The Effectiveness of Using Calibrated Peer Review (CPR) Against Non-CPR (Traditional) Means in Submitting Chemistry Laboratory Reports
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.61538/huria.v19i0.139Abstract
This paper examines the impact of the use of CPR in submitting general Chemistry (123L) laboratory report. This is expected to improve writing skills and alleviate grading burdens particularly when dealing with a large class due to lack sufficient instructors and high grading burden. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and ttest were used in statistical analyses. When ANOVA was used for group I students (11 sections) post-laboratory reports submitted by using CPR revealed F = 0.87, p > 0.01, which implies it is consistent with the null hypothesis. The ANOVA done on group II (15 sections) post-laboratory using CPR revealed F = 2.07, p > 0.01, which is statistically significant. On the other hand, the comparison of students’ who did post-test after using CPR and Non-CPR user revealed t = 4.18, p < 2 x 10- 5 -10 , t = 6.3, p < 7 x 10 , which are statistically significant respectively. In addition, comparison using ANOVA for group I who did pre-test and post-test after using CPR and group II which did not use CPR revealed F = 2.94, p < 3 x 10-5, F = 2.20, p < 4 x 10-4, which are statistically significant respectively. It is most probable that the noted achievements may not necessarily be due to the use of CPR because the time spent in this research and size of sample used. Indeed, both t-test, and ANOVA analyses have shown existence differences between pre-test and post-test scores, regardless of whether or not the group used CPR to submit post-laboratory report. Statistical analysis has provided little support to connect the use of CPR programme and student writing skill improvement.   ÂReferences
Barnett, R. W. and Blumner, J. S. (eds). (1999). Writing Centers and Writing Across the Curiculum Programs, West Port, CT: Greenwood Press.
Bloom, B. S. (Ed). (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Cognitive Domain Longmans, Green and Company, New York.
Bound, D. (1988). Developing Student Autonomy in Learning 2nd ed. London:
Kogan Page.
Breland, H. M. and Gaynor, J. L. (1979). “A Comparison of Direct and Indirect Assessment of Writing Skill†Journal of Educational Measurement, Vol. 16, 119-128.
Carlson, P. A. and Berry, F. C. (2003). Calibrated Peer Review and Assessing Learning Outcomes. Paper Presented at the 33rd ASEE/IEEE Frontiers’ in Education Conference, Boulder, Co.
Carlson, P. A.; Berry, F. C. and Voltmer, D. (2005). Incorporating Student Peerreview into an Introduction to Engineering Design Course. Paper Presented at the 35th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Indianapolis, IN.
Chan, C. (2009). Assessment: Essay, Assessment Resources@HKU, University of Hong Kong [http:/ar.hku.hk].
Devore, J.; Farnum, N. (2005). Applied Statistics for Engineers and Scientists, 2nd ed. Green and Company, New York, 402.
Donovan, J. B. (2003). “My Computer, my Writing Coach†Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) Bulletin, Vol. 16, 7-12.
Doody, T. C. and Gibbens, V. E. (1954), J. Chem. Educ., Vol. 31, 8-18.
Falchikov, N. and Goldfinch, J. (2000). “Student Peer Assessment in Higher Education: A Meta-Analysis Comparing Peer and Teacher Marks†Review of Educational Research, Vol. 70, 287-299.
Falchikov, N. (1986). “Product Comparisons and Process Benefits of Collaborative Self and Peer Group Assessments†Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol. 11, 146-166.
Fawkes, K. L. and Berry, D. E. (2001). Positive Pedagogy, Vol. 1, 1496-1510.
Furman, B. and Robinson, W. (2003). Improving Engineering Report Writing with Calibrated Peer Review. Paper presented at the 33rd ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Boulder, Co.
Gerdeman, R, D.; Russell, A. A. and Worden, K. J. (2007), â€Web-based Student Writing and Reviewing in a Large Biology Lecture Course†Journal of College Science Teaching, Vol. 36, 46-50.
Guilford, W. H. (2001). Adv. Physiol. Educ., Vol. 25, 167-173.
Heise, E. A.; Palmer-Julson, A. and Su, T. M. (2002). “Calibrated Peer Review Writing Assignment for Introductory Geology Courses†Abstract with Programs (Geological Society of America), Vol. 34, 345-353.
Hobson, E. H. and Schafermeyer, K. W. (1994). “Writing-to-Learn in Large Classes†American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, Vol. 58, 423-427.
