This is a concept developed out of UCLA designed to provide improved learning outcomes when it comes to Writing Across the Curriculum. When this was instituted because writing was relegated to higher level smaller classes and writing was shown to improve critical thinking, a method was needed to scale feedback to larger classes. CPR uses the scientific peer review process to give feedback anonymously to writing activities. However, because not all peers have the best feedback their feedback is calibrated and weighted. CPR is available as a web-based system and is free to academic programs. CPR has been reviewed in this review article: [[Bins/Articles/Calibrated Peer Review]] CPR has been used in Biochemistry [[Callibrated Peer Review for Biochemistry]] showing scores of those receiving feedback from TA's decreased but those from peers increased. CPR in [[Problem based writing with peer review improves academic performance in physiology]] physiology also paired with [[Problem Based Learning]] in this science curriculum (physiology) and showed both better performance in essay writing but also in knowledge retention in multiple choices tests # Review Russell, A. A. (n.d.). _Calibrated Peer ReviewTM: A Writing and Critical-Thinking Instructional Tool_. 6. ## Review Date [[2021-10-22]] ## What is the thesis? [[Calibrated peer review]] results in improved outcomes for learners in Writing Across the Curriculum Programs because teachers are overwhelmed trying to grade writing assignments in big classes and learners improve their reasoning when they provided feedback to peers. ## Am I convinced and why? Yes, research seems robust although outcomes are not the same as what we are looking for which is mastery learning. ## Summarize the argument Peer review is a way to scale educational interventions. The peer review should be anonymous and calibrated. ## What is the other side of the argument? Experts do a better job assessing. ## What else do I wonder about? How does this relate to what we are working on? ## Action Items