An Expert-Led, Collaborative Model for Increasing Peer Feedback Quality on Writing While Decreasing Barriers in an Upper-Division STEM Course

To develop scientific literacy, many STEM faculties assign technical writing; however, they often cannot make time to assign writing for a lay audience, especially in high-enrollment courses. This creates an opportunity gap for students when they do not get to practice translating their scientific literacy into accessible ideas. To address this gap, this collaborative study between writing specialists from the university learning support center and a biochemistry faculty member assigning informative writing and peer review in a high-enrollment class was designed. Even when peer review is properly scaffolded as research recommends, peers generally do not find each other’s feedback credible. Therefore, this quasi-experimental study examines how an expert mentor facilitating peer review influences student experience and feedback quality. The study quantitatively analyzed grades and survey data from 71 Treatment students (who participated in peer review groups) and 50 Control students and qualitatively coded peer feedback from a subset of 24 students. Despite the two groups’ similarities at baseline, the Treatment group offered more effective peer feedback and earned higher essay grades than the Control group, while both groups experienced positive attitude changes. To ensure that all students have access to these benefits, we provide recommendations for implementing such groups into STEM classes that assign writing.