Help writing a argumentative essay
Students were asked during lectures about their experiences using the OPR and through a show of hands, the online anonymous survey results replicated general trends that were reported by students in lecture. About half of the students participating in either OPR or FPR agreed that the perceived optimal number of peer review cycle was two or three sessions. Fewer suggested that one peer review cycle was optimal, while some requested a fourth optional review of their final draft before submitting their essay.
Although our student feedback suggests that FPR was beneficial, it was also time-consuming. Time constraints may be the biggest barrier in implementing FPR, especially in large courses (Robinson, 2005). In our own FPR tutorials, TAs expended four hours of tutorial time and further time grading the reviewer evaluations. Marks for reviewer evaluations had to be manually entered into an excel file. OPR appears help writing a argumentative essay to be an attractive alternative to implementing peer reviewed assignments when time or space is limited.
OPR was conducted outside of scheduled course help writing a argumentative essay hours and four TA hours were saved per TA. OPR also permitted longer peer review sessions than FPR. For each checkpoint, FPR students had 20 and 40 minutes for the first and second peer reviews respectively (including time for follow-up), whereas OPR students had a span of five days to complete their peer reviews with no time limit on how long they spent completing the review. Whether this is because people are more inclined to comment or because they have more time to comment in the OPR format remains unresolved.
We believe that the anonymity of the peer reviewer may permit more help writing a argumentative essay honest peer reviews and thus perhaps more constructive feedback. If the peer reviewer knew that his or her identity was known to the peer, as in FPR, peer reviewers may be more reluctant to voice criticisms even when they may be warranted. Double-blindness is feasibly implemented in OPR but not in FPR, and therefore, anonymity may be an important advantage of OPR. The text entry stage of this particular program was not user-friendly and required students to encode their help writing a argumentative essay submissions using HTML coding.
Even though students were provided with an HTML template, some students complained 71 Collected Essays on Learning and Teaching Vol V that they had technical problems and consequently submitted their help writing a argumentative essay outlines late.
This issue could be easily resolved if the text entry stage had a user- friendly interface. Some students also indicated that they had difficulties logging into the website, which required them to remember their assigned username and chosen password. From the instructor standpoint, a large, initial time investment was involved in designing and setting up the online program. Instructors had to write the assignment instructions, find and input a low, mediocre, and excellent exemplar, design the reviewer evaluation form (forced-choice, rating, open questions), score the exemplars according to the evaluation, and set the dates for each phase. Other OPR programs, such as Norton Textra Connect (Raschio, 1997), have one-to-one messaging systems that allow student- student discussion.
Thus, this is a limitation of the system we used and not generally to OPR. Without two-way dialogue, the writer does not have an opportunity to defend his or her grammatical and syntactical choices, and likewise, the reviewer does not have an opportunity to justify his own comments and suggestions. Two-way collaborative dialogue is inherent to FPR, and students freely engage in self-explanation and elaboration. Wooley (2007) corroborates this reasoning as he claims that students benefit cognitively by explaining themselves to their peers.
In the OPR format, students may provide more honest criticisms because they are safeguarded by a veil of anonymity, but feedback 72 Online and Face-to-Face Peer Reviews may be limited by a lack of dialogue. Regardless of the peer review format, students reported that the peer review process was valuable and wanted it to be included in other essay assignments.
They suggested that two or three peer reviews cycles were optimal to constructing their essays. In our experience, OPR represents a convenient and effective alternative to peer review despite some minor technical issues within the program. Future avenues of research may include conducting a controlled comparison of FPR and OPR (e. Online peer review: An alternative to face-to-face?
The effect and affect of peer review in electronic versus traditional modes on L2 writing.
Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2, 193-227. Online and face-to-face peer review: Measures of implementation in ESL writing classes. Response to writing as a context for learning to write. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Science of education and the psychology of the child. Norton textra connect: a networked writing environment. Computers and collaborative writing in the foreign language classroom. Sharing writing: Peer response groups in action: Writing together in secondary schools. Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. The effects of web-based peer review on student writing.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Kent, OH: Kent State University, USA. Comparing face-to-face and electronic discussion in the second language classroom. Re-examining the effects and affects of electronic peer reviews in a first-year composition class. Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal, 7(2), 4-18. Effects of training for peer revision in college freshman composition classes.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Flagstaff, AZ: Northern Arizona University, USA. In addition to education, his research interests lie in stem cell and molecular biomarker research.