developing theory of practice
To further investigate the role that peer review and student discussion plays in student learning, I incorporated peer review into the next project that I assigned students. In this project, students showed their overall understanding of the jobs of cell organelles and how cells work. As explained on the instruction sheet, students had a variety of options to choose for completing the project: comic strip, creative writing analogy, flipbook or poster, scripted skit, or other creative options (which the student had to have cleared by me or my classroom mentor). I specifically chose to include the peer review activity after I examined the rough drafts of student projects. I noted that some students followed project directions very carefully and had turned in nearly complete projects that demonstrated a strong understanding of cells and cell organelles; other students' projects showed misunderstandings and/or were missing important parts described on the project rubric. For the peer review activity, I paired up students who had similar types of projects (students who created posters; students who wrote short stories; a student who created a website and a student who created a Youtube video; etc.). In addition to pairing students according to 'type' of project, I also attempted to pair students whom I thought showed complete or nearly complete projects with mastery of the material ("green-light" students) with students who had incomplete projects or who seemed to struggle with certain concepts("amber-light" students), a method similar to that described by Black and colleagues (2003). As in the lactase lab peer review activity, I provided students a copy of the rubric that I would be using to grade their assignments. I instructed students to quietly review their partners work and annotate the rubric accordingly. Then, students exchanged their rubrics to read over and discuss what their reviewer had written. Students had the weekend to make any changes they wished before submitting the final draft on Monday.
At the start of class the following class period, students completed a survey about their experience with peer review. I asked students four questions:
1) Did you find the peer review process useful? (Yes or No)
2) Did you use the feedback you received to improve your project? (Yes or No)
3) Did your partner help you understand the process of protein synthesis better? (Yes or No)
4) What did you learn from the peer review process? (open ended)
As the data show, a majority of students (39 out of 50) said they found the peer review process useful. However, only a little more than half of students (27 out of 49) used the feedback they received to correct their assignments, and fewer than half of students (21 out of 49) noted that their partner helped them to understand the process of protein synthesis better. Unfortunately, the open ended responses did not reveal much about these discrepancies. Did the students find the process "useful" simply because they got to talk to their friends? Did only half of the students modify their projects because only half received suggestions for improvements? Did fewer than half of students note that their partners helped them to better understand protein synthesis because only a few students had questions about the process? Perhaps I saw such a robust response to the question "Did you find the peer review process useful?" because students determined the process 'useful' whether they received or gave advice.
At the start of class the following class period, students completed a survey about their experience with peer review. I asked students four questions:
1) Did you find the peer review process useful? (Yes or No)
2) Did you use the feedback you received to improve your project? (Yes or No)
3) Did your partner help you understand the process of protein synthesis better? (Yes or No)
4) What did you learn from the peer review process? (open ended)
As the data show, a majority of students (39 out of 50) said they found the peer review process useful. However, only a little more than half of students (27 out of 49) used the feedback they received to correct their assignments, and fewer than half of students (21 out of 49) noted that their partner helped them to understand the process of protein synthesis better. Unfortunately, the open ended responses did not reveal much about these discrepancies. Did the students find the process "useful" simply because they got to talk to their friends? Did only half of the students modify their projects because only half received suggestions for improvements? Did fewer than half of students note that their partners helped them to better understand protein synthesis because only a few students had questions about the process? Perhaps I saw such a robust response to the question "Did you find the peer review process useful?" because students determined the process 'useful' whether they received or gave advice.
Page 8