peer graded assignment scientific method writing assignment (creative)

Manage cookies

In this window you can switch the placement of cookies on and off. Only the Functional Cookies cannot be switched off. Your cookies preferences will be stored for 9 months, after which they will be set to default again. You can always manage your preferences and revoke your marketing consent via the Cookie Statement page in the lower left corner of the website.

Like you, we love to learn. That is why we and third parties we work with, use functional and analytical cookies (and comparable techniques) to improve your experience. By accepting all cookies you allow us to place cookies for marketing purposes too, in line with our Privacy Policy . These allow us to track your surfing behavior on and outside of Springest so we and third parties can adapt our website, advertisements and communication to you. Find more information and manage your preferences via the Cookie statement .

check Accept all Cookies

cancel Reject optional Cookies

settings Manage cookies

Quantitative Methods

• Price completeness: This price is complete, there are no hidden additional costs.

Need more information? Get more details on the site of the provider.

Description

When you enroll for courses through Coursera you get to choose for a paid plan or for a free plan . 

• Free plan: No certicification and/or audit only. You will have access to all course materials except graded items.
• Paid plan:  Commit to earning a Certificate—it's a trusted, shareable way to showcase your new skills.

About this course: Discover the principles of solid scientific methods in the behavioral and social sciences. Join us and learn to separate sloppy science from solid research! This course will cover the fundamental principles of science, some history and philosophy of science, research designs, measurement, sampling and ethics. The course is comparable to a university level introductory course on quantitative research methods in the social sciences, but has a strong focus on research integrity. We will use examples from sociology, political sciences, educational sciences, communication sciences and psychology.

Taught by:   Annemarie Za…

Read the complete description

Frequently asked questions

There are no frequently asked questions yet. If you have any more questions or need help, contact our customer service .

Didn't find what you were looking for? See also: Financial Analysis , Corporate Finance , Real Estate , Portfolio Management , and Business Finance .

Taught by:   Annemarie Zand Scholten, Assistant Professor

Each course is like an interactive textbook, featuring pre-recorded videos, quizzes and projects.

Connect with thousands of other learners and debate ideas, discuss course material, and get help mastering concepts.

Earn official recognition for your work, and share your success with friends, colleagues, and employers.

• Reading: Hi there!
• Video: Undecided? See why you should join!
• Video: Welcome to quantitative methods!
• Reading: How to navigate this course
• Reading: How to contribute
• Reading: General info - What will I learn in this course?
• Reading: Course format - How is this course structured?
• Reading: Requirements - What resources do I need?
• Reading: Grading - How do I pass this course?
• Reading: Contact - How do I stay informed?
• Reading: Team - Who created this course?
• Reading: What makes knowledge scientific?
• Video: 1.01 Non-scientific Methods
• Reading: What are the essential qualities of a systematic method?
• Video: 1.02 Scientific Method
• Reading: What's the difference between a hypothesis and a theory?
• Video: 1.03 Scientific Claims
• Reading: Who developed the scientific method and when?
• Video: 1.04 Classical Period
• Video: 1.05 Enlightenment
• Video: 1.06 Modern Science
• Reading: What is your philosophy of science?
• Video: 1.07 Epistemology
• Reading: Do you prefer your science hard or soft?
• Video: 1.08 Ontology
• Video: 1.09 Approaches
• Video: 1.10 Goals
• Reading: Honor Code - Integrity in this course
• Practice Quiz: Origins
• Peer Review: Origins - OPTIONAL Writing Assignment (Evaluative)
• Reading: Transcripts: Origins
• Reading: About the interview
• Video: Origins - Interview - Gerben Moerman (Part 1 of 4)
• Video: Origins - Interview - Gerben Moerman (Part 2 of 4)
• Video: Origins - Interview - Gerben Moerman (Part 3 of 4)
• Video: Origins - Interview - Gerben Moerman (Part 4 of 4)
• Reading: What would be your 'recipe' for the scientific method?
• Video: 2.01 Empirical Cycle
• Reading: What will it take for you to accept a hypothesis?
• Video: 2.02 (Dis)confirmation
• Reading: What do you look for in a good research study?
• Video: 2.03 Criteria
• Reading: How do you identify what caused an effect?
• Video: 2.04 Causality
• Reading: What makes a causal explanation less likely?
• Video: 2.05 Internal Validity Threats: Participants
• Video: 2.06 Internal Validity Threats: Instruments
• Video: 2.07 Internal Validity Threats: Artificiality
• Video: 2.08 Internal Validity Threats: Research setup
• Reading: What different relations and roles can variables have?
• Video: 2.09 Variables of Interest
• Video: 2.10 Variables of Disinterest
• Practice Quiz: Informed Consent Form
• Reading: Transcripts: Scientific Method
• Video: Scientific Method - Interview - Marjan Bakker (Part 1 of 3)
• Video: Scientific Method - Interview - Marjan Bakker (Part 2 of 3)
• Video: Scientific Method - Interview - Marjan Bakker (Part 3 of 3)
• Reading: What are the essential features of a true experiment?
• Video: 3.01 True Experiments
• Reading: What are other ways of comparing?
• Video: 3.02 Factorial Designs
• Video: 3.03 Repeated Measures
• Reading: How do manipulation and control work (in the lab vs the field)?
• Video: 3.04 Manipulation
• Video: 3.05 Lab vs. Field
• Video: 3.06 Randomization
• Reading: What experimental designs can you think of?
• Video: 3.07 Experimental Designs
• Reading: What if you cannot assign randomly?
• Video: 3.08 Matching
• Video: 3.09 Quasi-Experimental Designs
• Reading: What if you can't manipulate either?
• Video: 3.10 Correlational Designs
• Video: 3.11 Other Designs
• Reading: Transcripts: Research Designs
• Video: Research Designs - Interview - Maarten Bos (Part 1 of 4)
• Video: Research Designs - Interview - Maarten Bos (Part 2 of 4)
• Video: Research Designs - Interview - Maarten Bos (Part 3 of 4)
• Video: Research Designs - Interview - Maarten Bos (Part 4 of 4)
• Reading: How do you measure something?
• Video: 4.01 Operationalization
• Reading: What is measurement exactly?
• Video: 4.02 Measurement Structure
• Video: 4.03 Measurement Levels
• Video: 4.04 Variable Types
• Reading: How do you know whether you have used the right instrument?
• Video: 4.05 Measurement Validity
• Video: 4.06 Measurement Reliability
• Reading: How are measures constructed and what are their features?
• Video: 4.07 Survey, Questionnaire, Test
• Video: 4.08 Scales and Response Options
• Video: 4.09 Response and Rater Bias
• Video: 4.10 Other Measurement Types
• Reading: Transcripts: Measurement
• Video: Measurement - Interview - Andries van der Ark (Part 1 of 4)
• Video: Measurement - Interview - Andries van der Ark (Part 2 of 4)
• Video: Measurement - Interview - Andries van der Ark (Part 3 of 4)
• Video: Measurement - Interview - Andries van der Ark (Part 4 of 4)
• Reading: How are samples used for generalization?
• Video: 5.01 External Validity Threats
• Video: 5.02 Sampling Concepts
• Reading: Why would you use probability sampling?
• Video: 5.03 Probability Sampling
• Video: 5.04 Probability Sampling - Simple
• Video: 5.05 Probability Sampling - Complex
• Reading: Why would you use non-probability sampling?
• Video: 5.06 Non-Probability Sampling
• Reading: To what extent does a sample reflect the population?
• Video: 5.07 Sampling Error
• Video: 5.08 Non-Sampling Error
• Reading: How large should your sample be?
• Video: 5.09 Sample Size
• Reading: Transcripts: Sampling
• Video: Sampling - Interview - Armén Hakhverdian (Part 1 of 4)
• Video: Sampling - Interview - Armén Hakhverdian (Part 2 of 4)
• Video: Sampling - Interview - Armén Hakhverdian (Part 3 of 4)
• Video: Sampling - Interview - Armén Hakhverdian (Part 4 of 4)
• Reading: How would you manage and store your data?
• Video: 6.01 Documentation
• Video: 6.02 Data Management
• Reading: How do we make sure participants are treated ethically?
• Video: 6.03 Unethical Studies
• Video: 6.04 Ethics Towards Participants
• Reading: How do we make sure researchers behave ethically and with integrity?
• Video: 6.05 Research Integrity
• Video: 6.06 Questionable Research Practices
• Reading: What about ethics in the publication process?
• Video: 6.07 Peer Review Process
• Video: 6.08 Dissemination Problems
• Peer Review: Practice, Ethics & Integrity - OPTIONAL Writing assignment (Evaluative)
• Video: 6.extra Milgram's Obedience Study (see OPTIONAL assignment)
• Reading: Transcripts: Practice, Ethics & Integrity
• Video: Interview - Practice, Ethics & Integrity - Jelte Wicherts (Part 1 of 4)
• Video: Interview - Practice, Ethics & Integrity - Jelte Wicherts (Part 2 of 4)
• Video: Interview - Practice, Ethics & Integrity - Jelte Wicherts (Part 3 of 4)
• Video: Interview - Practice, Ethics & Integrity - Jelte Wicherts (Part 4 of 4)
• Practice Quiz: Practice Exam 1 - immediate feedback
• Practice Quiz: Practice Exam 2 - feedback in screencasts
• Video: Screencast Practice Exam 2 - Questions 1-10
• Video: Screencast Practice Exam 2 - Questions 11-20
• Video: Screencast Practice Exam 2 - Questions 21-30
• Reading: Transcripts: All modules
• Reading: Bonus material - presentations on research integrity

Share your review

• Privacy Policy
• Cookie statement
• Your reference ID is: X8L9F
• The Netherlands
• United Kingdom

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• J Undergrad Neurosci Educ
• v.15(1); Fall 2016

Using Rubrics as a Scientific Writing Instructional Method in Early Stage Undergraduate Neuroscience Study

Erin b.d. clabough.

1 Biology Department, Hampden-Sydney College, Hampden-Sydney, VA 23943

2 Biology Department, Randolph-Macon College, Ashland, VA 23005

Seth W. Clabough

3 Communication Center/English Department, Randolph-Macon College, Ashland, VA 23005

Associated Data

Scientific writing is an important communication and learning tool in neuroscience, yet it is a skill not adequately cultivated in introductory undergraduate science courses. Proficient, confident scientific writers are produced by providing specific knowledge about the writing process, combined with a clear student understanding about how to think about writing (also known as metacognition). We developed a rubric for evaluating scientific papers and assessed different methods of using the rubric in inquiry-based introductory biology classrooms. Students were either 1) given the rubric alone, 2) given the rubric, but also required to visit a biology subject tutor for paper assistance, or 3) asked to self-grade paper components using the rubric. Students who were required to use a peer tutor had more negative attitudes towards scientific writing, while students who used the rubric alone reported more confidence in their science writing skills by the conclusion of the semester. Overall, students rated the use of an example paper or grading rubric as the most effective ways of teaching scientific writing, while rating peer review as ineffective. Our paper describes a concrete, simple method of infusing scientific writing into inquiry-based science classes, and provides clear avenues to enhance communication and scientific writing skills in entry-level classes through the use of a rubric or example paper, with the goal of producing students capable of performing at a higher level in upper level neuroscience classes and independent research.

Introductory biology courses frequently serve as the foundational course for undergraduates interested in pursuing neuroscience as a career. It is therefore important that neuroscience professors remain aware of the sweeping revisions to undergraduate biology education that continue to be implemented ( Woodin et al., 2009 ; Labov et al., 2010 ; Goldey et al ., 2012 ). Recommendations for these changes are summarized in The American Association for the Advancement of Science’s (AAAS) publication Vision and Change in Undergraduate Biology Education: A Call to Action, which provides a blueprint for massive change in the way that students are introduced to biology ( AAAS, 2009 ). This new perspective encourages a focus on learning and applying the scientific method to a real and present problem that needs to be solved, whereas factual content is deemphasized.

Scientific writing competence is a crucial part of neuroscience education, and is a skill that is partly about process, partly about providing evidence, and lastly about constructing a careful argument. Requiring students to both catalog and reflect on their own work by constructing research papers allows students to experience yet another facet of a scientist’s job description.

As our undergraduate biology classes move away from facts and towards process, we are left with the very real opportunity to teach future neuroscientists how to write up the experiments that they have constructed and run in our classes. As a result, introductory biology classrooms provide an ideal environment for science writing instruction that can serve as the foundation for the writing students will do in upper level neuroscience courses.

Writing as a Teaching Tool

Undergraduate neuroscience faculty should note that writing about science has more benefits than simply honing communication skills or reflecting on information. Previous research shows that the incorporation of writing elements into laboratory content enhances students’ critical thinking abilities ( Quitadamo and Kurtz, 2007 ). Obviously, learning-to-write strategies have been embraced by educators for many years, but writing-to-learn strategies are not as commonly used in the fields of math and science, primarily due to a lack of awareness by science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) educators about how writing can actually cause learning to occur. In particular, assignments that require the writer to articulate a reasoned argument are a particularly effective way to use writing-to-learn. Advocates of writing-to-learn strategies promote the merging of interpretative methods and rubrics (used so often in the humanities) with the hypothesis testing and experimental design that typically occurs in STEM fields to create a type of hybrid research paradigm ( Reynolds et al., 2012 ), and a more holistic approach.

Making Scientific Writing Competence Part of the Introductory Biology Curriculum

The nature of scientific writing is different from traditional essay or persuasive writing, so providing specialized science writing instruction as early as possible in a young scientist’s career is valuable even at institutions that mandate first year writing competence with a required core curriculum. If general undergraduate biology courses teach students the elements of good scientific writing and how to properly format a paper, future neuroscience students are much better prepared to tackle more difficult scientific content in upper-level courses, and are better able to communicate what they find in their own research. In addition, teaching science writing in a way that appeals to young scientists may help with attrition rates for majors.

Teaching students to proficiently write all sections of a scientific paper also teaches students about the different forms of communication that are essential to both scientists and to engaged citizens ( Bennett, 2008 ). For example, the content of an abstract is similar to a news brief or could serve as a summary to inform a potential research student about what has been happening in the lab. The content of an introduction section justifies the scientific work, which is a key element in a successful grant proposal. Writing a thoughtful discussion shows that the researcher has selected the next logical experiment based on the results. Crafting a discussion that considers how the project fits into the global science community is particularly important for the introductory biology student who is taking the course just to fulfill their lab requirement, and may never sit in another science class again.

What is the Best Way to Teach Scientific Writing?

