The Pains of Peer Review

Several of the readings for this semester have talked about peer revision. I mentioned in my last blog entry about how I enjoyed Harpers’ tool kit for creative writing revision, so that students would have something particular to search for when they were reviewing both their own work and the work of their peers. I think that this would make it much easier for students because it would give them something concrete to look at while they are reading. It gives them something to grasp onto when they might not know where to go.

I think that I liked Harper’s tool kit, because I am looking for something to make peer revision an effective process. I think that if done correctly, peer revision is a great way for students to increase both their reading and writing skills. As was mentioned in the Van De Weghe chapter, the skill to write is much different than the skill to respond to other’s writings. This is true for many reasons. First off, I think that the skill to review others works requires an ability to be able to dissect a piece quickly and accurately. It requires advanced skills of organization and theme. These are skills that are needed for good writing, but I think that students frequently are able to “write” something without truly having these skills. Many times students are not able to go back to their own work and pull apart how each point adds to their overall thesis or goal. They are not able to track the development of their thinking. By learning and practicing how to peer review, students are thrown into this situation, and it will ultimately improve their writing.

The skill of response also requires that students know the essential elements of a piece of work. I mean in all honesty, we as teachers are a bit hesitant when it comes to responding to students’ work. That’s why we’re doing so many readings about it. It is difficult to be able to pinpoint where other writers are struggling and how to approach that dilemma. Students have to know what to focus on. They have to be able to let go of the need of correcting every comma and just looking for punctuation errors if there are larger issues that should be addressed. Sometimes it may be effective for a writer to just hear that the reader was confused and then the two students can go from there to figure out why. These will allow both students to come to a better understanding how to read a paper and to track its development.

Yet, the skill of response is not one that most students share, and I think that this is why I have always detested peer revision in my past experiences as a student.  Whenever I participated in these, other students would always just tell me that my work was good. They would either fail to invest their energy into it or they would not know how to read it effectively. I found these activities to be a waste of time. Many of my teachers have given out grading rubrics to follow as we read other people’s work, but I still don’t think that these worked very well. While, they were better than nothing, students would often just check the boxes and pass the paper back.

That’s why I think that modeling is important. I think that it would be effective to do a few readings as a class or to have students work in groups.  I also think that having a revision process full of symbols and tool kits may be a more effective and memorable way for students to learn to read work. It would give them a process that they could fall back on whenever they are writing or reading a work.  It literally would be a tool kit that would scaffold students into learning to read and analyze.

 I agree that students can’t just be thrown into a workshop. They need to be shown how to read and they also have to be given an incentive to do so. In my own classroom, I’m still not sure if I have found the best approach to use. I think that for essay writing, it may be helpful to have students follow the grading guidelines and then to provide evidence for where they did or did not see those guidelines met in the writing. I also want to make sure that my students are conversing. I would want the students to read one together before they moved on to the next. I think that it is important for the writer to be part of the reviewing process, so that they can understand where the reviewer is coming from and also so that they begin to delve into their own thinking and how they can improve their writing. Active conversation is important.

Link of the Week:
I chose to the writing center at Colorado State University. I think that it is a very practical page that talks about the logistics of peer review. One of my favorite things about it was how it talked about building in incentives for peer review. Unfortunately, students are rarely motivated by intrinsic movitation, and they are unlikely to put in their all for peer revision if it is not part of their grade. This reminded me of what we read about the Atwell chapter and how to assess students' work. For the most part,  I find myself saying that at the end of the day, students will not do something if they do not have a reason to do it. I think I lean towards the side where everything should somehow be tied to a grade.  This does not mean that students can't build toward a grade and that these grades cannot be negotiated.

http://writing.colostate.edu/guides/teaching/peer/com2b2.cfm