Our
Collaborations
Panel
Grading
Peer Review
Letter Exchange
Contact Us
Sophie Bradford
sophieb@uca.edu
Jennifer Deering
jdeering@uca.edu
Lisa Mongno
lmongno@uca.edu
Resources
Due
Dates Fall '07
Due
Dates Spring '08
|
Peer Reviewers
On
This Page
Introduction
Rationale
Method
Prompts
Instruction Letter
Introduction
Peer review can seem
like a great waste of class time. Often, students see in-class peer
review days as a chance to discuss last night’s terrific party, or who
broke up with whom, or who did poorly on the chemistry test, or even as
a lovely and convenient opportunity to take a surreptitious nap. But
the most significant impact of a wasted in-class peer review session is
when students give each other ill-conceived and/or confusing advice—all
within a fifty minute class period. Why, then, even bother having
students peer review each other's papers? Because at its best, peer
review can allow students to find out that they are not alone with their
writing difficulties and anxieties and to build a vocabulary for
discussing writing with a “real” audience. Peer review groups can also
motivate each other to revise and be more aware of their use of
language, and these groups can increase the sense of community in the
classroom and promote active learning.
Taking the basic
principles of what a good peer review session should be, our small group
of faculty collaborated to devise a system that extends the traditional
in-class peer review structure: our students write letters to writers in
other classes.
Rationale
-
Collaboration.
What prompted us to think
about student-to-student collaboration in the first place is the
importance of collaboration in our own lives as teachers and
writers. We want students to experience collaborating on a real
document that provides real advice to real students.
We have formulated some guidelines for our form of peer review. Our
guidelines help students who seem to have trouble coming up with
something to say, which may be a sign that they're not reading as
reviewers yet, just as peers. The questions we ask on the
guidelines are also open-ended and ask the audience to describe as
well as to suggest. Furthermore, peer review letter writing slows
the students down. Reviewers are also constructing their own piece
of writing, which allows for more thoughtful and considerate
responses.
We wanted
to be sure that
writers were having a "talk" to the peer reviewers, mainly because this is part of
the reflective thinking they need to be doing. In Radical
Equations, Robert P. Moses suggests that we learn
by doing something, reflecting on what went wrong and what went
right, coming up with adjustments, and trying it again. We ask that
writers ask peer reviewers to look at and comment on specific
things, which forces the peer reviewers to reflect more deeply on
what they’re reading rather than make the casual, flippant, and
general comments they often do.
-
Flattery.
We all like to get personal letters. At a very basic level
receiving a lengthy response to something that you've written is
flattering—it’s nice to indulge in a bit of ego stroking now and
again. Indeed, we make sure our peer reviewers start on a positive
note even if they recognize that the writing isn’t particularly
strong. If student writers have a positive feeling about their
writing, we think they are more likely to play with and revise that
writing. And as an inadvertent but important consequence of writing
on a positive note, peer reviewers learn to write persuasively in a
real world situation. They are genuinely trying to persuade a
reader to change something.
-
Objectivity.
Why have students from different professors' classes peer review
each other's papers? In short, objectivity. Psychologically, we
believe most people are more likely to be "critical" with people
they don't know. But objective, anonymous peer reviewing also builds
a shared sense of what writing is between students, more so than
within a classroom setting. Students are more likely to be less
serious about peer review if they are familiar with each other—this
is where the discussion of last night’s party rears its head.
-
Thinking
Critically.
As teachers we often rely on text book readings to help students
understand concepts. However, “perfect” essays by professional
writers are not necessarily essays students relate to; in fact,
students are often fearful of this near perfect writing. And that’s
the problem: text book texts are almost faultless in terms of
writing. Generally, text books don’t ask students to examine the
writers’ writing. Students who examine their peers’ essays,
however, that are a mixture of different ideas and different levels
of writing ability can reinforce students’ understanding of their
own texts—not only the ideas students present but also the level of
writing ability. Furthermore, examining the texts of their peers
really helps students better understand audience and purpose—no
assignment can force that issue.
Method
-
We allocate a week to complete the
peer review process. We collect our students’ papers, meet to swap our papers,
and redistribute the collected papers to our
students.