Given the importance of effective science communication ( Brownell et al., 2013a ), it is surprising that more resources and effort are not channeled toward teaching scientific writing to undergraduate students. There are multiple views on the most effective way to teach writing in a science classroom ( Bennett, 2008 ; Reynolds and Thompson, 2011 ; Reynolds et al., 2012 ). Working in teams is a recommended strategy ( Singh and Mayer, 2014 ) and many methods incorporate classmate peer review to evaluate student writing ( Woodget, 2003 ; Prichard, 2005 ; Blair et al., 2007 ; Hartberg et al., 2008 ). Writing instructional methods that target scientific subjects have a history of success—for example, weaving elements of writing throughout a Neuroimmunology class ( Brownell et al., 2013b ), asking Neurobiology/Cell Biology students to write NSF-style grants ( Itagaki, 2013 ) or using a calibrated peer-review writing-to-learn process in Neuroscience classes ( Prichard, 2005 ).

Methods that emphasize understanding primary scientific literature typically focus on thesis writing ( Reynolds and Thompson, 2011 ), the reading and discussion of landmark published peer-reviewed journal articles as an example of the correct way to write up scientific results ( Hoskins et al., 2011 ; Segura-Totten and Dalman, 2013 ), or require students to actually write or submit their own articles to a peer-reviewed journal to experience the peer-review process first-hand ( Jones et al., 2011 ). These methods typically work well to teach writing to upperclassmen, but may prove unwieldy for use in the general curriculum or for entry-level scientists. Use of a specific paper construction method can effectively help novice writers include required elements and get to a finished project ( O’Connor and Holmquist, 2009 ), but more detailed expectations for content and style will be required for students in an introductory course.

Unfortunately for many undergraduate science writers, the first real attempt at scientific writing often happens during the undergraduate thesis, typically written as a senior, and students are commonly left to learn scientific writing on their own ( O’Connor and Holmquist, 2009 ). It only seems reasonable that teachers should prepare their students to write an effective, culminating thesis well before the capstone coursework and research commences. Previous work showed that integrating science writing into an undergraduate psychology course over a year-long period resulted in improved student writing ability ( Holstein et al., 2015 ). So how can underclassmen be taught scientific writing within a single semester?

Use of Rubrics to Teach Scientific Writing

The use of rubrics in STEM fields is not a new idea, and a grading rubric serves several simultaneously useful functions. First, it clearly communicates assignment requirements and sets uniform standards for student success, while eliminating unintentional bias in the faculty grading process. Next, it can be extremely useful in finding areas that the students still need help on and targeting future instruction accordingly. The rubric can also serve as a tool to create a more effective peer review process, if the instructor chooses to use it in this way. And lastly, the rubric sharpens the teacher’s ideas about what he/she is looking for before the material is taught, possibly making for more effective instruction. A detailed outline can facilitate the writing process ( Frey, 2003 ), and a detailed rubric may function in a similar manner, as it provides a scaffold to write the entire paper.

Previous research shows that rubrics can augment students’ ability to use medical terminology correctly ( Rawson et al., 2005 ) and can improve students’ ability to critically evaluate scientific studies ( Dawn et al., 2011 ). Use of a grading rubric has proven a reliable way to evaluate lab reports in large university settings using graduate teaching assistants across numerous sub-disciplines ( Timmerman et al., 2010 ).

Informal assessment during previous semesters running a inquiry-based classroom revealed that some students with no previous active learning experiences can struggle with the lack of a textbook, the idea that process can be more important than content, and what they perceive as a lack of concrete items to memorize (personal observation, E. Clabough). In response to student feedback, rubrics were developed to provide very concrete methods of grading and assessment for items like oral presentations, lab notebooks, and writing assignments.

When presented with new material, the learning brain seeks out patterns as it processes information. Because a rubric provides structure and pattern to this process, it not only assists students with organizational strategies, but also reflects the way the brain actually learns ( Willis, 2010 ). Use of carefully designed rubrics can increase executive functioning in students, including skills such as organizing, prioritizing, analyzing, comparing/contrasting, and goal setting ( Carter, 2000 ). Requiring students to use the rubrics to make decisions about the material while self-grading may further tap into executive functions during the learning process.

Peer Tutoring to Enhance Science Writing Competence

Peer tutoring places a peer in the role of instructor in a one-on-one setting with a fellow student. The role of the peer tutor is to elucidate concepts, to provide individualized instruction, and to allow the tutee to practice manipulating the subject matter. Numerous studies have established the link between this form of tutoring and improved academic performance for tutees, which is measurable in a variety of subjects including reading, math, social studies and science ( Utley and Monweet, 1997 ; Greenwood et al., 1992 ; Bowman-Perrott et al., 2013 ). The effectiveness of using peer tutoring to teach science writing to undergraduates has been under-examined, and to our knowledge, this is the first study to combine this approach with the use of a grading rubric.

The current experiment explored different ways to teach scientific writing to undergraduate students by incorporating a detailed grading rubric into established inquiry-based undergraduate biology classrooms over the course of a semester. All students were provided with scientific writing rubrics, though some students received additional peer tutoring. We did not directly measure instructional success, but the quality of scientific papers was assessed as a routine part of the course and compared against the attitudes that students had towards science writing in general. Student attitudes about the effectiveness of different ways to teach writing were also measured.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Course design.

Randolph-Macon College (R-MC) is a small liberal arts college that converted their introductory biology classes into an inquiry-based learning format in 2010. Two semesters of the module-based Integrative Biology are offered and students may take them in any order. The current experiment was performed in these Integrative Biology (BIOL122) classrooms, which were run as a combination lecture/lab course broken into three separate instructional modules over the course of a semester. Short 20–30 minute lectures were interspersed with experiment brainstorming, experiment execution, hands-on class activities, statistics, and paper writing exercises. The three-hour courses met twice weekly throughout the semester, and were taught by the same professor (E. Clabough). Undergraduate students were primarily freshman and sophomores and the course was open to both biology majors and non-majors.

Students were expected to design, perform, and analyze their own experiments in groups using the provided module organisms. Students were broken into small groups of 3–4 students to work as lab teams. Individual papers were written at the conclusion of each of the three modules. Module 1 explored the molecular biology of energy in mouse mitochondrial isolates. Students assessed if a redox dye could substitute for the enzymes within the mitochondrial membrane, and used a colorimeter to assess whether or not an electron was successfully passed to cytochrome C in the preparations. Module 2 centered on genetics using commercially available alcohol dehydrogenase Drosophila mutants. Students used an inebriometer to measure the susceptibility of an AHD mutant/wild type flies to ethanol vapors. Module 3 looked at vertebrate development using a zebrafish fetal alcohol paradigm. Students exposed developing embryos to various ethanol concentrations and measured response variables of their own choosing, including body size, heartbeat and behavioral measures.

Scientific Writing Experimental Conditions

Scientific writing was taught in chunks to the students as the course progressed ( Table 1 ). Each student was expected to individually write a lab paper at the conclusion of each module in order to communicate that module’s experiments. The Module 1 paper consisted of the title page, methods, results, and references. The Module 2 paper consisted of the title page, introduction, methods and results, discussion, and references. The Module 3 paper was formatted as an entire article, complete with title page, abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion, and references. Some paper elements, particularly at the beginning of the semester, went through several rough drafts before the final module paper was due.

Timetable for teaching scientific writing. Scientific writing content, format, rubrics, and assignments were introduced using a specific timeline throughout the module-based Integrative Biology course. Three separate scientific papers were assigned based on class experimental results. The rubric had eight distinct components that were utilized as needed throughout the semester. Each rubric component was handed out at the time the students were assigned that particular element of the paper. A summary rubric was also handed out before each final paper.

Sections were randomized to one of three experimental conditions—Rubric Only, Rubric + Tutor or Self-Grade Rubric—using a random number generator. Each condition centered on a different use of the same grading rubric for scientific writing. Since it is not practical to withhold a rubric from one section of a multi-section course, all sections had access to the exact same rubric. The first group (n=16) served as a Rubric Only control group. Individual paper element rubrics were handed out to students when each element was introduced during class, and the instructor went over each rubric in detail for all classes. Students were told to consult the rubrics before turning in their drafts or final papers. In addition, a rubric summarizing the upcoming paper requirements (see Supplementary Material ) was handed out approximately a week before each module paper was due.

The second group, Rubric + Tutor (n=14), received the rubrics and peer tutoring. This group was given rubrics, but was also required to use tutoring services at least one time for each module paper (three times over the course of the semester). Due to the specific formatting and content requirements of a scientific paper, participants were tutored by biology subject tutors rather than the writing center tutors. The three biology tutors were upper-class biology majors, nominated by faculty, and employed by the academic center at R-MC. These tutors demonstrated outstanding competence in their courses of study and had undergone a tutoring training program that is nationally certified by the College Reading and Learning Association (CRLA). In addition, the biology subject tutors had all taken Integrative Biology at R-MC.

Biology subject tutors (2 female and 1 male) had designated weekly hours for drop-ins or appointments, generally in the evenings. At the beginning of the semester, the instructor met with the biology subject tutors and informed them of the experiment, provided them with the grading rubrics and paper due dates, and asked for a log of upcoming student sessions. Ongoing contact was kept between the instructor and the subject tutors throughout the semester.

The third group, Self-Grade rubric (n=14), received the same grading rubrics, but used them in a different way. They were given the relevant rubrics, but instead of having the instructor go over the rubrics, this group was asked to make decisions about whether or not their own assignments fell in line with the rubric requirements during class. Students were asked to grade their own drafts, as well as other students’ drafts throughout the semester. For this peer-review, each student used the rubric to grade two other students’ drafts during class and immediately communicated the grading results one-on-one with the writer.

Many students in this study had previously taken the first semester of Integrative Biology (86% of the students in the Rubric Only section, 92% of the Rubric + Tutor group, and 40% of the Self-Grade Rubric section). These students had exposure to and practice with scientific writing, since students in both semesters are required to write scientific papers, so this difference may alter interpretation of between groups differences. Students enrolled in the Rubric Only section reported an average self-reported estimated GPA of 2.69 and the class was composed of 84% freshman. Students in the Rubric + Tutoring section were also mostly freshman (92%), who reported an average GPA of 2.83, while the Self-Grade rubric section contained more upperclassmen (60% freshman), and self-reported an average GPA of 2.46. GPA was not statistically different between groups.

Scientific Writing Evaluation Rubrics and Tutors

Rubrics were designed using a point system for each required paper element (to total approximately 70% of the overall score), and overall paper writing style/format was weighted as approximately 30% of the overall paper grade (see Supplementary Material ). All students were encouraged to use the biology subject tutors as a valuable college resource, although it was only compulsory for students in the Rubric + Tutor group to visit the tutors.

Scientific Writing Attitudes and Perceived Competence Assessment

At the beginning of the semester, all students completed a Likert-based questionnaire ( Likert, 1932 ) which explored their attitudes towards writing in science, as well as how relevant they felt effective writing is to good science. The questionnaire also collected information about how students personally assessed their own competence in writing overall, as well as in science writing, and their perceptions about the effectiveness of different ways to teach scientific writing. The same questionnaires were given again to students during the final week of classes (see Supplementary Material ).

Data Analysis

The writing attitude and perceived competence questionnaire was examined for meaningful change between and within groups to look for differences in the assessment of scientific writing importance or in writer confidence. The mean and SEM were calculated for each Likert style question. After ensuring that the data met the requirements to use a parametric statistic (data were normally distributed, groups had equal variance, there were at least five levels to the ordinal scale, and there were no extreme scores), data were analyzed using ANOVA, followed by t-tests for pairwise comparisons. One pre-assessment question had high variance as measured by standard error, so the Kruskal-Wallis test was used in that instance. The responses were anonymous within each group, so it was not possible to track changes within individual students, but t-tests were also performed to detect differences in each group between the first and last weeks of class.

Although writing performance was not the primary objective of the study, the rubric was used to grade the scientific reports to determine a paper score for each of the three module papers as a part of the course. Papers for all experimental groups were mixed together for grading by the class instructor, though the instructor was not blind to their identity. Because each module paper required that students demonstrate competency writing new parts of a scientific paper, overall paper scores were calculated across the semester. Papers were worth more points as the semester progressed and more paper sections were added (Paper 1: 50 points, Paper 2: 60 points, Paper 3: 100 points). Differences between groups in overall paper scores were collected (total points accumulated over the three papers) and analyzed using an ANOVA.

Biology Subject Tutor Use

In the Rubric + Tutor group, 78.6% of the students visited the tutors an average of 2.3 times per student. Tutoring hours and services were advertised to the students as a valuable paper writing resource, but just 20% of the Self–Grade Rubric class and none of the Rubric Only class visited the tutors at some point during the semester. During the current study semester, a total of 19 students visited the biology subject tutors a total of 44 times campus-wide. This reflects an increase from the semester prior to the current study, when just 10 students utilized the tutors a total of 23 times.

Scientific Writing Rubric Use

Reliability between raters was calculated based on a randomly sampling of student papers scored by two independent raters with disparate education backgrounds (one rater had earned a Ph.D. in science and the other rater had an English Ph.D.). Reliability for overall paper scores was found to be high (r = 0.8644, ICC; Table 2 ).

Rubric Reliability. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated to determine rubric reliability. Seven final papers were randomly selected to be scored by two independent raters. The ICC provides a measure of agreement or concordance between the raters, where the value 1 represents perfect agreement, whereas 0 represents no agreement. ICC values were calculated for the individual paper elements, as well as for the overall paper. ICC was interpreted as follows: 0–0.2 indicates poor agreement, 0.3–0.4 indicates fair agreement, 0.5–0.6 indicates moderate agreement 0.7–0.8 indicates strong agreement, and 0.8–1.0 indicates near perfect agreement.

The rubrics worked very well as a grading tool for the instructor, consuming about 10–15 minutes to grade an individual paper. One student paper was inadvertently shuffled to the bottom of the pile and unknowingly re-graded. Remarkably, he received the same 87.5% score on the second grading attempt as he did during the first grading session. Use of the rubric made it easier to have conversations with individual students about their papers if there was a grade inquiry, and eliminated the need to write large amounts of comments on each paper. Biology subject tutors reported that they used the rubrics during the tutoring sessions, but felt that they concentrated primarily on grammar and sentence structure with students.

Student Writing Performance

Although writing performance was not the primary focus of this study, no significant difference was found between the Rubric Only group, the Rubric + Tutor group and the Self-Grade Rubric group in overall paper writing scores, calculated as all by adding all the scientific writing points over the semester (by ANOVA; p = 0.096), nor was there a difference in the final paper scores (by ANOVA; p = 0.068).

Attitude Change within Groups

No changes were seen in each group between pre and post assessment answers on the Scientific Writing Attitudes questionnaire, except one significant difference was found for the statement “I am good at writing in general but not good at science writing.” Significantly more students in the Rubric Only group disagreed with this statement at the end of the semester compared to the beginning of the semester (by t-test; p = 0.0431; pre-mean = 3.14 ± 0.275 and post-mean= 2.375 ± 0.24, where 1 is strongly disagree and 5 is strongly agree) ( Figure 1 ).

