Peer Review Process
The peer review is a process that accomplishes the goal of increasing student comprehension
of material through increased students-student and student-instructor interactions.
To assess the benefits of the peer review, students must attend class with two copies
of their assignments. The first copy remains untouched as a sample of pre-peer review
student work. Changes can be made to the second copy during and after the peer review
process as errors are recognized.
The peer review is completed as follows:
- Students arrive at class with two copies of the assignment. One
copy is given to the instructor.
- A formal peer review handout is given, guiding the students' reviewing
process with yes/no questions and room to make corrections.
- Students exchange the second copy of their assignment and begin
the peer review process.
- As students peer review the work, they are encouraged to discuss
problems or questions with the owner of the assignment, with other classmates, or
with the instructor.
- Once the student is done peer reviewing, the assignment is given
back to the owner.
- Optional: Another peer review
can be completed by another student, time permitting.
- At this time, the owner examines the peer review sheet, asking
the reviewer questions as needed. The owner has the option to make changes to their
assignment as needed.
- Once any necessary changes have been made, the owner hands in
both the peer review sheet and the corrected assignment to the instructor for grading.
Reflection from JKP (7-18-98):
Over the course of the program, the students demonstrated increased comprehension
of organic chemistry. Although many factors contributed to this increased comprehension
(extended exposure to material, classroom instruction, reading and practicing, etc.),
I believe that a significant factor was the peer review process. At the beginning
of the course, many of the formal peer review sheets did not include comments, although
comments and corrections were made in class. This changed as the course progressed
for two reasons: (1) extended exposure, and (2) time issues.
(1) More comments appeared on the peer review sheets as the students became more
familiar with basic issues such as bonding and electron counts due to simply increased
exposure to examples. It was easier for the students to review assignments such as
acid/base reactions when they did not have to spend a lot of time making sure the
electrons and charges were correct. This allowed more review of concepts such as
which proton is the most acidic, rather than general issues.
(2) More comments also appeared due to time issues. The two peer reviews were very
rushed because there was a lot of new material to introduce on those days. After
these, the next three peer reviews remained relatively constant in duration (about
25 minutes each), yet comments made on the formal review sheets as well as correct
changes made to assigments increased, indicating that (1) exposure to material was
a significant factor in the students' learning.
Examples of Student Work
Included below are examples of student work which demonstrate progress over the course
of the program. Examples are given of assignments which were good before the peer
review and remained good after, bad before the peer review and became good after,
and bad before the peer review and remained bad after.
Link to detailed descriptions of Assignments 1-8.
|
good(pre), good(post) |
bad(pre), good(post) |
bad(pre), bad(post) |
Peer Review Sheets |
| Early Program |
|
|
|
|
| Mid Program |
|
|
|
|
| Post Program |
|
|
|
|
The following table includes the graded work after the peer review
process.
The assignments were graded based on the following criteria:
- O = Outstanding
- S = Satisfactory
- U = Unsatisfactory
I chose to grade the assignments in this manner because I felt
that doing so would give the assignments some validity (even though they did not
actually count for a grade that would appear on a transcript) and because it would
give the students an idea of how they were doing.
We have included the feedback as important because the students were inspired to
complete the assignments and to really try to do well, despite the fact that this
wasn't for a formal grade. The following table is a reminder of the value that iterate
feedback has for students monitoring their progress.
| Student |
A1 |
A2 |
A3 |
A4-webpage |
resonance |
report |
A5 |
A6 |
A7 |
A8 |
| Student A |
S |
O |
O |
O |
|
O |
U |
S |
O |
S |
| Student B |
O |
O |
S |
O |
|
O |
O |
O |
O |
O |
| Student C |
S |
O |
O |
|
U |
|
|
|
|
|
| Student D |
S |
S |
S |
O |
U |
S |
S |
S |
S |
O |
| Student E |
S |
O |
U |
O |
|
O |
S |
O |
O |
S |
| Student F |
S |
S |
S |
O |
O |
O |
S |
O |
O |
O |
| Student G |
O |
O |
O |
O |
O |
O |
O |
O |
O |
O |
| Student H |
U |
O |
S |
O |
S |
O |
O |
O |
O |
S |
| Student I |
O |
O |
O |
O |
S |
O |
S |
O |
O |
O |
| Student J |
U |
S |
O |
O |
U |
O |
U |
O |
|
|
| Student K |
S |
S |
S |
O |
U |
O |
|
|
O |
S |
| Student L |
S |
U |
S |
O |
|
O |
|
|
|
|
| Student M |
S |
O |
O |
O |
S |
O |
O |
U |
S |
O |
| Student N |
O |
S |
O |
O |
S |
O |
O |
S |
O |
|
| Student O |
O |
S |
O |
O |
U |
O |
S |
O |
O |
S |