The Power of Peer Reviewing to Enhance Writing in Horticulture: Greenhouse Management
Saved in:
| Title: | The Power of Peer Reviewing to Enhance Writing in Horticulture: Greenhouse Management |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Anderson, Neil O., Flash, Pamela |
| Source: | International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education. 2014 26(3):310-334. |
| Availability: | International Society for Exploring Teaching and Learning. Web site: http://www.isetl.org/ijtlhe |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 25 |
| Publication Date: | 2014 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Reports - Research Tests/Questionnaires |
| Education Level: | Higher Education Postsecondary Education |
| Descriptors: | Peer Evaluation, Writing Skills, Writing Evaluation, Horticulture, Undergraduate Students, Academic Achievement, Achievement Gains, Revision (Written Composition), Grades (Scholastic), Scores, Statistical Analysis, Correlation |
| Geographic Terms: | Minnesota |
| ISSN: | 1812-9129 |
| Abstract: | Peer review is not included in undergraduate horticultural curricula. Our research objectives in an 8- year study, which ranged from 2000 to 2007 in two sections (2000-2002 non-peer reviewed and 2003-2007 peer-reviewed) of Greenhouse Management students at the University of Minnesota were to determine whether iterative peer reviews would result in improved learning, enhanced writing, refined revision processes, and higher written paper/course grades for undergraduate and professional horticulture students, as well as the effects of double blinding, whether years affected any parameter and the validity/reliability of peer reviews. Both sections were assigned a semesterlong, 3-phase writing-intensive assignment. Principle findings that emerged were: (a) after engaging in iterative structured peer-reviews, student final grades in the peer review group exceeded those in 2/3 of non-peer reviewed years; (b) students quickly identified superior papers; (c) while students grasped the peer review process and matched their editing skills with the instructor and teaching assistants by Phase II, a lag time (Phase III) occurred before it significantly increased their grades; (d) graded paper scores were not different across years; (e) anonymity of peer reviews had no effect; and (f) students were initially able to recognize writing issues in peers' drafts and address them in their own writing. Inclusion of more than 2 peer reviews into horticulture courses is highly recommended. |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Number of References: | 70 |
| Entry Date: | 2015 |
| Accession Number: | EJ1060874 |
| Database: | ERIC |
Be the first to leave a comment!