Significantly more students in the Rubric Only group disagreed with the statement “I am good at writing in general but not good at science writing” at the end of the semester compared to the beginning (by t-test; p = 0.0431; pre-mean = 3.14 ± 0.275 and post-mean= 2.375 ± 0.24). No other group displayed a significant difference pre-course vs. post-course. Data depicts student responses on the Likert questionnaire, where 1 is strongly disagree and 5 is strongly agree.

Attitude Differences between Rubric Groups

Significant differences between the groups were detected in the post-questionnaire answers for several of the writing attitude and perceived competence questions. The Rubric + Tutor group held significantly more negative attitudes towards scientific writing on several questions. On average, more students in the Rubric + Tutor group agreed with the post-statement “Scientific writing is boring” (by ANOVA; p = 0.016; mean of Rubric-Only group 2.25 ± 0.28; mean of Rubric + Tutor group 3.36 ± 0.27; mean of Self-Grade Rubric group 2.43 ± 0.27) ( Figure 2 ). This difference was not detected during the pre-assessment (by ANOVA, p = 0.46).

More students in the Rubric + Tutor group agreed with the post-statement “Scientific writing is boring.” Data depicts student responses on the Likert questionnaire administered at the conclusion of the semester, where 1 is strongly disagree and 5 is strongly agree (by ANOVA; p = 0.016; mean of Rubric Only group 2.25 ± SEM 0.28; mean of Rubric + Tutor group 3.36 ± 0.27; mean of Self-Grade rubric group 2.43 ± 0.27).

On average, more students in the Rubric + Tutor group agreed with the post-statement “I feel like scientific writing is confusing” (by ANOVA; p=0.021; mean of Rubric-Only group 2.69 ± 0.30; mean of Rubric + Tutor group 3.71 ± 0.29; mean of Self-Grade Rubric 2.71 ± 0.24) ( Figure 3 ). This difference was not detected during the pre-assessment (by ANOVA, p = 0.96).

More students in the Rubric + Tutor group agreed with the post-statement “I feel like scientific writing is confusing.” Data depicts student responses on the Likert questionnaire administered at the conclusion of the semester, where 1 is strongly disagree and 5 is strongly agree (by ANOVA; p=0.021; mean of Rubric Only group 2.69 ± SEM 0.30; mean of Rubric + Tutoring group 3.71 ± 0.29; mean of Self-Grade rubric 2.71 ± 0.24).

Significantly more students in the Rubric + Tutor group also agreed with the post-statement “I would enjoy science more if I didn’t have to write up the results” (by ANOVA; p=0.037; mean of the Rubric Only group 2.63, ± 0.29; mean of Rubric + Tutor group 3.6, SEM .29; mean of Self-Grade Rubric group 2.69, SEM 0.33) ( Figure 4 ). This difference was not detected during the pre-assessment (by ANOVA, p = 0.79).

More students in the Rubric + Tutor group agreed with the post-statement “I would enjoy science more if I didn’t have to write up the results.” Data depicts student responses on the Likert questionnaire administered at the conclusion of the semester, where 1 is strongly disagree and 5 is strongly agree (by ANOVA; p=0.037; mean of the Rubric Only group 2.63 ± 0.29; mean of Rubric + Tutor group 3.6 ±.029; mean of Self-Grade Rubric group 2.69 ± 0.33).

Student Perception of Teaching Tools

The questionnaire also assessed how biology students judged the effectiveness of teaching tools to write more effectively. Students agreed or disagreed with the effectiveness of six methods commonly used to teach writing: working on drafts one-on-one with someone, modeling a paper after an example paper, watching someone else construct a paper from scratch, looking at a detailed grading rubric, participating in small group writing workshops, and listening about to how to place the experimental elements into the paper during a lecture. No significant differences were found in each group’s pre- vs. post- semester assessment responses.

When the post-semester assessment responses from all classes were pooled together (n= 44), we found that students perceived the effectiveness of scientific writing teaching methods very differently (by ANOVA; p <0.0001; using an example paper 4.17 ± 0.12; using a detailed rubric 3.98 ± 0.16; listening to a lecture about constructing science papers 3.8 ± 0.99; one-on-one assistance 3.78 ± 0.4; participating in small group workshops 3.63 ± 0.2; or watching someone else construct a paper from scratch 3.24 ± 0.17; data shown are means ± SEM, where 1 is strongly disagree with effectiveness and 5 is strongly agree) ( Figure 5 ).

Post-semester assessment showed that students thought the most effective ways to teach scientific writing were 1) using an example paper or 2) using a detailed rubric. Students though that 1) watching someone else construct a paper from scratch or 2) participating in small group writing workshops were the least effective ways to teach scientific writing (by ANOVA; p <0.0001; using an example paper 4.17 ± 0.12; using a detailed rubric 3.98 ± 0.16; listening to a lecture about constructing science papers 3.8 ± 0.99; one-on-one assistance 3.78 ± 0.4; participating in small group workshops 3.63 ± 0.2; or watching someone else construct a paper from scratch 3.24 ± 0.17; n = 44). Data depicts the means ± SEM of student responses on the Likert questionnaire administered at the conclusion of the semester, where 1 is strongly disagree and 5 is strongly agree.

Students rated using an example paper as significantly more effective than listening to a lecture about how to place experimental design elements into a paper (by t-test; p < 0.01), more effective than one-on-one assistance on paper drafts (by t-test, p = 0.02), more effective than participating in small group workshops (by t-test, p < 0.0001), and more effective than watching someone construct a paper from scratch (by t-test, p < 0.0001).

Students rated the use of a rubric as significantly more effective than watching someone construct a paper from scratch (p < 0.001), and more effective than participating in small group workshops (p < 0.0001).

Students also rated participating in small group workshops as less effective than one-on-one assistance on paper drafts (p = 0.02), and less effective than listening to a lecture about paper construction (p = 0.05). In fact, students rated participating in small group workshops as significantly less effective than nearly every other method.

Mean final course grades were not significantly different between the classes, nor were course or instructor evaluations scores different. The mean class grade for the Rubric Only section was 85.9%, the mean evaluation score for course structure was 4.0 (out of 5), and the mean instructor effectiveness evaluation score was 4.43 (out of 5). The mean class grade for the Rubric + Tutor section was 83.7%, the mean evaluation score for course structure scores was 4.25 (out of 5), and the mean instructor effectiveness evaluation score was 4.33 (out of 5). The mean class grade for the Self-Grade rubric section was 77.9%, the mean evaluation score for course structure scores was 4.07 (out of 5), and the mean instructor effectiveness evaluation score was 4.27 (out of 5).

Scientific writing falls underneath the umbrella of “Ability to Communicate and Collaborate with Other Disciplines,” as one of six core competencies in undergraduate biology education ( AAAS, 2009 ). Scientific writing is a skill that can be applied to the discipline of biological practice, and is also a key measure of biological literacy. AAAS focus groups involving 231 undergraduates reported that students request more opportunities to develop communication skills, such as writing assignments in class or specific seminars on scientific writing ( AAAS, 2009 ). In 2004, approximately 51% of undergraduate educators that attended past American Society for Microbiology Conferences for Undergraduate Educators (ASMCUE) reported that they introduced more group learning and writing components after attending an ASMCUE conference targeting biology education reform ( AAAS, 2009 ).

Additionally, as we noted in the introduction, scientific writing is an important part of undergraduate neuroscience education because it provides students with an opportunity to utilize writing-to-learn strategies to promote the merging of interpretative methods and rubrics with the hypothesis testing and experimental design that typically occurs in STEM fields to create a type of hybrid research paradigm ( Reynolds et al., 2012 ) and a more holistic approach.

As a growing number of schools embrace CURE curriculums, instructors will increasingly need to deal with the problem of how to have their students effectively communicate the results of the experiments they do. Scientific writing is the natural extension of a complete scientific project, and requires students to think clearly about process, argument, and making evidence-based conclusions. These competencies are linked to life-long skills, including critical thinking, and perhaps executive functioning.

Undergraduate students in our biology classes believe that the most effective ways to teach scientific writing are by providing an example paper, a rubric, or by effective lectures. Interestingly, these are all very “hands-off” approaches to learning, indicating that either the students crave more structure in this type of inquiry-based learning course, or that the students’ past experiences with one-on-one tutoring or small group based writing workshops were not ideal. It would be interesting to see if these types of attitudes persist in a more traditional lecture classroom format.

Peer Tutoring

Despite boosted confidence, the group of students who were required to use a peer tutor felt that scientific writing was boring and less enjoyable than students who were not required to visit a tutor. Peer tutoring, particularly in writing, has a long history of improved paper performance, with mostly positive subjective feedback from students. Certainly a student’s experience with a peer tutor may revolve around both the tutor’s willingness to help and competency in the subject matter, but even with a willing and competent tutor, students may be unhappy with what they perceive as an extra assignment (visiting the tutor). Previous studies show an added benefit of self-reported enhanced writing ability in the tutors ( Topping, 1996 ; Roscoe and Chi, 2007 ), a finding that was also reflected in the current study in informal post-experiment feedback from our tutors.

Tutoring services are a staple offering of most colleges and universities, but the training can be relatively general in nature. Tutoring centers can consider developing working relationships between individual science departments and their own subject tutors. Departmental faculty members can take a more active role in the tutoring by offering tutor training sessions, instruct the tutors about specific desirable ways to support students, and possibly follow up with their own assessments to track tutor outcomes.

Rubrics, Example Papers, and Effective Lectures

We find that undergraduate students in our inquiry-based biology classrooms believe that rubric use is a very effective way to teach science writing. As such, we propose that undergraduate neuroscience faculty consider that the use of rubrics may better fit the needs of beginning science students (and future students interested in upper level neuroscience courses) better than more commonly used peer review instructional methods. In particular, rubrics are a logical fit for use in inquiry-based writing instruction, since they provide needed structure, they clearly communicate standards for success in the classroom, and students think they are effective teaching tools. Yet rubrics remain an important tool for all disciplines at all college levels.

Most professors have rubrics that they use to assist with their own grading, but many do not share these rubrics with their students during the writing process. This is similar to withholding the driver’s manual from a Driver’s Ed student as they learn to drive by observation or by practicing driving around the parking lot. Use of the rubric may give the students an element of control otherwise missing from an assignment. Prior research shows that learners who are not in a power position demonstrate poor task performance, but do better when they are in control over their own learning ( Dickinson, 1995 ; Smith et al., 2008 ). Although we did not directly compare the use of a rubric with non-rubric use, perhaps the perception of control during learning is valuable, as more rigorous use of the rubric allows the student to essentially pre-determine what grade he or she will receive on each paper.

Nothing is wrong with teaching students the way they want to be taught. However, more research needs to be done to compare teaching methods. Students stated that a preference for “effective lectures” to teach scientific writing, but characteristics of these “effective lectures” need to be further elucidated. Exposing groups of students to various types of lecture styles and then administering a subsequent writing assessment would allow evaluation of both writing performance and allow students weigh in with their perceptions of what makes an “effective lecture.” Studies comparing use of example papers, very specific rubrics, and effective lectures would be helpful, as well as combinations of the three elements. It would also be helpful to track the specific responses of those students who go to focus their studies on neuroscience to see whether their views deviate from or adhere to the findings for the group as a whole.

Despite the frequent use of peer review or tutoring that is commonly used in writing workshops and with classroom paper rough drafts, we did not find that peer review boosted student perception of writing competence. Students prefer to hold the keys to classroom success in their hands—a printed out rubric or model paper is, in their eyes, more valuable than listening to or talking about writing.

Supplementary Information

Acknowledgments.

The authors would like to thank members of the Randolph-Macon Department of Biology, including Jim Foster, Charles Gowan, Grace Lim-Fong, Melanie Gubbels-Bupp, and Ryan Woodcock for sharing their Integrative Biology vision, as well as the Higgins Academic Center, Josh Albert, Megan Jackson, and Alyssa Warren for tutoring support.

• AAAS American Association for the Advancement of Science. Vision and change in undergraduate biology education: a view for the 21st Century. 2009. [accessed 19 February 2014]. http://visionandchange.org/finalreport/
• Bennett P., Jr Using rubrics to teach science writing. Essays On Teaching Excellence: Toward the Best in the Academy. 2008; 20 (8) [ Google Scholar ]
• Blair B, Cline G, Bowen W. NSF-style peer review for teaching undergraduate grant-writing. Am Biol Teach. 2007; 69 :34–37. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bowman-Perrott L, Davis H, Vannest K, Williams L, Greenwood C, Parker R. Academic benefits of peer tutoring: a meta-analytic review of single case research. School Psych Rev. 2013; 42 :39–55. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brownell SE, Price JV, Steinman L. Science communication to the general public: why we need to teach undergraduate and graduate students this skill as part of their formal scientific training. J Undergrad Neurosci Edu. 2013a; 12 :E6–E10. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brownell SE, Price JV, Steinman L. A writing-intensive course improves biology undergraduates’ perception and confidence of their abilities to read scientific literature and communicate science. Adv Physiol Educ. 2013b; 37 :70–79. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Carter C. Images in neuroscience. Cognition: executive function. Am J Psychiatry. 2000; 157 :3. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dawn S, Dominguez KD, Troutman WG, Bond R, Cone C. Instructional scaffolding to improve students’ skills in evaluating clinical literature. Am J Pharm Educ. 2011; 75 :62. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dickinson L. Autonomy and motivation: a literature review. System. 1995; 23 :165–174. [ Google Scholar ]
• Frey PA. Guidelines for writing research papers. Biochem Mol Biol Educ. 2003; 31 :237–241. [ Google Scholar ]
• Goldey ES, Abercrombie CL, Ivy TM, Kusher DI, Moeller JF, Rayner DA, Smith CF, Spivey NW. Biological inquiry: a new course and assessment plan in response to the call to transform undergraduate biology. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2012; 11 :353–363. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Greenwood CR, Terry B, Arreaga-Mayer C, Finney R. The class-wide peer tutoring program: implementation factors moderating students’ achievement. J Appl Behav Anal. 1992; 25 :101–116. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hartberg Y, Gunersel A, Simpson N, Balester V. Development of student writing in biochemistry using calibrated peer review. Journal of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. 2008; 8 :29–44. [ Google Scholar ]
• Holstein SE, Mickley Steinmetz KR, Miles JD. Teaching science writing in an introductory lab course. J Undergrad Neuroscience Educ. 2015; 13 :A101–A109. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hoskins SG, Lopatto D, Stevens LM. The C.R.E.A.T.E. Approach to primary literature shifts undergraduates’ self-assessed ability to read and analyze journal articles, attitudes about science, and epistemological beliefs. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2011; 10 :368–378. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Itagaki H. The use of mock NSF-type grant proposals and blind peer review as the capstone assignment in upper-level neurobiology and cell biology courses. J Undergrad Neurosci Educ. 2013; 12 :A75–A84. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jones LS, Allen L, Cronise K, Juneja N, Kohn R, McClellan K, Miller A, Nazir A, Patel A, Sweitzer SM, Vickery E, Walton A, Young R. Incorporating scientific publishing into an undergraduate neuroscience course: a case study using IMPULSE. J Undergrad Neurosci Educ. 2011; 9 :A84–A91. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Labov JB, Reid AH, Yamamoto KR. Integrated biology and undergraduate science education: a new biology education for the twenty-first century? CBE Life Sci Educ. 2010; 9 :10–16. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Likert R. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch Psychol. 1932; 22 :5–55. [ Google Scholar ]
• O’Connor TR, Holmquist GP. Algorithm for writing a scientific manuscript. Biochem Mol Biol Educ. 2009; 37 :344–348. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Prichard JR. Writing to learn: an evaluation of the calibrated peer review program in two neuroscience courses. J Undergrad Neurosci Educ. 2005; 4 :A34–A39. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Quitadamo IJ, Kurtz MJ. Learning to improve: using writing to increase critical thinking performance in general education biology. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2007; 6 :140–154. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rawson RE, Quinlan KM, Cooper BJ, Fewtrell C, Matlow JR. Writing-skills development in the health professions. Teach Learn Med. 2005; 17 :233–238. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Reynolds JA, Thompson RJ., Jr Want to improve undergraduate thesis writing? Engage students and their faculty readers in scientific peer review. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2011; 10 :209–215. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Reynolds JA, Thaiss C, Katkin W, Thompson RJ., Jr Writing-to-learn in undergraduate science education: a community-based, conceptually driven approach. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2012; 11 :17–25. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Roscoe RD, Chi MTH. Understanding tutor learning: Knowledge-building and knowledge telling in peer tutors’ explanations and questions. Rev Educ Res. 2007; 77 :534–574. [ Google Scholar ]
• Segura-Totten M, Dalman NE. The CREATE method does not result in greater gains in critical thinking than a more traditional method of analyzing the primary literature. J Microbiol Biol Educ. 2013; 14 :166–175. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Singh V, Mayer P. Scientific writing: strategies and tools for students and advisors. Biochem Mol Biol Educ. 2014; 42 :405–413. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Smith PK, Jostmann NB, Galinsky AD, van Dijk WW. Lacking power impairs executive functions. Psychol Sci. 2008; 19 :441–447. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Timmerman B, Strickland DC, Johnson RL, Payne JR. Development of a ‘universal’ rubric for assessing undergraduates’ scientific reasoning skills using scientific writing. Assess High Eval Educ. 2010; 36 :509–547. [ Google Scholar ]
• Topping KJ. The effectiveness of peer tutoring in further and higher education: A typology and review of the literature. Higher Education. 1996; 32 :321–345. [ Google Scholar ]
• Utley C, Monweet S. Peer-mediated instruction and interventions. Focus Except Child. 1997; 29 :1–23. [ Google Scholar ]
• Willis J. Rubrics as a doorway to achievable challenge. John Hopkins School of Education: New Horizons for Learning. 2010:8. [ Google Scholar ]
• Woodget BW. Teaching undergraduate analytical science with the process model. Anal Chem. 2003; 75 :307A–310A. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Woodin T, Smith D, Allen D. Transforming undergraduate biology education for all students: an action plan for the twenty-first century. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2009; 8 :271–273. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Organizing Scientific Writing

