Post on 16-Jan-2016
1
North Georgia College & State University
Interdisciplinary Learning Communitiesin Science Writing
Donna A. GessellIrene Kokkala
SRFIDC2006
2
Connecting Biology and English students
Eight years of collaboration in writing across disciplines
Forming learning communities of authors and editors
Students taking biology courses and students taking English courses
3
We link courses such as
BIOL4480: Developmental BiologyBIOL3430: Cell BiologyBIOL1260H: Honors Environmental Science
ENGL4901: Teaching EnglishENGL3050: Applied English Grammar
ENGL3100: Advanced CompositionENGL1102: English Composition IIENGL1101: English Composition I
4
Our goal is to empower
Biology students to write professionally
English students to develop better editing skills
Both groups to recognize the power of the English language in applied contexts
5
Group formation
PreparationExpectationsProcessOutcomes
6
Preparation and expectations
For group preparation, in both classes, we spend copious amounts of time explaining our expectations for the group work
This orientation includes our expectation that we will be independent of the inner workings of the group
We equip students to do their work and expect them to resolve possible conflicts and problems on their own
7
Communication is key to the process
for us to communicate our expectations and
for group members to communicate among themselves
8
We make it clear that during the process, to ensure individual contribution and discipline, we will measure participation through peer evaluation for each project
9
Group coherence is achieved partially through the bond of the discipline-specific task
Each group forms an alliance in response to the communication received from students in the other discipline
Using a common language and set of assumptions determined by the content, students reaffirm their discipline-determined identity
10
Students may initially believe that performing tasks is easier if they work individually
However, our experience has shown that students learn a great deal more than content when working with groups
11
We cannot anticipate every problem each group will encounter
We do place responsibility squarely on the students themselves
The student experiences have been universally evaluated as positive, despite—or perhaps because of—having to overcome minor problems
12
Long-term anecdotal evidence corroborates the end-of-project evaluations, suggesting
the effectiveness of group learning
the process has taught students themselves how to become better group facilitators
13
Peer reviewGoalsProcessAssessmentOutcomes
14
Professional goals
Writing in the discipline should prepare the students for professional writing tasksFor the biology students this experience
mimics professional peer review For the English students this experience
mimics professional editing
15
Peer review Subjects manuscripts to a thorough
examination and evaluation Maintains quality of work Implements collective constraints
formally Suggests specific and non-specific
revisions
Information is from http://www.exploit-lib.org/issue5/peer-review
16
How the process differs from peer review
Reviewers are not fellow-specialists Stakes are lower because publication
is not the end goal (however grades are) No resubmission to peer reviewers
Information is from http://www.exploit-lib.org/issue5/peer-review
17
Peer review, not peer editing
Suggestions for revision are provided anonymously
Peers are in two different classes with two different kinds of instruction
Review process takes up to a week instead of a single class period
18
Pitfalls of peer review
Reviewers may make mistakes Reviewers may not have enough expertise or
information. Reviewers may not be conscientious or fair.
Authors may misinterpret or misapply advice Authors may not be conscientious in accepting
peer review.
Information is from http://www.exploit-lib.org/issue5/peer-review
19
Peer review builds reviewers’ skills
Reviewers must be positive noting what works well making comments for changes and correcting mistakes
Reviewers must read from their own experience, yet anticipate the needs of other audiences
Reviewers must be specific in their comments, communicating clearly in writing what needs work
20
The process of reciprocal peer review
The biology students write content-specific papers
The English students review the submitted papers for grammar, logic, and rhetoric, write comments to clarify the identified errors, and suggest grades
The English professor assesses the reviews and the appropriateness of the comments given
The biology professor gives feedback on the content accuracy
The biology students evaluate the usefulness of feedback from both sources and make changes accordingly
21
Biology students have three assignments, (laboratory reports or papers)
They are given extensive directions on how to write for these assignments
They place themselves voluntarily in groups of four or five, based on total course enrollment
For each assignment, they generate a draft, which is anonymously and electronically submitted to the English student editors
22
English students recommend changes in grammar, logic, and rhetoric
They return the feedback along with a recommended grade also anonymously and electronically
Biology students then assess the validity and usefulness of the feedback which includes content feedback from the biology professor and produce their final draft
23
The grades are assigned to the biology students at a 25:75 breakdown between the two drafts
The English students are evaluated on the appropriateness of their comments and
a paper they write individually critiquing their experiences
Peer Evaluation
24
We adjusted our procedures, recognizing the importance of group formationorientation management
For group composition, we allow the students to self-select
We maintain the consistency of the membership of each group through the semester
We expect rotation of research, writing, and revision duties for the biology students
25
For example, for lab reports, the individual tasks are separated in the following manner:
1) performing the bibliographical research and the final review of the entire manuscript
2) formatting of the list of references and writing the abstract
3) writing the methods and materials section and the results section
4) writing the discussion section5) writing the introduction section
If we have groups of four students, the assignment is rearranged to demand approximately equal effort for each group member
26
Peer Evaluation During the process, to ensure individual contribution and discipline, we measure participation through peer evaluation for each project
Assessment of the entire project is based on a sixteen-question, qualitative evaluation for both groups.
27
Peer Review and Evaluation
Within GroupsIndividual grading
Across Groups Peer grading
Across DisciplinesFinal sixteen question evaluation
28
Within each biology group, all participants evaluate each of their partners within their group
They use an evaluation instrument we have developed that asks students to consider issues such as attendance and punctuality at called group meetings
availability level of contribution for each task and
overall effort
29
Within each English group, students perform peer evaluation by individually and anonymously adjusting the grade the group has earned for each review within stated parameters
30
For examplea group of five has earned a grade of 90
each student awards the possible 450 (5 x 90) points among the five members
no grade may be ten percent above the original grade or below by more than thirty percent
in this case, no student could earn above 99 or below 63
the grades must add up to the group’s total points, or 450 in this case
31
The individual distributions are collected and averaged by the English professor to determine each individual's final grade
The outcomes have varied widely, from no change at all within a group to individuals having their grades lowered by the full amount allowed, at the group's unanimous (including the individual’s own) recommendation
32
In both disciplines the peer evaluation generates honest and sometimes harsh evaluation and
proves to be a valuable tool for consideration when calculating grades
Peer evaluation provides students effective incentive for group coherence as the process develops
33
Outcomes The experience of twelve semesters has helped us understand the difficulty students have assigning grades and accepting feedback due to the emotional stake involved in both processes.
Because of the differences of the audiences, the English students often make corrections that the biology students consider unsuitable, and biology students have trouble accepting the corrections.
34
In each semester for both disciplines, we notice improvement in writing and we recognize changes in student attitudes
the English students focus increasingly on the larger rhetorical task
biology students become less resistant to the criticism, finding virtue and value in otherwise painful feedback
confidence about writing and giving feedback improves in both groups
35
Despite the improvement, we have seen students repeat mistakes, which we attribute to students' inability to move away from the final grade as their ultimate goal.
With the focus on the product, they neglect the process of assimilating the feedback into the next repetition of the task.
36
Resistance to transferring feedback is nothing new to teaching
The resistance is exacerbated by the novelty of peer review, which once overcome proves valuable to give students insights into the peer review process
37
The larger implications
For both groups this experience is a lesson in ambiguity and negotiating meaning—not only literal meaning but also contextual meaning determined by audience, discipline, and specific constraints of a publication
38
Questions & answers