Literacy Matters - Vol 21 - Winter 2021

Peer review protocols reduce final feedback from the instructor, but take more forethought and effort at the onset. Students need purposeful and explicit instruction on how to perform cross-institutional peer critiques. Yet, before facilitation occurs, instructors should collaborate on the (1) design and purpose of the focus assignment, (2) procedures for pairing partners, (3) system for sharing and evaluating work, and (4) timeline for completion (Topping, 2009). The role of instructors is imperative to facilitate effective peer reviews. Background of the Study This study is an extension of an initial cross-institutional peer review study implemented within two early childhood literacy instruction methods courses for preservice teachers. This partnership was unique because the instructors provided a learning context where preservice teachers were exposed to ideas from peers enrolled at another institution in another region of the United States. Specifically, two instructors paired preservice teachers from a face-to-face early childhood teacher preparation programs from the Southeastern United States. One in an elementary education program from the Low Country coastal region and one from an early childhood distance education teacher preparation program in the Appalachian region. The focus of the peer review process was for preservice teachers to evaluate and provide feedback about a digital literacies assignment designed for young children based on criteria identified within a rubric, and provide feedback to peer partners within a template. In prior semesters, there were mixed results in terms of the effectiveness of peer reviews conducted within the individual literacy courses. The instructors felt the preservice teachers would benefit from an opportunity to be critical of unfamiliar peers’ work, while learning about culturally relevant practices from other local programs in different geographical locations. Both literacy courses required preservice teachers to design a digital literacies project that instructed and engaged young children in a foundational phonics literacy skill. Results of the first study indicated peer feedback focused primarily on (1) the preservice teachers’ use of developmentally appropriate strategies for age and content, and (2) interaction and engagement aspects of teacher design. However, 20% of peer feedback offered no critique or support to their partners; peer feedback forms contained empty sections 10% of the time, and an additional 10% of peer comments had no depth (e.g., Nice work!) (Barrett-Tatum & Caudle, 2018). Considering these findings, this second study examined the preservice teachers’ perceptions of the peer review process to gain further insights into how to best support cross-institutional preservice teacher learning. Methodology Participants Fourteen face-to-face early childhood education preservice teachers from one cohort of a medium-sized institution in the coastal Carolina Low Country region of the U.S. participated. Their program of study included an instructional technology course during the first semester and 12 hours of literacy-based courses. The literacy instruction course in the current study was the second of four courses, and followed a semester of

language and literacy development. Preservice teachers met face-to-face twice weekly for seminar. All pursued a bachelor’s degree in early childhood education with no prior degrees. Fifteen early childhood education preservice teachers attending a medium-sized university in rural Appalachia also participated in this study. They were enrolled in a distance learning undergraduate early childhood education program. To accommodate many non- traditional learners returning to school for degrees and/or licensure, this program did not utilize a cohort model and most preservice teachers were enrolled part-time. All of these participants were enrolled in a birth-kindergarten language and literacy course and pursued a bachelor’s degree and/or teacher licensure in early childhood education. Preservice teachers enrolled in the licensure or alternative licensure program completed at least two literacy courses, including the one associated with this study, along with curricula courses where literacy was embedded throughout the course content. There was considerable variation across age spans, years of experience, and education levels among the two groups of preservice teachers (see Figures 1-3). Consequently, these preservice teachers brought a range of life experiences and local knowledge to the cross-institutional partnership.

Reading Matters Writing Matters

Figure 1 This chart demonstrates the distribution of age ranges among participants.

Figure 2 This chart demonstrates the distribution of education levels among participants.

Literacy Matters | Volume 21 • Winter 2021 | 59 |

CLICK HERE TO RETURN TO TABLE OF CONTENTS