Successfully Implementing Peer Responses in Writing

by Mona Quinn

Encouraging middle and high school students to become critical readers of their classmates’ writing presents an uncomfortable challenge for many teachers. Because peer pressure to be accepted is so intense at this age, the validity of the peer response and the value of the time commitment spent on this activity are frequently brought into question. Can students honestly evaluate each other’s work? Proponents of peer response say yes, and they maintain that it is an invaluable tool in the teaching of writing. For one thing, it makes writing a collaborative process that helps students realize they have a broader audience than simply themselves and their teachers (Gere, Christenbury, and Sassi, 2005, p. 49). Furthermore, Nancie Atwell suggests that because social relationships are so important, students tend to listen to and incorporate the suggestions of their classmates (1987, p. 41). At the same time, through learning how to articulate strengths and weaknesses in another’s paper, the reader discovers how to identify the same issues in his/her own writing. Thus, “double learning can take place” (Gere, Christenbury, and Sassi, 2005, p. 51).

Once a teacher decides to implement peer responses, setting up a well-structured procedure becomes a major consideration. First, students must be taught how to identify the properties of a paper.

• Checklists can help this process with items representing specific skills emphasized. Generic checklists can be used, but they should be modified to fit the assignment.
• Modeling the use of the checklist is as important as giving students guided practice. To this end, teachers can choose an anonymous sample paper. Each student receives a copy of the sample and completes the checklist independently.
• Class discussion following completion of the checklist can help students share their answers and ask questions. At this point, the teacher can model correct answers, clarify objectives, and help students focus on essential criteria. It is also recommended that the teacher take some time to demonstrate ways to tactfully critique another’s paper.

The next step is setting up the peer response teams. Some teachers suggest allowing students to choose their own partners because they need to feel comfortable with their critics (Atwell, 1987, p. 41). Another strategy employs two reviewers critiquing independently, ensuring that the peer responses are thorough (Marchionda, 2004, p.1). One reviewer may be good at checking content, while another is more adept at mechanics. However a teacher designs the peer response team, teacher monitoring of the process is important to keep students on track.

Finally, follow–up activities are important to reinforce the value of peer responses. Students should be encouraged to retain the completed checklists to consult during revisions of future papers, so they recall their strengths and don’t repeat mistakes. Decisions about mixing partners and groups also need consideration. Teachers should continue modeling to reinforce concepts and introduce new ideas. The bottom lines to successfully implementing peer responses to writing are in the teacher preparation and follow through. When the peer responders are well trained and the teacher monitoring is effective, peer response can be an effective way to support student writing, regardless of the assignment.

Sources

Atwell, N. (1987). In the Middle. Portsmouth: Heinemann.

Gere, A., Christenbury, L., & Sassi, K. (2005). Writing On Demand. Portsmouth: Heinemann.

Peer Editing Resources

A guide to gracious criticism. Retrieved April 20, 2007,

from Handouts List Web site: http://www.gmu.edu/departments/writingcenter/handouts/eiphand.html

Marchionda, D. (2004). The Quarterly. Retrieved April 20, 2007,

from Peer Review Times Two Web site: http://www.nwp.org/cs/public/print/resource/1984

Peer review & feedback forms. Retrieved April 20, 2007,

from Manoa Writing Program Web site: http://www.mwp.hawaii.edu/resources/wm7.htm

(2006). Peer reviews: responding to a draft.

Retrieved April 20, 2007, from The Writing Center University of Wisconsin-Madison Web site: http://www.wisc.edu/writing/Handbook/PeerReviews.html

Mona Quinn

Mona Quinn is a former secondary English teacher who is also a certified Faculty Mentor Trainer, as well as a calibrated Indiana Mentoring and Assessment Program (IMAP) portfolio scorer through the Indiana Department of Education Division of Professional Standards.

This featured article appeared in Volume 2, Number 3 issue of the Write Connections quarterly newsletter. View other archived newsletters , a topical organization of all newsletters, or sign-up to receive notification when the next newsletters are ready to download.