https://docs.google.com/document/d/1usEh499yiyLqxRk0GtyCFQi1c9KLutQ0EzOcV05hxSY/edit?usp=sharing
The essay itself, non-formatted:
Peer Review’s Relevance Shall Ensure Student-Writers’ Glory!
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 brought forth to the world. 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 typos), or do not give the practice its proper weight (Sonya & Eric, 2008). 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.
How can I improve Students’ Writing and Composition using the Peer Review process?
I teach at Waconia High School, a relatively wealthy lake town just outside of the more “suburban” suburbs. It is a lake town (host to the 2012 Governor’s Fishing Opener), and lacks a large dose of diversity with regard to both race and socioeconomic status. As of the 2012-2013 school year, ISD 110 had approximately 3% of families benefitting from free and reduced lunch. Other than an unofficial case of what I’ve begrudgingly coined as “suburban existential angstiness,” Waconia is a good district in which to make a living teaching English. I teach in a classroom which only I have occupied in the upstairs addition (what we dwellers dub “The Loft,” circa 2007) to the high school originally built in 1995, and it has two windows that look over wetlands in which I have seen deer, woodchucks, squirrels, and, unfortunately, bird poop that has been stuck to my window ever since the first month of occupation, six years ago (I hid it from view with MPR window clings!). We are steadily implementing more technology into our classrooms and practices in the form of ipads, Smartboards, new computers in the labs, Turnitin.com and Schoology subscriptions, etc. I have taught a variety of subjects and grade levels within the confines of the high school: 9th grade English, Composition 12, Speech, Performance Media (film analysis), and, three years ago, I (with the help of the vertical team, of course) started and maintained a Pre-AP 9 English class. Next year, however, I’ll be switching the primarily-freshman-centric schedule to a primarily-sophomore-centric one, with both the mainstream sophomores and Pre-AP students.
Establishing a “Community of Writers”
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 (Linda, 1999, p. 8-12). 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 enjoy fewer students per 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, including classroom discussions (especially, and most enjoyably, of the Socratic variety), taking chances on ideas and stances, and writing feedback. My more mainstream classes, such as Composition 12, or English 9, suffer from the ailments similar to what Jesnek (2011) says are prevalent 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 typos (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) (p. 17-24). These significant challenges are not easily overcome, as the peer-review process hinges on, according to the findings in multiple studies of successfully-published essays stemming from the peer review process, including Yang and Wu (2011, p. 1-15), as well as Chandler-Olcott (2009, p. 71-74), students’ willingness to improve their writing (which is a sometimes over-sensitive topic when being critiqued) and a level of academic honesty and trust that must be present amongst the writers / reviewers. Thus, if I hope to truly help students with their writing, essays, and overall grades with regard to English (and other curricular areas! Writing across the curriculum: no longer just a dream!), establishing a closely-knit “writing community” is essential if the peer review process has a chance of succeeding.
Clarifying Terms, Definitions, and Expectations
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), according to L.A. Sonya and J.P. Eric in their essay “Whither Peer Review?” (2008), is to call the whole process “peer editing.” The word “editing,” however, implies looking for those tertiary issues previously-mentioned -- grammatical errors and typos. “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, and the use of evidence and quotations -- these are the things that English teachers (typically) want their students to think critically about (p. 398-407). While the changing of one word could seem small to some, 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, according to Diab Mawlawi’s findings in his study using peer review to aid in the publishing of English-language essays of secondary-language learners of English in China, is the phrasing, focus, and level of questioning that students are required to apply to each others’ writing (2010, p. 85-95). Shifting the focus from “low-level” concerns (formatting, grammar, etc.) to “high-level” ones (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 a more “high-level” focus, using the “PQP” method of questioning is effective (Sonya & Eric, 2008, p. 398-407). 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 he/she is revising his or her own essay 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 regarding said skill, encouraging its implementation and (surely!) eventual mastery 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 also encourage its use in future assignments.
I have started to implement the following pattern into the teaching of writing in my classroom this trimester (with limited time, however...only 3 AP-style essays were able to be completed in the six weeks of class remaining). Most of the building of community has been established at this point, as the class had been in session for almost two full trimesters at the time of writing this essay. Assessment-wise, the PQP method helped produce more focused and complete writing by the students, boosting their cumulative scores on the essay using the PQP method of Peer Review (as well as a clarification of terms and expectations) from 4.3 to 5.1 on an AP-focused grading scale of 9. A 5.1 is an above-average score for a freshman, so I am happy with the somewhat limited scope of the results of implementing these theories thus far.
Using Technology to Enhance the Writing and Peer Review Process
The final tool I have worked to use more often in the peer review process (at both the request / encouragement of students and my school district, as well as my desire to be “gadgety”) is the specific use of technology to enhance the writing process -- and, perhaps, make the students feel cooler about what they are doing, which I hope subtly bamboozles them into doing a better job and becoming more invested in their own learning. I have used Turnitin.com’s Peer-Review functionality to not only hold students accountable for what they write, but also shift 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 choose to have students respond to papers anonymously, or conspicuously (I prefer things to be out in the open, however). I have also used Schoology, an academically-focused website similar in format to Facebook, to hold online thesis statement discussions, as well as thematically-focused discussions, which help students’ critical thinking (and writing, as a byproduct - one must be sneaky!) and engagement in their classes’ communities. All of these findings are consistent with that of Chandler-Orcott’s in his studies regarding co-writing, reviewing, editing, and publishing writing using technology and online databases (2009, p. 71-74). While I do not agree with all of his assertions (most English instructors bristle at even the uttering of the word “Wikipedia” when used by the phrase “credible source”), he has found that consistent use of the practice of peer-writing and reviewing (with the final goal of publishing) yields higher-quality results, and the technological base of the writing projects is what leads to a more streamlined, cooperative, and engaging experience. If focused and used well, 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!).
During the past year, I have slowly implemented more of these peer review-centered assignments using the technology at my disposal, but at the time of said implementation, I was still, upon reflection, not as clear, focused, and stringent with what I wanted the students to focus on and receive from the process; in fact, I called the whole practice “peer editing,” which, ironically, upsets me less about the results in retrospect, as the students were in fact focusing on those minor incidents of grammatical malfeasance the title of the activity suggests! So, moving forward, I shall endeavor to first clarify my terms and expectations with regard to PQP, then move on to the fancy technological integration of the process. This will help in the assessment of what the students are gaining from the practice, as well as their final assessments.
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 (Jesnek, 2011, p. 17-24). This, however, does not 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.
References
Chandler-Olcott, K. (2009). A tale of two tasks: Editing in the era of digital literacies. Journal of
Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 53(1), 71-74.
Jesnek, L. M. (2011). Peer editing in the 21st century college classroom: Do beginning
composition students truly reap the benefits? Journal of College Teaching and Learning, 8(5), 17-24.
Linda, L. M. (1999). (Practically) painless peer editing. Instructor, 108(7), 8-12.
Mawlawi Diab, N. (2010). Effects of Peer- versus Self-Editing on Students' Revision of Language
Errors in Revised Drafts. System: An International Journal Of Educational Technology And Applied Linguistics, 38(1), 85-95.
Sonya, L.A., & Eric, J.P. (2008). Whither “peer review”? terminology matters for the writing
classroom. Teaching English in the Two Year College, 35 (4), 398-407.
Yang, Y., & Wu, S. (2011). A Collective Case Study of Online Interaction Patterns in Text
Revisions. Educational Technology & Society, 14(2), 1-15.
No comments:
Post a Comment