https://docs.google.com/document/d/1usEh499yiyLqxRk0GtyCFQi1c9KLutQ0EzOcV05hxSY/edit?usp=sharing
Dusty Neibauer
Bill Knutson and MJ Nairn
M.ED. Program
18 April 2013
Review of Literature
The picture at the top of this assignment portrays Snoopy, on top of his favorite location for writing and introspective thinking (on top of his red doghouse - red denoting passion! There are not many symbols that will go un-analyzed by an English teacher) with a typewriter poised and ready, thinking to himself that “Good writing is hard work!” (Schulz). Indeed, it is for many people, if done well, one of the more challenging academic skills to acquire and master, with its subjective parameters for quality, breadth of stylistic flourishes (or lack thereof), and gosh darn it -- grammatical quandaries! While writing / English teachers strive to provide meaningful and timely feedback that will matter to students and help them improve, we (writing / English teachers) also know that the more meaningful revision and consideration that is done, the more students will improve their own writing. Thus, the idea of “Peer Review” was born. The concept has been a mainstay for writing instructors for many years, but the feedback that most instructors seem to give regarding its practice is that it is not as useful as it should be; students either do not take it seriously, focus on the wrong things (more often than not, only searching for grammatical errors and type-o’s), or don’t give the practice its proper weight. I have struggled with these very same issues in my classroom; that is why I chose to focus my review of literature on the subject of peer review -- in hopes of not only finding out why peer review has not been very successful in my classroom, but also because I intend to refine my emphasis on community, clarity of terminology and focus, method of questioning / facilitating feedback, and technology integration so that students improve their writing as much as all of my college English professors said that they could through the peer review process.
To achieve the desired result of creating a community of writers that not only values, but benefits, from the peer review process, I find that the aforementioned word “community” is key; I must establish a collaborative, respectful spirit amongst the students who will be doing the writing and editing. Some classes take to this more easily than others -- my Pre-AP English 9 students already benefit from the inclusive spirit that comes with taking said elective honors class, and also typically have smaller numbers as a class (over the 3 years it has existed, the average is seventeen per class); both of these characteristics aid in the willingness of students to participate in a more communal manner with regard to many things -- classroom discussions, taking chances on ideas and stances, and writing feedback. My more mainstream classes, such as Composition 12, or English 9, suffer from the ailments to most peer review sessions -- the more skilled writers do not benefit as much as the poorer writers, and feel both used and apathetic; the less-skilled writers are not as engaged in their own or others’ success, and lack the skill sufficient to provide meaningful feedback; and most reviewers are too easily-distracted in the wrong sorts of goals for the review -- most frequently in the search for type-o’s (the word itself looks like a mistake!) and grammatical mistakes (ironically, studies reveal that all but the most skilled secondary and postsecondary writers have the grammatical competency to give anything but limited and often times flawed input in this area). These significant challenges are not easily overcome, as the peer-review process hinges on students’ willingness to improve their writing (which is a sometimes over-sensitive topic when being critiqued) and on a level of academic honesty and trust that must be present amongst the writers / reviewers. Thus, establishing a closely-knit “writing community” is essential if the peer review process has a chance of succeeding.
Once a community is established (which, honestly, is an ever-evolving process), the clarity of the goals of the peer review process must be established. One commonly-made mistake made (I initially made it as well) is to call the whole process “peer editing.” The word “editing,” however, implies looking for those tertiary issues previously-mentioned -- grammatical errors and type-o’s. “Review” is more apt, and helps students think more conceptually about the writing, shifting their focus to the “big ideas” like thesis statements, organizational methods, transitional phrases, the use of evidence and quotations -- these are the things that English teachers (typically) want their students to think critically about. While the changing of one word seems small, most writers / English teachers know that one small word can change the meaning of an entire work, and so it is with the Peer Review process.
Another important determining factor in the success of the peer review process is the phrasing, focus, and level of questioning that students are required to apply to each others’ writing. Shifting the focus from “low-level” focuses (formatting, grammar, etc.) to “high-level” focuses (thesis, focus, coherence, support) is important (although mixing in specific grammatical focuses for each assignment is a great way to improve writing - more on that in the following paragraph). To achieve more “high-level” focus, using the “PQP” method of questioning is effective. P (praise) Q (question) P (polish) questioning forces students to comment upon good qualities of others’ writing as well as the areas in which they can improve. Forcing them to ask the “right” questions and emphasizing coherence and flow also benefits the reviewer when they are revising their own essays later on. Thus, asking the right questions in the right order will greatly affect the final products of both writer and reviewer, and the overall success of the peer review process.
While grammatical and format-related issues have been labeled “low level,” that does not imply that they should be wholly disregarded. Much like previously-mentioned issues, if the things students are asked to review are specific and focused, they will be more useful to the writers. The most effective method could be described thusly: either before or during the writing process, teachers use mini-lessons with a specific grammatical focus in mind that will be emphasized in the current essay -- whether it be implementing appositive phrases, preventing comma splices, or maintaining a consistent tense -- the focus depends on the skill level of the grade, a particular class, etc.; students work with the skill and implement it in their writing; during the peer review process, teachers have one dedicated question to said skill, encouraging the mastery of it to both writer and reviewer; voila! Meaningful grammatical feedback used specifically to benefit students’ writing! This specific method is more effective in getting students to retain a focused, specific skill, and will encourage its use in future assignments as well.
The final tool I have worked to use more often in the peer review process (at both the request / encouragement of both students and my school district, as well as my desire to be “gadgety”) is the specific use of technology to enhance the process -- and, perhaps, make the students feel cooler about what they are doing, which I hope subtly tricks them into doing a better job. I’ve used Turnitin.com’s Peer-Review functionality to both hold students accountable for what they write, but also to remove some of that grammar-related feedback out of their focus (it has a computer program that recognizes, albeit inconsistently at times, grammatical errors in writing). I could have them respond to papers anonymously, or conspicuously (I prefer things to be out in the open, however). I’ve also used Schoology, an academically-focused website similar in format to Facebook, to hold online thesis statement discussions, or thematically-focused discussions, which help students’ critical thinking (and writing, as a byproduct - one must be sneaky!) and engagement in their classes’ communities. If used well and focused, technology is no different than the other parts of the peer review process -- it can greatly aid and enhance the final product (as well as cut down on the time it takes teachers to grade and hand back assignments!).
A good peer review session is very tough to implement and achieve. In fact, a few of my articles actively discouraged the practice, saying that its results are never what instructors want them to be, and since the practice varies so widely in its goals and implementation across the academic spectrum, it is different-- thus, inconsistent and “dicey” -- every time a student changes instructors. This, however, doesn’t discourage me from trying to find that “sweet spot” in my quest (hopefully not of the “foolish” variety) to make it an effective tool for my students. Most research says that the more students write, as well as think critically about writing, the more writing skills they develop; they also become better readers and critical thinkers. This is an honorable goal; this is a goal that is shared by the majority of teachers that I know; this is something that our hyperactive modern society, with its ever-shifting focus on constantly shifting its focus, needs! With so many people striving to be part of a community-- whether it be one on Facebook, World of Warcraft, Twitter, or whatever future community-based craze comes to pass-- peer review has the potential to link students to a more focused and academically-relevant group - the writing community.
