The Effectiveness of Using Calibrated Peer Review (CPR) Against Non-CPR (Traditional) Means in Submitting Chemistry Laboratory Reports

Abstract

This paper examines the impact of the use of CPR in submitting general Chemistry (123L) laboratory report. This is expected to improve writing skills and alleviate grading burdens particularly when dealing with a large class due to lack sufficient instructors and high grading burden. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and t-test were used in statistical analyses. When ANOVA was used for group I students (11 sections) post-laboratory reports submitted by using CPR revealed F = 0.87, p > 0.01, which implies it is consistent with the null hypothesis. The ANOVA done on group II (15 sections) post-laboratory using CPR revealed F = 2.07, p > 0.01, which is statistically significant. On the other hand, the comparison of students’ who did post-test after using CPR and Non-CPR user revealed t = 4.18, p < 2 x 10^-5, t = 6.3, p < 7 x 10^-10, which are statistically significant respectively. In addition, comparison using ANOVA for group I who did pre-test and post-test after using CPR and group II which did not use CPR revealed F = 2.94, p < 3 x 10^-5, F = 2.20, p < 4 x 10^-4, which are statistically significant respectively. It is most probable that the noted achievements may not necessarily be due to the use of CPR because the time spent in this research and size of sample used. Indeed, both t-test, and ANOVA analyses have shown existence differences between pre-test and post-test scores, regardless of whether or not the group used CPR to submit post-laboratory report. Statistical analysis has provided little support to connect the use of CPR programme and student writing skill improvement.