While reading in Warnock's Teaching Writing Online this week, I was reminded that one of the most important aspects of any writing course is the process of peer review. Because of the relationship between writing and conversation, it is vital that students have opportunity to examine and refine their work in the context of interaction and discussion with peers. However, though peer review is an essential part of a collaborative writing environment, it can also be one of the toughest aspects for teachers to implement effectively into the classroom routine.
Early on in my teaching career, I recall attempting to implement peer review and finding it more a frustration than a benefit (for me and my students). When I used a discussion-based approach, discussions routinely stalled or got off track. When I used checklists or ranking scales, they were arbitrarily filled out for completion and were rarely, if ever, considered useful by the writer the group was intended to help. When I had students use a close reading approach and write comments on each other's papers, students stuck to safe feedback in the form of minor editing advice ("you forgot a period") or simply mimicked and recapitulated the comments of others rather than formulating individual responses to the writing they reviewed.
Through all of the frustration, I still believed wholeheartedly that my students needed to write and review their work interactively with each other; I believed this because I knew the peer review process offered students, among numerous other benefits, a sense of authentic audience, a chance to receive feedback from varied perspectives, the opportunity to talk out their ideas in front of others, and a safe place to practice the skill of giving and receiving feedback.
Over that last few years, thankfully, I have refined my approach to peer review and implemented what I feel is a far more effective and beneficial process. Some of the most important aspects of this shift have been:
- Implementation of Writing Groups: Student writers, particularly those in high school, are not regularly prone to share substantial writing with those they do not trust. Thus, my practice of assembling random groups for each peer review session did little to establish a sense of trust and community within the group. To change this, I instituted consistent writing groups in which students worked for an entire semester with the same group of people. The repeated interactions within the group were far more effective in encouraging students to share their writing with others.
- Protocol-Based Discussions: While free-flowing discussions may sound appealing, the reality in the high school classroom is that students often need parameters to keep discussions on track. Therefore, I began outlining specific discussion objectives and assigning time frames to each section of discussion. For example, with my sophomores, I routinely use a simple "I Like, I Wonder, I Would" protocol in which students listen to an essay read aloud, then spend two minutes pointing out strengths of an essay, two minutes asking questions of the writer, and two minutes discussing what they might do in revision were it their own essay. I normally also allow the writer two minutes at the end to ask any questions they have of their peers. Such protocol has by far been the most effective way to organize the peer review process in my classroom.
- Rubric-Based Agenda: Within even a simple protocol, I do ask that my students dialogue in relation to the most essential aspects of the essay as outlined in my rubric. Just yesterday, students in my senior-level writing classes engaged in peer review of thematic analysis essays they have been working on. Within their assigned protocol, they were advised to keep comments related to the following elements: thesis, organization, incorporation of source material, and literary analysis. In such a peer review situation, students have the freedom to comment on other important elements as well, but since they know these are the elements of the essay I will examine most closely, students typically do a good job of focusing their discussions on these crucial aspects.
These adjustments, though, have been primarily in the face-to-face review process. This year, I began experimenting more with the online environment for instruction, collaboration, and peer review so that I could free up more in-class time for actual writing and teacher/student conferencing. It is my goal that by next year, the online component of my writing class will play a much more significant role. As I work toward that goal, it seems increasingly important that I consider what policies and protocols might make the online peer review process as meaningful as the face-to-face event has become.
Warnock's list of guidelines on page 116 of Teaching Writing Online were particularly helpful for me in this area. Warnock's specific pieces of advice that stood out to me were as follows:
- Avoid binary response questions.
- Include a length requirement.
- Do not allow an "answer the question" format.
- Grade and criticize reviews.
Some of these practices are already in place in my approach to face-to-face peer review and should carry over to the online review; for instance, I have made a concerted effort to avoid putting students in situations where they merely answer yes/no questions. Additionally, I have worked to create a situation in peer reviews where students dialogue and critique rather than directly addressing a finite list of questions. However, Warnock offers solid advice here when he encourages instructors to use length requirements and to assess and criticize reviews. A length requirement in the online review acts in much the same capacity as the time limits I use to organize protocol discussion by requiring substantive investment of time and thought rather than allowing for cursory commenting that does little to help the writer. Grading and criticizing reviews also seems important because students need guidance as they learn to be better participants in the peer review process; giving quality feedback is, after all, a learned skill.
It is exciting to consider the possibilities that online or virtual peer review offer teachers. The idea that digital tools can enable peer review to happen outside of the classroom, synchronously or asynchronously, should be particularly appealing to teachers in both fully online and blended (online and face-to-face) classroom environments. However, for all the possibilities online peer review presents, it is clear that teachers must be conscious of and have a plan for making the process as meaningful and beneficial as is possible for all parties involved.
Warnock, Scott. Teaching Writing Online: How and Why. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English, 2009. Kindle.