CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 2Student Assessment and FeedbackEvaluation of Teaching PracticesHigher Education Practises and Engagement

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Undergraduate peer review, reading and writing: reflecting on experiences from an International Politics module

Open access
Pugh, Michael, Veitch, Fiona·2019·European Political Science
DOI 10.1057/s41304-018-0178-3
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Abstract From academic years 2011–2012 until 2015–2016 (inclusive), the authors developed an innovative formative peer review assessment strategy to build undergraduate students’ academic writing skills within the framework of a second year introductory International Politics module. This involved students anonymously reviewing assigned fellow students’ draft essay introductions and indicative bibliographies, supported by a bespoke rubric delivered via Turnitin Peermark. This article recounts the educational research-driven rationale underpinning the peer review educational design and implementation in the International Politics module, before qualitatively exploring its perception and reception by learners through key “student voice” data, complemented by commentary from learner focus groups. Following the best traditions of learning and teaching articles in this journal, we conclude by sharing the challenges and benefits of implementing such a formative assessment strategy. We also offer practice-based advice, drawn from our experiences, for colleagues who may want to emulate our approach, and we acknowledge the limitations of our qualitative practice-based study alongside a potential avenue for expanding on this study.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1057/s41304-018-0178-3

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so the self-check wasn’t run.

Citations

Cites

Show all 11 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 2

Related

Metadata

Authors
Pugh, M., & Veitch, F.
Affiliations
University of the West of Scotland (GB)
Corresponding author
Pugh, Michael
Venue
European Political Science
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Published
2019-06
Volume
18
Issue
2
Pages
335-350
ISSN
  • 1680-4333 (ISSN-L)
  • 1682-0983
DOI
10.1057/s41304-018-0178-3
OpenAlex
W2885156063
Cited by
2
References
11
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2021: 1
FWCI
0.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • European Political Science (publishedVersion)
  • The UWS Academic Portal (University of the West of Scotland) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
  • Social Sciences › Education › Evaluation of Teaching Practices
  • Social Sciences › Education › Higher Education Practises and Engagement
Keywords
peer review, formative assessment, academic writing skills, undergraduate students, essay introduction, bibliography, rubrics, student voice, student perceptions, writing instruction

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review