In a number of my classes for geology majors I give writing assignments along with some explicit instructions about how to organize their writing. They write initial drafts, which are subjected to peer review according to a standard rubric. They then go over another draft with me in my office, and then submit the final draft.

Learning Goals

Context for use, description and teaching materials, teaching notes and tips, references and resources.

See more Browse examples for Teaching the Process of Science »

• Communicating in STEM Disciplines
• Features of Academic STEM Writing
• STEM Writing Tips
• Academic Integrity in STEM
• Strategies for Writing
• Science Writing Videos – YouTube Channel
• Educator Resources
• Lesson Plans, Activities and Assignments
• Strategies for Teaching Writing
• Grading Techniques

Using Peer Review

Peer Review

Peer review is a natural fit for science communication settings, because it is such a vital component of the scientific publishing process. Thus, involving students in peer review may not only improve students’ writing, but also their understanding of science. Peer review can also help to make students more responsible and reflective when it comes to their written work 1 .

When incorporating writing tasks into science classes, one of the main concerns educators have is the time required to grade and provide effective feedback. This is a greater concern with large classes. If your goal is to provide multiple writing opportunities to students to allow them to practice their writing skills, you may want to consider using peer evaluation to reduce the grading burden. However, it is important to be aware that some students can be mistrusting of peer review, thinking that it places their grades in the hands of unqualified peers 2 . To reduce the likelihood of your students thinking this, it is important to explain the many positive outcomes that should result from them engaging with peer review.

In this guide, we consider some of the challenges and best practice strategies, before focusing specifically on using peer review to provide students with formative feedback and for grading purposes .

Peer Review Podcast

To listen to two UBC experts discuss how you can plan to include peer review in your classes, listen to our podcast on this topic here .

Incorporating Peer Review into Your Class

Some of the greater concerns about incorporating peer review into a science class are highlighted below (Table 1), but you can employ the strategies matched with these to negate or offset them.

Table 1: Best Practice Strategies to Deal with Specific Peer Review Implementation Concerns

Using Peer Review for Formative Assessment

Some specific strategies and things to consider that may help you handle peer review and address related concerns in your class include how you will:

• Communicate the purpose of the activity with students to gain their support. Obviously, it is not a good idea to suggest that the students are “doing your work for you”. Instead, highlight the benefits of reading and critically analyzing other’s work. Discuss how being a peer reviewer will help them understand grading criteria better and spot weaknesses in writing structure and argumentation, which will in turn help improve their own work 3 . Emphasize how important it is for people to get feedback on their writing during the revision stage, and that you are helping facilitate that for the entire class.
• Provide an appropriate incentive to students to encourage them to take the review process seriously. Depending on your class size, you may not have the resources to grade students’ reviews of each other’s work. However, you could set aside a component of the assignment grade to be determined by student perception of how useful the peer review is in helping them revise their work.
• Train students on providing effective feedback 4 . You may want to provide detailed guidance in the form of a checklist or rubric so that students know exactly what they should be considering when reviewing someone else’s work or at least provide prompts to make sure they pay attention to important elements of their peers' writing 5, 6 .
• Decide how many assignments to ask students to review. If they review two or more assignments, they can compare and contrast them as well as receive a wider range of feedback on their own work. Sometimes comparing different pieces of work helps students provide more objective feedback because they are better able to assess the strengths and weaknesses of writing when they see more than one example. While some research suggests students hold positive attitudes towards peer review after the purpose has been explained 7 , other work shows that students trust the process more as they get more experience of it 8 . As a result, incorporating more than one round of peer review should increase the chances that you students will have greater faith in what they are doing, and why they are being asked to do it.
• Decide whether to include a face-to-face discussion to go along with the paper-based or software-based reviews. It can be useful for students to hear directly from their peers about what was unclear and excellent about their writing assignment. Face-to-face discussions allow for clarification and may even lead to paired brainstorming about revisions. Of course, this would mean that reviews are not anonymous, but there is little evidence that suggests blinding peer reviews is more useful to learners.
• Encourage students to incorporate their reviewers’ comments into their work. You may want to have students write a cover page, similar to a letter to the editor of a journal, discussing how they incorporated their reviewers’ comments so that they must tackle this task.
• Organize the logistics of the whole process. Software systems can do just this. These tools will greatly reduce the burden of organizing the reviews if you have a large class.

An Example of Peer Review in Communicating Science (SCIE 300) at UBC

Here we describe an example of how peer review is used in a third-year communicating science class at our institution. Students work individually to prepare a research paper written in scientific journal style. Their papers are based on a small-scale scientific investigation they performed in groups of 3-4. Four days after the draft papers are due as submissions to the course learning management system, students bring two copies of their paper to class. While students are working on an in-class activity, the instructor distributes the papers to the reviewers. We make sure that students in the same group are not assigned to review each other’s work and ensure that the review class peer discussions will be able to occur without anyone being left out of the discussion.

We give students a rubric and ask them, as homework, to mark up the papers as needed. Four days later, we pair students up in class to discuss their reviews. Each pair has ten minutes to discuss one paper, and then they switch.

The key features that make this process run smoothly are:

• Students are accountable and therefore invested in the process because they need to submit their draft online before coming to class. There are a few buffer days for late submissions.
• We provide a rubric to guide students’ reviews.
• We provide guidance about exactly what the pairs should be discussing.

Do you have examples of effective peer review that you would like to share? Please contact us here if so.

Using Peer Review for Grading Purposes

While having students grade each other’s work can be a time-saving measure, it takes time and thought to incorporate peer evaluation into your class successfully. Here we describe some best practices to consider before implementing peer evaluation with your students. Benefits to peer evaluation include increased responsibility and autonomy, improvement in critical thinking, and improvement of structured thinking.

Many of the same considerations must be given when using peer review for grading purposes as for formative purposes (discussed above). However, there are some additional things to consider, and these are listed below:

1. As above (in the Using Peer Review for Formative Assessment section), it is not a good idea to suggest that the students are “doing your work for you”. Instead highlight the benefits of reading and critically analyzing others’ work.

Be aware that that some students may have negative perceptions of peer evaluation and perceive it as unfair (Smith et al. 2002, Kaufman and Schunn 2011). However, these perceptions may change positively as a result of participating in peer evaluation (Wen and Tsai 2006), so it is important to ensure that students get something positive from their first experiences of the process.

2. As above, it is important to provide an incentive to students to encourage them to take the grading process seriously.

However…

3. It is very important to limit the peer evaluation component of the students’ overall course grades to reduce the perception that their grade is mostly left up to a non-expert or to chance. This is critical when you are piloting peer evaluation in your class.


4. Be sure to have a plan in place for how to deal with student complaints. You may want to set up a formal grievance process.

5. Consider whether your peer evaluation is going to be anonymous or not. Most of the software systems below are anonymous. If not anonymous, consider how you will deal with conflicts of interest, such as two best friends being assigned to each other’s work.

Using Software or Calibrated Peer Review Software Systems

What follows is a brief overview of software systems you may want to consider. The benefit of using a software program to handle peer evaluation is that they can simplify the logistics of assigning, collecting, and returning grades, and providing feedback. Using these systems requires a considerable initial time commitment to set up the assignment and grading rubric(s), but the time savings come later when they construct grades for you and provide feedback directly to students. It is also very important to ensure you make it clear to your students that any software systems used for peer review offer learning benefits to them 9 , as well as smoothing the assignment logistics for you.

• Calibrated Peer Review . The CPR software was created at UCLA and takes users through a sequence of submitting their own work, training on grading other’s work (“calibration”) and grading their peer’s work. There is a bank of assignments and it is easy to create your own. Check out the extensive list of publications on the CPR website.
• iPeer (UBC). iPeer is an open-source web-based software application that allows instructors to create assignments and rubrics, send reminders to students, and provide feedback. Evaluations can be based on rubrics, and the system can be used for evaluating the contributions of group members in team projects.
• PeerMark ( Turnitin ). This component of Turnitin distributes student work for peer grading according to instructor-given criteria. Reviewers may comment and add editing remarks. Your institution may have a license with Turnitin, and it may be integrated with your learning management system (LMS). At UBC, Turnitin is not integrated with the LMS because Turnitin stores the data in the United States. Be sure only anonymous student work is uploaded to Turnitin if your institution is in Canada.
• MyWritingLab (Pearson). This proprietary software allows for “facilitated peer review”, which means that students may provide comments on other students’ work, as well as grade it using an instructor-provided rubric.
• Peerceptiv (formerly SWoRD Peer Assessment). Peerceptiv engages students in double-blind reviews using instructor-created rubrics. This system claims to motivate students, eliminate bias, and generate useful analytics for instructors. Student work is graded by three to six peers and students have the opportunity to “back evaluate” to rate the helpfulness and specificity of the review. SWoRD has been heavily researched by the University of Pittsburgh and is offered by Panther Learning.

Do you have other examples of peer evaluation software that you have had success with? Please contact us here if so.

Useful References

1. Dochy, F, Segers, M, Sluijsmans, D. The use of self-, peer and co-assessment in higher education: A review. Stud High Educ. 1999; 24(3):331–350.

2. Kaufman, JH, Schunn, CD. Students’ perceptions about peer assessment for writing: their origin and impact on revision work. Instr Sci. 2011; 39:387-406.

3. Cho, YH, Cho, K. Peer reviewers learn from giving comments. Instr Sci. 2011; 39:629-643.

4. Stanley, J. Coaching student writers to be effective peer evaluators. J Sec Lang Writ. 1992; 1(3):217-233.

5. Cho, K, Schunn, CD, Wilson, RW. Validity and reliability of scaffolded peer assessment of writing from instructor and student perspectives. 'J Educ Psych. 2006; 98(4):891-901.

6. Gan, MJS, Hattie, J. Prompting secondary students' use of criteria, feedback specificity and feedback levels during an investigative task. Instr Sci. 2014; 42:861-878.

7. Keaten, JA, Richardson, ME. A field investigation of peer assessment as part of the student group grading process, paper presented at the Western Speech Communication Association Convention. 1992; (pp. 1–34). Presented at the Western Speech Communication Association Convention, Albuquerque.

8. Smith, H, Cooper, A, Lancaster, L. Improving the quality of undergraduate peer assessment: A case for student and staff development. Innov Educ Teach Int. 2002; 39(1):71–81.

9. Wen, ML, Tsai, CC. University students’ perceptions of and attitudes toward (online) peer assessment. High Educ. 2006; 27(18):27–44.

Giving Effective Feedback - Peer Review - Student Handout

Giving Effective Feedback – Peer Review

Tips and Example Feedback

Try to follow some of these tips when giving feedback to your peer(s), and always try to imagine things from their perspective; ask yourself whether your peer(s) will be able to use your feedback to improve their writing.

1. Be supportive as well as honest

• “This paragraph confuses me because…”
• “You have an interesting detail here that I almost missed because…”
• “Your opening thesis statement told me exactly what you were going to argue, but the logic of your argument was hard to follow because…”

2. Be specific ( why is something confusing?)

• “This word means something different to me because…”
• “I am not sure which example you are referring to here because…”
• “This sentence might be clearer if you wrote it in the active voice because…”

3. Write comments on the draft and use additional paper if you need to

• Make sure these comments are specific and easy to interpret
• Try not to edit someone’s work; instead, tell them how they can edit it
• Use a coding system to highlight related errors/issues (e.g. circles around tense issues, underline sections where the logic doesn’t flow…)

4. Keep feedback confidential

5. Focus on the paper, not the person

6. Use plenty of “I” statements to de-personalize your feedback (rather than “You” statements, which can make people uncomfortable)

• “At this point, I thought the essay was going to next consider…”
• “I would probably find this section easier to understand if…”
• “I like the way this point is connected to the next one, and would find the argument easier to follow if all the points were connected like this…”

7. Provide suggestions rather than commands

• “Consider moving this point up one paragraph so that it follows on directly from this point…”
• “I think this section would be easier to read if it was written in the active voice…”
• “It might be worth finding another example that provides support for this claim to make the argument more convincing…”

Essay For Feedback - Peer Review Exercise

Should limited research funds be allocated to basic or applied research projects?

