Utilizing Peer Review and Revision in STEM to Support the Development of Conceptual Knowledge Through Writing

Solaire A. Finkenstaedt-Quinn University of Michigan–Ann Arbor ; Noelle Polakowski Michigan State University ; Brenda Gunderson University of Michigan–Ann Arbor ; Ginger V. Shultz University of Michigan–Ann Arbor ; Anne Ruggles Gere University of Michigan–Ann Arbor

Abstract

While many STEM faculty believe Writing-to-Learn to be an effective instructional tool, instructional barriers such as the time and effort required to provide substantive feedback to their students limit the use of writing in STEM classrooms. Incorporating peer review and revision into the writing process can help mitigate these barriers while additionally supporting the learning process. This study presents an analysis of a Writing-to-Learn assignment that incorporates peer review and revision into a large introductory statistics course, where this study specifically focused on whether engaging with these processes results in changes in how students write about the content targeted by the assignment. Our results demonstrate that students made content-focused revisions between drafts that increased the amount of content they explained correctly. Additionally, our study provides evidence that students benefit from reading peers’ work in a content-focused peer review and revision process. Overall, this study shows that incorporating peer review and revision into writing assignments focused on developing content knowledge provides students with substantive feedback and enhances students’ conceptual learning.

Journal
Written Communication
Published
2021-07-01
DOI
10.1177/07410883211006038
Open Access
Closed
Topics

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (1)

  1. Written Communication

Cites in this index (2)

  1. Written Communication
  2. Research in the Teaching of English
Also cites 44 works outside this index ↓
  1. Bangert-Drowns R. L., Hurley M. M., Wilkinson B. (2004). The effects of school-based writing-to-learn interve…
  2. Bereiter C., Scardamalia M. (1987). An attainable version of high literacy: Approaches to teaching higher-ord…
  3. Cho K., MacArthur C. (2010). Student revision with peer and expert reviewing. Learning and Instruction, 20(4)…
  4. Cho K., MacArthur C. (2011). Learning by reviewing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(1), 73-84. https:/…
  5. Cho K., Schunn C. D. (2007). Scaffolded writing and rewriting in the discipline: A web-based reciprocal peer …
  6. Cho Y. H., Cho K. (2011). Peer reviewers learn from giving comments. Instructional Science, 39(5), 629-643. h…
  7. 10.2505/4/jcst17_047_01_57
  8. Cox C. T., Poehlmann J. S., Ortega C., Lopez J. C. (2018). Using writing assignments as an intervention to st…
  9. Doe S., Pilgrim M. E., Gehrtz J. (2016). Stories and explanations in the introductory calculus classroom: A s…
  10. Ellis R. A. (2004). University student approaches to learning science through writing. International Journal …
  11. Ellis R. A., Taylor C. E., Drury H. (2006). University student conceptions of learning science through writin…
  12. Finkenstaedt-Quinn S. A., Halim A. S., Chambers T. G., Moon A., Goldman R. S., Gere A. R., Shultz G. V. (2017…
  13. Finkenstaedt-Quinn S. A., Halim A. S., Kasner G., Wilhelm C. A., Moon A., Gere A. R., Shultz G. V. (2020). Ca…
  14. Finkenstaedt-Quinn S. A., Petterson M. N., Gere A. R., Shultz G. V. (2021). The praxis of writing-to-learn: A…
  15. Finkenstaedt-Quinn S. A., Snyder-White E. P., Connor M. C., Gere A. R., Shultz G. V. (2019). Characterizing p…
  16. Gere A. R., Knutson A. V., Limlamai N., McCarty R., Wilson E. (2018). A tale of two prompts: New perspectives…
  17. Gillespie A., Graham S., Kiuhara S., Hebert M. (2014). High school teachers use of writing to support student…
  18. Graham S., Macarthur C., Schwartz S., Page-Voth V. (1992). Improving the compositions of students with learni…
  19. Halim A. S., Finkenstaedt-Quinn S. A., Olsen L. J., Gere A. R., Shultz G. V. (2018). Identifying and remediat…
  20. Johnson K. G. (2016). Incorporating writing into statistics. In Dewar J., Hsu P.S., Pollatsek H. (Eds.), Math…
  21. Klein P. D. (2004). Constructing scientific explanations through writing. Instructional Science, 32(3), 191-2…
  22. Klein P. D. (2015). Mediators and moderators in individual and collaborative writing to learn. Journal of Wri…
  23. Klein P. D., Leacock T. L. (2012). Distributed cognition as a framework for understanding writing. In Berning…
  24. Lachner A., Neuburg C. (2018). Learning by writing explanations: computer-based feedback about the explanator…
  25. Lachner A., Schurer T. (2018). Effects of the specificity and the format of external representations on stude…
  26. Landis J. R., Koch G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1…
  27. Lundstrom K., Baker W. (2009). To give is better than to receive: The benefits of peer review to the reviewer…
  28. 10.1002/sce.21454
  29. Moon A., Moeller R., Gere A. R., Shultz G. V. (2019). Application and testing of a framework for characterizi…
  30. Moon A., Zotos E., Finkenstaedt-Quinn S., Gere A. R., Shultz G. (2018). Investigation of the role of writing-…
  31. Nelson M. M., Schunn C. D. (2009). The nature of feedback: How different types of peer feedback affect writin…
  32. Park R. (2019). Practical teaching strategies for hypothesis testing. The American Statistician, 73(3), 282-2…
  33. Patchan M. M., Charney D., Schunn C. D. (2009). A validation study of students’ end comments: Comparing comme…
  34. Patchan M. M., Schunn C. D. (2015). Understanding the benefits of providing peer feedback: How students respo…
  35. Patel R. K., Brouner J., Spendiff O. (2015). Dark chocolate supplementation reduces the oxygen cost of modera…
  36. Pelaez N. J. (2002). Problem-based writing with peer review improves academic performance in physiology. Adva…
  37. Reynolds J. A., Thaiss C., Katkin W., Thompson R. J., Wright R. L. (2012). Writing-to-learn in undergraduate …
  38. Rivard L. O. P. (1994). A review of writing to learn in science: Implications for practice and research. Jour…
  39. Russell A. A. (2013). The evolution of Calibrated Peer Review™. In Holmes T., Cooper M. M., Varma-Nelson P. (…
  40. Schmidt-McCormack J. A., Judge J. A., Spahr K., Yang E., Pugh R., Karlin A., Sattar A., Thompson B. C., Gere …
  41. Shultz G. V., Gere A. R. (2015). Writing-to-learn the nature of science in the context of the Lewis dot struc…
  42. Van Dyke F., Malloy E. J., Stallings V. (2015). Conceptual writing in college-level mathematics courses and i…
  43. Watts F. M., Finkenstaedt-Quinn S. A. (2021). The current state of methods for establishing reliability in qu…
  44. Watts F. M., Schmidt-McCormack J. A., Wilhelm C. A., Karlin A., Sattar A., Thompson B. C., Gere A. R., Shultz…
CrossRef global citation count: 23 View in citation network →