Where to buy a good research paper
Students were asked to write a literature review on the molecular environment that supports stem cell growth. Peer review was facilitated by TAs during two regularly scheduled tutorials. The remaining hour was devoted to the actual peer review activity. Students were assigned to groups of three by the TA, and each student reviewed two hard-copy abstracts that were between 150 and 300 words in length. Provided with a checklist to guide them through each peer review, students were asked to read, review, edit, and make comments on each abstract.
After each review, peer dyads engaged in a 5-minute where to buy a good research paper follow-up discussion to clarify any unclear comments. Finally, students were asked to fill out evaluation forms for both peer reviewers to ensure that students contributed constructive feedback. The second checkpoint required students to have completed a rough draft of their essay with a maximum of 2000 words.
The format of the second checkpoint was essentially the same as the first checkpoint except that in lieu of the initial workshop hour, more time was allocated for reading and reviewing the longer drafts.
Students were asked to write a literature review on the molecular involvement of cancer development.
Three hundred and forty- eight students participated in both checkpoints for this assignment. The first two checkpoints required students to submit short early drafts: a 350 word outline for the first checkpoint and a 500 word draft for the second checkpoint.
After submitting their own drafts, students then evaluated low, mediocre, and excellent exemplar essays that the instructor included.
A checklist and guidelines were provided to assist the peer reviewers. Once the deadline passed for this review period, the program revealed the results of the reviews along with all of the comments that were provided by the reviewers. Discussion and Future Avenues of Research Overall, the use of peer review to improve science essay writing was positively perceived by most students, regardless of the format. This study was not meant to be a formal evaluation and comparison of the two approaches, so in this discussion, only anecdotal results are reported. Likewise, the large majority of OPR students said that receiving feedback was helpful in improving their essay writing. 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 where to buy a good research paper 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 to be an attractive alternative to implementing peer reviewed assignments when time or space is limited. OPR was conducted outside of scheduled course 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.
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 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 outlines late.
This issue could be easily resolved if the text entry stage where to buy a good research paper 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 where to buy a good research paper 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 where to buy a good research paper 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. Accordingly, OPR students would not experience the same cognitive benefits as FPR students. Based on our preliminary analysis, we suspect that dialogue provides more constructive feedback during peer review for university-level essay writing. We feel that it would be worthwhile to contrast the effects of two-way conversation with one-way feedback on peer review feedback. To make a fair comparison of monological and dialogical discussion, we should eliminate any confounding variables by maintaining the two peer review formats as similar as possible, leaving the type of discourse as the lone variable.
Despite the notion that feedback quality may be improved through two-way conversation, we must also consider that peer reviews would have to be conducted synchronously with peer review and peer reviewer online simultaneously, possibly raising new logistical issues for large classes. Thus, even if the dialogical and conversational approach generates better feedback, we wonder whether it would warrant devoting additional time and resources.