Scientific research can be conducted as basic or applied, basic research is more general and includes learning about topics such as insect behaviour whereas applied research is instead performed with a more specific goal in mind to solve particular problems such as how to prevent the spread of malaria with different kinds of drugs in areas affected by malaria. Both research types are different but both are important for improve human quality of life.

Basic research is very important becase without building a foundation of knowledge it is very hard to tackle specific problems in the world. For example, basic research like people investigating the manifold ways in which chemical compounds react and bind with one another in solutions and how these ways are affected by the molecular structure of the compounds is very important. Deadly diseases have been responsible for huge numbers of deaths in years gone by but the field of medicine has successfully developed medicines that treat and cure many of these. All treatments must be tested carefully in applied testing trials before it is used to save lives, however it is very rare that it could be developed at all without there being prior knowledge about how it might be made to specifically tackle the disease agent which is why it is so important to have deon the initial applied work. So it is very important that basic research is performed, that can show things such as in what conditions the drug might be good, whether there might be similar compounds from other sources that might do the same thing etc. Applied research builds on this detailed, broad knowedge in a more specific way. A good example is that knowledge of the molecular structure of certain compounds can be used by those with a mind to work out why they might react different in different environments. If certain compounds reacted differently with water than with dry earths then agriculturalists might research different mixes of compounds used as fertilisers to be used by farmers in different environments that are wet or dry. So they might predict and be right that one is more useful in the pacific northwest than in California and arizona and save money and produce more crops in the two regions. Basic research does often enhance knowledge that can be used to solve problems in an unexpected way too though, and this is a major reason why it is very important to improve science as a whole. For example, scientists performed basic research into the way that sharks skin cells aligned with each other after they noticed how rough they felt to the touch. Further down the line, unrelated research teams used the data to perform applied research and design clothing materials for people working in harsh enivieonrments like extremely cold places or where there is a need to not tear clothing like in a building where corrosive or poisonous solutions will be regularly used.

To summarize, I think that basic and applied research are both important and scientists should continue to work at both types so that more general and specific discoveries can be made to significantly improve the quality of life that we as people will enjoy because if only one type of research had been performed in the past we might not have done many important things such as reduced the spread of malaria, investigated the likelihood of life existing on Mars, or even invented the iPad.

Peer Review Rubric

Instructions to author: When the peer review begins, take notes. These notes are for your own benefit when revising and do not need to be submitted. Listen to your peer and avoid getting defensive or apologizing .

Instructions to peer reviewer: Read this peer review form first, and then read your peer’s paper. You can make annotations on the paper, and/or on this form. The paper’s author will keep this form and the annotated paper. You will also have the chance to present your comments, clarify your points and make suggestions during a conversation with your peer.

Resource Download

Giving Effective Feedback – Peer Review - Student Handout

Scientific Writing: Peer Review and Scientific Journals

by Natalie H. Kuldell

• The Student Experience
• Financial Aid
• Degree Finder
• Undergraduate Arts & Sciences
• Departments and Programs
• Research, Scholarship & Creativity
• Centers & Institutes
• Geisel School of Medicine
• Guarini School of Graduate & Advanced Studies
• Thayer School of Engineering
• Tuck School of Business

Campus Life

• Diversity & Inclusion
• Athletics & Recreation
• Student Groups & Activities
• Residential Life

Writing Program

• [email protected] Contact & Department Info Mail
• Writing Instruction
• Writing Support
• Past Prize Winners
• Writing 2-3 Teaching Assistantships
• Apply to Tutor
• Writing Requirement & Scheduling
• Differences Among First-Year Writing Courses
• Writing 2-3
• Humanities 1-2
• First-Year Seminars
• Directed Self-Placement
• Writing 2-3 Registration
• Writing 5 Registration
• First-year Seminar Registration
• Registration FAQ
• Teaching Writing in the First Year
• Expectations for Teaching Writing 2-3
• Expectations for Teaching Writing 5
• Expectations for Teaching First-Year Seminar
• Active Learning
• Syllabus and Assignment Design
• Teaching Writing as Process
• Integrating Reading and Writing
• Diagnosing and Responding
• Conducting Writing Workshops
• Collaborative Learning
• Teaching Argument
• Teaching Research
• Addressing Grammar
• Useful Links
• Academic Integrity
• Processes & Practices of a Scholarly Community
• Quality of Sources
• The Writing Center
• Multilingual Support
• News & Events

Search form

• Teaching Guidelines

Collaborative Learning/Learning with Peers

For the past three decades, educators have recognized the value of learning collaboratively. Educators widely recognize that students do not learn well when they are isolated "receivers" of knowledge. Indeed, students must overcome isolation in order to learn to write. Collaborative learning exercises—such as peer review workshops, collaborative research assignments, group presentations, collaborative papers and discussion groups—are important components of our writing classrooms because they encourage active learning , giving students the opportunity to become more deeply engaged with their writing, and with one another.

Why collaborate?

• Collaboration helps students understand writing as a public, communal act, rather than as a private, isolated one. Many students write papers that make sense to them but that aren't clear or persuasive for others. Peer reviewers help students to understand that they aren't writing for themselves, but for readers.
• Collaboration therefore helps student writers to develop a sense of audience. Too often students write only to please their instructors, whose expectations they rarely understand. Knowing that their peers will read their papers gives students a concrete sense of to whom they are writing, and why.
• Collaboration helps students to better understand the conventions of academic discourse. When talking about their papers with their peers, students will learn where their readers stumble. They can also find out why. Often, these conversations lead to a better understanding of the writing conventions that the student writer has neglected or misunderstood.
• Collaboration helps students realize that academic conventions are not simply arbitrary rules, but in fact reflect readers' expectations. If student writers want to be understood by an academic audience, they must heed the conventions of academic writing.
• Collaboration gives students practice in analyzing writing. It is easier to see where a classmate's writing is going awry than it is to find flaws in one's own prose. It is also easier to critique student writing than it is to analyze the published writing that instructors often give their students as models.
• Collaboration encourages students to talk about their writing. In peer review sessions, students have to field questions about their writing. They have to explain and sometimes defend their writing strategies.
• Collaboration helps students to understand writing as a process, and to increase their sense of mastery of what is often a complex and difficult task. The best way to learn something is to teach it. When instructing their peers, students learn how to improve their own prose.

How to Collaborate Effectively

Our discussion so far has pointed to why collaboration is useful in our writing classrooms. The question that remains is how collaboration is most effectively used. Can collaborative exercises be whole-class events? Or do they work better when the groups are smaller? Should groups have three members? Two? Four? Should collaborative work be done in class, or might it be done outside of class? Should an instructor supply guidelines for collaborating? Should she develop criteria for evaluating peer work, or should she encourage students to develop their own?

The beauty of collaborative learning is that it might be practiced in a number of ways. Collaborative exercises can be whole-class events; they might also be done in small groups. Some collaborative exercises work best with pairs—in particular, those exercises that require close attention (such as sharing whole essays). Other collaborative exercises work best when student writers receive multiple points of view (for example, when the aim of the exercise is to narrow a topic, sharpen a thesis, and so on).

Whatever you decide, it's important to remember that peer exercises should be carefully designed so that they reflect your goals and meet your students' needs. You don't, necessarily, have to design the exercises on your own—sometimes (as in collaborative assessment exercises) you may want to design the exercise with your students. What follows are some ideas for designing collaborative enterprises for your class.

Diagnosing Collaboratively

One very effective use of collaborative learning in the Writing Classroom involves asking students to diagnose and then respond to their peers' written work. To insure that our students are able to comment productively and effectively on their peers' papers, we must first teach them methods of diagnosis and response. We can begin by modeling the reading process for our students, illustrating that there are several ways to read a paper. (For a discussion of how you can use these same methods to sharpen your diagnostic skills, see Diagnosing and Responding to Student Writing .

Too often when diagnosing their peers' writing, students either 1) try to emulate their instructors, or 2) respond as editors. Neither response is particularly effective: in the first case, students appropriate authority over their classmates' work; in the second, they correct errors rather than facilitate good writing. Accordingly, we offer some ways of reading that will help students avoid these pitfalls:

• Reading as a common reader. When students read as what Virginia Woolf called "common readers," they take note of their personal responses to a text. Are they bored? Fascinated? Annoyed? Delighted? Typically, a negative response to a paper reflects a problem with the writing. If a reader is bored, the paper is likely unfocused. Perhaps the writer digresses. Perhaps the writer has not learned how to write strong, emphatic sentences. Instructors should ask students to keep track of their experiences of a particular text, as these responses can lead them to a sense of the paper's particular strengths and weaknesses.
• Reading to know the writer. Buried in our students' papers is an abundance of information regarding who they are and what they believe in. Students should read not only for what is in the paper, but for what isn't in it: sometimes the prejudices and assumptions that are never explicitly stated in the paper are precisely the paper's problem. Students should try to determine what feelings, values, opinions, and assumptions might be undermining a text. They should also try to determine what the writer does (and does not) know about academic writing. For instance, does the writer understand how to craft an effective thesis? Does the writer understand how to effectively use and cite evidence? Noting what the writer knows about writing gives the peer editors a place to begin; noting what the writer does NOT know suggests a strategy for the peer review.
• Reading to diagnose the problem. If you provide the proper terminology and guidelines, students are generally able to diagnose what is wrong with their classmates' papers. Instructors should devote some class time to explaining what concepts they deem most important to the success of a particular paper: Does it have a persuasive thesis sentence? Focused topic sentences? Coherent paragraphs? Clear and elegant sentences? Students can then check the paper for these particular problems, discussing among themselves what might be going wrong.
• Reading to improve the paper. Even though students can generally diagnose what is wrong with a paper, they are less skillful at giving advice for improving it. They may have no trouble determining, for example, that a thesis is weak. But how to make it better? Of all the ways of reading we've considered so far, this is the one in which students require the most careful and thorough instruction. Instructors can model this process by transforming a poor thesis (or paragraph, or sentence) into a good one. This modeling should be done collectively, with students offering various suggestions. The instructor can try out suggestions, discovering with students which will yield better sentences and paragraphs, and which will not. Students can then do the same in their work with their peers.

Download Ways of Reading instructions for your students.

Responding Collaboratively

Once students have been taught how to read their classmates' papers, they will require some instruction in how to respond. Students must be taught to respond facilitatively, a method that is more fully outlined in Diagnosing and Responding to Student Papers . In brief, a facilitative response requires a reader to respond in a way that facilitates the writer's goals. This approach asks readers to ask questions rather than to offer directions for improvement, so that the writer can herself determine which revision strategy to take. For instance, instead of saying, "Omit this," ask, "Why is this relevant? What's the connection?" The first comment assumes that a portion of the text needs to be cut when, in fact, the idea may be keenly relevant. In this case, the writer would find a way to make more explicit the relevance of the idea. The paper will then meet the student's original aim rather than meet the reader's (mistaken) assumptions.

The facilitative approach also encourages a writer to understand that good writing is a matter of making good choices. If you respond to a student with a list of directions, she won't think her options through. If you ask questions, the student will have to determine how best to answer them. She will discover that there are several ways to express an idea or develop an argument, and that she must choose the one that best meets her aims. In this way, authority remains with the student author.

When interacting with their peers, students will require strategies for crafting good responses to their classmates' work. They might try the following strategies:

• Summarize the argument. If a reader has trouble summarizing the writer's argument, it's likely that the argument has a gap, or that its logic is unclear. Summarizing can help students to see where and how an argument has gone awry.
• Predict the argument. After reading only the paper's introduction and thesis, can a reader predict the argument to follow? If not, then perhaps the introduction has failed to frame the argument, or the thesis has failed to make its point. This exercise is fruitful because it helps students to assess the strengths and weaknesses of a paper's introduction and thesis sentence. They will also see the link between a good, clear introduction and the overall structure of an argument.
• Ask questions. The most important aims of the peer review are to get the student writer to understand how it is that her paper needs to be revised, and to determine strategies for that revision. Questions are a good way to encourage this process. Students can ask questions about parts of the paper that they don't understand; they can ask questions about the writer's process; they can ask questions about a writer's intention; they can ask about the writer's rhetorical strategies. All will get the conversation started and keep it lively.
• Reflect what the writer is trying to say. If a particular point is unclear, it can be useful to try to reflect that point back to the writer: "What you seem to be saying here is..." The writer will usually see that his point is unclear and can then consider how to communicate the point more effectively to the reader.
• Label problems. Student writers appreciate it when their peers take the time to find and to name the problems in their papers. Student reviewers can make a list of the problems they find on their peers' papers and can then work together with the writer to correct these problems. In this case, students are teaching good writing to their peers. If students need additional help they can consult a grammar handbook, confer with you, or see an RWIT tutor.
• Make suggestions. Student writers seek advice. They don't simply want to know what's wrong with their writing; they want to know how to fix it. Their peers should therefore be prepared to make suggestions for improvement. Note that we use the word "suggestions" in the plural: a peer reviewer should not insist on one solution to a problem. Rather, reviewers should offer several strategies for solving the problem, allowing the writer to determine which of these solutions might work best.

Additional Ideas for Collaborative Learning

Though peer group work is the most commonly used method for collaborative learning, many instructors employ collaborative assignments in order to reap the benefits of peer learning. Consider, for example:

Collaborative Research Assignments

The collaborative research assignment allows students to work together to explore a topic relevant to the course, but not necessarily covered in class. Working together, students can cover more ground than they can on their own. They can also try out different research strategies and then discuss among themselves which strategies are most useful, and why. Sometimes collaborative research leads to some other collaborative assignment—a group paper or presentation, for example.

Not all collaborative research assignments involve "big" tasks. In the first-year classroom in particular, instructors look for creative ways to introduce their students to the research process through small assignments. For example, some instructors assign students to research groups, give them a set of questions to answer, and then send them to the library or to the Internet to find the answers together. One instructor sends groups of students on a scholarly scavenger hunt, requiring them to explore different databases and to use different search engines in order to accomplish their research tasks. Others provide students with a topic and ask them to create an annotated bibliography together. The point is to get students working and talking together about what it means to do academic research.

Group Presentations

Group presentations are common in many Dartmouth classrooms. In these instances, instructors prepare topics or questions for the groups to consider, and then require the groups to prepare a presentation for the class. Sometimes the groups are asked to lead discussion of one of the course's primary texts; sometimes they are asked to come to class with historical or cultural information that can put a particular work in context. Sometimes groups are encouraged to be creative and to use several media when presenting to the class.

Some instructors express concern that group presentations allow weaker students to depend on stronger ones for their success in the course. In fact, this concern can be understood as one of the "positives" of group work, in that the stronger students can model the academic process for their less-prepared peers. If you remain concerned about your students' individual performances, you might begin by having groups prepare the first round of class presentations. The next round of presentations might be managed by pairs, and the final round by individuals. Students learn with each round to become more independent in the research and presentation processes.

