A Revised Method for Effective Peer Response

The Course English 1A, first-year composition Required for all students who plan to transfer or graduate with an A.A. or A.S. degree Required for most vocational certificate programs Focus on writing for the academy with a heavy research component

The Assignment There are two final written assignments in my class: an academic-style, source-based paper and a newspaper article for publication. Both based on a single class theme. The first 9-11 weeks of the class focus on collecting, summarizing, and evaluating research for these final papers (both are versions of the same topic). The final 4-6 weeks focus on refining students’ written work for publication (by employing the writing process).

The Problem During the writing process, students are asked to engage in peer response as a way to stretch and improve their writing and as a way to see that writing is more than an isolated, solitary act. However, the peer response process is often the part of the writing process that seems most weak. Students’ comments are often superficial, ineffective, trite, hurried, uninformed, etc. While I value this practice in theory, I am often frustrated by the real-life classroom results. Is it a waste of class time?

Rethinking the Peer Response Process During the Spring 2010 semester, I attended the Conference on College Composition and Communication. During this conference, I attended a panel presentation which shared research on the comments written by teachers on student papers. Researchers were concerned with how well students understood teacher comments and the efficacy of electronic comments. The research presented helped me rethink and reshape the peer response process in my class.

What the Research Indicated... Student surveys/interviews showed: 100% of students reported that they wanted comments and believed comments could be helpful. However, only 69% found the comments they were receiving (at the time of the study) to be helpful. When reviewing teacher comments, students reported understanding the topic of the comment 74% of the time. However, only 55% were able to determine the reason for the comment (coherence vs. places in the text where coherence needed to be addressed or ways they might address it). Students reported that comments written as fragments or abbreviations, comments that did not include an explanation, or comments focused too much on praise to be generally unhelpful. Additionally, 82% of students reported that face-to-face and marginal comments were the most helpful responses they received.

What the Research Indicated... Other research focused on written comments vs. electronic comments: Researchers found that electronic comments showed positive results. There tended to be more electronic comments than written comments. Electronic comments tended to be lengthier and more directed at the paper. Electronic comments tended to be less focused on praise.

Revising the Peer Response Method to Address the Research Based on this research, I made some changes to the way I conducted peer response in my classroom. The new method: To prepare for peer response, the class discussed, read articles, practiced and modeled “helpful” peer revision practices together. Students wrote drafts of their academic papers. Students were placed in to writing groups. Students provided hard-copy and electronic copies of their writing to their group members. Student writers identified points of strength and weakness in their own writing and shared these thoughts with the group (in order to provide focus and maintain ownership of their writing). Peer responders were required to respond electronically in marginal comments (only) as homework. Peer responders were required to bring comments on the writing to a group conference to debrief the activity. Group conferences were in place of regularly scheduled class: 1 hour 50 minutes per conference.

Example of Electronic Student Comments

The Results of the New Method Student comments did increase and improve: In the draft we will review today there were a total of 51 comments. The comments ranged in length from 3 words words per comment. The average comment contained words. Comments were directive, suggestive, explicit Peer responders, regularly, asked questions.

The Results of the New Method Student comments did increase and improve continued: Peer responders often wrote comments in dialog with each other. The conferences were also very productive: writers asked questions, responders explained responses. Overall, I found that peer responders and writers seemed much more engaged and in control of their writing.

Practice Electronic Commenting Jamie has submitted her rough draft to the writing group. The assignment: “write an academic, source- based paper using a minimum of 6 primary and secondary sources. Your paper can be an explanatory synthesis, an argument synthesis, or an analysis.” Jamie did not complete her rough draft on time and did not do a student-to-editor memo. She didn’t do her draft (on time) due to a severe lack of confidence. Based on your knowledge of the assignment and your experience as a writer, respond to Jamie’s text using the “share” function in Google-docs.

Discuss and Debrief At this stage in the writing process, what would you suggest to Jamie? Where can she make the most profound changes? Explain your responses. What did you think of the electronic commenting experience?

My Inquiry Questions: Where do I go from here? This is a very time-consuming process. In total, the in- class discussion, readings, practice, initial group conference, student-to-editor memo, debriefing conference take 2-3+ weeks (depending on class size). Because it was so effective, I’d like to use the process more frequently. What are some ideas/strategies to make this peer response process a more regular part of my class throughout the semester? Of course in every class, you’ll have students who are less engaged in activities than you’d prefer. What are some strategies that may encourage this type of unengaged student to get more involved in the peer response process?