Topic: Peer Review of Students' Writing

10-second review: A skeptical view of the effects of peer responses to other students’ writing. Author finds that student comments on their peers’ papers are superficial, that the student writers do not revise along the lines suggested by their peers and that student comments are not as valuable as the teacher’s. The students say they like peer response groups but she, the writer, is skeptical.

Source: ME Casey. Teaching English in Two-Year Colleges (March 2005), 278.A publication of the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE).

Comment: One thing I have learned about using peer reviews by students of other students’ writing: the procedure needs to be clearly outlined with a purpose for every step. I have used peer reviews in the following manner.

First, test the unity of the composition. Divide an 8 1/2” X 11” paper in half, width-wise. The peer reviewer reads the composition and on one side of the paper writes the main idea. The writer writes the main idea on the other side. Open the paper and compare the two versions of the main idea. If they are similar, the paper is probably unified.

Second, test for clarity. The peer reviewer re-reads the composition silently and places question marks in the margin of any idea that is not clear. The writer reviews the question marks and the ideas they question, asks for any clarification of what is not clear and decides whether to make any changes. One technique is for the writer to write out in full detail what the writer intended and then re-cast it for the composition.

Third, test for smooth expression (that is, ridding the composition of “awks”). Both the peer reviewer and the writer read the composition out loud one after the other. If either stumbles in reading aloud, underline where the stumbles occurred. The writer decides if the expression should be revised.

Fourth, check for spelling. The peer reviewer reads the composition from the last word back to the first. Because the reviewer will not be reading for meaning, the reviewer should be able to spot any spelling errors.

That’s what I mean by a “structured” peer review. Don’t waste any time. Check for unity, clarity, smoothness and spelling. I don’t care how the teacher structures the peer review, just make sure the students understand clearly what they are expected to do. RayS.