HomePublicationsTILTed PedagogySection 2 Chapter 7: Becoming Part of the Scientific Community via Peer Review Book MenuTILTed Pedagogy SectionsSection 1Section 2Section 3Section 4ChaptersChapter 1Chapter 2Chapter 3Chapter 4Chapter 5Chapter 6Chapter 7Chapter 8Chapter 9Chapter 10Chapter 11Chapter 12Chapter 13Chapter 14Chapter 15Chapter 16Book Resources Shannon M. SipesA common summative assessment in social science research methodology courses is a student research paper. Instructors frequently implement peer review prior to the assignment deadline, but students and instructors alike are often less than satisfied with the results. This chapter provides readers with a more structured peer review process that models the academic publishing process, giving students the opportunity to engage in academic discourse with other novices in a low-stakes environment. This chapter will discuss how the TILTed peer review assignment is based in the peer review pedagogical literature as well as the literature on academic discourse socialization. The peer review assignment is easily adaptable to any discipline requiring a research paper, not just social science. Related Book ResourcesThe following resources support implementation of the structured peer review process described in this chapter. They include classroom materials that scaffold students through disciplinary peer review and revision while modeling elements of the academic publishing process. Peer Review Modified Rubric This Peer Modified Rubric [PDF] [Word] guides students in evaluating their peers’ work with attention to disciplinary expectations and criteria-based assessment. Students use a modified version of a research paper rubric as part of the peer review process (see Gottfried, Vosmik, and Johnson 2009). Peer Review Worksheet A structured Peer Review Worksheet [PDF] [Word] designed to support students in providing focused, constructive feedback during the peer review process. Annotated Course Schedule An Annotated Course Schedule [PDF] [Word] outlines the sequence of activities that scaffold and prepare students for the peer review assignment. These preparatory steps are intentionally designed to build skills and support successful participation in the peer review process. For example, students submit a “response to the editor” letter alongside their final draft. In this letter, they explain how they addressed peer feedback in their revision process. While this activity is directly connected to peer review, it functions as a separate assessment component focused on revision and reflective writing. Discussion Questions What teaching challenge is the chapter’s assignment trying to address, and how does that challenge show up in your own courses? How does the chapter’s use of the TILT framework (purpose, task, criteria) change the learning experience described, and what parallels do you see in your own teaching? What assumptions about students or learning does the chapter surface, and how might those assumptions influence assignment design? How does the assignment described in the chapter support student agency, autonomy, or choice? How does the chapter illustrate the connection between assignment design and deeper learning (e.g., critical thinking, metacognition, synthesis)? What evidence does the chapter provide that the assignment worked, and what additional evidence would you want to see? How does the chapter’s assignment align with or challenge your current beliefs about effective assessment? What aspects of the assignment design could be adapted to your discipline, and what would need to change? If you were to implement a version of this chapter’s assignment, what would be your first step—and what potential barriers would you anticipate? Share:
