CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 35Student Assessment and FeedbackScience Education and PedagogyAcademic Writing and Publishing

Doing peer review and receiving feedback: impact on scientific literacy and writing skills

Geithner, Christina A., Pollastro, Alexandria N.·2016·Advances in Physiology Education
DOI 10.1152/advan.00071.2015
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Doing peer review has been effectively implemented to help students develop critical reading and writing skills; however, its application in Human Physiology programs is limited. The purpose of the present study was to determine the impact of peer review on Human Physiology majors' perceptions of their scientific literacy and writing skills. Students enrolled in the Scientific Writing course completed multiple writing assignments, including three revisions after receiving peer and instructor feedback. Students self-assessed their knowledge, skills, and attitudes related to science and writing in pre- and postcourse surveys (n = 26 with complete data). Seven survey items related to scientific literacy and writing skills impacted by peer review were selected for analysis. Scores on these survey items were summed to form a composite self-rating score. Responses to two questions regarding the most useful learning activities were submitted to frequency analysis. Mean postcourse scores for individual survey items and composite self-rating scores were significantly higher than precourse means (P < 0.05). Peer review was the most frequently noted among 21 learning activities for increasing scientific literacy and in the top 5 for improving writing skills. In conclusion, peer review is an effective teaching/learning approach for improving undergraduate Human Physiology majors' knowledge, skills, and attitudes regarding science and scientific writing.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1152/advan.00071.2015

Cites

61 of 61 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The collaborative nature of peer feedback encourages a sense of academic community and belonging within the learning environment, which can positively impact students' motivation and engagement in the writing process.

    “the collaborative nature of peer feedback encourages a sense of academic community and belonging within the learning environment, which can positively impact students’ motivation and engagement in the writing process (Geithner and Pollastro, 2016; Yallop et al., 2021).”

    From Incorporating peer feedback in academic writing: a systematic review of benefits and challenges (2024) · cites this paper as Geithner and Pollastro, 2016

  • Peer feedback practice equips learners with the capacity and confidence to engage in critical assessment of their own and their peers' academic work.

    “More specifically, peer feedback practice equips learners with the capacity and confidence to engage in a critical assessment of both their own and their peers’ academic work (Boillos, 2024; Davis, 2014; Geithner and Pollastro, 2016; Schillings et al., 2021).”

    From Incorporating peer feedback in academic writing: a systematic review of benefits and challenges (2024) · cites this paper as Geithner and Pollastro, 2016

  • In Geithner and Pollastro's (2016) study, participants rated their ability to provide peer review significantly higher after peer feedback practice.

    “For instance, participants in Geithner and Pollastro’s (2016) study rated their “ability to provide peer review” significantly higher subsequent to peer feedback practice.”

    From Incorporating peer feedback in academic writing: a systematic review of benefits and challenges (2024) · cites this paper as Geithner and Pollastro, 2016

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Geithner, C. A., & Pollastro, A. N.
Affiliations
Gonzaga University (US)
Corresponding author
Geithner, Christina A.
Venue
Advances in Physiology Education
Publisher
American Physiological Society
Published
2016-03
Volume
40
Issue
1
Pages
38-46
ISSN
  • 1043-4046 (ISSN-L)
  • 1522-1229
DOI
10.1152/advan.00071.2015
OpenAlex
W2289209949
Cited by
35
References
61
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1
FWCI
10.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • AJP Advances in Physiology Education (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Gonzaga University, Center for Teaching and Advising, Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Initiative
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
  • Social Sciences › Education › Science Education and Pedagogy
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Academic Writing and Publishing
Keywords
peer review, scientific literacy, scientific writing skills, human physiology education, undergraduate science education, peer feedback, writing revision, student self-assessment, critical reading skills
MeSH terms
Literacy, Educational Measurement, Female, Humans, Male, Peer Review, Physiology, Students, Writing, Feedback, Psychological, Young Adult

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