Transferring Skills from Classroom to Professional Writing: Student-Faculty Peer Review as an Extension of Cognitive Apprenticeship

Main Article Content

Kristin Marie Klucevsek


In discipline-specific writing courses, students develop professional skills in reading, writing, and peer review. However, students have limited opportunities to peer review professional writing outside a writing classroom or with faculty, especially if they do not perform research.  Therefore, it is unclear how students apply classroom-acquired peer review skills to a professional setting. This study examined the transfer of peer review skills learned in a science writing course to an authentic setting in which undergraduate students peer reviewed for the instructor after completing the course. In this case study, eight students volunteered to give feedback to the instructor on a draft of a literature review intended for journal submission. Student feedback was qualitatively evaluated for types and themes. Additionally, students provided their perspectives on this process through pre- and post-questionnaires, where they indicated a struggle with confidence and content while reading and reviewing. This study supports student-faculty peer review as an authentic tool for situated learning.  The benefits to students include increased confidence in reading, writing, and peer reviewing literature, an opportunity to practice classroom skills, and a chance to collaborate with professionals during the writing process. I conclude with additional suggestions to increase student-faculty collaboration and cognitive apprenticeship through peer review as a tool in any discipline.  


Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Klucevsek, K. M. (2016). Transferring Skills from Classroom to Professional Writing: Student-Faculty Peer Review as an Extension of Cognitive Apprenticeship. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 16(6), 106–123.
Case Studies
Author Biography

Kristin Marie Klucevsek, Duquesne University

English Department, Instructor


Allan, E. G. and Driscoll, D. L. (2014). The three-fold benefit of reflective writing: Improving program assessment, student learning, and faculty professional development. Assessing Writing, 21(0), 37-55.

Brown, J. S., Collins, A. and Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.

Cho, K., Schunn, C. D. and Charney, D. (2006). Commenting on writing: Typology and perceived helpfulness of comments from novice peer reviewers and subject matter experts. Written Communication, 23(3), 260-294.

Cho, Y. H. and Cho, K. (2011). Peer reviewers learn from giving comments. Instructional Science, 39(5), 629-643.

Coil, D., Wenderoth, M. P., Cunningham, M. and Dirks, C. (2010). Teaching the process of science: Faculty perceptions and an effective methodology. Cell Biology Education, 9(4), 524535.

Collins, A., Brown, J. S. and Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick and L. B. Resnick (Eds.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser. (pp. 453-494). Hillsdale, NJ, England: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Cresswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Sage Publications.

Feldman, A., Divoll, K. A. and Rogan-Klyve, A. (2013). Becoming researchers: The participation of undergraduate and graduate students in scientific research groups. Science Education, 97(2), 218-243.

Gonyo, C. P. and Cantwell, B. (2014). Faculty perceptions of students in life and physical science research labs. Innov High Educ, 13.

Guilford, W. H. (2001). Teaching peer review and the process of scientific writing. Adv Physiol Educ, 25(3), 167-175.

Huiling, D. (2008). The use of cognitive and social apprenticeship to teach a disciplinary genre: Initiation of graduate students into NIH grant writing. Written Communication, 25(1), 3-52.

Hunter, A.-B., Laursen, S. L. and Seymour, E. (2007). Becoming a scientist: The role of undergraduate research in students' cognitive, personal, and professional development. Science Education, 91(1), 36-74.

Kolikant, Y. B.-D., Gatchell, D. W., Hirsch, P. L. and Linsenmeier, R. A. (2006). A cognitiveapprenticeship-inspired instructional approach for teaching scientific writing and reading. (Cover story). Journal of College Science Teaching, 36(3), 20-26.

Kozeracki, C. A., Carey, M. F., Colicelli, J. and Levis-Fitzgerald, M. (2006). An intensive primary-literature-based teaching program directly benefits undergraduate science majors and facilitates their transition to doctoral programs. Cell Biology Education, 5(4), 340-347.

Liang, J.C. and Tsai, C.C. (2010). Learning through science writing via online peer assessment in a college biology course. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(4), 242-247.

Lundstrom, K. and Baker, W. (2009). To give is better than to receive: The benefits of peer review to the reviewer's own writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(1), 30-43.

Marbach-Ad, G. and Sokolove, P. G. (2000). Can undergraduate biology students learn to ask higher level questions? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(8), 854-870.

Navalta, J. W. and Lyons, T. S. (2010). Student peer review descisions on submitted manuscripts are as stringent as faculty peer reviewers. Adv Physiol Educ, 34, 170-173.

Patchan, M., M., Charney, D. and Schunn, C. (2009). A validation study of students’ end comments: Comparing comments by students, a writing instructor, and a content instructor. Journal of Writing Research, 1(2), 124-152.

Patchan, M., M., Hawk, B., Stevens, C. A. and Schunn, C. D. (2012). The effects of skill diversity on commenting and revisions. Instructional Science, 41(2), 381-405.

Patchan, M., M., Schunn, C. D. and Clark, R. J. (2011). Writing in natural sciences: Understanding the effects of different types of reviewers on the writing process. Journal of Writing Research, 2(3), 365-393.

Pearce, J., Mulder, R. and Baik, C. (2009). Involving students in peer review: Case studies and practical strategies for university teaching. Melbourne, Australia: The University of Melbourne.

Razak, N. A. and Saeed, M. A. (2014). Collaborative writing revision process among learners of English as a foreign language (EFL) in an online community of practice (CoP). Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 30(5), 580-599.

Razak, N. A. and Saeed, M. A. (2015). EFL arab learners’ peer revision of writing in a facebook group: Contributions to written texts and sense of online community. English Language Teaching, 8(12), 11-26.

Reynolds, J. A. and Thompson, R. J. (2011). Want to improve undergraduate thesis writing? Engage students and their faculty readers in scientific peer review. Cell Biology Education, 10(2), 209-215.

Rouhi, A. and Azizian, E. (2013). Peer review: Is giving corrective feedback better than receiving it in L2 writing? Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 93(0), 1349-1354.

Schraw, G., Crippen, K. J. and Hartley, K. (2006). Promoting self-regulation in science education: Metacognition as part of a broader perspective on learning. Research in Science Education, 36(1-2), 111-139.

Trautmann, N. M. (2009). Designing peer review for pedagogical success. Journal of College Science Teaching, 38(4), 14-19.

Yang, Y.F. (2011). A reciprocal peer review system to support college students' writing. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(4), 687-700.