One of the things that stood out to me about this chapter is the author’s insistence that the student who is reviewing a peer’s writing is not an editor. We ought not to focus on grammar and spelling mistakes in the rough draft. I found this surprising as I always welcomed other’s to correct these minor mistakes because, at times, these small errors slide right past me. Similarly, I love the way Richard Straub posits that in reviewing each other’s works, we should respond like thoughtful classmates, and not attempt to be teachers. I think this is a very effective method of constructive criticism.

I took a creative writing class my senior year of high school, and my teacher insisted on peer review in a style that was slightly different than the standard exchange of papers. He removed our names off our papers, made enough copies for each person in the class, and instructed the class to critique the piece (with the author hidden in the audience). Under the cloak of anonymity (though it was the author who was anonymous, I guess it was easier for students to offer unrestrained criticisms without knowing who is specifically listening) students in my class often provided criticism that was not constructive in any way. They would rip apart stories on minor mistakes and failed to praise as frequently. Personally, I didn’t find this activity helpful. (Not because my story was bashed, but because I didn’t find anything to take away from the discussion.) I feel that if the class was presented this chapter prior to looking over each other’s writings, responses would have been much productive and effective.  The students would understand to praise just as much as they critiqued. Similarly, I feel as though they would focus on relevant and significant errors in writing—not just  rushed misspelled words that are missing a letter.