Search

This research paper describes the use of peer review to improve information literacy. Peer-reviewed assignments for learning have been seen favorably within the literature. The articulated benefits range from students feeling more engaged, having expressed less anxiety, or found to be better equipped to perform in unfamiliar areas outside their current learning environments. However, minimal research examines the benefits specifically for the feedback provider (reviewer) when a more modem tool, such as the Canvas Learning Management System (LMS) is used. During the fall 2015 semester, a study was conducted to examine the peer review process from the vantage point of the reviewer when mitigated by an LMS. Since peer review is seen as a social activity, this study is guided by a social constructivism teaching framework to investigate peer review activities for (a) linear relationships to that of a perceived social element inclusion, (b) changes in learning from the perspective of the reviewer rather than the receiver of feedback, and (c) improvement in perceived information literacy. Additionally, this research examines Canvas attributes as identified by Sondergaard & Mulder [1] (2012) of (a) Automation, (b) Simplicity, (c) Customizability, and (d) Accessibility, which support statements from the literature that indicate a lack of investigation of more modem peer review tools. Survey results, both qualitative and quantitative, were analyzed across three different peer-reviewed assignments for this examination. Of the 91 respondents, representing a 32% response rate, descriptive analysis revealed themes ranging from Changes in Student Efforts to Valued New Perspectives', whereas, expected Active Learning and Social Benefits slightly contradicted the positive tone that was originally found in the thematic review. Overwhelming positive ratings were collected regarding the use of the LMS to support and implement a peer-reviewed assignment. Perceived affects upon the peer reviewer, and how these types of assignments can support the proposed ABET General Criterion 3 Student Outcomes and General Criterion 5 Curriculum currently under revision are discussed. Lastly, these data are represented for use as an evaluation baseline for future planned investigations and for other faculty and course developers, who are considering implementation of peer-reviewed activities within first-year program courses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]