The Pen is Mightier: Online Write‐To‐Learn Activities in Large‐Enrollment Classes

Abstract

Writing is a core skill of many biomedical professions. Writing can also help students think through key concepts or ideas presented in a course (Reynolds et al. 2012). Although many instructors can appreciate the learning opportunities offered by written assignments, those of us who teach large undergraduate classes face practical barriers to incorporating writing in our curricula. A major hurdle is managing the logistics of grading and providing constructive, timely feedback to individual students. One way to overcome this hurdle is to have students provide feedback to each other through peer-review, rather than requiring feedback from the instructor or teams of graders. The process of reviewing the work of others, in addition to receiving feedback about one's own work, is thought to benefit learning and improve scientific communication skills (Reynolds et al. 2012). Our objective in this study was to evaluate how peer-review of written assignments influences learning in a large-enrollment undergraduate physiology course. We hypothesized that students who reviewed other students’ written assignments would improve their understanding of physiological processes, compared to students who completed the same written assignments that were graded by teaching assistants. To test this hypothesis, we assigned the same writing activity to two sections of an introductory physiology course (Section 1 enrollment = 558 students; Section 2 enrollment = 242 students) offered in Fall 2019. The writing activity was a short response (3-5 sentences) to a prompt that asked the students to evaluate or explain a statement related to physiology. All aspects of this activity were conducted online. In exchange for a small amount of bonus credit (equivalent to 0.25% of the final grade), students in Section 2 were encouraged to participate in the peer-review activity. The peer-review process was graded solely on participation, not based on the quality of response. These students submitted their responses to a web-based peer-review software package (EliReview.com), and then each student reviewed the work of four anonymous peers. Once the reviews were completed, the student viewed the anonymous reviews that he/she received and constructed a revision plan to improve the original submission. All written assignments in Sections 1 and 2 were graded by a teaching assistant, but only students in Section 2 were able to participate in the peer-review activity. We found that 57% of students enrolled in Section 2 submitted their written assignment to the web-based peer review system. Of the students who submitted writing, 85% completed four reviews of their peers’ work and 68% completed revision plans based on the peer feedback they received. Students who completed the peer-reviews and the revision plans performed better on exam questions related to topic of the written assignment, compared to students who did not participate in peer-review. Overall, our data indicate that writing activities are feasible in a large-enrollment undergraduate physiology classroom, that these activities can be carried out entirely online, and that peer-review and revisions benefits student learning more than grading by teaching assistants.