In a message dated 3/10/2001 2:12:46 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< Subj: Student Peer-Reviews
Date: 3/10/2001 2:12:46 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Serdikoff, Sherry L.)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Teaching In
Psychology listserv)
Hi folks.
I am interested in adding a peer-review component to the writing
assignments in my research methods class and figured that some of you may
be using similar activities that you'd be willing to share. The
writing assignments in this class primarily include lab reports so
materials that are designed especially for use with APA-style research
papers would be ideal. But at this point, I'd welcome any relevant
information you are willing to share. Also, I'd appreciate any advice you
have regarding implementation of such an activity (e.g., is it graded and
if so how, how should students be paired/grouped, etc.).
In advance, thanks - and my apologies for the cross-posting. --SLS
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ _----_ Sherry L. Serdikoff, Ph.D. +
+ * * School of Psychology +
+ * O O * James Madison University +
+ * * MSC 7401 {)__(} +
+ *(. .)* Harrisonburg, VA 22807 (oo) +
+ \ / E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -o0o-=\/=-o0o- +
+ \/ Telephone: 540-568-7089 +
+ FAX Number: 540-568-3322 +
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>
Sherry,
I have used peer evaluations with growing satisfaction in recent years. Two
major assignments for which I commonly use peer review are an individual
paper that critiques the arguments made on two sides of an issue and a team
presentation of these same issues. All students in the class are asked to
provide peer assessment for the students presenting the issue, using the
criteria provided below. I read through this feedback (which in addition to
the rating scales, consists of open comments made by the students), and pass
along to the team for their own review. The teams are then given a form and
asked to rate their own and teammates' level of cooperative involvement in
the preparation and execution of the presentation. The classmates' comments
on the presentations are NOT used in the grading of this assignment, but for
the most part students on either side of the process take it seriously. It
certainly serves to introduce them to the real world of evaluation. In
addition, it seems to enhance their metacognitive abilities - as indicated
by the responses I receive at the end of the semester when they are asked to
reflect on this assignment in writing. The team members ranking of levels of
cooperation and responsibility are used to determine 1/3rd of their grade for
the presentation.
___________________________________________________
The following assessment criteria are lifted from one of my syllabi:
ASSESSMENT CRITERIA FOR PEER- AND SELF-EVALUATION OF YOUR TEAM ACTIVITIES ARE
PROVIDED ON PAGES 5 & 6 OF THIS SYLLABUS. THESE PERFORMANCE CRITERIA SHOULD
BE USED TO GUIDE ALL OF YOUR TEAM EFFORTS BOTH IN AND OUT OF CLASS.
CONTROVERSIAL ISSUE CLASS PRESENTATION - PEER ASSESSMENT CRITERIA
For each question, use a scale of 1 to 4, with 1= poor and 4= excellent,
to indicate your score for the team.
1. Did the team appear to have done its homework ? ______
2. Was the team presentation well organized and effective ? ______
3. Did the team make its presentation interesting to the class ?
______
4. Was the team empirical as it presented and defended its points ?
______
5. Did the team go beyond the issue as presented in the text ? ______
6. Was the team perceptive to the weak points of each side of the issue ?
______
7. Did the team appear to work as a team ? ______
Use the scoring rubric (Facione) below to assign your score for items 8-12
below.
8. How effective was team member 1 ? ______
9. How effective was team member 2 ? ______
10. How effective was team member 3 ? ______
11. How effective was team member 4 ? ______
12. How effective was team member 5 ? ______
Holistic Critical Thinking Scoring Rubric
by Facione
Score 4
Consistently does all or almost all of the following:
Accurately interprets evidence, statements, graphics, questions, etc.
Identifies the salient arguments (reasons and claims) pro and con.
Thoughtfully analyzes and evaluates major alternative points of view. Draws
warranted, judicious, non-fallacious conclusions. Justifies key results and
procedures, explains assumptions and reasons. Fair-mindedly follows where
evidence and reasons lead
Score 3
Does most or many of the following:
Accurately interprets evidence, statements, graphics, questions, etc.
Identifies relevant arguments (reasons and claims) pro and con. Offers
analyses and evaluations of obvious alternative points of view. Draws
warranted, non-fallacious conclusions. Justifies some results or procedures,
explains reasons. Fair-mindedly follows where evidence and reasons lead
Score 2
Does most or many of the following:
Misinterprets evidence, statements, graphics, questions, etc. Fails to
identify strong, relevant counter-arguments. Ignores or superficially
evaluates obvious alternative points of view. Draws unwarranted or fallacious
conclusions. Justifies few results or procedures, seldom explains reasons.
Regardless of the evidence or reasons, maintains or defends views based on
self-interest or preconceptions.
Score 1
Consistently does all or almost all of the following:
Offers biased interpretations of evidence, statements, graphics, questions,
information, or the points of view of others. Fails to identify or hastily
dismisses strong, relevant counter-arguments. Ignores or superficially
evaluates obvious alternative points of view. Argues using fallacious or
irrelevant reasons, and unwarranted claims. Does not justify results or
procedures, nor explain reasons. Regardless of the evidence or reasons,
maintains or defends views based on self-interest or preconceptions. Exhibits
close-mindedness or hostility to reason.
_________________________________________________
INTERPERSONAL SKILLS WITHIN THE TEAM SETTING - TEAM PEER ASSESSMENT
(Adopted from L. Janusik with permission, UMD)
Performance goals to strive for in your team interactions (performance
criteria):
¨ Prepare yourself well on the issue.
¨ Arrive on time for meetings and reliably complete all assigned work.
¨ Offer material on the issue that is new to your team.
¨ Ask for assistance when needed.
¨ Appropriately utilize your interpersonal skills.
¨ Use language that is appropriate to the audience and occasion.
¨ Use physical behaviors that support your verbal messages.
¨ Provide appropriate and timely supporting materials to help your team solve
problems.
¨ Adapt and modify your verbal and nonverbal behavior as needed to maintain
productive and positive relations within your team.
¨ Contribute to the learning of your teammates.
Intentions toward the team cooperative and collaborative process are of
paramount importance. These intentions are expressed in a number of ways as
provided below:
¨ Show solidarity:
Verbal and nonverbal greetings, departures, and other communications
reflect the
importance of "WE". . . e.g., "We've got a problem, don't we?"
¨ Raise the status of others:
Providing compliments as appropriate.
¨ Give help, encouragement, or rewards:
Offering to assist or take on a task for the benefit of the group.
¨ Provide release during tense moments, use of humor, and demonstration of
satisfaction:
Expression of positive feelings after tense moments.
¨ Provide positive agreement, passive acceptance, understanding, concurrence,
compliance, suggestions or directions in a productive manner:
Nonproductive statement: "I think we should do it this way." Productive
statement: "What
do you think of doing it this way?"
¨ Give opinions, evaluations, analysis, and express feelings or wishes:
This involvement includes self-disclosure of personal information in terms of
feelings and values.
¨ Give orientation, information, clarification, confirmation, gatekeeping:
Provide focus or refocusing on task issues: "We're really off topic now."
"We're supposed to come up with two solutions, right?" Gatekeeping assumes
that information is a commodity that has more value than a mere suggestion.
Repetition, clarification, and confirmation all show strong listening skills
and support.
¨ Ask for orientation, information, and repetition:
Pose questions to individuals or the team: "What do you mean by that?" "Does
anyone know if that issue is relevant to our topic?" "Could you repeat that,
please?" This stance suggests that the speaker is at a loss, and will be kept
at a minimum if adequately prepared for participation.
¨ Ask for suggestions, directions, and possible ways of action:
This stance suggests that the speaker is at a loss, and will be kept at a
minimum if adequately prepared for participation.
¨ Do not disagree, passively reject, use formality or withhold resources:
Disagreement or rejection can be made in both verbal and nonverbal ways.
An example of formality when it is not warranted is acting aloof to a close
friend.
¨ Do not show tension, inappropriately ask for help, or withdraw:
Inappropriate help seeking includes insincerity, excessive flattery, or
sucking up.
¨ Do no show antagonism, attempt to deflate another's status, defend or
assert self interests:
No attempts to dominate the activities and decisions.
________________________________________
I also use peer review in the writing of the individual papers. Students
exchange their papers, and supply responses to questions I provide (pasted
below). They lose points if documentation of participation in both sides of
the review process is not provided on the assignment's due date. I do not
take much class time for the peer exchange, other than to remind them that
such is to take place and to provide assistance in helping the few who have
not been able to arrange for a partner on their own to identify such. The
students do fine in making this arrangement on their own. I also let the
students chose their own teams for the presentations, except for setting and
maintaining guidelines for team size.
_____________________
The following is copied from a syllabus:
We will use a multi-step process for the development of the Controversial
Issue papers:
1. If you opt for the extra credit available for this assignment, you should
arrange to have a tutor in the Writing Center review a draft of your paper
prior to Week 6 of the semester. Save a copy of this draft, including the
tutor's comments and signature.
2. You will rewrite your paper based on the tutor's comments, and bring this
revised version of your paper to class during Week 8 of the semester to
exchange with your peer reviewer.
3. You will review your classmate's paper using the checklist provided below,
and return to him/her with your comments During Week 9 of the semester.
4. You will turn in ALL of the above material when you submit the final
version of your paper on April 4th.
ALL OF THE ABOVE DRAFTS, COMMENTS, AND SIGNATURES OF YOUR REVIEWERS MUST BE
SUBMITTED WITH YOUR FINAL VERSION ON APRIL 4TH. YOU WILL RECEIVE 10 POINTS OF
EXTRA CREDIT FOR YOUR USE OF THE WRITING CENTER. THIS VISIT MUST BE
DOCUMENTED FOR THIS CREDIT. IF THE PEER REVIEWER'S COMMENTS AND DRAFT
CHANGES ARE MISSING, 25 POINTS WILL AUTOMATICALLY BE DEDUCTED FROM THE FINAL
GRADE YOU EARN FOR THIS ASSIGNMENT BASED ON THE ASSESSMENT CRITERIA. IF YOU
FAIL TO ASSIST ONE OF YOUR CLASSMATES IN THE PEER REVIEW PROCESS, YOU WILL
ALSO LOSE 25 POINTS FROM YOUR GRADE FOR THIS ASSIGNMENT. IT IS IMPORTANT,
THEREFORE, THAT YOU MAKE AND SAVE A COPY OF YOUR PEER-FEEDBACK TO DOCUMENT
YOUR CONTRIBUTION TO THIS PROCESS.
PEER REVIEW CHECKLIST:
1) Note with a wavy line in the margin all places where you get confused as a
reader.
2) Write out your assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the writer's
ideas. How will the instructor likely respond to the quality of the arguments
made in the paper based on this assignment's assessment criteria?
3) Does the writer offer sufficient details to support the arguments made?
Identify those areas of the paper where more detail should be provided.
4) Write out two areas where this paper is particularly strong.
5) Make three or more directive statements recommending specific changes the
writer should make for the next draft.
_____________________________
I realize much of this is not likely relevant to your goal of using peer
review for writing assignments alone, but perhaps there is something of help
in the verbiage! I have found that the better/clearer the assignment criteria
and guidelines, the better the implementation.
Sandra
Sandra Nagel Randall
Psychology
Saginaw Valley State University
University Center, MI
