June 14, 2015
June 14, 2015
June 17, 2015
Liberal Education/Engineering & Society and Civil Engineering
26.1482.1 - 26.1482.29
A Case Study of the Effectiveness of Two Modes Of Peer Review Instruction in a First-‐Year Engineering Course Effective written communication skills are essential for engineers, as is widely recognized in the field of engineering education and by US and international engineering professional and program accreditation organizations. Since implementation of the EC2000 criteria, communication has been also been explicitly required by ABET accreditation criteria for engineering programs. Specifically, criterion 3g states that programs must demonstrate that their graduates develop “an ability to communicate effectively.” Best practices of writing pedagogy treat writing as a process rather than a product. This includes writing and revising drafts of work based on formative feedback rather than summative evaluative feedback of a final product. Incorporating revision in the writing process is recognized as an invaluable component of improving written work, but writing assignments in engineering courses neither acknowledge nor incorporate this process into the assignment. Engineering instructors may not feel qualified to effectively provide feedback or that draft feedback is unfeasible within the constraints of many engineering courses—instructor time and large student-‐faculty ratios. One potential way to address these concerns is to use peer feedback. Recent work by Cho & MacArthur has shown that peer feedback can be as or more effective than instructor feedback when student writing is reviewed by multiple peers rather than a single peer. An open question, however, is how students can be trained to give effective peer feedback. Engineering instructors often partner with a writing instructor to develop assignments and/or provide this training. The purpose of this study is to examine the results of two types of peer review instruction in a first-‐year electrical and computer engineering course. In two sections of the course, a writing instructor provided in-‐class training on peer review techniques through a short lesson, workshop, and instructional handout; in three additional sections students were provided the handout but no in-‐class instruction. Because not all engineering instructors who introduce writing assignments with peer review into their courses will have the time or institutional support to have a writing instructor provide in-‐class training, this research aims to compare the peer review results achieved in the two groups by answering the following research questions: RQ1: Are peer review comments qualitatively or quantitatively different between the in-‐class instruction and handout groups? RQ2: What are student perceptions of the effectiveness of peer review, and do they differ based on instruction type? Students’ peer feedback comments were characterized using: 1) a priori coding of feedback comments based on characteristics of quality peer feedback grounded in the writing pedagogy literature and 2) assessment categories the assignment rubric. A follow-‐up survey was conducted to determine student perceptions of the intervention. This paper will report on the results of this analysis.
Ekoniak, M., & Scanlon, M., & Mohammadi-Aragh, M. J. (2015, June), Teaching Peer Review of Writing in a Large First-year Electrical and Computer Engineering Class: A Comparison of Two Methods Paper presented at 2015 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Seattle, Washington. 10.18260/p.24819
ASEE holds the copyright on this document. It may be read by the public free of charge. Authors may archive their work on personal websites or in institutional repositories with the following citation: © 2015 American Society for Engineering Education. Other scholars may excerpt or quote from these materials with the same citation. When excerpting or quoting from Conference Proceedings, authors should, in addition to noting the ASEE copyright, list all the original authors and their institutions and name the host city of the conference. - Last updated April 1, 2015