Abstract
This evidence-based, procedural paper outlines academic writing peer review practices conducted by Pre-Master’s Pathway and pre-undergraduate Foundation programme students at two Irish universities. The theoretical framework section presents the view that formative teacher feedback on student writing alone is insufficient, suggesting sustainable feedback through transmission of knowledge via student-generated feedback. We outline the peer review process, providing learners’ reactions focusing on what went well and what can be improved. This provides an outline of possible processes for others to use in their context, with a discussion of relevant considerations. Issues discussed include how to enhance the quality of peer feedback and maximize its impact on student learning. The ultimate aim of the practices is to improve the experience of the learners, and better facilitate their readiness for forthcoming modules in Irish universities. Overall peer review practices develop emerging academic writers, and should be considered in foundational, pre-sessional and beginning stages of learning in undergraduate, and those returning to Masters programmes. Peer review practices require active involvement and collaboration, and can improve self-regulation capabilities of emerging academic writers. The practices effectively encourage the transmission of socially constructed knowledge regarding their capabilities, and ultimately lead to improved self-efficacy and general writing abilities of learners.
Appendix 1: Checklist for peer review of Research Project (which corresponds to the assessment rubric on which the Research Project is graded)
Please use the following list to evaluate the draft assignment of your fellow-writer. Write YES or NO to indicate whether the author has achieved each objective and provide constructive feedback comments explaining what changes/improvements can be made.
Name of student-writer:
Name of peer reviewer:
| Draft Research Project | |
|---|---|
| The student-writer adheres to the following: | |
| Explains why the topic is important | |
| Establishes the scope of the discussion | |
| Includes a thesis statement (the same as the one included in the Introduction and Conclusion) | |
| Briefly outlines what will be covered in the discussion (without explaining the main arguments that will be made and the conclusions that will be drawn) | |
| Gives background information and context moving from the general to the particular | |
| Provides a rationale for researching and writing the text (i.e. explains why the topic is important, interesting, etc.) | |
| Defines any key terms necessary to the understanding of the text | |
| Presents relevant and convincing evidence from other studies | |
| Explains all points in a clear manner | |
| States the overall purpose and aims of the text | |
| Gives a clear stance (thesis statement) | |
| States how the whole text is organised (gives an outline) in the final paragraph | |
| Provides information to support the thesis statement that was presented in the Introduction | |
| Supports points with evidence from sources | |
| Paraphrases and assimilates sources | |
| Explains all points in a clear manner | |
| Draws logical conclusions | |
| Restates the overall purpose and aims of the literature review | |
| Refers back to the thesis statement first mentioned in the introduction | |
| Draws a logical conclusion that is evident from the development of the ideas discussed in the paper, as well as a brief summary of the main ideas in the paper | |
| Offers brief comments on these ideas (optional) | |
| Includes a statement of the limitations of the work covered in the paper | |
| Makes predictions for future developments in the topic area or includes a statement of further research that might be required | |
| Explains all points in a clear manner | |
| Uses (formal) academic language | |
| Uses a range of academic vocabulary and avoids repetition of the same words | |
| Does not make vocabulary mistakes that lead to lack of clarity/confusion (e.g. spelling, word formation, and word choice). Please give specific examples of vocabulary mistakes | |
| Uses a wide range of grammatical structures | |
| Does not make grammatical mistakes that lead to lack of clarity/confusion (e.g. verb tense, subject-verb agreement, articles, passive voice, etc.). Please give specific examples of grammatical mistakes | |
| Divides the discussion into (sub)sections using appropriate (sub)headings in a clear and logical manner | |
| Organizes paragraph(s) in a clear and logical manner, i.e. topic sentence, supporting statements, concluding sentence | |
| Uses appropriate linking devices to connect points | |
| All sources are credible, timely, and fully attributed within the text | |
| All sources cited are included in the list of references, following the Harvard Guide | |
| Presentation guidelines below: Font type: Arial. Font size: 11. Line spacing: 1.5 spaced. Single-sided page. Text is justified on both sides. Pagination numbers at the bottom of the page. The title of the assignment, headings and captions are in bold. A paragraph indent of 1.25 cm is applied for all paragraphs except the first one in a section and after white spaces (tables, figures, etc.). |
|
| The References section appears at the end of the paper. All references cited in the text are included in the list of references, and does not include any entries that have not been cited in the text. References are listed (i) alphabetically and (ii) chronologically, in the case of more than one publication by the same author(s). Arial, size 11, 1.5 spacing, is used with references, with 1.25 cm hanging indent. |
|
| The paper is within the word limit 2,500 words (+/− 10%). | |
Overall comments:
|
|
| What have you learned from peer reviewing this draft assignment that can help you to improve your own draft? | |
Appendix 2: Writing Planner
ePortfolio of Academic Research Writing: ‘A roadmap of your academic research writing journey’
The table below shows your academic research writing journey, focusing on both the process, i.e. the different stages involved in producing your assignment, and the products, i.e. the artefacts produced at different stages (e.g. outlines, draft sections, final project).
