Peer Review Workshop
March 8, 2000




Some Benefits of Using Peer Review
 
 

For Instructors:

Peer Review Can Lighten Your Workload

Students can often point out basic problems in each other's drafts, allowing you to focus your comments on more advanced topics.

Peer Review Helps Lead to Better Assignments

Often, many students in the same class will have the same writing problems in their papers. This is sometimes an indication that the assignment itself is ambiguous or misleading. Getting feedback from students after the session is over can help instructors revise their assignments.

Peer Review Forces Students to Write Drafts Early

Requiring students to participate in Peer Review -- especially if the session is scheduled a week before the draft is due to you -- means students will not be able to put off the writing until the last minute, resulting in more time for revision, usually resulting in better writing.
 
 
 
 

For Students:

Peer Review Provides Models

Students can see how others responded to an assignment, thus increasing their content and strategy options as they revise.

Peer Review Forces Students to Write a Draft Early

For a variety of reasons, students often put off beginning a writing assignment, resulting in little time to think through a first draft, let alone revise it. Requiring a draft early, and encouraging feedback on basic writing issues, can help some procrastinating students.

Peer Review Models "Real World" Writing

Many studies have shown that workers in all professions have to write as a part of a group. Peer Review sessions have the long-term benefit for students of giving them a vocabulary and strategies for working in such groups.
 
 
 
 

Peer Review Session Options

There are a number of ways to conduct a Peer Review session. Here are some basic models, with several variations possible for each model:

Small groups meet in class

Students are divided into groups of 2 or 3 and exchange papers. Comments are given orally or in writing. If given adequate time to read one another's work, this will likely take the entire class period.

Students exchange papers and comment outside of class

Students exchange drafts and are given one or two class periods to read and comment on each other's drafts. On the assigned day, they come to class with written comments. Students are given 10 minutes to read each other's comments and ask questions of their readers.

Students post drafts to a class web site or listserv

Tech-savvy instructors can require that students either give a hard copy to everyone in the class, e-mail papers to everyone in class, or post papers on a class web page. Then other students in the class can e-mail comments (with a copy to the instructor), or post comments publicly on the web site or listserv.

"Writing Workshop" model: Instructor comments along with students

Unlike the models above, the instructor is part of the group of readers/responders, and provides comments along with the students. In a small class, the entire class can act as a single group of readers/responders. In a larger class, the instructor meets with groups outside of class, or devotes several classes to meeting with groups.
 
 

 Practical Suggestions for Making Peer Review More Successful
 
  Take a long-term view

Peer Review rarely works as planned the first time it is used each semester. The second time is better, but still problem-filled. By the third time, students have developed a sense of the instructors' expectations, an understanding of the content, and a vocabulary for talking about writing.

Use a rubric

Most Peer Review sessions fail because students just don't know what to look for in each other's drafts. A rubric spells out for students just what they should be looking for and commenting on.

Conduct a model session with a sample paper

Acting as the writer, the instructor reads a sample paper to the class and asks for comments. As students comment, the instructor points out what she thinks are helpful and not-so-helpful suggestions. The sample paper be one the instructor has written herself, one from her files (if the assignment has been used before), or a draft from a current student.

Have students read their own papers out loud

Rather than have group members read silently, each student reads his draft out loud to the group. Students can often catch their own mistakes this way, since they slow down and focus on what is actually written on the paper.

Get feedback from students about what peers suggested

To check on the effectiveness of the peer reviews, and of your rubrics: At the end of the session, have each student write up a summary of what readers liked and disliked about her paper. Or require students to turn in copies of peers' written comments when they hand in the draft to you.

Focus on revising, not editing

In general, students are better at finding "global" problems associated with revision (thesis, organization, content) than "local" problems associated with editing (grammar, spelling, mechanics).

Use Peer Review with the right assignments

Comments will be focused when the assignment is focused, and students have a better idea of what to look for. At the same time, the assignment needs to be challenging and complex enough so that the students will actually need revision suggestions.

Make the Peer Review Count

Students will consider Peer Review a waste of time if there isn't some consequence attached to it. Assign points for attending the Peer Review session; require a certain number of words for the draft to count; or stipulate that you won't comment on any draft that wasn't first peer-reviewed.
 
 

 What Should Students Comment On?

