Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2010.30.8.988

The Effect of Peer Review Activities on Qualitative Changes in Lab Reports  

Park, Sung-Hye (Korea National University of Education)
Kang, Seong-Joo (Korea National University of Education)
Jang, Eun-Kyung (Korea National University of Education)
Publication Information
Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education / v.30, no.8, 2010 , pp. 988-1001 More about this Journal
Abstract
The purpose of this research was to investigate how the peer review activity of lab report in the problem-solving experiment effected on the description ability and the quality improvement. The students who were taking the general chemistry experiment course were the subjects for this study. They finished lab reports and received peer review from their peers more than two times. The students who got feedback answered on peer review, revised their reports, and subsequently, completed final reports. The result showed that peer review affected the qualitative improvement of the lab report, specially in the process of 'designing experiment' and 'drawing conclusion and evaluation'. Students could organize their thoughts through writing lab reports. During this process, peer review activities provided the opportunity of self-examination and the way for viewing as objective standpoint. Moreover, the activities established communication fields for exchanging mutual opinions and learning.
Keywords
Peer review; lab report; problem-solving experiment;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 8  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 오진아, 이선경, 김찬종 (2008). 지구과학 MBL 수업의 과학 탐구와 논의적 의사소통에 관한 사례 연구. Journal of Korean Earth Science Society, 29(2), 189-203.   과학기술학회마을   DOI   ScienceOn
2 Yalvac, B. (2005). On-line peer review and students'understanding of the nature of science. The Pennsylvania State University Ph.D.
3 Zhu, W. (1995). Effects of training for peer response on student's comments and interaction. Written Communication, 12(4), 492-528.   DOI
4 Hogan, K. (2000). Exploring a process view of students''knowledge about the nature of science. Science Education, 84 51-70.   DOI   ScienceOn
5 Khalick, A, F. & Lederman N.G. (2000). Improving science teachers'conceptions of the nature of science: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22(7) 665-701.   DOI   ScienceOn
6 Kovac, J. & Sherwood, D. W. (2001). Writing Across the Chemistry Curriculum. An Instructor's Handbook Prentice Hall. Upper Saddle River, NJ
7 Krajcik, K., Blumenfeld, P.C., Marx, R. W., Fredricks, J., & Soloway, E., (1998). Inquiry in project learning. New York; McGraw-Hill.
8 Kuhn, D. (1993). Science argument; Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77, 319-337.   DOI   ScienceOn
9 Nancy M. T. (2009a). Designing Peer Review for Pedagogical Success. Journal of College Science Teaching, 38(4) 14-19.
10 Nancy M. T. (2009b). Interactive learning through web-mediated peer review. Education Tech Research, 57, 685-704.   DOI   ScienceOn
11 Taylor, C. (1996). Defining science. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
12 Watson, J. R., Swain, J. R. L, & McRobbie, C. (2004). Students'discussions in practical scientific inquiries. Inernational Journal of Science Education, 26(1), 25-45.   DOI   ScienceOn
13 Widanski, B. B. (2006). Peer Review of Chemistry Journal Articles: Collaboration across Disciplines. Journal of Chemical Education, 83(12), 1788-1792.   DOI   ScienceOn
14 Berry, D. E. & Fawkes, K. L. (2010). Constructing the Components of a Lab Report Using Peer Review. Journal of Chemical Education, 87(1), 57-61.   DOI   ScienceOn
15 Cavagnetto, A., Hand B. M., Lori Norton- Meier (2010). The Nature of Elementary Student Science Discourse in the Context of the Science Writing Heuristic Approach. International Journal of Science Education, 32(4) 427-449.   DOI   ScienceOn
16 Cunningham, C. M. & Helmss, J. V. (1998). Sociology of science as a means to a more authentic, inclusive Science Education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(5), 483-399.   DOI   ScienceOn
17 Dong-Ho Kang (2008). Feedback on EFL Writing:Teacher, Peer, and Self-review. Foreign Languages Education, 15(1) 1-22.
18 Gerdeman, R. D., Russell, A. A. & Worden, K. J. (2007). Web-Based Student Writing and Reviewing in a Large Biology Lecture Course. Journal of College Science Teaching, 36(5) 46-52.
19 Fuller, S. (1997). Science. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
20 Gallagher, J. J & Tobin, K., (1987). Teacher management and student engagement in high school science. Science Education, 71(4), 535-555.   DOI
21 Gragson, D. E. & Hagen, J. P. (2010). Developing Technical Writing Skills in the Physical Chemistry Laboratory: A Progressive Approach Employing Peer Review. Journal of Chemical Education, 87(1), 62-65.   DOI   ScienceOn
22 김소연 (2006). 학습일지쓰기와 동료의 피드백이 영어 학업성취도에 미치는 영향. 부산대학교 교육대학원 석사학위 논문.
23 김희경, 송진웅 (2004). 학생의 논변활동을 강조한 개방적 과학탐구활동 모형의 탐색. 한국과학교육학회지, 24(6), 1216-1234.   과학기술학회마을
24 남정희 (1996). 화학 실험에서 탐구 과정기능의 평가도구 개발. 한국교원대학교 박사학위.
25 남정희, 곽경화, 장경화 (2008). 논의를 강조한 탐구적 과학 글쓰기(Science Writing Heuristic)의 중학교 과학 수업에의 적용. 한국과학교육학회지, 28(8) 922-936.   과학기술학회마을
26 박영신 (2006). 교실에서의 실질적 과학 탐구를 위한 과학적 논증 기회에 대한 이론적 고찰. Journal of Korean Earth Science Society, 27(4), 401-415.   과학기술학회마을
27 임희영, 강성주(2009). 문제해결형 일반화학 실험에서 나타나는 대학생의 반응유형. 한국과학교육학회지, 29(2), 193-202.   과학기술학회마을
28 이은경, 강성주 (2006). 문제해결형 탐구 모듈 적용에서의 SWH 활용 효과에 대한 학생들의 인식 조사. 한국과학교육학회지, 26(4), 537-545.   과학기술학회마을
29 이은경, 강성주 (2008). 학생-학생 언어적 상호작용 분석을 통한 문제해결형 탐구 모듈에서의 SWH 활용 효과. 한국과학교육학회지, 28(2), 130-138.   과학기술학회마을
30 이화정, 강성주 (2005). 교사 양성 대학에서의 일반화학 실험 개선과 적용. 한국과학교육학회지, 25(3), 346-352.
31 장신호 (2004). 과학 대화를 이용하는 수업에서 교사와 학생이 겪는 어려움 및 대화 능력의 변화.발전에 대한 사례 연구. 초등과학교육학회, 17(1), 79-99.
32 장신호 (2006). 학생들의 과학적 설명을 강조하는 탐구 지향 교수 활동에 대한 예비 초등 교사들의 인식. 한국초등과학교육학회, 25(1), 96-108.
33 정희모, 이재성 (2008). 대학생 글쓰기의 수정 방법에 관한 실험 연구. 국어교육학연구, 33(0), 657-685.
34 한정희 (2002). 동료 수정을 통한 대화식 일지 쓰기. 고려대학교 교육대학원 석사 학위 논문.
35 김민정 (2005). 학습 방법으로서의 동료평가. 교육공학연구, 21(4), 1-28.