Contemporary Peer Review: Construct Modeling, Measurement Foundations, and the Future of Digital Learning (original) (raw)
Related papers
Online and face-to-face peer review in academic writing: Frequency and preferences, 2021
With the current advancement of technology and its potential for better teaching and learning outcomes, this paper compares the use of peer review in face-to-face settings and online platforms. The study recruited 142 students and 20 instructors from an American public mid-southern university. Data were collected over two academic semesters and included three instruments: questionnaires, observations, and interviews. Findings indicated that the participants generally hold a positive stance towards peer evaluation. They found face-to-face peer assessment during writing class time to be the most common and effective mode for they preferred immediate feedback in person. Contrary to laudable prior research findings, the majority of participants considered online review ineffective. They found various forms of technology quite distracting. Analyzing the extent to which native English speakers, non-native speakers, and instructors find virtual and face-to-face types of review worthwhile makes the study a valuable factor for instructors who wish to incorporate peer editing into their teaching.
Comparison of Online and Face-to-Face Peer Review of Writing
Computers and Composition
Peer response has been shown to be an effective strategy for improving writing. The social nature of collaboration as peers give and receive feedback can broaden perspectives about audience and what good writing is and also help motivate writers to revise their work. This study is not designed to show impact of peer review on writing products, as this has been well documented in the research literature. Rather, it is a qualitative study comparing the processes of face-to-face (f2f) and online peer response in terms of strengths, limitations, similarities and differences. Traditionally, writing groups conduct peer response in a f2f, synchronous environment, but questions about the feasibility of using an online environment as another space where peer response and review could take place are central to this research study and acted as both catalyst and structure for the inquiry. We examined the attitudes and experiences of adult students, who are K-12 teachers across disciplines, using both a f2f environment and an online environment, as well as their experiences in being peer reviewers of the writing of others in these two contexts. This study suggests that literacy instructors who have been reluctant to teach online may find an entrée into online teaching by starting with peer response groups, as this study indicates that most rules and processes are parallel for online and f2f groups. In both environments, teaching writers the rules for response and training them seem necessary. Those instructors who embrace a process approach, where f2f groups are a vital component, may find some advantages to having some response conducted online. Overall, the results of this study show that the power of using different environments for peer review exists not in duplicating and imitating traditional methods, but in recognizing and understanding that f2f and online environments function in different ways to support peer review of writing.
EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education
Peer review, as an e-assessment tool incorporates the human factor to treat complexity for rating and grading students. It could address the qualitative more than quantitative aspects with flexible human feedback that leads up to metacognitive knowledge aspects, which e-assessment usually is not able to achieve. Peer review is an internationally wellknown method for quality assurance in science; it is now used for teaching and assessment in universities. This paper presents an analysis of five teaching scenarios that use peer review. All scenarios have been working with the same technical setting within different courses in Digital Business and included 765 participants. Regarding e-peer review qualitative and quantitative data from 298 students were collected. The tasks in the different learning scenarios differ between well-structured to complex and cognitively ambitious assignments like academic paper writing. Further analysis of criteria like lead time, support expense, dimension of cognitive processes, meeting of professional standards and social interaction shows how the five scenarios lead to either better or less efficient learning performances.
Online and face-to-face peer review in academic writing: Frequency and preferences
Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2021
With the current advancement of technology and its potential for better teaching and learning outcomes, this paper compares the use of peer review in face-to-face settings and online platforms. The study recruited 142 students and 20 instructors from an American public mid-southern university. Data were collected over two academic semesters and included three instruments: questionnaires, observations, and interviews. Findings indicated that the participants generally hold a positive stance towards peer evaluation. They found face-to-face peer assessment during writing class time to be the most common and effective mode for they preferred immediate feedback in person. Contrary to laudable prior research findings, the majority of participants considered online review ineffective. They found various forms of technology quite distracting. Analyzing the extent to which native English speakers, non-native speakers, and instructors find virtual and face-to-face types of review worthwhile makes the study a valuable factor for instructors who wish to incorporate peer editing into their teaching.
Redesigning the peer review process: A developmental theory-in-action
Designing cooperative systems: The use of theories and models, 2000
Abstract. We are looking at how new forms of document interface can be used to support new forms of scholarly discourse, and ultimately, new models of scholarly publishing. Towards this end, we have been using specially designed computer-mediated conferencing technology to realize an innovative peer review model within an academic e-journal-the Journal of Interactive Media in Education. In essence, through re-design of social processes and technical products, we have tried to shift reviewing from a closed process centered on ...
Open and anonymous peer review in a digital online environment compared in academic writing context
Innovative language teaching and learning at university: Enhancing participation and collaboration , 2016
This study compares the impact of ‘open’ and ‘anonymous’ peer feedback as an adjunct to teacher-mediated feedback in a digital online environment utilising data gathered on an academic writing course at a Turkish university. Students were divided into two groups with similar writing proficiencies. Students peer reviewed papers either anonymously or openly, then resubmitted them. The lecturer provided feedback and students again resubmitted their assignments. Finally, students submitted a reflection paper on how or whether they benefited from both peer and teacher-mediated feedback. Findings provide evidence for the positive contribution of multiple anonymous peer feedback in a digital online environment towards improved academic writing skills.