| Task | Skills Needed | Product | Deadline | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | Select a research topic and develop a focus. | thinking academically | Description of research topic and rationale. | Week 1 |
| 2. | Think about what you know about the subject and write it down. | brainstorming | Diagrams, mind maps or notes. | Week 1 |
| 3. | Find relevant journal articles and book chapters in the library. | library/research skills | List of relevant sources. | Week 2 |
| 4. | Study your source material. | reading skills: skimming and scanning | List of materials studied. | Weeks 2 and 3 |
| 5. | Make critical notes on these books and articles. Record full details of the materials you use. |
reading in detail reading critically selecting and note-taking paraphrasing/summarising |
Notes. | Weeks 2 and 3 |
| 6 | Analyse and review 3 Sample Annotated Bibliographies |
critical review applying criteria constructing feedback |
Peer feedback on samples. | Week 3 |
| 7. | Compile a Draft Annotated Bibliography | summarise and critically evaluate sources and justify their relevance to research topic | Draft Annotated Bibliography (Summary and 5 bibliographical entries) | Weeks 3 and 4 |
| 8. | Revise Draft Annotated Bibliography acting on peer and teacher feedback | engaging with formative peer/teacher feedback self-reviewing and revising draft |
Draft Annotated Bibliography annotated with feedback | Week 5 |
| 9. | Submit final version of Annotated Bibliography for grading | editing, proofreading, finalizing assignment | Revised Annotated Bibliography | Week 6 |
| 10. | Narrow research topic/Develop a focus Organise Literature Review with a mind map Critically read additional sources Create an outline |
devising research questions critical reading planning organisation |
Research plan Mind map Draft outline |
Weeks 6 and 7 |
| 11 | Analyse and review 3 Sample Research Projects (Literature Reviews) |
critical review applying criteria constructing feedback |
Student feedback on samples | Week 6 |
| 12 | Write a draft introduction Receive peer feedback Redraft introduction acting on feedback |
writing from notes synthesis writing paragraphs typing/word-processing use of dictionaries and reference books revising content/phrasing |
Draft Introduction Peer-review comments Revised version |
Week 7 |
| 13 | Write the main body Receive peer feedback Redraft main body acting on feedback |
writing from notes synthesis writing paragraphs typing/word-processing use of dictionaries and reference books revising content/phrasing |
Draft Body Peer-review comments Revised version |
Study break (2 weeks) |
| 14. | Write your conclusion and abstract Receive peer feedback Redraft the conclusion and abstract acting on feedback |
writing from notes synthesis writing paragraphs typing/word-processing use of dictionaries and reference books revising content/phrasing |
Draft conclusion and abstract Peer-review comments Revised versions |
Week 8 |
| 15. | Revise Draft Literature Review acting on teacher feedback | engaging with formative teacher feedback self-reviewing and revising draft |
Draft Literature Review annotated with teacher feedback | Week 10 |
| 16. | Finalise and proofread Literature Review Produce a final version Create a reverse outline |
refining Literature review checking for spelling mistakes checking punctuation and grammar checking vocabulary use checking style checking organisation, references etc. |
Reverse outline Final version of assignment with changes marked. |
Submission: Week 12 |
(Adapted from: http://www.uefap.com/writing/process/process.htm#top)
Appendix 3: Reflective Essay
| Reflecting on your learning journey |
“ We do not learn from experience… we learn from reflecting on experience. ”
John Dewey
Having completed the Academic Reading and Writing module of UCD’s Pre-Master’s Programme, you should take some time to reflect on what you have learned and write an essay on your learning experience (450–500 words). Try to evaluate the progress you have made, identify your weaknesses and areas for further improvement, and create an action plan for your future MA Programme.