You can ask students to focus on several types of comments:

Response-Centered Reviews

John Bean calls this review option "process-oriented and non-intrusive." Readers do not provide advice directly, but comment on their own process as readers ("The introduction confused me"; "This example helped clear up your point about X"). This option ultimately puts more responsibility on the writer to decide what to change, since no direct advice is give. This type of response was first advocated as a way for less-experienced readers to provide their "gut feelings," instead of intellectual responses to writing. However, it tends to work best with advanced students, who are more likely to trust their gut feelings: for example, inexperienced readers are more likely to assume that something is confusing because they, the readers, just don't get it, rather than because it was not written clearly. Advice-Centered Reviews Bean calls this option "more product-oriented and directive." Students are asked to provide advice, not just reactions, pointing out particular places in a draft that are successful, and places that need more revision, and providing specific suggestions that might help improve a paper. This method works best if students are given a rubric--a list of particular writing issues they should be looking for. Peer Editing Students do not focus on content, but on editing: correcting surface errors, misspellings, mechanics, etc. This meets with varying levels of success. While students can usually catch more surface errors in someone else's paper than they can in their own, they still tend to miss a lot. Sample Rubric (taken from http:web.missouri.edu/~writmpd/rubrics.html)
 
Don Ranly, an MU professor of journalism, developed the following scoring guide for an ethics assignment. Professor Ranly designed this scoring guide so that teaching assistants could reach consensus when evaluating papers produced in a large lecture course. He might not use this kind of scoring guide in a different setting. The exceptional paper (15-14 points)

The exceptional paper focuses on an ethical issue and shows a clear understanding of what an ethics problem is. Students who earn these high scores will demonstrate an understanding of the subtleties and flaws of the Potter Box and should reveal their awareness of the purpose of each step as they discuss the motives and consequences involved. A thorough treatment of the Potter Box and of the five philosophical theories will include a determination of why a step or theory works or fails to work in confronting a particular ethics problem. The exceptional paper will also point out flaws or inconsistencies in the theories and should anticipate problems that might arise in other situations. On the sentence level, these papers will exhibit precision and control. Word choice, sentence structure, and transition will demonstrate attention to detail

The above-average paper (13-10 points)

The above-average paper shows a clear understanding of the difference between an ethics problem and a media issue, but will present a less thorough or less accurate treatment of the Potter Box or of the five philosophical theories. Students who earn scores in this range may fail to demonstrate an understanding of the subtleties and flaws of the Potter Box or may even misunderstand a particular step. Above-average papers that successfully treat the Potter Box may be flawed in their presentation of one or more of the five philosophical theories, either through misapplying a theory or by failing to note inconsistencies. Papers in this range will rarely consider problems that might arise in other situations. On the sentence level, the above-average paper will exhibit syntactic maturity, but may contain occasional lapses in control, including questionable word choice, awkward sentence structure, or inadequate or absent transitions.

The average paper (9-8 points)

The average paper focuses on an ethics problem and offers--in general--an adequate discussion of the Potter Box and of the five philosophical theories, but it does not demonstrate the insight necessary to discuss fully the complexities of all of these elements. Students who earn average scores are likely to misunderstand one or more steps in the Potter Box and to treat one or more of the philosophical theories superficially or inaccurately. Papers in this range will usually fail to consider why a particular theory works or does not work when it is applied to a specific problem and will be very unlikely to consider implications of the theories in other situations. On the sentence level, average papers will often demonstrate a failure to attend to detail. Word choice may be inappropriate; sentence structure may be awkward; cohesion may be marred by omitted transitions.

The below-average paper (7-6 points)

The below-average paper begins with an ethics problem, but presents a discussion of the Potter Box and the five philosophical theories that is both inadequate and inaccurate. Students who earn scores in this range may misunderstand two or more steps of the Potter Box and may misapply two or more of the philosophical theories. The below-average paper may even omit a step entirely and will never move beyond the superficial. On the sentence level, papers in this range will often be flawed by improper word choice, awkward sentence structure which may even obscure meaning, and omitted transitions which produce erratic jumps in logic.

The failing paper (5-0 points)

The failing paper does not focus on an ethical issue or takes on a topic not approved by the TA. Students who earn scores in this range do not understand even the simplest implications of the Potter Box or of the philosophical theories and so fail to explain correctly any of the steps and misapply or omit entirely the five theories. On the sentence level, the failing paper exhibits an extreme lack of attention to detail which obscures or perverts meaning time and time again. In short, the failing paper demonstrates few, if any, virtues.
Students in a Peer Review session could rely on the grading rubric above, or they could be given the same information in a different form, to provide guidance as they read and respond to one another's papers. For example:
 
 

___________________________________________________________________________________

Peer Revew Workshop

Paper #3: Ethics Problem

Consider the following questions as you read and respond to the papers in your group.
 
 

Does the paper:

 In your written response to each paper, be sure to point out the specific areas in the paper where it meets or fails to meet the criteria discussed.

______________________________________________________________________________________