Do you believe it is essential for your students to be able to think critically and convey their opinions clearly to others because students understand more deeply when they write about what they are learning?
Do you think writing assignments would help prepare students for their future careers because many jobs incorporate peer review to evaluate proposals and reports?
Do you refrain from assigning as many writing assignments as are needed because it would greatly increase your grading workload?
Assigning writing tasks in courses seems intimidating to instructors. Having to read all the writings could take a lot of time, that on top of course content creation. Also, instructors in scientific fields often feel that they have not received training in writing and editing themselves and therefore are not confident that they could assess the writings (and so the cycle continues).
One of the ways writing assignments can be made more interesting to students, and hopefully not unduly burden the instructor, is by designing the assignment in such a way that students have to give each other feedback. This can be done in many CMS systems by requiring students to post their essay and then having student critique their writing. The obvious disadvantage is, of course, that this would not always be anonymous and it does not have the incentive that students may need to be very honest and critically (but nicely) critique their peers’ writing.
There is an innovative free Web-based program (developed by a Chemistry professor at UCLA with NSF funding) that can be of some help. This program can be used across many different disciplines.
(A two-page review of the program can be downloaded at:
http://www.educause.edu/ELI/ELIInnovationsImplementationsC/156773)
Calibrated Peer Review (
http://cpr.molsci.ucla.edu/) manages the entire peer review process, which consists of:
1. Assignment creation (CPR also hosts a vast library of assignments used previously).
2. Electronic paper submission
3. Student training in reviewing (this tutorial must be completed before students can proceed to the reviewing exercises)
4. Student input analysis (Students evaluate work of their peers after which students review their own work). Students thus graded in three ways:
- a. Evaluations from their peers.
- b. The degree to which each student’s assessment of other students’ writings conform to the rubric and peer consensus.
- c. Self assessment of their own writing.
5. Final performance report preparation
CPR's approach to peer review is thus:
• “
double blind”: students do not know who authored the essay they reviewed. And the author does not know the identity of the reviewer. However, neither author nor reviewer is anonymous to the instructor.
• By using “
calibration” techniques the feedback that a student receives is reliable and meaningful.
• CPR encourages student
autonomy (probably appreciated by online students), however, there will be continual feedback from the instructor, peers, and a final report from the CPR system.
Best-use scenarios for using CPR.
• Assignments should require relatively short essays (1 to 3 pages)
• Works well in very large introductory classes, class should have at least 15 students.
• Instructors will have to spend time on creating a grading rubric and the settings for student assessment – meaning
there may be quite a lot of work up front for the instructor to ensure the assignment’s success.
• The software is very good for improving formulaic writing (such as lab reports).
For more information on how to incorporate CPR into your course visit the CPR webs site. At the University of Illinois the staff at CITES’s Ed Tech office will be able to help you incorporate CPR. At one of their brown-bag seminars Prof Hurst from Geology gave a presentation on how CPR worked in his course. This link has links to his powerpoint presentation and a video.
http://www.cites.illinois.edu/events/learningtech/brown_bag/2006/hurst.html
Below is the response I received from my ION instructor on the topic:
Thanks for your description of this product and for going the extra step of linking us to link to the review of this program. I have had some instructors in EC in past terms who have used it and liked it. I think it's especially interesting that this tool for peer review of
writing was
developed by a science instructor! So many instructors that I know avoid (like the proverbial plague) having students do any writing assignments. I appreciate "another student in this EC course" sharing her experience in regard to working with instructors across the disciplines in this regard. I like that the use the tool allows for promoting writing across the disciplines.
I think your concern about the initial work in using the tool is on target. Instructors I know who have used the tool have mentioned that there is quite a bit of upfront work for them. However, once the instructor does the upfront work for a class, that will carry over to future classes and -- ultimately -- reduce work. So, when instructors have large classes (and if the instructors want to require writing assignments), a peer review tool such as this may actually foster efficiency!
In any case, CPR was written under a grant and is
free for anyone at any institution and their students to use. Below, I'll put a link to one school's upfront instructions to their students about what CPR is and how to use it. I think they've done a great job of clarifying and communicating the tool
to their learners! So, if anyone here might want to give it a try for any of your disciplines, you may want to adapt the student handout at the following link to ease some of the front end instructor work.
http://www.chem.tamu.edu/class/fyp/cprhelp.pdf