The following template (Gibbs, 1988)[1] can be used to stimulate reflection and help you to structure your essay:
| Description |
| Describe the work you had to produce and the tasks you had to complete in order to write your research project and how you worked individually and in writing groups for this purpose. |
| Feelings |
| Record the feelings and thoughts you had before, during, and after the writing of your research project and how these had an impact on your experience. |
| Evaluation |
| Discuss what went well and what did not go that well throughout the process, reflect on the difficulties that you had and how you tried to overcome these (either on your own or with support from members of your writing group). |
| Analysis |
| Try to explain why things went well, why some things did not go that well, and what sense you can make of the situation. |
| Conclusions - lessons learned |
| Summarise what you have learned from the whole experience. Identify what knowledge and skills could have helped you to perform better and what else you could have done. |
| Action plan |
| Explain what you would do differently in a similar or related situation in the future and discuss how you will develop the language knowledge and writing skills you need in order to ensure the best possible results. |
Appendix 4 Essay Description
Trinity International Foundation Programme
Joint EAP and Biology/Physics Essay Semester 2 2020
Essay title: An important innovation in science
You must - discuss a recent innovation in science: outline the situation generally, and the problem the innovation addresses.
Detail the innovation, and how it represents a solution to this problem.
Discuss the important implications from a Biology or Physics perspective.
Present your evaluation of the innovation.
– include and cite/reference at least 6 sources.
WORD COUNT: 1,200 words (excluding references list but including citations)
| DRAFT Due Date: Week 7 |
|
| FINAL Due date: Monday Week 14 |
|
|
GOALS
Goals for essay writing in the TIFP include:
Explanation of issues Issue to be considered critically are stated clearly and developed comprehensively, delivering all relevant information necessary for full understanding. [taken from VALUE = Valid Assessment of Learning in Undergraduate Education].
Evidence Information is taken from sources with enough interpretation to develop a comprehensive analysis [taken from VALUE]
Academic Writing: To write clear, well-structured texts on complex subjects in my field, underlining the relevant salient issues, expanding and supporting points of view at some length with subsidiary points, reasons and relevant examples, and rounding off with an appropriate conclusion [Common European Framework of Reference for Languages C1 Writing descriptor]
Appendix 5 Criteria used in peer review (which correspond to the essay assessment rubric on which the essay is graded)
If you answer no to the following questions, please insert a constructive comment in a relevant part of the essay:
Explanation of issues Is there a clear thesis statement?
Is all relevant information [situation-problem-solution] necessary for full understanding included?
Is this a relevant and well-developed response [implications and evaluations] with main issues stated clearly and developed comprehensively?
Has the essay expanded supporting points of view at length with relevant reasons and examples?
Evidence and referencing Is information taken from appropriate sources with enough interpretation to develop a comprehensive analysis?.
Is there skilful use of in-text and end-of-text citation, and accuracy in formatting of referencing system?
Coherence and cohesion: providing a clear and well-structured text Is there -efficient paragraphing [numbered sections] -logical sequence of ideas, - well organized, clear progressions - an appropriate conclusion?
