2014 GSA Annual Meeting in Vancouver, British Columbia (19–22 October 2014)

Paper No. 214-23
Presentation Time: 2:30 PM

RECIPROCAL PEER REVIEW IN THE MARINE SCIENCES: STUDENTS LEARN SCIENTIFIC WRITING SKILLS BY EDITING EACH OTHER


RODRIGUES, Lisa J., Department of Geography and the Environment, Villanova University, 800 Lancaster Avenue, Villanova, PA 19085

Critically reading scientific literature and producing clear, concise scientific writing are two of the most difficult, yet important tasks for science majors to achieve. To address these skill deficits, students enrolled in an undergraduate marine science laboratory course learned start-to-finish scientific project management, using the nearby New Jersey coastline and barrier island system as the focus of their research. The semester-long project emphasized science literacy and the scientific method, while students worked in pre-assigned groups to design a study, submit a letter of intent, and write a proposal prior to the weekend field trip. During consecutive laboratory periods, students conducted analyses on collected samples and analyzed data. The final course products included individual peer reviewed papers and a group presentation at the close of the semester. The overall scope and scale of the semester-long project, in particular, the inclusion of a peer review element was novel for all students in the course. Therefore, to focus on the mechanics and logistics of the peer review process, students developed the skills to critically read and evaluate scientific papers during class discussions of topically related publications from the primary literature. They then edited and assessed the strengths and weaknesses of each other’s papers. Student feedback and the quality of final papers indicated that editing the papers of their peers, helped strengthen their own writing skills. Students reported that the most useful aspect of peer review was recognition of their own errors by seeing similar ones in other students’ papers. Challenges for the instructor included compiling and summarizing (sometimes disparate or erroneous) feedback, yet the benefits of better quality draft and final papers out-weighed these challenges. Reciprocal peer review could be adapted to different course levels within the geosciences and across various disciplines beyond the sciences.