Re-examining the effects and affects of electronic peer reviews in a first-year composition class
While many researchers have studied the application of computer-mediated communication (CMC) in peer review activities in L2 composition classes, few have directly compared the effect of asynchronous CMC (ACMC) versus written comments. This paper describes a small-scale project carried out in an ESL composition class to reexamine the effects and affects of asynchronous CMC in L2 students’ peer review processes. Nine students’ responses on four drafts were analyzed. Two drafts were peer-reviewed using Microsoft Word while two others were edited with paper and pen. The in-text comments in both modes resembled each other in number, in area, and in the nature of distribution. Students’ end comments also maintained similar sentence structures, rhetorical styles, and organizational strategies. At the same time, the survey results revealed that students had no overt preference between the modes. The project found that the students gave more peer comments when ACMC was first introduced in the class, but this effect faded quickly. It is therefore suggested that the students’ curiosity regarding this “new experience,” rather than the mode difference, would stimulate higher motivation and greater participation in peer editing situations.
Did I mention it’s anonymous? The triumphs and pitfalls of online peer review (2008)
The role of student peer review in teaching and learning in higher education has been discussed extensively in the literature (Topping, 1998; Carlson & Berry, 2003; de Raadt, Toleman, & Watson, 2005; Bernstein, Burnett, Goodburn & Savory 2006). It is seen to be particularly useful in online courses as a mechanism for providing students with the tools to conduct criteria-based critical reviews on the work of their peers (Mulder & Pearce, 2007; Cho & Schunna, 2007). This system can work well for both the online learner and instructor particularly when students are provided with specified assessment criteria, grade ranking system and set deadlines. However when factors relating to the management of such activities come into play, such as the misreading of requirements and criteria, the subjectivity of dealing with some material and the need for flexibility in the due dates, peer review as an assessment system can literally fall apart. This paper discusses these issues via two case studies, which showcase two approaches to using peer review to teach coursework Masters students how to write a research paper in arts administration. The first case study uses the anonymous and random online calibrated peer review (CPR) (http://cpr.molsci.ucla.edu/) system developed by UCLA, while the second attempts to simulate the same system using computer mediated peer review (CMPR) within the discussion forum and assignment tools in My eLearning Vista UNSW. This paper presents the triumphs and pitfalls of both systems within the theoretical framework of the higher education literature on teaching and learning and online peer review.
peer review: still king in the digital age
The article presents one of the main fi ndings of an international study of 4,000 academic researchers that examined how trustworthiness is determined in the digital environment when it comes to scholarly reading, citing, and publishing. The study shows that peer review is still the most trustworthy characteristic of all. There is, though, a common perception that open access journals are not peer reviewed or do not have proper peer-review systems. Researchers appear to have moved inexorably from a print-based system to a digital system, but it has not signifi cantly changed the way they decide what to trust. They do not trust social media. Only a minority -although signifi cantly mostly young and early career researchers -thought that social media are anything other than more appropriate to personal interactions and peripheral to their professional/academic lives. There are other signifi cant differences, according to the age of the researcher. Thus, in regard to choosing an outlet for publication of their work, young researchers are much less concerned with the fact that it is peer reviewed.
Did I mention it's anonymous? The triumphs and pitfalls of online peer review
… 2008 Melbourne: hello! …, 2008
The role of student peer review in teaching and learning in higher education has been discussed extensively in the literature (Topping, 1998; Carlson & Berry, 2003; de Raadt, Toleman, & Watson, 2005; Bernstein, Burnett, Goodburn & Savory 2006). It is seen to be particularly useful in online courses as a mechanism for providing students with the tools to conduct criteria-based critical reviews on the work of their peers (Mulder & Pearce, 2007; Cho & Schunna, 2007). This system can work well for both the online learner and instructor particularly when students are provided with specified assessment criteria, grade ranking system and set deadlines. However when factors relating to the management of such activities come into play, such as the misreading of requirements and criteria, the subjectivity of dealing with some material and the need for flexibility in the due dates, peer review as an assessment system can literally fall apart. This paper discusses these issues via two case studies, which showcase two approaches to using peer review to teach coursework Masters students how to write a research paper in arts administration. The first case study uses the anonymous and random online calibrated peer review (CPR) (http://cpr.molsci.ucla.edu/) system developed by UCLA, while the second attempts to simulate the same system using computer mediated peer review (CMPR) within the discussion forum and assignment tools in My eLearning Vista UNSW. This paper presents the triumphs and pitfalls of both systems within the theoretical framework of the higher education literature on teaching and learning and online peer review.