View in EDS

Characterizing Peer Review Comments and Revision from a Writing-to-Learn Assignment Focused on Lewis Structures

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Characterizing Peer Review Comments and Revision from a Writing-to-Learn Assignment Focused on Lewis Structures
Language: English
Authors: Finkenstaedt-Quinn, S. A., Snyder-White, E. P., Connor, M. C., Gere, A. Ruggles, Shultz, G. V. (ORCID 0000-0002-7285-748X)
Source: Journal of Chemical Education. Feb 2019 96(2):227-237.
Availability: Division of Chemical Education, Inc. and ACS Publications Division of the American Chemical Society. 1155 Sixteenth Street NW, Washington, DC 20036. Tel: 800-227-5558; Tel: 202-872-4600; e-mail: eic@jce.acs.org; Web site: http://pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 11
Publication Date: 2019
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Peer Evaluation, Revision (Written Composition), Content Area Writing, Writing Assignments, Chemistry, Scientific Concepts, Science Instruction, College Science, College Students
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00711
ISSN: 0021-9584
Abstract: Lewis structures are fundamental to learning chemistry, yet many students struggle to develop a complex understanding of its meaning and uses. Writing-to-Learn supports students in developing a deeper conceptual understanding of the topic, making it an ideal pedagogy to apply to student learning of Lewis structures. One difficulty often associated with classroom writing is the capacity of instructors to provide feedback to each student on their written work; however, this practical constraint can be mitigated through incorporating peer review. Peer review and revision are known to support conceptual learning and yet are underutilized in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) classrooms. Additionally, peer review is an authentic, common, and necessary practice in chemistry research, which warrants its incorporation early on in chemistry courses. A major concern regarding the use of peer review-based feedback is the ability of students to provide concept-based feedback that is both correct and detailed enough to enhance student understanding and support substantial revisions. In response, this work investigates the relationship between revision and the characteristics of students' peer review comments in the context of a Writing-to-Learn assignment focusing on student understanding of Lewis structures. Chemistry students wrote a summary of Lewis' 1916 paper introducing Lewis structures, participated in peer review, and revised their work in response to a structured prompt detailing specific chemistry concepts to be covered. The peer review comments and students' revisions were thematically analyzed. The peer review comments were deductively analyzed according to an analytical framework to characterize the usefulness of comments. The extent and type of student revisions were also analyzed and paired, if relevant, with the associated peer review comments. Results indicate that students provided both detailed and conceptually focused comments on their peers' work, irrespective of specific chemistry content being addressed. Although the assignment and peer review rubric were content focused, students made a mixture of editing and content revisions following peer review. These results suggest that further scaffolding of what constitutes good feedback and revision may further promote student learning.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2019
Accession Number: EJ1205683
Database: ERIC
FullText Text:
  Availability: 0
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1205683
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Characterizing Peer Review Comments and Revision from a Writing-to-Learn Assignment Focused on Lewis Structures
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Finkenstaedt-Quinn%2C+S%2E+A%2E%22">Finkenstaedt-Quinn, S. A.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Snyder-White%2C+E%2E+P%2E%22">Snyder-White, E. P.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Connor%2C+M%2E+C%2E%22">Connor, M. C.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Gere%2C+A%2E+Ruggles%22">Gere, A. Ruggles</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Shultz%2C+G%2E+V%2E%22">Shultz, G. V.</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7285-748X">0000-0002-7285-748X</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Chemical+Education%22"><i>Journal of Chemical Education</i></searchLink>. Feb 2019 96(2):227-237.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Division of Chemical Education, Inc. and ACS Publications Division of the American Chemical Society. 1155 Sixteenth Street NW, Washington, DC 20036. Tel: 800-227-5558; Tel: 202-872-4600; e-mail: eic@jce.acs.org; Web site: http://pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 11
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2019
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Peer+Evaluation%22">Peer Evaluation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Revision+%28Written+Composition%29%22">Revision (Written Composition)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Content+Area+Writing%22">Content Area Writing</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Writing+Assignments%22">Writing Assignments</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Chemistry%22">Chemistry</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Scientific+Concepts%22">Scientific Concepts</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Science+Instruction%22">Science Instruction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Science%22">College Science</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Students%22">College Students</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00711
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0021-9584
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Lewis structures are fundamental to learning chemistry, yet many students struggle to develop a complex understanding of its meaning and uses. Writing-to-Learn supports students in developing a deeper conceptual understanding of the topic, making it an ideal pedagogy to apply to student learning of Lewis structures. One difficulty often associated with classroom writing is the capacity of instructors to provide feedback to each student on their written work; however, this practical constraint can be mitigated through incorporating peer review. Peer review and revision are known to support conceptual learning and yet are underutilized in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) classrooms. Additionally, peer review is an authentic, common, and necessary practice in chemistry research, which warrants its incorporation early on in chemistry courses. A major concern regarding the use of peer review-based feedback is the ability of students to provide concept-based feedback that is both correct and detailed enough to enhance student understanding and support substantial revisions. In response, this work investigates the relationship between revision and the characteristics of students' peer review comments in the context of a Writing-to-Learn assignment focusing on student understanding of Lewis structures. Chemistry students wrote a summary of Lewis' 1916 paper introducing Lewis structures, participated in peer review, and revised their work in response to a structured prompt detailing specific chemistry concepts to be covered. The peer review comments and students' revisions were thematically analyzed. The peer review comments were deductively analyzed according to an analytical framework to characterize the usefulness of comments. The extent and type of student revisions were also analyzed and paired, if relevant, with the associated peer review comments. Results indicate that students provided both detailed and conceptually focused comments on their peers' work, irrespective of specific chemistry content being addressed. Although the assignment and peer review rubric were content focused, students made a mixture of editing and content revisions following peer review. These results suggest that further scaffolding of what constitutes good feedback and revision may further promote student learning.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2019
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1205683
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1205683
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00711
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 11
        StartPage: 227
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Peer Evaluation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Revision (Written Composition)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Content Area Writing
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Writing Assignments
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Chemistry
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Scientific Concepts
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Science Instruction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Science
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Students
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Characterizing Peer Review Comments and Revision from a Writing-to-Learn Assignment Focused on Lewis Structures
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Finkenstaedt-Quinn, S. A.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Snyder-White, E. P.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Connor, M. C.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Gere, A. Ruggles
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Shultz, G. V.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 02
              Type: published
              Y: 2019
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0021-9584
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 96
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Chemical Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1