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