We Appreciate This Opportunity to Begin a University-Wide Conversation on Writing in The

Writing In the Disciplines (WID): Teaching Students to Peer Review

Kellogg & Whiteford have found that students do more “writing quality improvement” between drafts when feedback is provided by peers than by professors!

Problem: students can be leery of peer review because they think they have nothing to offer. This causes them to make nice, sweeping comments (“Great!”) or nitpick over grammar (sometimes incorrectly).

Reality: peers are not editors or professors. Rather, they offer a singular gift: the unique viewpoint of peer readers.

How To

1. Effective peer review is guided by authentic readerly response: a. No evaluative commentary—such as “good” or “bad. b. Rather, peers should ... b.i. be readerly—ask questions of the draft. b.ii. be descriptive and detailed—describe the writer’s ideas and point to details that work or that confuse you. b.iii. post-outline: for each paragraph, underline or note in the margin the main idea/s and how those ideas relate to the thesis. Also note the function of the paragraph within the overall text (i.e., background, textual support, data analysis, counter-argument). See Hubbuch p. 162. c. Writer notes everything that arises, knowing s/he is free to accept/reject any of it later.

2. Discussion-based. No silent reading: a. Why: Collaborative dialogue about writing is the singular benefit of group workshopping. b. Ensure they have read and considered the drafts beforehand: b.i. Ask them to bring in some kind of written feedback for those in their peer-review groups: b.i.1. post-outline each peer’s draft b.i.2. answer questions that pertain to how well the draft fulfills this assignment b.i.3. write peer a memo about readerly reactions to draft. b.ii. If they haven’t read the drafts beforehand, ask them do it together: b.ii.1. take turns reading aloud, pausing after each paragraph for peers to post- outline. b.ii.2. side benefit: as they read aloud, students stumble over awkward syntax but don’t always realize it. Their peers can point out where the writer stumbles. b.iii. Note: allowing them to catch up by reading silently makes it harder to move into productive discussion during the peer review.

3. Important collaborative elements: a. Try to mix up the groups. Friends often don’t make good peer reviewers. a.i. Lehrer reports that collaborators should be diverse in their thinking, in order to bring various viewpoints to the table. b. Size of group—two to five students—depends on situation: b.i. Three is ideal for active discussion and group work. b.ii. Five can work for brainstorming ideas. b.iii. Two works well when students haven’t read the papers beforehand, since they’ll need extra time to read aloud to each other. Kramer, CWAC, Spring 2014 writing = critical thinking 1 4. Do peer review in class or ask students to schedule it as small groups, as homework, facilitated by Writing Advisers in CWAC. a. If as homework, assess post-outlining through points system. a.i. Here’s an example: The peer reviewer identifies main ideas and the purpose of each paragraph; s/he locates elements specific to the assignment; s/he writes a readerly response, explaining why areas are clear/interesting or confusing.

5. Before the peer review, lead a mini-lesson on effective dialogue about writing:  Ask students about their experiences during past peer reviews—what worked and didn’t work— and list these on the board in two columns.  Pass out CWAC handout “Strategies for Peer Review.” o Note: this handout can be tailored to your discipline or to your assignment; also, this handout could be accompanied by your own peer-review questions and assignment details.  Refer to the students’ experiences, already on the board, while discussing the handout strategies.  Instruct them as per No. 1 above.  Emphasize that peers are not editors or professors and thus are not passing judgment. What peers offer is their attention and readerly response.  Explain the key benefits of peer review:  Your descriptions show the writer how his/her work is received by a reader.  Describing others’ writing gives you tools to analyze your own.

Further Reference

Bean, John C. Engaging Ideas: The Professor’s Guide to Integrating Writing, Critical Thinking, and Active Learning in the Classroom. 2nd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2011. Print. Note: esp. 296-297. CWAC. Strategies for Peer Review. 2013-2014. Print. Hedengren, Beth Finch. A TA’s Guide to Teaching Writing in all Disciplines. Boston: Bedford St. Martin’s, 2004. Print. Note: esp. 50-56. Hubbuch, Susan M. Writing Research Papers Across the Curriculum. 5th ed. Boston: Wadsworth, 2005. Note: esp. 162. Print. Kellogg, Ronald T., and Alison P. Whiteford. “Training Advanced Writing Skills: The Case for Deliberate Practice.” Educational Psychologist. 44:4(2009). 250-266. Print. Lehrer, Jonah. “GroupThink: The Brainstorming Myth.” The New Yorker. Jan. 30, 2012. Web.

The information on this handout came from too many sources to recall, including conversations among faculty of Saint Mary’s College of California.