Examining the efficacy of peer feedback as part of the writing process in an introductory biology course
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A goal of introductory biology labs is to introduce students to scientific writing by having them write lab reports. With several lab sections taught by different instructors, consistency in grading is a problem. Another challenge is that students do not appear to engage with instructor feedback; they see writing as subjective, or fail to use the feedback to improve. One approach to these problems is having students carry out peer assessment with the goals of: encouraging engagement in the process of writing, introducing students to the peer review process (fundamental to science), and addressing inconsistencies in grading. Students in Biology 1010 used Moodle Workshop to grade exemplar Introductions and Discussions. They then prepared and peer evaluated Introductions and Discussions. Students were surveyed (22% responding: 44/200). Forty-five percent of respondents disagreed with the statement: I feel that the peer-feedback that I received helped to improve my writing; however, 90% of these identified stress and/or the belief that they would have received higher marks from their instructors as the reason(s) behind their negative evaluations. Eighty-six percent agreed with the statement: I feel that engaging in the peer-feedback process
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".