Collaborative Papers

Like collaborative research assignments or group presentations, collaborative papers permit instructors to ask students to tackle an idea associated with the course that has not been covered in class. Students are assigned to produce the paper together: they may be asked to write the entire paper together, or they may be permitted to write the paper in sections and then to edit the paper together so that it seems to come from a single author, employing a consistent voice. One instructor allows students to divvy up the bulk of the work but insists that they write the introduction and conclusion together, attending to transitions between sections so that the paper reads seamlessly.

One benefit of the group paper is that it requires students to consider the stages of the writing process as they determine how to divide the labor among the group. For example, will the collaborative writing be most efficiently done if the group does its brainstorming together? Should the paper be divided into sections, with each member responsible for a single part? Can one student write effectively about something that has been researched by another student? As the group considers these questions, they are brought to think carefully and critically about the writing process.

Finally, collaborative writing makes students more conscious of their own writing processes and styles. As they debate strategies and sentences, students must defend their choices. They also come to see other possible ways of expressing their ideas. For this reason, the group papers will likely not be the best papers that students produce, but they may be the most educational.

Discussion Groups

Some instructors ask students to meet formally or informally in discussion groups, where they can work together to improve their understanding of difficult texts. Whole-class discussions are greatly improved when students have met in smaller groups to discuss the course materials among themselves. Instructors can direct these groups by furnishing them with questions to consider, or they might simply ask the group to meet and to return to class with the questions and observations that have arisen.

Evaluating Peer Work

Evaluating collaborative work can be problematic—particularly if this work constitutes a considerable part of the course grade. Instructors might simply grade the project and give the same grade to all students. Or they might ask the students to submit a paper that documents their contributions to the presentation. Or they might ask each member of the group to evaluate the work of their group mates. Any strategy is equally good, as long as the standards and processes of evaluation are made clear to students long before collaboration begins.

In terms of peer critique: instructors who require peer critiques want some way of insuring that students are giving these exercises their best efforts. One way to evaluate peer critiques is to ask students to do their critiques in writing. Instructors can collect these critiques in class or on Canvas and evaluate them. Another idea is to ask students to write a brief summary of how the peer review process did (or did not) help them to rethink and rewrite their papers. Whatever the method, the instructor should make sure that students understand that their work in the peer groups is an important element of the course, and in what way it will count towards their final grades.

Using Canvas to Enhance Collaborative Learning

Many instructors have found that Canvas is a very useful tool in engaging students in collaborative learning exercises. Especially useful are the Discussion Board and the Wiki tool.

The Discussion Board allows instructors to create "threads," where students can post drafts of their papers and receive comments from their peers. The Discussion Board conveniently provides instructors and students with an archive of student work, in its various stages. It also provides instructors with a way to oversee the written critiques that students are doing of their classmates' work.

The Wiki tool is designed so that students can write and revise collaboratively. The Wiki keeps track of every draft, noting the changes made and who made them. Instructors use the Wiki in a variety of ways, sometimes asking students to write short Wikipedia-style entries on related course topics, other times asking them to create and maintain a glossary of key terms.

If you want to talk more about how to use  Canvas  in your writing classroom, contact Barbara Knauff ,  Instructional Technologist for Academic Computing.

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Understanding Writing Assignments

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.

Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.

How to Decipher the Paper Assignment

Many instructors write their assignment prompts differently. By following a few steps, you can better understand the requirements for the assignment. The best way, as always, is to ask the instructor about anything confusing.

• Read the prompt the entire way through once. This gives you an overall view of what is going on.
• Underline or circle the portions that you absolutely must know. This information may include due date, research (source) requirements, page length, and format (MLA, APA, CMS).
• Underline or circle important phrases. You should know your instructor at least a little by now - what phrases do they use in class? Does he repeatedly say a specific word? If these are in the prompt, you know the instructor wants you to use them in the assignment.
• Think about how you will address the prompt. The prompt contains clues on how to write the assignment. Your instructor will often describe the ideas they want discussed either in questions, in bullet points, or in the text of the prompt. Think about each of these sentences and number them so that you can write a paragraph or section of your essay on that portion if necessary.
• Rank ideas in descending order, from most important to least important. Instructors may include more questions or talking points than you can cover in your assignment, so rank them in the order you think is more important. One area of the prompt may be more interesting to you than another.
• Ask your instructor questions if you have any.

After you are finished with these steps, ask yourself the following:

• What is the purpose of this assignment? Is my purpose to provide information without forming an argument, to construct an argument based on research, or analyze a poem and discuss its imagery?
• Who is my audience? Is my instructor my only audience? Who else might read this? Will it be posted online? What are my readers' needs and expectations?
• What resources do I need to begin work? Do I need to conduct literature (hermeneutic or historical) research, or do I need to review important literature on the topic and then conduct empirical research, such as a survey or an observation? How many sources are required?
• Who - beyond my instructor - can I contact to help me if I have questions? Do you have a writing lab or student service center that offers tutorials in writing?

(Notes on prompts made in blue )

Poster or Song Analysis: Poster or Song? Poster!

Goals : To systematically consider the rhetorical choices made in either a poster or a song. She says that all the time.

Things to Consider: ah- talking points

• how the poster addresses its audience and is affected by context I'll do this first - 1.
• general layout, use of color, contours of light and shade, etc.
• use of contrast, alignment, repetition, and proximity C.A.R.P. They say that, too. I'll do this third - 3.
• the point of view the viewer is invited to take, poses of figures in the poster, etc. any text that may be present
• possible cultural ramifications or social issues that have bearing I'll cover this second - 2.
• ethical implications
• how the poster affects us emotionally, or what mood it evokes
• the poster's implicit argument and its effectiveness said that was important in class, so I'll discuss this last - 4.
• how the song addresses its audience
• lyrics: how they rhyme, repeat, what they say
• use of music, tempo, different instruments
• possible cultural ramifications or social issues that have bearing
• emotional effects
• the implicit argument and its effectiveness

These thinking points are not a step-by-step guideline on how to write your paper; instead, they are various means through which you can approach the subject. I do expect to see at least a few of them addressed, and there are other aspects that may be pertinent to your choice that have not been included in these lists. You will want to find a central idea and base your argument around that. Additionally, you must include a copy of the poster or song that you are working with. Really important!

I will be your audience. This is a formal paper, and you should use academic conventions throughout.

Length: 4 pages Format: Typed, double-spaced, 10-12 point Times New Roman, 1 inch margins I need to remember the format stuff. I messed this up last time =(

Academic Argument Essay

5-7 pages, Times New Roman 12 pt. font, 1 inch margins.

Minimum of five cited sources: 3 must be from academic journals or books

• Design Plan due: Thurs. 10/19
• Rough Draft due: Monday 10/30
• Final Draft due: Thurs. 11/9

Remember this! I missed the deadline last time

The design plan is simply a statement of purpose, as described on pages 40-41 of the book, and an outline. The outline may be formal, as we discussed in class, or a printout of an Open Mind project. It must be a minimum of 1 page typed information, plus 1 page outline.

This project is an expansion of your opinion editorial. While you should avoid repeating any of your exact phrases from Project 2, you may reuse some of the same ideas. Your topic should be similar. You must use research to support your position, and you must also demonstrate a fairly thorough knowledge of any opposing position(s). 2 things to do - my position and the opposite.

Your essay should begin with an introduction that encapsulates your topic and indicates 1 the general trajectory of your argument. You need to have a discernable thesis that appears early in your paper. Your conclusion should restate the thesis in different words, 2 and then draw some additional meaningful analysis out of the developments of your argument. Think of this as a "so what" factor. What are some implications for the future, relating to your topic? What does all this (what you have argued) mean for society, or for the section of it to which your argument pertains? A good conclusion moves outside the topic in the paper and deals with a larger issue.

You should spend at least one paragraph acknowledging and describing the opposing position in a manner that is respectful and honestly representative of the opposition’s 3 views. The counterargument does not need to occur in a certain area, but generally begins or ends your argument. Asserting and attempting to prove each aspect of your argument’s structure should comprise the majority of your paper. Ask yourself what your argument assumes and what must be proven in order to validate your claims. Then go step-by-step, paragraph-by-paragraph, addressing each facet of your position. Most important part!

Finally, pay attention to readability . Just because this is a research paper does not mean that it has to be boring. Use examples and allow your opinion to show through word choice and tone. Proofread before you turn in the paper. Your audience is generally the academic community and specifically me, as a representative of that community. Ok, They want this to be easy to read, to contain examples I find, and they want it to be grammatically correct. I can visit the tutoring center if I get stuck, or I can email the OWL Email Tutors short questions if I have any more problems.

Navigation Menu

Search code, repositories, users, issues, pull requests..., provide feedback.

We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly.

To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation .

peer-graded-assignment

Here are 6 public repositories matching this topic..., akash-goyal-github / coursera_user_experience_course.

Introduction to User Experience Principles and Processes by University of Michigan:100::boom:

• Updated Apr 9, 2020

i-asimkhan / google-project-managment-specialization

This repository lists the material of project managment courses of Google Project Managment Specialization.

• Updated Sep 8, 2022

marmello77 / FARS

Coursera's Peer-graded Assignment: Building an R Package.

• Updated Nov 4, 2020

honlimwong / final-project-html5

• Updated Dec 7, 2021

Dhanush-S-Gowda / module2-solution

Welcome to Module 2 Peer-graded Assignment for the "HTML CSS and JavaScript" course offered by Johns Hopkins University on Coursera.

• Updated Jan 28, 2024

Yashmenaria1 / IBM-AI-ENGINEERING-COURSERA

PEER GRADED AND GRADED ASSIGNMENT

• Updated Nov 4, 2023
• Jupyter Notebook

Improve this page

Add a description, image, and links to the peer-graded-assignment topic page so that developers can more easily learn about it.

Curate this topic

Add this topic to your repo

To associate your repository with the peer-graded-assignment topic, visit your repo's landing page and select "manage topics."

Digital Marketing Consultant

Quantitative Methods Quiz Answers | 100% Correct Answers

Quantitative methods. in this post you will get quantitative methods quiz answers | 100% correct answers., quantitative methods.

N.B.  We attempted our best to keep this site refreshed for our clients for nothing. You can likewise contribute by refreshing new inquiries or existing inquiry answer(s). There are numerous inquiries on our site, it is difficult for us to check them consistently. It will be extraordinary on the off chance that you can assist us with updating the site. Just let us know if you find any new questions through mail or comment . We will attempt to refresh the inquiry/answer ASAP.

1. Which example fits best with the concept of systematic observation?

• Observing every fourth person to enter the mall
• Observing everything you do in one day
• Asking every fourth person to enter the mall about their favorite sport and recording this.

2. A hypothesis must be:

• proven correct

3. What is the primary difference between a scientific theory and a scientific law?

• A theory describes a pattern and a scientific law explains why something happens
• A theory explains why something happens and a law describes a pattern
• A theory does not necessarily have a large body of supporting data

4. In contrast to Plato, Aristotle asserts that:

• sensory experience is prone to errors
• only knowledge obtained through reasoning can lead to the truth
• the physical world around us does provide knowledge

5. All swans that have been observed are white colored swans. Therefore one can conclude that all swans are white.

• This is an argument based on a false premise
• This is a form of inductive reasoning
• This is a form of deductive reasoning

6. According to logical positivism, the sentence “God exists” is meaningful only if:

• the sentence has meaning for the person who utters it
• it is true by definition or can be verified through observation
• it is believed to be true, even if we don’t know which observations can be used for verification

7. A student wants to do a research project on a mother’s love for her child. How would a radical empiricist react to this idea?

• He or she would advise the student to develop a theory of love specific to this phenomena, i.e. the love of a mother for her child
• A mother’s love for her child can only be understood by a fellow mother and therefore this project should not be undertaken by someone who hasn’t yet started a family
• A mother’s love for her child cannot be subject to scientific analysis unless it can be shown to have a material, physical basis (e.g. brain activity associated with love)

8. The position that abstract concepts are merely words and that there is no independently accessible thing constituting the meaning of a word is known as

9. Which of these statements is true?

• Positivists and interpretivists agree that science is empirical (studies produce data)
• Constructivism and interpretivism are linked with qualitative data
• both are true

10. If you prepared a study on the effects of text-messaging rather than talking on the phone on the quality of friendships, you would be conducting

• fundamental and universalistic research
• fundamental and particularistic research
• applied research

Scientific Method

1. If in the testing phase our predictions are confirmed by the data, does this mean we have definitively proven the hypothesis?

2. If the data support our predictions, this leads us to conclude that

• We need to develop new predictions that can be disconfirmed
• Our predictions are confirmed, but we cannot say anything about the hypothesis
• The hypothesis is provisionally supported

3. Heavey, Russell and Noelle (2012, p. 763) stated that: “How you feel may influence your facial expression, may be influenced by your facial expression, may be otherwise related to your facial expression, or none of the above, so a scientist’s observation of your facial expression (a third-person act) cannot be substituted for your own direct apprehension of your feelings (a first-person act)”. Here, the authors doubt the

• Construct validity of studies using facial expressions
• External validity of studies using facial expressions
• Internal validity of studies using facial expressions

4. By combining data from various publicly available sources Harvard Law School student Tyler Vigen has found out that there’s a correlation between the number of movies Nicolas Cage appears in each year and the number of people who drown in their swimming-pools. The MOST logical conclusion is that

• Correlation doesn’t imply causation
• No causal inference can be made from observational data
• Less people will drown in their swimming pool once Cage retires

5. Suppose a researcher hypothesizes a causal relationship between breastfeeding and children’s health at age 4 years exists and investigates this hypothesis by measuring health characteristics of a group of four year olds and by asking their mothers whether the child was breastfed or not. Suppose a relation is indeed found. The most obvious threat to internal validity in this situation is:

• Selection effect
• Maturation effect
• Selection by maturation effect

6. Testing effects due to practice/learning from exposure to repeated testing can be eliminated by

• Randomization
• Including groups that are exposed to a pre-test and groups that aren’t
• Using tests with high construct validity

7. In a famous study by psychologist John Bargh subjects had to create a sentence from scrambled words. When these words related to being old, participants walked more slowly when they left the laboratory. In a recent replication study, Doyen, Klein, Pichon and Cleeremans (2012) found that participants walked more slowly only when they were tested by experimenters who expected this effect. This seems to point to

• The impact of demand characteristics
• An experimenter expectancy effect
• The need to misguide participants

8. A researcher is interested in the effect of the perceived freedom of speech on social cohesion in small communities. She investigates small communities in China – which has a low perceived freedom of speech – and Malaysia – which has a relatively high perceived freedom of speech. The study runs for ten years. The study started two years before China relaxed its policy of restricting couples to have only one child. This policy change represents a

• History threat to internal validity
• Mortality threat to internal validity
• Temporal ambiguity threat to internal validity

9. Willingness to take risks is assumed to be an important component of entrepreneurship. We hypothesize that willingness to take risks causes people to start and run a business. Here,

• Willingness to take risks is the dependent variable
• Entrepeneurship is the dependent variable
• Willingness to take risks is the outcome variable

10. Suppose an observational study indicates a positive relation between weekly ice cream consumption and murder rates. Which of the following are possible lurking variables?