Hollenbeck, J. J.; Wixson, N. E.; Geske, G. D.; Dodge, M. W; Tseng, T. A.; Clauss, A. D. and Blackwell, H. E. (2006). J. Chem. Educ., Vol. 83, 1835-1843.
Kim, S. H.; Wise, J. and Hillsley, M. (2005). Learning Technical Writing Skills
Through Peer Review: Use of Calibrated Peer Review in unit Operation Laboratory. Paper Presented at AIChE Annual Meeting, Conference Proceedings, Vol. 27, 23-31.
Koprowiski, J. L. (1997). Coll. Sci. Teach., Vol. 27, 133-142.
Kovac, J. and Sherwood, D. W. (1999). J. Chem. Educ., Vol. 76, 1399-1403.
Kovac, J. and Sherwood, D. W. (2001). Writing Across the Chemistry Curriculum: An Instructor’s Handbook; Printice Hall: Upper Saddle River. NJ.
Margerum, L. D.; Gulsud, M.; Manlapez, R.; Rebong, R. and Love, A. (2007). “Application of Calibrated Peer Review Writing Assignments to Enhance Experiments with an Environmental Chemistry Focus†J. Chem. Educ.,Vol. 84, 292-300.
McCarty, T.; Parkes, M. V.; Anderson, T. T.; Mines, J.; Skipper, B. J. and Grebosky, J. (2005). Academic Medicine, Vol. 80, 67-73.
Murphy, P. (2001). “Collaborative Innovations: New UC-Wide Partnerships are Transforming the Teaching and Learning Experiences†http://www.uctltc.
org/news /2001/12/feature-6.htm.
Nilson, I. B. (2003). College Teaching, Vol. 51, 34-42.
Oliver-Hoyo, M. T. (2003). J. Chem. Educ., Vol. 80, 889-894.
Palaez, N. (2002). “Problem-Based Writing with Peer Review Improves Academic Performance in Physiology†Advances in Physiology Education, Vol, 26, 174-186.
Palaez, N. (2001). Calibrated Peer Review in General Education Undergraduate Human Physiology. In Proceedings of Annual International Conference of the Association for the Education of Teachers in Science, Costa Mesa. California, 8.
Piaget, J. (1971). Science of Education and the Psychology of the Child. Longman: London.
Plutsky, S. and Wilson, B. A. (2004). “Comparison of Three Methods for Teaching and Evaluating Writing: Aquasi-experimental Studyâ€. Delta pi Epsilon, Vol. 46, 50-53.
Reynolds, J. and Moskovitz, C. (2008). Journal of College Science Teaching, Vol, 60, 247-456.
Robinson, R. (2001). “Calibrated Peer Review an Application to Increase Student Reading and Writing Skills†American Biology Teacher, Vol. 63, 474-480.
Rosenthal, L. C. (1987). J. Chem. Educ., Vol. 64, 996-1001.
Russell, A. A.; Chapman, O. L. and Wagner, P. A. (1998). J. Chem. Educ. Vol. 75, 578-583.
Russell, A. A. (2005). Growth Charts on History of Uses of CPR Los Angeles: UCLA.
Russell, A. A. (2001). The Evaluation of CPR, Prepared for HP e-Education; Business Development, UCLA.
Russell, A. A. (2005). “Calibrated Peer Review TM A Writing and Critical Thinking Instructional Tool†(Invention and Impact): Building Excellence in
Undergraduate Science Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) Education. Washington DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Schepmann, H. G.;and Hughes, L. A. (2006). J. Chem. Educ., Vol. 83, 1024-1031.
Shibley, I. A., Jr.; Milakofsky, L. M. and Nicotera, C. L. (2001), J. Chem. Educ., Vol. 78, 50-56.
Walvoord, B. E.; Hunt, L. L.; Dowling, H. F. and McMahon, J. D. (1997). In the Long Run: A Study of Faculty in Three Writing- Across the Curriculum Programs. Urban, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Walvoord, M. E.; Hoefnagels, M. H.; Goffin, D. D.; Chumchal, M. M. and Long, D. A. (2008). Journal of College Science Teaching, Vol. 66, 147-158.
Widstrand, C. G.; Nordell, K. J. and Ellis, A. B. (2001). J. Chem. Educ., Vol. 78, 1044-1053.
Watson, D. M. (2001). Education and Information Technology, Vol. 6, 251-266. Zinsser, W. (1988), Writing to Learn; Harper and Row: New York.
