Peer Review and Response: Supporting Improved Writing Skills in Environmental Chemistry

References

• Berndt, M., Strijbos, J.-W., & Fischer, F. (2018). Effects of written peer-feedback content and sender’s competence on perceptions, performance, and mindful cognitive processing. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 33(1), 31–49.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boase-Jelinek, D., Parker, J., & Herrington, J. (2013). Student reflection and learning through peer reviews. Issues in Educational Research, 23(2), 119–131.
   Google Scholar
• Chapman, O. (1999). Calibrated peer review™, an overview. http://cpr.molsci.ucla.edu.
   Google Scholar
• Cho, K., & MacArthur, C. (2010). Student revision with peer and expert reviewing. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 328–338.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coghill, A. M., & Garson, L. (2006). The ACS style guide (Vol. 3). Oxford University Press and the American Chemical Society.
   Google Scholar
• Dominguez, C., Nascimento, M. M., Payan-Carreira, R., Cruz, G., Silva, H., Lopes, J., Morais, M., & Morais, E. (2015). Adding value to the learning process by online peer review activities: Towards the elaboration of a methodology to promote critical thinking in future engineers. European Journal of Engineering Education, 40(5), 573–591.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glaser, R. E. (2014). Design and assessment of an assignment-based curriculum to teach scientific writing and scientific peer review. Journal of Learning Design, 7(2), 85–104.
   Google Scholar
• Gragson, D. E., & Hagen, J. P. (2009). Developing technical writing skills in the physical chemistry laboratory: A progressive approach employing peer review. Journal of Chemical Education, 87(1), 62–65.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guilford, W. H. (2001). Teaching peer review and the process of scientific writing. Advances in Physiology Education, 25(3), 167–175.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gunersel, A. B., Simpson, N. J., Auf, & Wang, L. (2012). Effectiveness of Calibrated Peer ReviewTM for improving writing and critical thinking skills in biology undergraduate students. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 8(2), 25–37.
   Google Scholar
• Hicks, C. M., Pandey, V, Fraser, C. A., & Klemmer, S. (2016). Framing feedback: Choosing review environment features that support high quality peer assessment. Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 458–469. https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858195
   Google Scholar
• Huisman, B., Saab, N., van Driel, J., & van den Broek, P (2018). Peer feedback on academic writing: Undergraduate students’ peer feedback role, peer feedback perceptions and essay performance. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 1–14.
   Google Scholar
• Krause, M., Garncarz, T., Song, J., Gerber, E. M., Bailey, B. P., & Dow, S. P. (2017). Critique style guide: Improving crowdsourced design feedback with a natural language model. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 4627–4639). Association for Computing Machinery.
   Google Scholar
• Kulkarni, C. E., Bernstein, M. S., & Klemmer, S. R. (2015a). PeerStudio: Rapid peer feedback emphasizes revision and improves performance. Proceedings of the Second (2015) ACM Conference on Learning@ Scale (pp. 75–84). Association for Computing Machinery.
   Google Scholar
• Kulkarni, C., Wei, K. P., Le, H., Chia, D., Papadopoulos, K., Cheng, J., Koller, D., & Klemmer, S. R. (2015b). Peer and self assessment in massive online classes. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 20(6), 1–33.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miyazoe, T., & Anderson, T. (2010). Learning outcomes and students’ perceptions of online writing: Simultaneous implementation of a forum, blog, and wiki in an EFL blended learning setting. System, 38(2), 185–199.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Novakovich, J. (2016). Fostering critical thinking and reflection through blog-mediated peer feedback. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 32(1), 16–30.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ricker, A. S., & Whelan, R. J. (2016). Reading, writing, and peer review: Engaging with chemical literature in a 200-level analytical chemistry course. In Integrating Information Literacy into the Chemistry Curriculum (pp. 157–168). ACS Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Russell, A. A. (2004). Calibrated peer review—a writing and critical-thinking instructional tool. Teaching Tips: Innovations in Undergraduate Science Instruction, 54.
   Google Scholar
• Strijbos, J.-W., Narciss, S., & Dünnebier, K. (2010). Peer feedback content and sender’s competence level in academic writing revision tasks: Are they critical for feedback perceptions and efficiency? Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 291–303.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomas, G., Martin, D., & Pleasants, K. (2011). Using self-and peer-assessment to enhance students’ futurelearning in higher education. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 8(1), 5.
   Google Scholar
• Walker, J. P., & Sampson, V (2013). Argument-driven inquiry: Using the laboratory to improve undergraduates’ science writing skills through meaningful science writing, peer-review, and revision. Journal of Chemical Education, 90(10), 1269–1274.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yuan, A., Luther, K., Krause, M., Vennix, S. I., Dow, S. P., & Hartmann, B. (2016). Almost an expert: The effects of rubrics and expertise on perceived value of crowdsourced design critiques. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Work and Social Computing (pp. 1005–1017). Association for Computing Machinery.
   Google Scholar
• Zwicky, D. A., & Hands, M. D. (2015). The effect of peer review on information literacy outcomes in a chemical literature course. Journal of Chemical Education, 93(3), 477–481.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar