{"id":676,"date":"2019-04-04T15:36:03","date_gmt":"2019-04-04T13:36:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/wpethzprd.ethz.ch\/letblog\/?p=676"},"modified":"2020-12-09T10:15:53","modified_gmt":"2020-12-09T09:15:53","slug":"case-study-peer-review-food-chemistry-laboratory-writing-reports","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.ethz.ch\/letblog\/2019\/04\/04\/case-study-peer-review-food-chemistry-laboratory-writing-reports\/","title":{"rendered":"Case study \u2013 Peer Review Food Chemistry Laboratory \u2013 Writing reports"},"content":{"rendered":"\n


As part of a series of case studies, staff at LET sat down to have a conversation with Prof. Laura Nystr\u00f6m and Dr. Melanie Erzinger from the Department of Health Sciences and Technology to discuss their food chemistry laboratory project. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n


<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What\nis the project about?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

We introduced a new way to write lab reports,\ncombined with a peer review method to foster collaboration and critical\nthinking skills among students. In the past students did not have clear\ncriteria as to what makes a good report. Assistants also needed too much time\nto read the reports and give repeated feedback. Thus we looked for a way to\nhelp assistants spend less time on the review process.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We transformed the format of our Food\nChemistry Laboratory Course (Food Science, BSc level, 4th<\/sup> semester)\nfrom a classical lecture format with lab exercises to a blended learning\nformat. With new videos, we can achieve better coverage of basic knowledge\n(i.e. security, handling of equipment).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What\nmotivated you to initiate the project?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Student numbers have increased over the\npast 10 years and we have been losing too much time in covering basic knowledge\nrepeatedly. Using concept videos, students will be able to review key topics on\ntheir own. Overall, we also wanted to make the entire course more attractive. A\nkey intention was to develop student skills in report writing and improve\nreport quality.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

How\ndid you do it?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

We defined additional, clear quality\ncriteria for a good report. During a first round students give each other\nfeedback, such that final review by teaching assistants and lecturer approval involve\nless effort. For each experiment, every student has to review another student\u2019s\nreport. In total, each reviews four reports over the semester.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Students don’t get a grade for the peer review (semester performance in the lab course is also ungraded). They have one week for each of the four peer reviews, and must complete each by the respective set deadline. They answer various questions related to the quality of the respective report (these involve five aspects plus overall feedback; see the annex at the end of this case study). Students do not \u201egrade\u201c the reports, but give feedback in their own words.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Assistants are aware of what is asked in\nthe reports and are therefore able to provide targeted and helpful feedback in\nthe lab which addresses the quality criteria for reports.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We provide the students with online material on how to write reports (short videos, documents etc.). Previously we had a short lecture with examples. Until now, however, we did not train them in conducting proper peer reviews. We have now realised that we need to do this (especially for Bachelor\u2019s degree students), and will include peer review training with the short lecture next year.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Did\nyou have the support you needed for the project? Is there additional support\nyou wish you had had to help you to achieve your goals?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

We learned about a module inside our LMS for\nadministering the peer-review process (\u201eworkshop module\u201c in Moodle). It would\nhave been helpful to have had practical tips from others, but apparently not\nmany lecturers have used this tool. Although the general instructions were\nuseful, it took quite some time to learn all the aspects of the tool.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Please\ndescribe some of the key outcomes of the project.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Various things changed for the better. Students learned a lot by reading and reviewing the reports of their peers. They gained important input for their own reports. For many it was the first time they had had to give feedback in such a structured way. They also had to find a way to critique something in a good, constructive manner. Overall, students were introduced to a new way of critical thinking and took important first steps in this skill, which is important for their later careers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We can say clearly that through the new\nreview method we were able to improve the quality of reports and reduce the\ntime needed by lecturers to grade them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

How\ndid the project impact learners or the way in which you teach?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In general the peer review method was well received in the BSc course, and we used the same approach in an MSc-level course. We therefore realised that Bachelor\u2019s degree students need more help and training in peer review than Master\u2019s students.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Overall we saw that the blended learning\napproach and the peer review methods work to improve our courses, addressing\nthe above-mentioned challenges of lack of student preparation and the need to\nconstantly repeat basic knowledge. Students themselves clearly realised the\nvalue and potential of better collaboration, peer feedback and critical\nthinking skills.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What\nlessons learned do you want to share with your colleagues?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Not every cohort is the same. While things worked quite well in 2017, in 2018 fewer students adhered to the schedule and deadlines \u2013 even though everything was communicated and documented in the same way as in the previous year. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

What\nare your future plans for this work? How do you plan to sustain what you have\ncreated through the project?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

More and more assistants will become competent in providing full reviews of the already peer-reviewed reports. Currently lecturers still have to do this. Lecturers will thus gain more time to be present in the labs and to give 1:1 feedback to students in the lab and online. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

We will definitely create some training\nmaterial for assistants for this purpose, but it is not available yet. We also want\nto create a short, ready-to-use document about giving feedback in our specific\ncontext: what is constructive feedback, what are the do\u2019s and don\u2019ts? Students,\nassistants and fellow instructors can use it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We are interested in learning whether other\nlab courses at ETH do something similar, and how. We also need to improve the\nsupport situation with the Moodle review tool \u201eworkshop module\u201c. We will\ncontinue to work with it, but it is a bit tricky sometimes. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

One additional idea is to make the videos\ninteractive. Students will see in-built questions in the videos which they have\nto answer right away.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Additional\nnotes regarding resources and tools used.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n