The major goal of this activity is to familiarize students with the peer review process and also how to accept criticism from their peers.
In Class 1, a peer calibration exercise is performed whereby the instructor gives the students a paper to edit. The students mark the paper using a predefined grading rubric. The students are then asked to compare their evaluation with that of their neighbours and through a polling exercise, students are shown that, typically, the difference between their final grade that of their neighbour will range from one to two marks.
Then the instructor shows the students how he marked the paper and again through a polling exercise, she/he demonstrates that, typically, the difference between the final mark given by the instructor and those of the student reviewers will fall within one to two marks of each other.
Outside class, students are then asked to write a response to an ethical dilemma.
In Class 2, students bring their response to class and switch their paper with a neighbour. The students then edit each other’s papers using a predefined grading rubric and hand them back to each other.
Outside of class, the students will then edit their papers and either accept or reject the reviewer’s comments. The final draft is then submitted to Peerceptiv (a peer reviewing software).
Through the Peerceptiv software, the students are assigned five of their peers’ papers to evaluate (here students play the role of reviewer). The authors of each paper must also evaluate their five reviewers.
A final grade is given based on timely task completion, a weighted average of the five year reviews (based on their proximity to each other, outliers are weighted less), and on how well they did as a reviewer (which is based on how high their evaluation was weighted on Peerceptiv and also on author evaluation).
This activity was performed in a class of 200 students.
To develop critical thinking, analysis, and assessment skills (in the roles of author and reviewer). To learn how to accept and what to do with feedback and criticism from others (largely based on your role as an author).
Copyright: © 2023 Chen. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication on this website is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.