in this study, students provide substantive feedback that can lead to revision ( Patchan et al ., 2009 ; Zhang et al.…”

Section: Theoretical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Identifying and Remediating Student Misconceptions in Introductory Biology via Writing-to-Learn Assignments and Peer Review

Halim

Finkenstaedt-Quinn

Olsen

et al. 2018

LSE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Student misconceptions are an obstacle in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics courses and unless remediated may continue causing difficulties in learning as students advance in their studies. Writing-to-learn assignments (WTL) are characterized by their ability to promote in-depth conceptual learning by allowing students to explore their understanding of a topic. This study sought to determine whether and what types of misconceptions are elicited by WTL assignments and how the process of peer review and revision leads to remediation or propagation of misconceptions. We examined four WTL assignments in an introductory biology course in which students first wrote about content by applying it to a realistic scenario, then participated in a peer-review process before revising their work. Misconceptions were identified in all four assignments, with the greatest number pertaining to protein structure and function. Additionally, in certain contexts, students used scientific terminology incorrectly. Analysis of the drafts and peer-review comments generated six profiles by which misconceptions were addressed through the peer-review process. The prevalent mode of remediation arose through directed peer-review comments followed by correction during revision. It was also observed that additional misconceptions were elicited as students revised their writing in response to general peer-review suggestions.

show abstract

Section: Theoretical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Identifying and Remediating Student Misconceptions in Introductory Biology via Writing-to-Learn Assignments and Peer Review

Halim

Finkenstaedt-Quinn

Olsen

et al. 2018

LSE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thus, students with higher initial draft scores may be equally likely as those with lower initial draft scores to use the feedback they receive from their peers, creating a null effect with respect to the reviewer’s initial performance. The peer review process utilized in this study was supported exclusively by a peer review rubric, and students did not receive training for engaging in peer review, such as that provided by CPR (Russell, 2013), which may result in less substantive feedback. However, in a study of WTL assignments in a biology course, we found that students who held incorrect conceptions were able to provide beneficial, content-based feedback to peers (Halim et al, 2018).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…An alternative to student self-evaluation is peer review, which is slowly becoming more prevalent in STEM classrooms. Russell (2013) developed and implemented Calibrated Peer Review (CPR) to support the incorporation of writing into large, introductory STEM courses. When engaging with CPR, students are first trained to provide feedback through a calibration procedure before reviewing their peers’ work.…”

Section: Developing Student Knowledge Through Writing In the Stem Classroommentioning

confidence: 99%

“…When engaging with CPR, students are first trained to provide feedback through a calibration procedure before reviewing their peers’ work. This tool has been used in a variety of teaching contexts for a range of instructional goals, with a primary focus on laboratory and disciplinary writing (Russell, 2013). In another set of studies, the revision process was supported by providing students with exemplar texts and feedback, primarily from an instructor (Ellis, 2004; Ellis et al, 2006).…”

Section: Developing Student Knowledge Through Writing In the Stem Classroommentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Utilizing Peer Review and Revision in STEM to Support the Development of Conceptual Knowledge Through Writing

Finkenstaedt-Quinn

Polakowski

Gunderson

et al. 2021

Written Communication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While many STEM faculty believe Writing-to-Learn to be an effective instructional tool, instructional barriers such as the time and effort required to provide substantive feedback to their students limit the use of writing in STEM classrooms. Incorporating peer review and revision into the writing process can help mitigate these barriers while additionally supporting the learning process. This study presents an analysis of a Writing-to-Learn assignment that incorporates peer review and revision into a large introductory statistics course, where this study specifically focused on whether engaging with these processes results in changes in how students write about the content targeted by the assignment. Our results demonstrate that students made content-focused revisions between drafts that increased the amount of content they explained correctly. Additionally, our study provides evidence that students benefit from reading peers’ work in a content-focused peer review and revision process. Overall, this study shows that incorporating peer review and revision into writing assignments focused on developing content knowledge provides students with substantive feedback and enhances students’ conceptual learning.

show abstract

“…We hold that a thorough development of peer review skills is intrinsically connected to the development of writing skills and argue that, in the absence of well-developed writing skills and some experience in scientific writing, one cannot judge the creative works of others "as a peer." It takes much knowledge (Yankulov & Couto, 2012) and more than a briefing (Russell, 2013) to become proficient in scientific peer review. Peer review is much more than merely the ability to recognise substandard work and, therefore, peer reviewers should be able to appreciate the quality of original ideas.…”

Section: Assessment Of Assignments By Various Forms Of Peer Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Design and assessment of an assignment-based curriculum to teach scientific writing and scientific peer review

Glaser

2014

JLD

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A writing-intensive, upper-level undergraduate course which integrates content, context, collaboration, and communication in a unique fashion, is described. The topic of the seminar is "Scientific Writing in Chemistry" and an assignment-based curriculum was developed to instruct students on best practices in all aspects of science communication and to educate students about the scientific publication process and peer review. To effectively teach students how to understand science, both the content and the process must be included. Peer review is an integral and essential part of the process of science and the peer review tasks in the course described in this paper evolve from rubric-based peer assessments to free-format peer review. The curriculum was developed for a semester-long, three-hour seminar with limited enrolment. The curriculum was taught in the Spring semesters of 2010-2014 and enrolment data and results of evaluations collected over four years are presented to demonstrate the success of the implementations.

show abstract

The Evolution of Calibrated Peer Review™

Cited by 15 publications

References 5 publications

Identifying and Remediating Student Misconceptions in Introductory Biology via Writing-to-Learn Assignments and Peer Review

Identifying and Remediating Student Misconceptions in Introductory Biology via Writing-to-Learn Assignments and Peer Review

Utilizing Peer Review and Revision in STEM to Support the Development of Conceptual Knowledge Through Writing

Design and assessment of an assignment-based curriculum to teach scientific writing and scientific peer review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About