-
The time of a
class is not really an issue, but the number of students in a class
is. We swap with whichever instructor has the closest number of
students compared to our own.
-
Students spend a class period making notes about a
writer’s paper or even getting started with their peer review
letters.
-
We do not allow
students to take papers out of the classroom in case they fail to
return them. A lone paper floating around on its own is a
perfect opportunity for an unscrupulous student to plagiarize. Also, many
students invariably forget to save their drafts before printing them
out.
-
We have learned
that students are often unreliable in writing peer review letters,
so we track students’ “reliability,” assigning copies of papers
already being reviewed by someone more reliable to those reviewers who have not "come through" in
the past.
-
We collect
the typed, full-page single-spaced peer review letters the next
class meeting. It's probably a good idea to have students turn
in two copies: one for you to grade and one for the student
writer.
-
Peer reviews
must be typed and at least a single-spaced page long—fluff is not acceptable.
(We use guidelines for every peer review).
-
Peer reviews are
graded by the instructor. We recommend that they count for a
significant portion of the grade and that it is clear students will
be graded on quality and not on completion points.
-
We do not allow
late peer reviews because writers are restricted in revision time.
-
Peer reviews
(unlike other writing)
cannot be revised because they are needed before the writers begin
revising and, therefore, have a short shelf-life.
-
We, then, distribute the peer review letters to our students.
Prompts
Sum up what the writer has said in one sentence. If you
can’t, why can’t you?
Do you think this writer has satisfied the minimum
requirements for a college paper?
Audience
Who do you think is the audience for this paper? Is the writer assuming
her or his readers will automatically agree with her or him? Is the
writer making assumptions about one reader instead of many? Has
the writer said anything that offends you? Do you have trouble reading
the piece because you feel uninterested? Has the writer written to the
appropriate audience for the purpose of the piece?
Purpose
What do you think is the writer’s purpose? What does the writer
seem to want readers to do or think after reading the piece?
Introduction
Look at the title, the introduction, and the thesis statement (the
paper’s central idea or main point). Does the title and “hook” really
work to engage your attention? Can you identify a controlling idea (a
thesis statement)? If not, are there possibilities in the paper that
you could identify as theme-worthy? What specific changes to the
introduction would you suggest?
Body
Do the writer’s ideas flow well—are they unified, coherent,
well-developed—from beginning to end? How so? How not? Does the topic
sentence keep the paragraph unified? Or do other, unrelated ideas creep
into the paragraph? What could the writer do to improve structure or
development? Are there parts of the paper when you feel like the writer
has just stuck something in to satisfy
length requirements and did not fully develop the thought? Are
there spots where the writer says too much—specifics that seem unrelated
to the main idea and feel like rambling? Are there any spots where the
writing says something that interests you but stops short, not saying
enough? What specific changes to the body paragraphs would you
suggest?
Support
Think about how the writer supports her or his ideas. Are you ever left
wondering things like “Well, how is that so?” or “How do you know?” or
“What do you mean?” Where does the writer leave you confused? Are
there any places where you have to stop and think about meaning? Where
you wonder if you read something correctly? Where you have to get
meaning from your own understanding and not from what the writer
explicitly said? Are there any spots where the writing says something
that interests you but stops short, not saying enough? If the writer
states something as fact, does she or he back it up with evidence? Is
the evidence appropriate—does it assure you that what the writer is
saying is trustworthy?
Voice
Can you feel the presence of the writer? Is the writer’s persona
trustworthy, credible, well-informed, thoughtful, and fair? Does the
writer’s voice strive to be plain and clear while retaining the engaging
quality of a person who is enthusiastic about the subject? How so?
How not? When you read the paper, do you ever feel like you just stepped
into the middle of a conversation and felt like someone needed to fill
you in on the details? Are there parts of the paper where the writer
moves from a more formal voice to a more casual voice? Are there places
where the tone stands out as inappropriate?
