Utilizing Peer Review as a Tool for Enhancing Student Writing Skills
Educators guiding writing-intensive courses, or any curriculum demanding substantial writing output, should deliberate on incorporating avenues for students to engage in reading and providing feedback on each other’s work. Facilitating such instances of “peer review,” when thoughtfully orchestrated, can significantly enhance students’ aptitude in both reading and writing, fostering effective collaboration skills.
Specifically, involvement in peer review can enable students to:
1. Refine their reading comprehension skills, honing their ability to dissect written pieces with meticulous attention to detail, be it their own work or that of their peers.
2. Strengthen their writing prowess by considering the perspectives and reactions of real and potential readers, thus fostering a more audience-oriented approach.
3. Transition from writing primarily for personal fulfillment or instructor assessment to crafting content for a wider audience—a pivotal shift as students navigate university-level academic discourse and prepare for advanced academic pursuits.
4. Cultivate the ability to articulate and convey constructive criticism on their peers’ compositions, nurturing both critical thinking and effective communication.
5. Develop proficiency in soliciting and integrating feedback on their own writing, promoting iterative improvement and self-refinement.
A common pitfall often encountered by instructors is assuming that students possess innate proficiency in these aforementioned skills, treating peer review merely as an exercise in their application. Instead, instructors should view peer review as a prime opportunity for both instruction and practical skill application, guiding students through the process to develop and adeptly employ these essential competencies.
How do Students React?
Numerous educators who have integrated peer review into their courses express dissatisfaction with the outcomes. It’s a common observation that, when tasked with participating in peer review, students often hasten through the process, offering generic, vaguely positive feedback to their peers, such as “Nice work” or “Good job.” Moreover, many students appear to disregard the feedback provided by their peers altogether.
Several factors may contribute to these responses:
1. A considerable portion of students feels uneasy about passing judgment on their peers’ writing. This discomfort may stem from their level of maturity, a reluctance to potentially hurt their peers’ feelings (possibly exacerbated by their own apprehension about having their writing scrutinized by peers), or simply their lack of experience in delivering constructive criticism. Providing vague praise enables them to sidestep socially awkward situations and fosters an atmosphere of mutual support.
2. Without clear guidance from instructors, students may struggle to provide specific and constructive feedback on their peers’ writing. Additionally, students may lack the understanding of how to offer feedback, having received insufficiently helpful feedback from instructors in the past.
3. Some instructors expect students to evaluate their peers’ writing based on the same criteria used in grading papers (e.g., thesis quality, support adequacy, coherence, etc.). However, undergraduate students often lack a comprehensive grasp of these criteria, leading them to either disregard or misapply them during peer review sessions.
4. Many students perceive feedback from peers as irrelevant to the paper-writing process for a course. Particularly in the early stages of their undergraduate studies, students may believe that only feedback from the instructor holds significance.
5. Even when students earnestly consider feedback from their peers, they may struggle to incorporate it into their paper revisions.
Key Strategies:
1. Define and instruct on the essential skills for effective peer review.
While designing your course, compile a list of skills that students should acquire and apply when engaging in peer review. These skills may encompass proficient reading abilities (identifying a writer’s main argument, pinpointing crucial supporting points or pertinent data, etc.), adept writing skills (formulating clear, specific comments and questions), and collaborative skills (expressing critiques in a descriptive and constructive manner). Clearly articulating the fundamental skills associated with peer review will assist you in developing a comprehensive plan for seamlessly integrating peer review into your course. Moreover, it will elucidate the precise instructions your students require as they grasp the intricacies of reviewing a peer’s paper and utilizing the feedback garnered during the peer review process.
2. Integrate peer review as a fundamental component of the writing process.
Stress to students that peer review goes beyond being a mere course requirement; it stands as an indispensable facet of the writing journey embraced by successful writers. It’s crucial for students to recognize that scholars and professionals routinely employ peer review as an integral part of crafting impactful writing within their respective fields. Share your perspective as a scholar on the value of peer review, highlighting instances where such feedback, even when not entirely agreeable, contributed to enhancing the clarity and strength of your own writing.
Reinforce the understanding that academic and professional writing typically involves three sequential stages: drafting, revising, and editing. Peer review proves most beneficial to students when applied between the drafting and revision phases or after each student has generated a complete draft, allowing ample time for substantial modifications. For instance, through peer review, a writer may discover insights such as the strength of a paper’s introduction, ambiguity in the main point or thesis, logical or supportive gaps undermining effectiveness, or an intriguing idea in the conclusion that leaves unanswered questions. The purpose of incorporating peer review as a precursor to revision is to assist the writer in discerning which aspects of the paper are effective in their current state and which require clarification, completion, or persuasion.
3. Portray peer review as an avenue for students to cultivate audience-aware writing skills:
Many undergraduate students fail to grasp the correlation between completing academic writing tasks and their future professional endeavors. One effective method to bridge this gap is to underscore a fundamental yet often overlooked fact: irrespective of their post-graduation pursuits, the efficacy of students’ ideas and work will largely hinge on their proficiency in written communication across diverse audiences. Engaging in peer review aids students in refining their written language as a vehicle for effective communication with readers. For instance, actively seeking peer feedback empowers one student to construct a compelling argument by preemptively addressing potential counter-arguments from their audience, while another student can leverage peer review to elucidate the significance of their research to readers outside their field of expertise.
4. Clarify the role of the peer-reviewer as that of a reader, emphasizing their function as an engaged audience rather than an evaluator.
Develop guidelines for peer-reviewers, outlining specific tasks such as highlighting the paper’s strongest aspects, pinpointing or rephrasing the thesis, enumerating key supporting points or evidence, and flagging sentences or paragraphs that appear disorganized, inadequately explained, or in need of revision. While some of these tasks involve description and others evaluation, the evaluative aspects should focus on the reader’s impressions and responses without necessitating an overarching judgment on the entire paper (Nilson 2003).
This approach aids in crafting precise instructions for students, elucidating how they should respond to their peers’ writing. It also assists in managing expectations regarding what students can realistically achieve during in-class peer-review sessions. By defining the peer-reviewer’s role as that of a reader, it reinforces the notion that the decision to implement changes through revision lies with the writer. In other words, while the writer should consider all reviewers’ comments, they retain the autonomy to either disregard certain suggestions or incorporate changes based on others’ feedback.
Enhancing Students’ Investment in Effective Communication and Collaboration:
While students acting as peer-reviewers should not be tasked with applying the same grading criteria as the instructor, their participation in peer review should foster a deeper grasp of these standards. After all, many fundamental criteria for assessing writing effectiveness revolve around its impact on readers: for instance, a sentence earns the label “clear” when its meaning is readily discernible; descriptions of research methods are deemed “coherent” and “complete” when readers can replicate the process themselves; an argumentative essay earns the descriptor “convincing” when it presents a position that readers find both reasonable and compelling.
Through active engagement in the peer-review process, students not only enhance their understanding of the criteria for evaluating well-written papers but also begin to perceive themselves as both writers and readers with a vested interest in mastering the art of producing and recognizing effective writing. They evolve into academic peers who glean deeper insights by honing their ability to communicate effectively with one another.
Educators guiding writing-intensive courses, or any curriculum demanding substantial writing output, should deliberate on incorporating avenues for students to engage in reading and providing feedback on each other’s work. Facilitating such instances of “peer review,” when thoughtfully orchestrated, can significantly enhance students’ aptitude in both reading and writing, fostering effective collaboration skills. Specifically, involvement in…