Implementation of Peer Reviews: Online Learning

Julia Colella-Sandercock, Antonio Robert Verbora, Orrin-Porter Morrison, Jill Singleton-Jackson

Abstract


With the increasing use of online learning, many teachers and instructors are using peer evaluations to enhance the students’ learning experiences. Peer reviews have shown a wide range of benefits, including increasing competency in the course material, yet there are some limitations stemming from lack of guidance or structure in peer review assignments. A lack of structure has continually been seen across disciplines.  This was experienced in an English grammar, online learning course at a Southwestern Ontario university. Working with no clear guidelines for peer review assignments, a Four-Step Model was created that enhanced clarity, direction, and objectivity and detailed what students should and should not include when completing a peer review. Subsequent changes to the course were made to accentuate the benefits of peer reviews. The Four-Step Model can easily be adapted to suit any peer-based assignment, regardless of course subject or form of teaching.

Keywords: peer review, online learning, Four-Step Model


Keywords


education;e-learning;peer reviews

Full Text:

PDF

References


Atchley, W., Wingenbach, G., & Akers, C. (2013). Comparison of course completion and student performance through online and traditional courses. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 14(4), 104 – 116.

Bell, M., Bush, D., Nicholson, P., O’Brien, D. & Tran, T. (2002).Universities online. A survey of online education and services in Australia. Available online at:

www.dest.gov.au.highered/occpaper/02a/02_a.pdf.

Brigance, S. (2011). Leadership in online learning in higher education: Why instructional designers for online learning should lead the way. Performance Improvement, 50(10), 43-48.

de Guerrero, M.C.M.,&Villamil, O.S. (1994). Social-cognitive dimensions of interaction in L2 peer revision. The Modern Language Journal,78, 484-496.

Dekhane, S., Napier, N., & Smith, S. (2011). Transitioning to blended learning: Understanding student and faculty perceptions. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 15(1), 20-32.

DeNisi, A. S., & Kluger, A. N. (2000). Feedback effectiveness: Can 360-degree appraisals be improved? Academy of Management Executive, 1(14), 129-139.

Enders, F. B., Jenkins, S., & Hoverman, V. (2010). Calibrated peer review for interpreting linear regression parameters: Results from a graduate course. Journal of Statistics Education, 18(2), 1-27.

Green, K. C. (1997). 1997 campus computing survey. Claremont, CA: Campus Computing Project.

Hartberg, Y., Guernsel, A. B., Simpson, N. J., & Balaster, V. (2008). Development of student writing in biochemistry using Calibrated Peer Review. Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 8(1), 29-44.

Hosie, P., Schibeci, R., & Backhaus, A. (2005). A framework and checklists for evaluating online learning in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(5), 539-553.

Hu, G. (2005). Using peer review with Chinese ESL student writers. Language Teaching Research, 9(3), 321-342.

Leki, I. (1990). “Coaching from the margins: issues in written response.†In Kroll, B., editor, Second language writing: research insights for the classroom, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 57–68.

Likkel, L. (2012). Calibrated Peer Reviewâ„¢ essays increase student confidence in assessing their own writing. Journal of College Science Teaching, 41(3), 42-47.

Liu, J., & Sadler, R.W. (2003). The effect and affect of peer review in electronic versus traditional modes on L2 writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2, 193–227.

Lundstrom, K., & Baker, W. (2009). To give is better than to receive: The benefits of peer review to the reviewer’s own writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 30–43.

Mangelsdorf, K., & Schlumberger, A. (1992). ESL student response stances in a peer review task. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1(3), 235–254.

Mangelsdorf, K. (1992). Peer reviews in the ESL composition classroom: What do the students think? ELT Journal,46, 274-284.

Marcoulides, G., & Simkin, M. G. (1991).Evaluating student papers: The case for peer review. Journal of Education for Business, 67, 80-83.

Mittan, R. (1989). “The peer review process: Harnessing students’ communicative power.†In D.

Johnson & D. Roen (eds.), Richness in writing: Empowering ESL students. Longman: New York, 207–219.

Nadler, D. A. (1977).Feedback and organization development. Using data-based methods. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

National Office for the Information Economy (NOIE). (2001). Current state of play. Available online at: www.noie.gov.au/projects/information_economy/research&analysis/ie_stats/CSOP_June2001/index.htm.

Nelson, G.L., & Carson, J.G. (1998). ESL students’ perceptions of effectiveness in peer response groups. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 113–131.

Nelson, G.L., & Murphy, J.M. (1992). An L2 writing group: task and social dimensions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1, 171–193.

Paulus, T.M. (1999). The effect of peer and teacher feedback on student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 265–289.

Peleaz, N. (2002). Problem-based writing with peer review improves academic performance in physiology. Advanced Physiological Education, 26,174-84.

Rieber, L.J. (2006). Using Peer Review to Improve Student Writing in Business Courses.Journal of Education for Business, 6(81), 322 – 326.

Rosenberg, M. J. (2001). E-learning: Strategies for delivering knowledge in the digital age. New York: McGraw Hill.

Rubin R.S. (2006). The academic journal review process as a framework for student developmental peer feedback. Journal of Management Education, 30, 378–398.

Russell, A.A., Chapman, O.L., & Wegner, P.A. (1998). Molecular science: Network deliverable curricula. Journal of Chemical Education, 75, 578.

Schein, E. H. (1999). Process consultation revisited. Building the helpful relationship. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Stanley, J. (1992). Coaching student writers to be effective peer evaluators. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1, 217–233.

Stokstad, E. (2001). Reading, writing, and chemistry are potent mix. Science, 293(5535), 1610.

Topping, K. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 3(68), 249-276.

Tsui, A.B.M., & Ng, M. (2000). Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9, 147–170.

Ulrich, J., & Karvoven, M. (2011). Faculty instructional attitudes, interest, and intention: Predictors of Web 2.0 use in online courses. Internet and Higher Education, 14, 207-216.

Villamil, O.S., & de Guerrero, M.C.M. (1996). Peer revision in the L2 classroom: social-cognitive activities, mediating strategies, and aspects of social behavior. Journal of Second Language Writing,5, 51–75.

Villamil, O.S., & de Guerrero, M.C.M. (1998). Assessing the impact of peer revision on L2 writing. Applied Linguistics,19, 491–514.

Watson, S. W., & Rutledge, V. C. (2005).Online course delivery and student satisfaction.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


e-ISSN: 1694-2116

p-ISSN: 1694-2493