ASM events
This conference is managed by the American Society for Microbiology
Table of contents
No headers

I would like to conduct research on ways to improve student writing, by implementing a peer review component to the course, by focusing on comments from the instructor, or by some other intervention. The following is a summary of articles that may be helpful in designing this research: Peer review for a numerical value is not recommended due to variability and discrepancy between student and professor. However, informal student feedback suggests that students learned from the experience and found the exercise “entertaining”. This article also discusses how findings from the in-class experiment showing that students can distinguish between pass/fail, but not good vs. excellent has implications for the scientific peer review process (Yankulov & Couto, 2012). Students felt less stressed by peer review but felt that they would learn more from their instructor (Hui Chin Lin & Shih Chieh Chien, 2009). Having students “read to write” may be helpful to improve writing. The strategies outlined include: previewing, skimming, active reading, learning unfamiliar vocabulary, summarizing, and identifying author's opinion (Freedman, 2013). This article uses a previously published taxonomy system (Faigley & Witte, 1981) to classify types of professor feedback and describes a study to determine the relationships between types of feedback and student revisions. These authors conclude that substitutive vs. superficial comments improve student engagement in the writing process, although it does not always result in improved revisions. (Wingard & Geosits, 2013). The authors’ conclusion that student revisions are more significant if instructors make substantive comments to early drafts corroborates previously published literature (Wingard & Geosits, 2013). The authors summarize others work by providing a list of the types of comments that have been deemed most effective. They also indicate that students prefer specific and substantive comments and would like more praise. (Wingard & Geosits, 2013). ( A common goal of learning from writing is for students to form relationships between ideas. Much early research on writing does not test what students know before compared to they write but later studies show mostly positive, but some mixed results (Klein, 1999) p205 - 206. This prompts an idea in which I could ask students to write an in- class essay on what they know about their research topic before they write their paper and contrast this to an in-class essay after the paper has been written. The rest of this review discusses 4 theories of how writing helps improve learning and provides a table stating the claim and the reference (Klein, 1999). The following article is referenced in the Wingard article (Wingard & Geosits, 2013)because it provides strategies for providing useful comments. (I do not yet have access to the full text version) Underwood, Jody S., & Tregidgo, Alyson P. (2006) Improving student writing through effective feedback: Best practices and recommendations. Journal of Teaching Writing: 22, 73-97. Full text for the (Beason, 1993) reference would also be helpful: Beason, L. (1993). Feedback and Revision in Writing across the Curriculum. Research in the Teaching of English, 27(4). References: Faigley, L., & Witte, S. (1981). Analyzing revision. College Composition and Communication, 32, 400-414. Freedman, L. (2013). "Reading to Write" in East Asian Studies. Across the Disciplines, 10. Hui Chin Lin, G., & Shih Chieh Chien, P. (2009). An Investigation into Effectiveness of Peer Feedback. Journal of Applied Foreign Languages Fortune Institute of Technology, 3. Klein, P. (1999). Reopening Inquiry into Cognitive Processes in Writing-To-Learn. Educational Psychology Review, 11(3), 203-270. Wingard, J., & Geosits, A. (2013). Effective Comments and Revisions in Student Writing from WAC Courses. Across the Disciplines, 10. Yankulov, K., & Couto, R. (2012). Peer review in class: metrics and variations in a senior course. Biochem Mol Biol Educ, 40(3), 161-168. doi: 10.1002/bmb.20592

Tag page
You must login to post a comment.