Harper, K. A. (2015, June), Implementing and Evaluating a Peer Review of  Writing Exercise in a First-year Design Project  Paper presented at 2015 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Seattle, Washington. 10.18260/p.24247

\bibitem{asee_peer_24247}
  Harper, K. A. (2015, June), \emph{Implementing and Evaluating a Peer Review of  Writing Exercise in a First-year Design Project}
  Paper presented at 2015 ASEE Annual Conference \& Exposition, Seattle, Washington.
  10.18260/p.24247

Kathleen A Harper.  "Implementing and Evaluating a Peer Review of  Writing Exercise in a First-year Design Project".  2015 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Seattle, Washington, 2015, June.  ASEE Conferences, 2015.  https://peer.asee.org/24247 Internet.  28 Apr, 2024

\bibitem{asee_peer_24247}
  Kathleen A Harper.
  "Implementing and Evaluating a Peer Review of  Writing Exercise in a First-year Design Project".
  \emph{2015 ASEE Annual Conference \& Exposition, Seattle, Washington, 2015, June}.
  ASEE Conferences, 2015.
  https://peer.asee.org/24247 Internet.  28 Apr, 2024

@INPROCEEDINGS{asee_peer_24247
author = "Kathleen A Harper"
title = "Implementing and Evaluating a Peer Review of  Writing Exercise in a First-year Design Project"
booktitle = "2015 ASEE Annual Conference \& Exposition"
year = "2015"
month = "June"
address = "Seattle, Washington"
publisher = "ASEE Conferences"
note = {https://peer.asee.org/24247}
number = {10.18260/p.24247}
}

TY  - CPAPER
AB  -                    Implementing and Evaluating a Peer Review of                   Writing Exercise in a First-Year Design ProjectAs part of a 10-week “cornerstone” design project in the second semester of a first-yearengineering sequence, student teams must submit a complete documentation package, includinga thorough technical report. During the nearly twenty-year history of the program, teams havesubmitted drafts of each half of the report earlier in the term for feedback. In spite of the heavyemphasis on technical writing in the prior semester, these drafts were often disappointing andtime-consuming to grade. Also, it sometimes seemed that feedback on the first half draft hadlittle impact on the quality of the second half draft.To address these weaknesses, a peer review of writing exercise was introduced. Teams nowdraft the first two sections of their report and receive feedback from four of their classmates.This feedback is via comments written on the draft, as well as through responses to questions ona feedback form designed by the instructors. The exercise is structured such that each memberof a team (typically made of four students) reviews a different team’s draft, so that they can seehow several other groups have approached starting their reports. After the team has completedthe reviews of their classmates’ work, but before it has received their feedback, it engages in areflective conversation, prompted by a handout. Teams are asked to identify aspects of theirdraft that were better than those they read, as well as describe modifications that they will maketo their report based upon what they saw from their classmates. Teams then receive the peerfeedback and begin working on the subsequent draft.In the spring of 2014, a qualitative analysis was conducted to answer a few basic questions aboutthe assignment: 1) What types of advice do the students give to each other? 2) Is the advice inline with good technical communication practice? 3) What areas for improvement do teamsidentify as a result of reviewing others’ drafts? 4) Do the teams use the advice from their peersin subsequent report drafts?The analysis yielded 5 major categories of comments from the students: writing style, grammar,content, organization and formatting, and visuals. Roughly ninety-nine percent of the studentcomments contained appropriate advice. The group reflections showed that most teamsidentified at least three major aspects in which they could improve their writing, just based uponlooking at other groups’ reports. Further, when they received the feedback from their peers, theyused it; every subsequent draft contained modifications that could be directly linked to commentsreceived from other teams. The quality of all reports improved as a result.The results of this analysis also suggest improvements to the exercise itself. While students wereable to identify most of the elements needed for good figures and tables, they did not alwaysprovide good advice about their placement and use. It was also learned that students need moreguidance in appropriate use of citations. While the exercise has proven to be effective overall,adjustments are being made to both it and some of the preceding writing instruction to betteraddress these aspects of technical communication.
AU  - Kathleen A Harper
CY  - Seattle, Washington
DA  - 2015/06/14
PB  - ASEE Conferences
TI  - Implementing and Evaluating a Peer Review of  Writing Exercise in a First-year Design Project
UR  - https://peer.asee.org/24247
DO  - 10.18260/p.24247
ER  -