• Weapon possession and population size
• Season of the year and heat waves
• Neither of the two options

Peer-graded Assignment: Scientific Method – Writing Assignment (Creative)

Project Title * Give your project a descriptive title

Click here to download answer file

Research designs.

1. The main advantage of randomized controlled trials (RCT) is that

• they provide the best support for causality
• treatments can be compared against each other and a control group
• they are rigorous and objective

2. A researcher presents both male and female managers from several companies with application materials (CV and application letter) from a student applying for a job opening. Half the managers were given the application with a male name attached, and half were given the exact same application with a female name attached. Results showed that managers were less likely to offer the female applicant a job (gender bias). This corresponds to

• an interaction effect between the applicant’s and the manager’s gender
• a main effect of the manager’s gender
• a main effect of the applicant’s gender

3. Which of the following illustrates the use of a within-subjects design?

• One group of students is given a compliment before an exam and a second group is criticized before taking the exam.
• Students of three different age levels are given the same test.
• Students take two comparable tests. They take the first without preparation; before the second test they meditate for ten minutes.

4. An educational psychologist examined whether students will perform best if online education is combined with classroom learning. Students were randomly assigned to three conditions. In this study, these three conditions would be

• online education, classroom learning and a combination of both
• student grades, experimental condition and course content
• online education, classroom learning and highly motivated vs. poorly motivated students

5. Those in favor of field experiments argue that this type of research is perhaps less tightly controlled, but that more realism implies greater relevance. They also question the generalizability of laboratory experiments. This critique can be summarized as

• doubt on the internal validity of laboratory experiments
• concerns about self-selection of participants into lab experiments
• doubt on the ecological validity of laboratory experiments

6. A researcher notices that highly educated participants are more likely to refuse an unpleasant experimental treatment after being randomly assigned to the treatment condition. Therefore, he is concerned about the comparability of the treatment and control group. In this case, the researcher should BEST

• rerun the study with some form of restricted randomization
• do a randomization check
• stop worrying because randomization never fails

7. Which of the following designs allows the researcher to compare the size of the increase or decrease in scores in the experimental and control condition?

• a simple within subjects design
• the two-group pre-test/post-test design
• the two-group post-test only randomized experiment

8. If participants are not measured twice (e.g. only a post-test)

• testing (sensitization) is not an issue
• regression to the mean and testing (reactivity) are not issues
• regression to the mean is not an issue

9. Cameron, Erkal, Gangadharan, and Meng (2013) studied the causal relationship between growing up without siblings and altruism by comparing a group of participants born just before and just after the introduction of China’s One-Child Policy in 1979. This is an example of

• a Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT)
• a ‘natural’ experiment
• an experimental study

10. A cohort design is a panel study

• where the same individuals respond to a survey at several points in time
• where the same individuals are interviewed at several points in time
• where a group of individuals with a common characteristic are followed up longitudinally

11. Mincome was an experimental Canadian basic income project that was held in Dauphin, Manitoba during the 1970s. The project allowed every family in this town to receive a minimum cash benefit, thereby essentially eliminating poverty. Forget (2013) has evaluated the long-term effect of this guaranteed income program on people’s health (hospitalization rates) by comparing residents from Dauphin with a matched comparison group of residents from similar areas. This study can be characterized as

• a summative evaluation study with a quasi-experimental design
• a formative evaluation study with a quasi-experimental design
• a summative evaluation study with an experimental design

Peer-graded Assignment: Research Designs – Writing Assignment (Evaluative)

Click here to download the answer file, measurement.

1. Operationalization refers to

• an attribute, characteristic, or behavior that is in principle measurable
• the specification of an abstract concept into a measurement procedure
• any observation that can take different values

2. Measurement is

• the way in which variables are categorized
• the numerical representation of empirical relations
• assigning numbers

3. A researcher asks people to name their favorite music genre (rock, rap, etc…). This question measures music genre preference at

• the interval level
• the ordinal level
• the nominal level

4. Markowitz and Hancock (2014) compared publications of the social psychologist Diederik Stapel in which proof of fraud was established to articles by the same author which showed no evidence of fraud. One of the things these researchers did was to count the number of words related to emotional actions, states and processes in the two types of publications. Such a word frequency variable is

• a continuous ratio variable
• a discrete ratio variable
• a categorical variable

5. I. measures of the same trait using different methods show agreement

II. different traits assessed by the same method do not agree

• I indicates convergent validity, II indicates discriminant validity
• I indicates convergent validity, II indicates criterion validity
• I indicates discriminant validity, II indicates convergent validity

6. The degree of agreement between raters when using a particular rating instrument is called

• intra-observer consistency
• rater reliability
• inter-rater reliability

7. “38% of the managers would not hire a mother for any role in their organization”. This statement MOST likely implies that a sample of managers has

• filled out a questionnaire on their attitudes towards working mums
• filled out a survey including a question if they would recruit a mum for a position in their business
• taken a test on their knowledge of employee rights

8. Likert items should be monotone, meaning that respondents

• cannot be unsure about their response to the item
• are consistently more likely to agree with the item if they possess the property to a greater degree
• cannot have both negative and positive reactions to the item

9. Consistently concealing your true opinion by using the midpoint of the scale

• introduces a generosity error and is called bias towards the middle
• introduces random error and is called acquiescence
• introduces systematic error and is called bias towards the middle

10. Hair cortisol (a hormone made by the adrenal glands) levels are being used as a chronic stress measure. This illustrate the use of

• physical measures
• trace measures
• observational measures

Peer-graded Assignment: Measurement – Writing Assignment (Creative)

1. In directed imagery tasks participants listen to a particular scenario and are instructed to picture the situation, the people, and the events as clearly and as vividly as they can. A researcher could ask participants how realistic they found such scenarios in order to check

• the external validity of the task
• whether the use of an experimental setting that does not mirror reality precisely was justified
• whether reactivity to the laboratory setting occurred

2. Strata are

• distinct subsets in the population defined by a stratification variable
• all the elements in a population that can be individually identified
• all the elements in a sampling frame

3. Opinion polls attempt to measure public opinion. Poll results can accurately reflect the attitudes in the population if

• the sample is large enough and based on self-selection
• the poll is based on probability sampling
• the sample is large enough and consists of volunteer respondents

4. Systematic sampling may be used instead of simple random sampling if

• the sample size is large
• we are unaware of a pattern in the list of elements
• the list of elements is ordered randomly

5. The loss in precision is usually far outweighed by the reduced cost. This applies to

• stratified sampling
• random sampling
• cluster sampling

6. A researcher approaches the first visitor entering a mall and asks if he or she is willing to participate in a study on aging and depression. He approaches the next visitor, followed by the next, and so on. This is

• convenience sampling
• quota sampling
• purposive sampling

7. As the size of a random sample increases, the amount of sampling error

• remains the same

8. Using the same sample frame, a random sample of 500 voters were interviewed by telephone and a second random sample of 500 voters answered the same set of questions by filling out a web survey. A systematic difference in polls results can be due to

• an incomplete or inaccurate sampling frame
• differences in non-sampling error between the two samples
• the amount of sampling error between the two samples

9. To decide the optimal sample size, one needs to consider

• the variability in the population
• the variability in the population and the margin of error that one is willing to accept
• the size of the population

Peer-graded Assignment: Sampling – Writing assignment (Evaluative)

Practice, ethics & integrity.

1. The method section of a research report

• summarizes the data collection procedure and the planned statistical analyses
• provides information on the measurement materials
• describes in full every detail of the research design and analyses

2. In the codebook the researcher

• provides all statistical and data manipulation information
• specifies the programs that will recognize the data file format
• specifies what variables were entered into the data file and defines the numeric codes for each variable

3. Research integrity encompasses

• adherence to rules made by the scientific community
• good documentation and researchers’ striving for excellence
• protecting the welfare of participants but also the integrity of the scientific process

4. A recent study in which Facebook users’ moods were manipulated has raised ethical concerns. In defense of the researchers someone states that the effect of the manipulation was minimal and that therefore very little harm was done. This statement pertains to

• the ethical principle of justice
• the ethical principle of beneficence
• the ethical principle of respect

5. A researcher continues to believe in an effect regardless of strong evidence to the contrary. In addition, he refuses to respond to critique. This is an example of

• a violation of the principle of objectivity
• self-plagiarism
• a conflict of interests

6. Suppose you have conducted an experiment on 20 subjects. The results are disappointing in that the hypothesized difference between conditions is not significant (a p value of .08). Given this unfavorable result you decide to run 20 more subjects. This is a questionable research practice because

• the decision to collect more data should not be conditional upon obtaining a (non-) significant finding
• the hypothesized difference does not follow from a substantial theory
• you should have used a power calculation to decide on the number of participants needed

7. Published articles should ideally be

• chosen only if they show confirmatory results
• subjected to peer review
• revised multiple times

8. Proposed solutions to publication bias include

• publishing in open access journals
• preregistration and pre-acceptance of the hypothesis and research setup
• making the data and analyses publicly available

Peer-graded Assignment: Practice, Ethics & Integrity – Writing assignment (Creative)

Practice exam 1 – immediate feedback.

1. This is a practice exam, to prepare yourself for the final exam. You can take this exam as many times as you like, the score will not count towards your final grade. To pass the exam you need a score of 70% (21 out of 30 questions correct).

In the real exam, please make sure your internet connection is good and don’t forget to save your answers from time to time. You can take the final exam only once every 30 days, so make sure you are well prepared!

This practice final exam consists of 30 multiple-choice questions about the research described below. Each question has three answer options, of which only one is correct or most appropriate. If you feel a correct answer option is not provided, then choose the best fitting option.

Please follow the honor code and do not communicate or confer with others taking this exam.

Flipping the classroom A lecturer at the University of Amsterdam (UvA) wants to investigate the effectiveness of an instructional method called ‘Flipping the Classroom’ (FtC). FtC means that students prepare for class by watching short video lectures online. Subsequently, in the face-to-face, live lectures the subject matter is treated more in-depth, by using interactive assignments, so students will learn more.

The teacher investigates this method with premaster students and regular bachelor students studying Communication Science, who are taking the course Statistics-II together. Under the guise of extra support, four days before each lecture, the premaster students get access to the video recordings of last year’s lecture. They are asked to study these recordings carefully. In the live lecture (for all students) the lecturer only explains the most difficult material, and leaves a lot of time for questions. After this lecture, the premaster students don’t have any access to the recordings anymore. The regular students get access to the recording of the live lecture they attended during four days after the lecture. At the end of the course, all students take the same exam at the same time.

The effectiveness of the ‘standard’ versus the FtC instructional method will be investigated by comparing exam scores (study performance, score range: 1 – 10, interval variable) of the two groups. During the exam a questionnaire is used to measure self-confidence and study motivation (both interval variables with a score range of 10 – 50) and age, gender and the math score obtained in secondary school (on final exams).

Disclaimer: this research is completely made up!

Question 1: This research is

• correlational
• experimental
• quasi-experimental

2. A manipulation check could consist of checking if

• the lecture videos were indeed studied
• the number of men and women in each group was about the same
• the mean self-confidence scores were about the same in the two groups

3. The independent variable is

• study performance
• instructional method
• type of student (premaster/regular)

4. The most obvious threat to internal validity is

• instrumentation

5. If self-confidence is significantly lower for premaster students, then self-confidence is a

• independent variable

6. The dependent variable is

• self-confidence

7. This research has the following design:

• static group comparison
• randomized pretest posttest design
• pretest posttest non-equivalent control group

8. The external validity of this study benefits from the fact that

• all students study Communication Science
• both male and female students participated

9. The sample is (most likely) a

• quota sample
• purposive sample
• convenience sample

10. Suppose the effect of the instructional method and gender on study performance was investigated factorially, then how many main effects can be investigated?

11. If a researcher maintains that the not-directly observable trait of study motivation can be useful in scientific claims, then this researcher is not a

• logical-positivist (like Schlick)
• scientific realist (like Galileo)
• empirical constructivist (like Van Fraassen)

12. Suppose that FtC does not result in better study performance, but does result in higher study motivation. As a consequence, the researcher changes the research question and hypothesis and presents the study as a study on the effect of FtC on study motivation. This is called

• cherry picking

13. This study has the following design:

• within and between

14. The only threat to internal validity which could not provide an alternative explanation for the expected results in this study is

• testing (sensitization)

15. A control variable in this study is

• study motivation

16. The ecological validity in this study is fairly good, because it was performed

• on actual students
• in a natural educational setting

17. A randomization-check could consist of checking if

• the video lectures were really studied afterwards
• study performance on the exam was about the same in the two groups
• mean age in the two groups was approximately the same

18. Suppose that study performance is mainly determined by reading skill instead of understanding of the course material. This is bad for the

• internal validity
• construct validity

19. Instructional method is a

• control variable
• experimental variable
• individual differences variable

20. In this study random sampling can only be carried out in practice when the population exists of

• people who follow an education
• UvA-students who are enrolled in 2014-2015

21. Considering the benefits (knowledge about the effectiveness of FtC) and disadvantages (possible lowering of study performance of one group of students) falls under the ethical aspect of

• beneficence

22. If a researcher holds that it is impossible to know or measure how much self-confidence someone really has, then this is an objection of

• an ontological nature
• an epistemological nature

23. a. ‘Studying material beforehand will lead to better study performance’

b. ‘My live lectures seem more useful when students are well prepared’

c. The mean result for Statistics-II will be higher for students who were instructed via FtC, than the mean of students who received regular instruction’

The three statements above consecutively belong the following phases of the empirical cycle:

• deduction – induction – observation
• deduction – observation – induction
• induction – observation – deduction

24. If a student responds with ‘totally disagree’ to all items on the study motivation-scale, not considering the content of the items, we call this

• acquiescence
• social desirability bias
• ‘bad participant’-behavior

25. Suppose that the research hypothesis is confirmed by the results. Our confidence in the effectiveness of FtC is strengthened most by

• replication
• peer-review
• meta-analysis

26. The researcher wants to know whether students’ motivation is measured validly. The scores on the study motivation scale are compared with the scores on the Amsterdam Study Motivation Scale (ASMS), a widely used tool during enrollment for the study of all students. The correlation between study motivation measured in the present study and the ASMS-score concerns

• predictive validity
• ‘concurrent’ validity
• convergent validity

27. Self-confidence is a

• formative variable
• individual-differences variable

28. The measurement level of the variable instructional method is

29. Suppose the researcher finds the following descriptive statistics for the variable study motivation:

Descriptive Statistic Value number of participants 126 number of missing values 0 minimum value -1 maximum value 50 mean 30.7 standard deviation 12.3 The most probable error is

