Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Interactive learning through web-mediated peer review of student science reports

  • Development Article
  • Published:
Educational Technology Research and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Two studies analyzed impacts of writing and receiving web-mediated peer reviews on revision of research reports by undergraduate science students. After conducting toxicology experiments, 77 students posted draft reports and exchanged double-blind reviews. The first study randomly assigned students to four groups representing full, partial, or no peer review. Students engaging in any aspect of peer review made more revisions than students confined to reviewing their own reports. In the second study, all students engaged in peer review, and the influence of writing versus receiving critiques was analyzed using linear regression. Both studies showed receiving reviews to be more significant than writing them in terms of triggering report revisions. Students valued the peer review experience and credited it with giving them insights about their work. Conclusions address implications for optimal design of online peer review systems and for further research into student learning gains.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Billington, H. (1997). Poster presentations and peer assessment: Novel forms of evaluation and assessment. Journal of Biological Education, 31(2), 218–220.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blair, B. G., Cline, G. R., & Bowen, W. R. (2007). NSF-style peer review for teaching undergraduate grant-writing. The American Biology Teacher, 69(1), 34–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brandon, D. P., & Hollingshead, A. E. (1999). Collaborative learning and computer-supported groups. Communication Education, 48(2), 109–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlsen, W. S., Yalvac, B., Cakir, M., & Kohl, C. (2003). Learning nature of science concepts through online peer review of student research reports, sub-study 2. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Philadelphia, PA.

  • Chapman, O. L. (2001). White paper: A description of calibrated peer review. Retrieved October 12, 2005, from http://www.cpr.molsci.ucla.edu/.

  • Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64(1), 1–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Falchikov, N., & Goldfinch, J. (2000). Student peer assessment in higher education: A meta-analysis comparing peer and teacher marks. Review of Educational Research, 70(3), 287–322.

    Google Scholar 

  • Furr, R. M., & Rosenthal, R. (2003). Evaluating theories efficiently: The nuts and bolts of contrast analysis. Understanding Statistics, 2(1), 45–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghorpade, J., & Lackritz, J. R. (2001). Peer evaluation in the classroom: A check for sex and race/ethnicity effects. Journal of Education for Business, 76(5), 274–281.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gratz, R. K. (1990). Improving lab report quality by model analysis, peer review, and revision. Journal of College Science Teaching, 19(5), 292–295.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henri, F. (1991). Computer conferencing and content analysis. In A. Kaye (Ed.), Collaborative learning through computer conferencing (pp. 117–136). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hiltz, S., & Wellman, B. (1997). Asynchronous learning networks as a virtual classroom. Communications of the ACM, 40(9), 44–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hooper, S. (1992). Cooperative learning and computer-based instruction. Educational Technology, Research, & Development, 40(3), 21–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2004). Cooperation and the use of technology. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (2nd ed., pp. 785–812). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kern, V. M., Saraiva, L. M., & dos Santos Pacheco, R. C. (2003). Peer review in education: Promoting collaboration, written expression, critical thinking, and professional responsibility. Education and Information Technologies, 8(1), 37–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, A. (1999). Discourse patterns for mediating peer learning. In A. M. O’Donnell & A. King (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on peer learning (pp. 87–115). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, A. (2002). Structuring peer interaction to promote high-level cognitive processing. Theory into Practice, 41(1), 33–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koprowski, J. L. (1997). Sharpening the craft of scientific writing. Journal of College Science Teaching, 27(2), 133–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, E. Y. C., Chan, C. K. K., & Aalst, J. V. (2006). Students assessing their own collaborative knowledge building. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(1), 57–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, J., Pysarchik, D. T., & Taylor, W. W. (2002). Peer review in the classroom. BioScience, 52(9), 824–830.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lu, R., & Bol, L. (2007). A comparison of anonymous versus identifiable e-peer review on college student writing performance and the extent of critical feedback. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 6(2), 100–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newman, D. R., Johnson, C., Webb, B., & Cochrane, C. (1997). Evaluating the quality of learning in computer supported co-operative learning. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 48(6), 484–495.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nystrand, M. (1986). Learning to write by talking about writing: A summary of research on intensive peer review in expository writing instruction at the University of Madison-Wisconsin. In M. Nystrand (Ed.), The structure of written communication: Studies in reciprocity between writers and readers (pp. 179–211). Orlando: Academic Press, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nystrand, M., & Brandt, D. (1989). Response to writing as a context for learning to write. In C. M. Anson (Ed.), Writing and response: Theory, practice, and research (pp. 209–230). Urbana: National Council of Teachers of English.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pelaez, N. J. (2002). Problem-based writing with peer review improves academic performance in physiology. Advances in Physiology Education, 26, 174–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prins, F. J., Sluijsmans, D. M. A., & Kirschner, P. (2005). Formative peer assessment in a CSCL environment: A case study. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(4), 417–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rourke, L., & Kanuka, H. (2007). Barriers to online discourse. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(1), 105–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rushton, C., Ramsey, P., & Rada, R. (1993). Peer assessment in a collaborative hypermedia environment: A case study. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 20(3), 75–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slavin, R. E. (1996). Research on cooperative learning and achievement: What we know, what we need to know. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21(1), 43–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stemler, S. E. (2004). A comparison of consensus, consistency, and measurement approaches to estimating interrater reliability. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 9(4), Retrieved October 8, 2004, from http://www.pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=2009&n=2004

  • Sullivan, D., Brown, C. E., & Nielson, N. L. (1998). Cyberdimensions: Computer-mediated peer review of student papers. Journal of Education for Business, 74(2), 117–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Topping, K. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68, 249–276.

    Google Scholar 

  • Topping, K., & Ehly, S. (1998). Introduction to peer-assisted learning. In K. Topping & S. Ehly (Eds.), Peer-assisted learning (pp. 1–23). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Towns, M. H., Marden, K., Sauder, D., Stout, R., Long, G., Waxman, M., et al. (2000). Interinstitutional peer review on the internet. Journal of College Science Teaching, 30(4), 256–260.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trahasch, S. (2004). From peer assessment towards collaborative learning. Paper presented at the 34th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Savannah, GA.

  • Trautmann, N. M., Carlsen, W. S., Krasny, M. E., & Cunningham, C. M. (2001). Assessing toxic risk, student edition and teachers’ manual. Arlington: NSTA Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trautmann, N. M., Carlsen, W. S., Eick, C. J., Gardner, F., Jr., Kenyon, L., Moscovici, H., et al. (2003). Online peer review: Learning science as it’s practiced. Journal of College Science Teaching, 32(7), 443–447.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webb, N. M. (1989). Peer interaction, problem-solving, and cognition: Multidisciplinary perspectives. International Journal of Educational Research, 13(1), 21–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webb, N. M., & Palinscar, A. S. (1996). Group processes in the classroom. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 841–873). New York: Macmillan Library Reference.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu, A. (2003). Supporting electronic discourse: Principles of design from a social constructivist perspective. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 14(2), 167–174.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study relied on intellectual and technical collaboration with Leanne Avery and William Carlsen. Geri Gay, Joe Walther, Marianne Krasny, and Bruce Lewenstein provided invaluable guidance and feedback. Suggestions by anonymous peer reviewers also helped to improve the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University, 100 Rice Hall, Ithaca, NY, 14853, USA

    Nancy M. Trautmann

Authors
  1. Nancy M. Trautmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nancy M. Trautmann.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Trautmann, N.M. Interactive learning through web-mediated peer review of student science reports. Education Tech Research Dev 57, 685–704 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-007-9077-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-007-9077-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation