Peer feedback enhances a ‘journal club’ for undergraduate science students that develops oral communication and critical evaluation skills

Kay Colthorpe, Xuebin Chen, Kirsten Zimbardi

Abstract


Effective science communication is one of the key skills undergraduates must achieve to meet the science communication threshold learning outcome (TLO 4.1: (Jones, Yates, & Kelder, 2011)). In addition, presenting published research to their peers allows students to critically evaluate scientific research (TLO 3.1) and develop a deeper appreciation for the link between experimental methodologies and the contestable nature of scientific knowledge.  Although it is well recognised that feedback given to students has positive impacts on student learning (Hattie & Timperley, 2007), increasing workload pressures may restrict academics’ capacity to provide effective feedback. An alternate approach is to facilitate the exchange of feedback between peers, where gaining experience in providing feedback can further develop students’ skills in critique, which enhances their learning outcomes (Liu, Lin, Chiu, & Yuan, 2001; Liu & Carless, 2006). In this study, 3rd year undergraduate biomedical science students were asked to provide anonymous, written feedback on the quality of an oral ‘journal club’ presentation of a primary research article by a group of their peers. Students gave extensive, rich and detailed feedback to their peers. The quality of the feedback given was high, with most students receiving a grade of distinction or higher for the feedback they provided. In addition, the improvement in student learning outcomes was significantly greater with peer feedback than with academic feedback alone, suggesting that students peer-reviewing provides students with additional benefits.


Keywords


peer feedback; assessment

Full Text:

PDF

References


Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in education, 5(1), 7-74.

Boud, D. (2010). Assessment 2020: Seven propositions for assessment reform in higher education [online]. Sydney: Australian Learning and Teaching Council.

Boud, D., & Falchikov, N. (2006). Aligning assessment with long-term learning. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(4), 399-413. doi: 10.1080/02602930600679050

Cho, K., & MacArthur, C. (2010). Student revision with peer and expert reviewing. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 328-338.

Colthorpe, K., Liang, S., & Zimbardi, K. (2013). Facilitating timely feedback in the Biomedical Sciences. International Journal of Innovation in Science and Mathematics Education 21(3), 60-74.

Colthorpe, K., Rowland, S., & Leach, J. (2013). Threshold Learning Outcome 4: Communication. Sydney, NSW, Australia: Office for Learning and Teaching

Connors, R. J., & Lunsford, A. A. (1993). Teachers' Rhetorical Comments on Student Papers. College Composition and Communication, 44(2), 200-223. doi: 10.2307/358839

Dochy, F., Segers, M., & Sluijsmans, D. (1999). The use of self-, peer and co-assessment in higher education: A review. Studies in Higher Education, 24(3), 331-350. doi: 10.1080/03075079912331379935

Falchikov, N. (1995). Peer Feedback Marking: Developing Peer Assessment. Innovations in Education & Training International, 32(2), 175-187.

Glazer, F. S. (2000). Journal Clubs-A Successful Vehicle to Science Literacy. Journal of College Science Teaching, 29(5), 320-324.

Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The Power of Feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112. doi: 10.3102/003465430298487

Jones, S., Yates, B., & Kelder, J. (2011). Science learning and teaching academic standards statement. Sydney, NSW, Australia: Australian Learning and Teaching Council.

Kozeracki, C. A., Carey, M. F., Colicelli, J., & Levis-Fitzgerald, M. (2006). An intensive primary-literature–based teaching program directly benefits undergraduate science majors and facilitates their transition to doctoral programs. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 5(4), 340-347.

Lui, N-F. & Carless, D. (2006). Peer feedback: the learning element of peer assessment. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(3), 279-290.

Lui, E., Lin, S. S., Chiu, C. H., & Yuan, S. M. (2001). Web-based peer review: the learner as both adapter and reviewer. Education, IEEE Transactions on, 44(3), 246-251.

Lynch, R., McNamara, P. M., & Seery, N. (2012). Promoting deep learning in a teacher education programme through self- and peer-assessment and feedback. European Journal of Teacher Education, 35(2), 179-197. doi: 10.1080/02619768.2011.643396

McMahon, T. (2010). Peer feedback in an undergraduate programme: using action research to overcome students' reluctance to criticise. Educational Action Research, 18(2), 273-287. doi: 10.1080/09650791003741814

Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: a model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199-218. doi: 10.1080/03075070600572090

Price, M., O’Donovan, B., & Rust, C. (2007). Putting a social‐constructivist assessment process model into practice: building the feedback loop into the assessment process through peer review. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 44(2), 143-152.

Sadler, D. R. (2010). Beyond feedback: developing student capability in complex appraisal. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), 535-550. doi: 10.1080/02602930903541015

Van Zundert, M., Sluijsmans, D., & Van Merriënboer, J. (2010). Effective peer assessment processes: Research findings and future directions. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 270-279.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5204/jld.v7i2.198
Abstract Views:
411
Views:
PDF
94

Article Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Metrics powered by PLOS ALM

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.

Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.



Contact | Announcements | © Queensland University of Technology | ISSN: 1832-8342