Research
If there is research, examine the writer’s use of it to support his or
her ideas. Evaluate the writer’s reliance on sources, integration of
quotations, and other evidence. Is there adequate support for the
writer’s ideas and claims? Or has the writer relied too much on expert
opinion (or his or her own personal experience, which makes the piece
too personal and hard to relate to)—is the paper a “patchwork” of other
people’s views. Is the research appropriate? Does it really back up
the writer’s ideas or is it simply thrown in because x number of quotes
were required? Do the sources, perhaps, seem biased? Does the research
assure you that what the writer is saying is trustworthy? What can be
added or changed in terms of research? What needs work?
Grammar,
punctuation, mechanics
Do you find yourself distracted by grammatical, punctuation, or
mechanical errors? If there is a consistent error (for instance,
problems with comma splices), point it out.
Are sentences too long,
too choppy? Does the writer use transitions? Does the writer vary
punctuation?
Conclusion
How might the conclusion more effectively bring completeness or closure
to the paper? Does the writer synthesize (bring together her or his
ideas into a meaningful whole) or just summarize the main idea? Or does
the paper just stop? Does the writer try to bring in new ideas that
should have been developed in the body instead? Does the writer make
one final push toward the purpose?
Assessment
Finally, what did you learn from this essay that you did not know
before? Ask questions if needed. Comment on either the ideas or on the
writing strategies used by the writer.
Instruction Letter
Dear Students:
Here we are, all
sitting in our desks with new notebooks but old ideas about how this
class will progress. You’ve all had English classes, and for many,
knowing what to expect is a source of comfort. Here’s the usual
scenario:
-
Student writes
paper
-
Teacher grades
paper
-
Student, if lucky,
is allowed to revise paper for a higher grade.
Guess what? I’ve spent
a good portion of my summer thinking of ways to improve that model,
ways that will better serve you and prepare you to go into your upper
level and major classes ready to dazzle your professors with papers that
“pop” (okay, I also spent part of my summer watching HGTV, so I’m
borrowing some decorating lingo there). So here’s what I’ve decided,
and I want you to know that I think it’s going to be much more effective
than the above model has been:
In order to focus on
PROCESS, I’m going to add two extra components to the class:
- You’ll be writing
letters to your peers about their papers,
- You’ll get letters
about your papers from your peers, and
- After that, we’ll
send your papers out of class to be graded by a panel of professors.
Why? Well: here is my
rationale in a nutshell. Letter writing is perhaps the most common form
of writing that professionals do on a daily basis. Writing a good
letter is a skill, and a must-have for today’s electronic world (letters
sent via the net count). Furthermore, writing someone a letter about
his/her paper gives you time to carefully consider how you want to say
something to that writer, and imagine how you would respond to those
words and expression. Conversely, you’ll get such a letter about your
paper. You won’t know who wrote it: They may be a student in my other
class, or even a student from another professor’s class. Like you, they
will be getting class credit for writing the letter; because we’ll write
letters for each major paper, you’ll only do three longer papers in my
class. Three papers, three letters. Of course, with any piece of
writing there are requirements: no fluff allowed! And to avoid the no
fluff issue, I want your responses to be at least page, and don't forget
that both the writer and I can grade your letter, so you really have two
audiences. When you receive the letter about your paper, you’ll get to
take it home with you. You’ll be able to reflect on it, to consider
what it has to say and whether you agree with it. If you have questions
about the letter or question the validity of some of the author’s
points, I hope you’ll bring it by my office to discuss. Sometimes, I
won’t agree with what they have to say (though I often do.
You’ll use that letter
to polish and revise your paper; re-vise, as in re-see, re-envision.
Then, the paper will be resubmitted, this time to a panel of
professors. It will come back to you with a grade. I’ve agreed to do
this with my peers in order to assure you of objectivity. I’m also
looking forward to being your coach, and helping you to improve and play
with your papers. That’s another reason we’ll only do three; it should
give you plenty of time to come by and see me, to tinker with sections
you think are less effective, or to polish a piece to perfection. In
order for me to be the best coach possible, I’ll need you to come by for
conferences on your work. I can not stress enough: If you don’t
understand a grade you’ve gotten from the panel, or if you disagree with
it, please come by and see me immediately! I love to read your work and
meet with you, but I also want you to have feedback from other sources
as well.
I look forward to
working with you this term.
You should consider me…
Your coach and
advocate,
Lisa Mongno
|