Writing and peer review for advanced laboratories: a proposal M.F. Masters, S. Amidon, and T.T. Grove Indiana University-Purdue University Fort Wayne, Fort Wayne IN 46805 Abstract There are a number of significant goals and issues associated with the teaching of advanced laboratories. Faculty teaching advanced laboratories often experience a feeling of isolation. For students, the laboratory is a critical tool for synthesis of the physics knowledge which can be challenging to achieve. Our proposed solution to these seemingly dissimilar issues is a new paradigm for the advanced laboratory that encourages the students to write scientifically, includes calibrated peer reviews, and crosses school boundaries to create a shared mission for faculty. When students write a paper, they submit the article to the journal for review. A reviewer may be a faculty member or another student at another institution. Some of the articles students receive will be calibration articles written by faculty, some will be by students at other institutions. Through this process faculty and students will form communities and students will engage in writing about physics. Fort Wayne IN 46805 Benefits •Provide a community through the shared activity of the web journal •Provide a community to which the students in Advanced Laboratory classes are active contributors •Expose the students to the professional practice of scientific writing and reviewing •Have value added to writing in the advanced laboratory work. •Improve students’ scientific writing and understanding of physics •Have a formal outlet for student writing. •Provide a rigorous mechanism for assessing student writing and synthesis skills •No Increase in Faculty workload Methodology •Double Blind Reviews •Students write a paper for submission, it is distributed for review to one faculty member, and several student reviewers. •Use of calibrated peer reviews: students are provided with papers to review, one of which is a calibration review written by faculty. •Goal is to have papers accepted for publication in JAUPLI •Reviewers are provided with rubrics to help guide them through the review. •The writing AND the reviews are themselves assessed. References 1. Reichert, J.F., What happened to the advanced laboratory. American Journal of Physics, 2006. 74(11): p. 951-952. 2. Peterson, D., Lighting the fire. Interactions Across Physics and Education, 2007. 37(1): p. 16-19. 3. Bistrow, V., et al., Advanced Lab Task Force Final Report. 2006. 4. _______, AAPT Advanced Labs Website. http://advlabs.aapt.org/ . 5. _______, ALPhA. http://www.advlab.org/ . 6. Burke, K.A., T.J. Greenbowe, and B.M. Hand, Implementing the science writing heuristic in the chemistry laboratory. Journal of Chemical Education, 2006. 83(7): p. 1032-1038. 7. Poock, J.R., et al., Using the science writing heuristic in the general chemistry laboratory to improve students' academic performance. Journal of Chemical Education, 2007. 84(8): p. 1371-1379. 8. Rudd, J.A., T.J. Greenbowe, and B.M. Hand, Using the science writing heuristic to improve students' understanding of general equilibrium. Journal of Chemical Education, 2007. 84(12): p. 2007-2011. 9. Keys, C.W., et al., Using the science writing heuristic as a tool for learning from laboratory investigations in secondary science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 1999. 36(10): p. 1065- 1084. 10. Roxanne, P.J., Writing to learn: an evaluation of the calibrated peer review program in two neuroscience courses. The Journal of Undergraduate Neuroscience education, 2005. 4: p. A34-A39. 11. Walvoord, M.E., et al., An analysis of calibrated peer review (CPR) in a science lecture classroom. Journal of College Science Teaching, 2008. 37: p. 66-73. 12. Pelaez, N.J., Problem-based writing with peer review improves academic performance in physiology. Advances in Physiology Education, 2002. 26: p. 174 - 184. 13. Furman, B. and W. Robinson, Improving engineering report writing. Frontiers in Education, 2003. 2(5- 8): p. F3E_14-F3E_16. 14. Keys, C.W., Revitalizing instruction in scientific genres: connecting knowledge production with writing to learn in science. Science Education, 1999. 83: p. 115-130. 15. Kalman, J. and C. Kalman, Writing to learn. American Journal of Physics, 1996. 64(7): p. 954-955. 16. Mullin, W.J., Writing in physics. The Physics Teacher, 1989. 27: p. 342-347. 17. Yore, L.D., B.M. Hand, and M.K. Florence, Scientists' views of science, models of writing and science writing practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2004. 41(4): p. 338-369. 18. _______, CPR website. http://cpr.molsci.ucla.edu/ , 2001. 19. Stumpf, F.B., Ways to improve undergraduate-laboratory report writing. American Journal of Physics, 1965. 33: p. 917-918. 20. _______, Open Journal Systems. http://pkp.sfu.ca/?q=ojs . For more information: Contact Mark Masters (masters@ipfw.edu ), Timothy Grove (grovet@ipfw.edu ) or Leave contact information here. Common Problems •Advanced Laboratory Faculty often work in isolation •Students only are exposed to the investigations available at their institution •Students’ have a myopic view of writing, writing for the wrong audience (their instructor who clearly knows everything) and provide a telling which does not afford the synthesis of true scientific writing. s labo • Imp und • Hav hdl h