• a data-entry error
• a computational error
• misspecification of missing values

30. Suppose we find a mean study performance score of 6.28 (84 students, sd = 0.85) in the regular group and a mean of 6.61 in the FtC group (42 students, sd = 1.66). A higher score indicates a better performance. If you consider only the direction of the difference between the groups (don’t worry about the size or significance of the difference) then the results

• cannot be said to agree or disagree with the expectations
• agree with the researcher’s expectations
• disagree with the researcher’s expectations

Practice Exam 2 – feedback in screencasts

1. The described research study is

2. The lecturer could have performed a manipulation-check by checking if

• the students opened and read the emails
• engagement was the same between groups at the end of the course
• engagement was the same between groups at the beginning of the course
• type of feedback
• type of student (premaster/bachelor)

4. The research design aims to prevent a threat to internal validity caused by

5. Suppose the engagement questionnaire is very unreliable. As a result, an estimate of the following type of validity will be low

• ecological validity
• confirmative validity

7. This research has the following design

• randomized two group design
• pretest posttest non-equivalent control group design

8. The external validity could have been improved by using

• random multi-stage cluster sampling
• stratified quota sampling

9. If the sample would have been twice as large, then the margin of error would have been

10. If the lecturer does not document the study in enough detail, then this compromizes

• transparency
• logical consistency
• empirical testability

11. The lecturer holds that the property engagement really exists, independent of human thought, and that knowledge about students’ engagement is best acquired through measurement, for example by using a questionnaire. The lecturer is not

• a rationalist
• an idealist

12. Suppose the expected effect occurs only for premaster students. The lecturer reports the result of this group of participants alone. We call this

• data snooping

13. Suppose the lecturer decides to add the variable sex to the described research design as an independent variable. The design is then called

• within-subjects
• within-between subjects

14. Possible threats to internal validity, against which the described research design does not protect, are

15. Suppose that in the population of women, the variation in engagement scores is greater than in the population of men. Suppose we take a sample of men and a sample of women of equal size. Compared with the men, the precision of the estimation of mean engagement for women is expected to be

16. The lecturer could have approached the research question qualitatively by assessing engagement using

• a structured interview
• an open interview

17. The lecturer could have performed a randomization-check by checking if

• the comparative feedback was accurate

18. Suppose the exam grade does not give a good indication of knowledge of statistics. This is firstly a problem for the

• external validity of the study
• construct validity of the exam
• internal validity of the research hypothesis

19. In fundamental research the most important type of validity is

• external validity

20. The most obvious threat to external validity in this study is

• reactivity (setting)

21. What ethical aspect is definitely violated in this study?

22. Suppose the lecturer does not find the expected result. She decides not to reject the hypothesis yet, but to reject the assumption of valid and reliable measurement of engagement instead. This approach was critically discussed by

23. The choice to measure engagement with a questionnaire (instead of, for example, by using observation) is associated with the following phase in the empirical cycle

24. If an item from the engagement questionnaire is considered to be applicable by highly engaged students but also by highly unengaged students, then this item is not

• dichotomous

25. Suppose the research hypothesis is not confirmed by the results and the lecturer decides not to publish the research for that reason. This is an example of

• publication bias
• replication failure
• the file-drawer problem

26. If the engagement questionnaire is very unreliable, then the next time any particular student completes the questionnaire the new engagement score is expected to differ from the original score

• by a small degree
• by a large degree

27. Type of student (premaster/bachelor) is a

• monotone variable

28. The measurement level of the variable educational degree is

29. Consider the following results for the variable sex:

Descriptive Statistics Value Number of respondents 115 Number of missing values 4 Minimum value 1 Maximum value 3 Indicate what the most likely error is

• a (re)coding error
• a data entry error
• missing values were misspecified

30. The benefit of a syntax-file, amongst other things, is documentation of

• all (statistical) operations performed on the data
• all the materials used in the research study

Peer-graded Assignment: Final Writing Assignment – (Evaluative)

1. This is the final exam which will contribute significantly to your final grade. Please make sure you have a good internet connection and don’t forget to save your answers from time to time. You can take this exam only once every 30 days, so please make sure you are well prepared!

To pass the exam you need a score of 70% (21 out of 30 questions correct). You can take this exam only once a month, so make sure you are well prepared!

This final exam consists of 30 multiple-choice questions about the research described below. Each question has three answer options, of which only one is correct or most appropriate. If you feel a correct answer option is not provided, then choose the best fitting option.

English vs. Dutch The Communication Sciences department at the University of Amsterdam is considering offering the existing Dutch bachelor program in English. Some teachers fear that this will cause the educational quality of the program to deteriorate. They point to studies that show that students who study abroad need more time to complete a program. A researcher who is interested in the relationship between language skills and academic achievement, decides to use this opportunity to explore the general hypothesis that education in a foreign language has a negative influence on academic achievement.

The researcher approaches the lecturers of the first two courses in the first semester, ‘Introduction’ and ‘History’. She persuades the lecturers to deliver the lectures and seminars (group meetings) twice, once in Dutch and once in English. At the start of the semester, students choose if they wanted to follow both courses either in English, or in Dutch. Students are also asked for permission to use their academic results for research purposes.

To assess the effect of the language of instruction on academic achievement, the researcher measures students’ knowledge of the material twice, once with an exam at the start of the course and once at the end. These are all different, old exams that have previously shown high psychometric quality.

Besides academic performance (average exam grade on the final exam, range 1-10), students are asked to fill out a separate online survey to indicate their age (in years), gender (male / female), secondary education final exam score in English (grade, range 1-10) and overall satisfaction with the courses ‘Introduction’ and ‘History’ (mean sum score of 4 Likert items, range 4-20).

Disclaimer: This research is completely fabricated!

1 The described study is

2. The researcher could have conducted a manipulation-check by checking if the

• mean final exam grade in English was similar between groups
• mean performance on the first exam was the same between groups
• discussions in the English speaking group were really conducted in English
• language of instruction
• final exam score in English

4. The described research design is especially useful to assess threats to internal validity by

5. Question 5 If the reliability of the overall satisfaction questions is very high, then their validity will be

• not necessarily high or low

6. The dependent variable in this study is

• academic achievement
• overall satisfaction (with the courses)

7. The design of this study is called a

• Solomon pretest posttest design

8. External validity could have been enhanced by using a

• random sample

9. If we don’t take into account the average exam grade at the start of the course, the described research design may be called

• within (subjects)
• between (subjects)
• within-between (subjects)

10. The variable most appropriate to be used as a control variable is

• overall satisfaction
• final exam grade in English

11. The described research design is, in terms of epistemologic approach, most compatible with

12. The best randomization check the researcher could have performed would be to check whether

• the average final exam grade in English was similar between groups
• academic achievement was the same between groups at the start of the study

13. Suppose the researcher decides to add gender to the described design as an independent variable. The effects that can be analyzed are

• one main effect and one interaction effect
• two main effects and one interaction effect
• two main effects and two interaction effects

14. The internal validity of the described research design is threatened most strongly by

15. Suppose the research hypothesis is not confirmed, and for that reason the study is not accepted for publication by scientific journals. This is an example of

• falsification error

16. Overall satisfaction (with the courses) is

• a constructive variable
• an experimental variable
• an individual difference variable

17. The measurement level of the variable ‘language of instruction’ is

18. a. “Research shows that students who study abroad need more time to complete their studies”

b. “Teaching a foreign language will lead to lower academic performance than education in the native language”

c. “The average final exam grade for the courses ‘Introduction’ and ‘History’ will be lower in the group that was taught in English than in the group was taught in Dutch”

The previous three statements a, b and c respectively belong to the following stages of the empirical cycle

• observation – induction – deduction

19. Suppose the items in the online questionnaire really do give a good indication of student satisfaction with the courses. In that case, we say the questionnaire has high

20. If students behave differently because they are aware of their participation in a study, we call this

• a Pygmalion effect
• demand characteristics
• “bad participant” behavior

21. Suppose the Ethics Committee evaluates the described research and decides that the benefits do not outweigh the costs. Which ethical aspect do they regard to be violated?

22. If a researcher believes that the nature of reality is not independent of our thinking, then this is primarily an objection of

23. The measurement level of variables like exam grade and final exam grade in English is highly debated, generally researchers will accept that these variables approximate the

• ratio level, but strictly speaking are measured at the interval level
• interval level, but strictly speaking are measured at the ordinal level
• ordinal level, but strictly speaking are measured at the nominal level

24. Suppose the researcher finds: a) that there are relatively more women in the English group than in the Dutch group and b) that on average women perform equally well in the final examinations. In this case, we call gender

• a confounding variable
• a lurking variable

25. One method to evaluate the validity of a measurement instrument like exam grade or the overall course satisfaction items is the

• purposive validation approach
• multi-stage clustering approach
• multi-trait multi-method matrix approach

26. Suppose you have determined – through psychometric analysis – that the final exam of the course “Introduction” has high construct validity. On the basis of this information, you can say that the reliability of this exam

• cannot be determined
• is probably low
• is probably high

27. The ecological validity of this study is high because the

• instruments measure what they are intended to measure
• research setting resembles a natural educational setting
• sample (almost all first year students Communication Sciences) is large

28. Suppose the researcher had initially planned to use the results of the final exams as well as the resits (retake exam if the final exam was not passed). However, she notices immediately after the final exams that the results are in line with the expectations. The researcher decides to offer the data for publication immediately and no longer waits for the results of the resits. This is called

29. A codebook includes a description of

• what the variables and variable values ​​in the data file mean
• the (statistical) operations that are performed on the data

30. Suppose that there is no difference between the two groups in the mean grade for the exams at the start of the semester. Now look at the following table that shows the mean grade for the final exams for both groups.

Results for mean final exam grade:

Language of instruction N missing mean sd English 79 3 6.56 1.27 Dutch 119 4 6.11 2.14 Look only at the direction of the difference between these means (not the size or significance). The direction of the difference is

• not possible to estimate
• in accordance with the expectations
• contrary to the expectations

You can check other courses answers in the following:

1- Marketing Analytics | Coursera | – All 5 Week 100% Correct Quiz & Assignment Answers Free

2- Code Yourself! An Introduction to Programming- Coursera – All 5 Week Quiz Answers & Lab Assignments Free

3-  Mindshift: Break Through Obstacles to Learning- Coursera Courses Quiz & Assignment Answers Free.

4-  Introduction to Programming with MATLAB- Coursera Course : Quiz & Assignment Answers Free – Week(4-6)

5-  Introduction to Programming with MATLAB- Coursera Course : Quiz & Assignment Answers Free – Week(7-9)

6-  Fashion As Design | Coursera | All 7 Week 100% Correct Quiz & Assignment Answers Free

7. The Science of Well-Being | Coursera | All 10 Week 100% Correct Quiz & Assignment Answers Free

8. Industrial IoT on Google Cloud Platform By Coursera. All 2 Week Quiz Answers & Assignment [Updated 2020].

9. learning How To Learn Coursera Quiz Answers | 100% Correct Answers

10. Marketing In Digital World Coursera Quiz Answer | 100% Correct Quiz And Assignments Free

11. A Life of Happiness and Fulfillment- Coursera Quiz Answer | 100% Correct Answers

12. Introduction to Philosophy

13. Social Psychology Quiz And Assignment Answers | Week (1-7)

14. Competitive Strategy Coursera Quiz Answers | 100 % Correct Answers Of Week (1-6)

15. Successful Negotiation: Essential Strategies and Skills Quiz Answer | All Week Answer

16. Coursera Financial Markets Quiz Answer | 100% Correct Answer | Week (1-7)

17. Mastering Data Analysis in Excel Coursera Quiz Answer | 100% Correct Answer Of Week (1-6)

Please Enable JavaScript in your Browser to Visit this Site.

Want to adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open practices.

Peer Review Instructions for Fiction

Peer reviews should help your classmates revise and draft their writing assignments, working toward a polished final draft. Think of your classmates as people that you want to help, not criticize or judge.

To make sure each person receives peer reviews, read and comment on classmates’ drafts according to the assigned groups.. If your group members do not submit their drafts on time, then you may select other students’ drafts to fulfill your requirements of the assignment.

For each peer review, identify the following things:

• If this were your draft, what would you revise in the content?
• For a “C” write three sentences. For a “B” write four sentences. For an “A” write five sentences about content revisions.
• Do not write: “I don’t see any content problems.”
• If this were your draft, what would you revise regarding the organization? Besides the flow of ideas, the organization also includes how it is formatted in the document.
• For a “C” write three sentences. For a “B” write four sentences. For an “A” write five sentences about organizational revisions.
• Do not write: “I don’t see any organizational problems.”
• Identify one type of grammatical or sentence structure error.
• Consider providing a grammar rule to help the writer learn how to do it right.
• Consider showing the writer how to make the revision in one of his/her sentences.
• For a “C” write three sentences. For a “B” write four sentences. For an “A” write five sentences about grammar or sentence structure.
• Do not write: “I don’t see any grammatical or sentence structure errors.”
• Ask questions about something you didn’t understand.
• Think of something that will cause the writer to think more deeply about his/her topic.
• For a “C” ask one question. For a “B” write two questions. For an “A” write three questions.
• Do not write: “I don’t have any questions.”
• Describe one part of the piece that you can praise specifically.
• For a “C” write three sentences. For a “B” write four sentences. For an “A” write five sentences.

Additional Directions

• Download, print, and use the Peer Review Form. Type your peer review responses on the form. Use one form for each peer review you complete, a total of four peer reviews per writing assignments.
• Use bold headers: Content, Organization, Grammar, Questions, Praise.
• Do not bold the text you write underneath the headers.

Receiving Feedback

When you receive feedback from your classmates and/or instructor, please take this constructive criticism in the spirit in which it is offered: to help you become a better writer.

Keep in mind, however, some feedback from your classmates may or may not be accurate. When you are in doubt about the feedback that you received from a classmate or another individual, send an email to the instructor to double check the accuracy of the statement(s).

Grading Peer Reviews

Students will receive a grade for evaluating their classmates’ drafts. To receive full credit for these evaluations, students must meet the following requirements:

• Submit a draft for peer review on time.
• Submit four peer review evaluations on time.
• Address all the requirements listed in the document: Assignment – Peer Review Instructions. The number of sentences written is evaluated as well as the content of what is written.
• Be specific in your feedback. For example, instead of saying, “I think you have a problem in your introduction,” say “I have a suggestion on how to make the introduction more understandable to your readers.” Then state what that suggestion is.
• Use positive examples from the writer’s own draft to explain suggestions. For example, if the writer uses strong action verbs in one section, but in another section doesn’t, cite the first section as an example of a way to improve the second.
• Ask questions to draw out additional ideas that will make the draft better.

Introduction to Creative Writing by Lumen Learning is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book