(59) Effects of Student Peer Review on a Research Proposal Assignment in an Introductory Undergraduate Biomechanics Course

Peer assessment has shown positive effects on students’ learning outcomes including critical thinking skills, creativity, feasibility, and suitability which lead to promote a better outcome on students’ writing assignment.  This study investigated how the segmental and the entirety peer review methods affected on a final research proposal paper in undergraduate introductory biomechanics course.

Purpose: To examine the effects of One-time peer review (OTPR) feedback for the entire research proposal paper and multiple (three-time) peer review feedback for smaller segmental sections (MPR) were examined.

Methods: A total of thirty-two undergraduate students who enrolled in an introductory biomechanics course were divided into one of two groups randomly, the OTPR group and the MPR group.  Based on the peer review feedback they received, they revised their paper.  The final draft of the paper was submitted via a course management system online at the end of the semester.  Throughout the semester, the instructor of the course encouraged each group of students to meet at least one time.  The final written papers were evaluated based on the same rubric used during the peer review process for the participants. The rubric scores, analysis of the peer review comments, and a peer review reflection survey were analyzed.  For OTPR group, the participants received the peer review feedback only one time for their entire paper towards the end of the semester.  A peer review assignment function in the course management system was used to record each student’s feedback.  For MPR group, the participants received the peer review feedback 3 times throughout the semester, one for each part (Part 1: Intro and Background, 2: Review of Literature, and 3: Proposed Methodology).  The participants in MPR also received feedback based on the rubric. The participants in both groups were required to respond to the peer review feedback as a group. Regardless of which group the participants were in, they were required to provide constructive feedback to each part with a minimum of 150 words.

Results: The subjects in the MPR group’s final research proposal paper mean score (M = 92.5, SD = 6.19) was significantly greater (t (13) = 2.43, p = .05) compared to the subjects in the OTPR group’s final research proposal paper mean score (M = 83.75, SD = 8.07).  In addition, a majority of students who participated in the MPR group expressed more positive comments for their experiences based on a reflection survey after the final paper was submitted.

Conclusion: Receiving peer feedback for a small section at a time may result a better score in a research proposal paper in an undergraduate biomechanics course.  This notion was supported by the post-reflection survey. PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS: If you are an instructor teaching an introductory undergraduate biomechanics course the data suggest that a smaller segmental method should be used to promote a better writing assignment outcome.

Acknowledgements: None