Peer-reviewed writing assignments can work in large & small classes, serve as exam alternatives

Lindsay Hamm, lecturer, in the Department of Sociology, uses writing and automated peer review as a “Swiss Army knife” to engage students and improve learning in all her courses, from a 30-person Cornerstone class to her 400-person hybrid Social Problems course. Incorporating the Circuit peer-review tool into her courses’ Brightspace gives Hamm’s students the ability to connect and learn from each other as they are giving feedback. It also makes assessment quicker, which is important at any time, but especially as the end of the semester approaches.

“I wanted to be able to assign summative writing in my large lecture courses, but thought this would be too much of a burden on myself and TAs to grade,” Hamm said, in describing why she began using automated peer review for student writing in her Social Problems course in 2017. Students may choose between summative writing assignments or exams, or a combination of both in calculating their final course grade.

Hamm asks students to write 750- to 1,500 word analyses of media clips they find that are related to course concepts. She uses calibrated peer scoring so that students’ final grades are a combination of the peer score of their content, their own work on calibrating their scoring, their work reviewing other students’ papers, and their own self-score. This work is weighted as highly as exams in calculating the final course grade.

“I emphasize that the entire peer-review process is an important part of the learning process and their grade,” Hamm said. “After calibrating three previously graded essays, scoring three peers’ essays, and then going back over their own essay with the rubric, they know the assignment and the rubric really well. I also think it helps them apply the theory.

“I let them turn in new essays analyzing different pieces of media and I see a big improvement between the first and second attempts.”

Using Circuit to get peer feedback before revising for final drafts has also helped students connect with each other in the hybrid modality that includes rotating attendance. “In the large hybrid class, they like seeing what other people are interested in,” Hamm said.

Looking at others’ work and using the rubric is also a time-saver for the instructional team. “I think that it has saved a lot of TA time. Students are clearing up a lot of their own questions by having to read through the rubric so closely.”

Hamm recently also incorporated Circuit for student presentations in the Cornerstone course. Students upload their final presentations to Circuit, and each student uses the assignment rubric to review the presentations of three peers. Hamm watches each presentation video and grades it using the same rubric. She then averages the three peer scores, the student’s self-score, and her score to calculate 70 percent of the presentation final grade. The other 30 percent is earned for giving encouraging and constructive feedback to their peers.

The approach mirrors what the class would have done in person, and provides the same rigor. “I ask them to give helpful, positive comments to each student they watch,” Hamm said. “Many of them are harder on themselves than I am on them.”

Some fall Cornerstone students said they may prefer recording and giving feedback on presentations through Circuit. “The skill sets for recording a presentation and giving one in person are a bit different, but students love that they don’t have to sit through 30 presentations (just three) and that their feedback matters,” Hamm said.

Developing clear rubrics is key in moving to calibrated peer review, Hamm said. “Make sure that you have good rubrics for your assignments and make sure that your assignment directions are clearly in-line with the rubric criteria. This will go a long way in setting up your assignments in Circuit and in having students review each other’s work.”