Facilitating Improvements in Laboratory Report Writing Skills with Less Grading: A Laboratory Report Peer-Review Process

Clicks: 309
ID: 106752
2015
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Popular

Ranked #8 of 8 articles by views in journal of microbiology & biology education

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Incorporating peer-review steps in the laboratory report writing process provides benefits to students, but it also can create additional work for laboratory instructors. The laboratory report writing process described here allows the instructor to grade only one lab report for every two to four students, while giving the students the benefits of peer review and prompt feedback on their laboratory reports. Here we present the application of this process to a sophomore level genetics course and a freshman level cellular biology course, including information regarding class time spent on student preparation activities, instructor preparation, prerequisite student knowledge, suggested learning outcomes, procedure, materials, student instructions, faculty instructions, assessment tools, and sample data. T-tests comparing individual and group grading of the introductory cell biology lab reports yielded average scores that were not significantly different from each other (p = 0.13, n = 23 for individual grading, n = 6 for group grading). T-tests also demonstrated that average laboratory report grades of students using the peer-review process were not significantly different from those of students working alone (p = 0.98, n = 9 for individual grading, n = 6 for pair grading). While the grading process described here does not lead to statistically significant gains (or reductions) in student learning, it allows student learning to be maintained while decreasing instructor workload. This reduction in workload could allow the instructor time to pursue other high-impact practices that have been shown to increase student learning. Finally, we suggest possible modifications to the procedure for application in a variety of settings.
Reference Key
brigati2015facilitatingjournal Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Brigati, Jennifer R.;Swann, Jerilyn M.;
Journal journal of microbiology & biology education
Year 2015
DOI
DOI not found
URL
http://jmbesubmissions.asm.org/index.php/jmbe/article/view/884
Keywords
Biology (General) Technology Diseases of the blood and blood-forming organs environmental sciences geography (general) special aspects of education geology geography. anthropology. recreation religion (general) nuclear and particle physics. atomic energy. radioactivity environmental technology. sanitary engineering

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.