developing theory of practice
In addition to collaborating via Google Docs and class sharing of data, students completed an in-class peer review session before submitting their final lab reports. I wanted to model the peer-review practice for students for two main reasons: (1) peer assessment "make[s] distinct contributions to the development of students’ learning and secure[s] aims that cannot be achieved in any other way" (Black, 2004, p. 15) and (2) peer review plays an important role in scientists' work.
Zessoules and Gardner (1991) note that "assesssment is typically associated with the possession of information, rather than the mastery of ongoing processes (like learning to write, revise, and take criticism, or even more radically, to integrate the results of a critique into a work)" (p. 48). As Tomlinson (2006) explains, "[a]ssessment is a process by which we make inferences about what students know, understand, and can do based on information obtained through assessment" (p. 62). Peer review represents an example of the idea of authentic assessment, that is, assessment aimed at presenting a broad, genuine picture of student learning (Zessoules, 1991). As a form of authentic assessment, "peer assessment is uniquely valuable [for helping students learn] because students may [discuss and] accept criticisms of their work from one another that they would not take seriously if the remarks were offered by a teacher. Peer work is also valuable because the interchange [or discussion] will be in language that students themselves naturally use and because students learn by taking the roles of teachers and examiners of others...[Peer assessment] is also valuable in placing the work in the hands of the students. The teacher can be free to observe and reflect on what is happening and to frame helpful interventions" (Black, 2004, p. 14).
An understanding of peer assessment/review is also required for student development of scientific literacy: students should understand that good scientific work does not get published unless the scientific community has rigorously reviewed it. Thus, since students had recently performed their own inquiry research, I expected the same standards to apply to my students; members of their own lab group and another lab group had to review their lab report before they 'submitted it for publication' (i.e. shared it with the teacher). During the peer review class period, students worked more slowly on the peer review activity than I expected; however, most groups showed me that they had completed their peer review sheets by the end of the period. When I graded the lab reports, however, I discovered that most lab reports still had important parts missing! The lab report sections that students left incomplete most often were the introduction (background information), procedure, and analysis (specifically, the lack of class data in their discussion.) I provided each lab group a completed and detailed rubric as a form of feedback for their work. I could not comprehend why students would submit incomplete work even after having time to use a rubric to check it over! Did the students haphazardly complete their peer review sheets, just so they could show me that they had done something? Did students not understand the process and purpose of peer review? Were students not really listening to and learning from each other? Were students paying attention, listening, and learning, but just not going back to make the corrections?
Zessoules and Gardner (1991) note that "assesssment is typically associated with the possession of information, rather than the mastery of ongoing processes (like learning to write, revise, and take criticism, or even more radically, to integrate the results of a critique into a work)" (p. 48). As Tomlinson (2006) explains, "[a]ssessment is a process by which we make inferences about what students know, understand, and can do based on information obtained through assessment" (p. 62). Peer review represents an example of the idea of authentic assessment, that is, assessment aimed at presenting a broad, genuine picture of student learning (Zessoules, 1991). As a form of authentic assessment, "peer assessment is uniquely valuable [for helping students learn] because students may [discuss and] accept criticisms of their work from one another that they would not take seriously if the remarks were offered by a teacher. Peer work is also valuable because the interchange [or discussion] will be in language that students themselves naturally use and because students learn by taking the roles of teachers and examiners of others...[Peer assessment] is also valuable in placing the work in the hands of the students. The teacher can be free to observe and reflect on what is happening and to frame helpful interventions" (Black, 2004, p. 14).
An understanding of peer assessment/review is also required for student development of scientific literacy: students should understand that good scientific work does not get published unless the scientific community has rigorously reviewed it. Thus, since students had recently performed their own inquiry research, I expected the same standards to apply to my students; members of their own lab group and another lab group had to review their lab report before they 'submitted it for publication' (i.e. shared it with the teacher). During the peer review class period, students worked more slowly on the peer review activity than I expected; however, most groups showed me that they had completed their peer review sheets by the end of the period. When I graded the lab reports, however, I discovered that most lab reports still had important parts missing! The lab report sections that students left incomplete most often were the introduction (background information), procedure, and analysis (specifically, the lack of class data in their discussion.) I provided each lab group a completed and detailed rubric as a form of feedback for their work. I could not comprehend why students would submit incomplete work even after having time to use a rubric to check it over! Did the students haphazardly complete their peer review sheets, just so they could show me that they had done something? Did students not understand the process and purpose of peer review? Were students not really listening to and learning from each other? Were students paying attention, listening, and learning, but just not going back to make the corrections?
Page 7