Abstract
We implemented two different approaches of using peer review to support undergraduate essay assignments for students taking large second-year courses in life sciences and biology: a web-based online peer review (OPR) approach and a more traditional face-to-face peer review (FPR) approach that was conducted in tutorial settings. The essays consisted of a review of current literature to discuss the molecular involvement of cancer development or stem-cell growth. Following implementation of the peer reviews, we conducted a preliminary analysis of the pros and cons of using the two methods. Student and instructor feedback suggested that the activity of peer review was generally perceived as valuable regardless of which approach was used. OPR was convenient and saved time and resources relative to FPR, but the technical drawbacks using the OPR approach made it challenging for some students to use. A subsequent investigation using alternative OPR programs that offer additional functionality is planned.
Highlights
Peer assessment or peer review can be a powerful pedagogical tool that develops students’ critical and creative thinking skills
About half of the students participating in either online peer review (OPR) or face peer review (FPR) agreed that the perceived optimal number of peer review cycle was two or three sessions
Perhaps less OPR students than FPR students felt that the feedback they received was useful because the Calibrated Peer ReviewTM program did not include an opportunity for conversation and clarification
Summary
We implemented two different approaches of using peer review to support undergraduate essay assignments for students taking large second-year courses in life sciences and biology: a web-based online peer review (OPR) approach and a more traditional face-to-face peer review (FPR) approach that was conducted in tutorial settings. The essays consisted of a review of current literature to discuss the molecular involvement of cancer development or stem-cell growth. Following implementation of the peer reviews, we conducted a preliminary analysis of the pros and cons of using the two methods. Student and instructor feedback suggested that the activity of peer review was generally perceived as valuable regardless of which approach was used. OPR was convenient and saved time and resources relative to FPR, but the technical drawbacks using the OPR approach made it challenging for some students to use. A subsequent investigation using alternative OPR programs that offer additional functionality is planned
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