If you can answer yes to the following questions, please insert a positive comment!
References
Black, Paul, Christine Harrison, Clara Lee, Bethan Marshall & William Dylan. 2003. Assessment for learning: Putting it into practice. Maidenhead, U.K.: Open University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Boud, David & Elizabeth Molloy. 2013. Rethinking models of feedback for learning: The challenge of design. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 38(6). 698–712.10.1080/02602938.2012.691462Search in Google Scholar
Carless, David. 2020. From teacher transmission of information to student feedback literacy: Activating the learner role in feedback processes. Active Learning in Higher Education 1–11.10.1177/1469787420945845Search in Google Scholar
Carless, David, Diane Salter, Min Yang & Joy Lam. 2011. Developing sustainable feedback practices. Studies in Higher Education 36 (4). 395–407.10.1080/03075071003642449Search in Google Scholar
Charles, Maggie. 2007. Reconciling top-down and bottom-up approaches to graduate writing: Using a corpus to teach rhetorical functions. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 6(4). 289–302.10.1016/j.jeap.2007.09.009Search in Google Scholar
Ferris, Diana. 2018. Building a writing curriculum and developing strategic writers. In Jonathan Newton, Diana Ferris, Christine Goh, William Grabe, Federica Stoller & Larry Vandergrift (eds.), Teaching English to second language learners in academic contexts, 89–105. England, UK: Routledge. Taylor and Francis.10.4324/9781315626949-8Search in Google Scholar
Flowerdew, Lynne. 2005. An integration of corpus-based and genre-based approaches to text analysis in EAP/ESP: Countering criticism against corpus-based methodologies. English for Specific Purposes 24. 321–332.10.1016/j.esp.2004.09.002Search in Google Scholar
Gibbs, Graham. 1988. Learning by doing: A guide to teaching and learning methods. Oxford: Oxford Further Education Unit.Search in Google Scholar
Hattie, John & Helen Timperley. 2007. The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research 77(1). 81–112.10.3102/003465430298487Search in Google Scholar
Hounsell, David. 2007. Towards more sustainable feedback to students. In David Boud & Nicol Falchikov (eds.), Rethinking assessment in higher education, 101–13. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Hyland, Ken. 1996. Second language writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Kennedy, Claire & Tiziana Miceli. 2001. An evaluation of intermediate students’ approaches to corpus investigation. Language Learning and Technology 5(3). 77–90.Search in Google Scholar
Lee, David & John Swales. 2006. A corpus-based EAP course for NNS doctoral students: Moving from available specialized corpora to self-compiled corpora. English for Specific Purposes 25(1). 56–75.10.1016/j.esp.2005.02.010Search in Google Scholar
Murray, Rowena. 2015. Writing in social spaces: A social processes approach to academic writing. London: Routledge.10.4324/9781315755427Search in Google Scholar
Nicol, David & Debra Macfarlane‐Dick. 2006. Formative assessment and self‐regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education 31(2). 199–218.10.1080/03075070600572090Search in Google Scholar
Reinholz, David. 2016. The assessment cycle: A model for learning through assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 41(2). 301–315.10.1080/02602938.2015.1008982Search in Google Scholar
Sadler, David. 1989. Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science 18(2). 119–144.10.1007/BF00117714Search in Google Scholar
Sadler, David. 2010. Beyond feedback: Developing student capability in complex appraisal. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 35(5). 535–550.10.1080/02602930903541015Search in Google Scholar
Vygotsky, Lev. 1978. Interaction between learning and development. In Michael Cole, Vera John-Steiner, Sylvia Scribner & Ellen Souberman (eds.), Mind in society. The development of higher psychological processes, 79–91. Cambridge Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.10.2307/j.ctvjf9vz4.11Search in Google Scholar
Yoon, Hyunsook. 2008. More than a linguistic reference: The influence of corpus technology on L2 academic writing. Language Learning and Technology 12(2). 31–48.Search in Google Scholar
© 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
