Dan Libertz: In-Class Peer Response

The goal of the activity is to introduce students to having a systematic approach to receiving and giving feedback in a writing group. The idea is not necessarily to impose upon them any one system, but to give them a system to try out that asks them to bring something to the meeting and fulfill roles during the meeting (see Gere). Otherwise, students might come to conduct peer review in ways that use very different criteria than those that we as instructors might endorse (see Newkirk) or they might exacerbate gender, racial, linguistic, class, or other inequities due to uneven commitment of time or ineffective approaches (e.g., Stygall; Grobman; Launspach; Ruecker).

Along with this activity, time committed to establishing norms of evaluating and commenting on writing should be developed with the class (e.g., discussions, modeling and demonstrations, practice) prior to engaging in peer review (see Gere; Newkirk) and also to more generally consider what is understandable and good feedback (see Crook).

Students come to the class already having done homework where they have an in-progress draft ready and they come with a note about what they want feedback on, they each take on roles, and they follow a set of procedures for taking turns with each of their drafts.

Both document design and time estimates for each portion of the activity were provided, too, to make things a bit more organized and less overwhelming. Finally, part of the homework up front is to let the student know that they can opt out of reading aloud. Though there is research that suggests reading aloud can be good for revision–especially for sentence-level revisions (Bartholomae; Elbow;  Çetinkaya) — it is a good point that students could have a good reason for not wanting to do that. Previously, I did the opt-out sort of ad hoc as a classroom announcement (e.g., “let me know if anyone would have issues reading aloud and we can come up with an alternative”) but I think it makes sense to formalize things more.

In-Class Peer Response Guidelines[1]

What is it?

Peer response (also called “peer review”) is taking the time reading the writing of classmates to provide a reading response and some feedback to help the writer see whether their writing is achieving the goals they want it to achieve and to get some thoughts on how to revise going forward.

Purpose. 

Writing should be read. A writer reading their own writing “fills in gaps” and knows what they mean in different and often more complete ways than other readers. By having other readers of your writing, you gain an advantage of having a “test” audience to see whether what you tried to do is working or not and you get an opportunity to get a reaction from a reader that might help you shape your writing in ways you wouldn’t have thought of without their help. It makes for a richer revision process.

Homework.

Before class, complete the following and submit it to this Discussion thread on Blackboard [or Google Drive or whatever; just needs to be a place where material can be uploaded]:

  • Title your post by your name and assignment name (e.g., “Dan Libertz, Research Project, Draft 1”).
  • Upload a copy of your in-progress draft.
  • In no more than 200 words, explain what you want feedback on, why you want feedback on it, and any questions you have about where to go next with the draft (e.g., “please let me know if second to last section makes sense in connection to main argument,” “please let me know if my claims seem well supported by the evidence I provide,” “please let me know if I’m summarizing too much with little analysis,” “please let me know if I’m doing too many direct quotes in ways that make it hard to read,” “please let me know if my sentences are too long and it is hard to read”).
  • Optional: Email the professor separately to indicate if you have any reservations about reading your draft aloud or participating in peer response with classmates. You can opt out of reading aloud or participating. I do find it valuable to do both, as we will talk about in class, but there are good reasons for opting out that I understand (e.g., speech issues, writing about something highly personal). We can find an alternative, if need be (e.g., reading silently, I can require the whole class reads silently to ensure anonymity, partnering with me for peer response instead of other classmates, making requests for classmates you would be comfortable working with.

Instructions, Day of Peer Response Activity (60-75 minutes).

In your Writing Groups, follow these steps for each writer:

1.       Exchange Writing and Questions for Feedback (time estimate: 5-10 minutes).

  • Log into Blackboard and download your group members’ drafts and read through their Discussion board post about the draft about the kind of feedback they want.

2. Assign Roles (1-2 minutes)

  • Before beginning with the first writer, the other 2 group members will either be the “primary note taker” or the “timekeeper.” The primary note taker will take notes during discussion portions so the writer has clear notes about what the feedback was and what the next steps might be for revision. The timekeeper makes sure the group stays on task and that each writer gets roughly equal time. They pay attention to the time estimates for each portion and interject in discussion to make sure there is enough time for everyone.

2.      Writer Reads Aloud, Responders Listen (time estimate: 10 minutes)

  • Writer reads aloud their in-progress draft. This is IMPORTANT. Lots of research suggests that reading aloud helps writers more easily identify changes to make (especially sentence-level changes) because reading silently allows us to “skip over” parts of what we are reading. Reading aloud productively slows us down.
  • As writer reads aloud, the writer should feel free to stop to write down a note about something they want to change.
  • Responders should also take notes as they read. They should note:
    • Things they find important and exciting in the argument or narrative elements from a big-picture perspective.
    • They should also note specific sentences or phrases that they find beautiful or particularly impactful.
    • Finally, the responders should note places that they doubt or don’t understand, where cutting or revision might be necessary, and places that are working but could use a push in a more sophisticated direction.

3.  Responders Repeat Back What They Heard (time estimate: 10 minutes)

  •  After the writer is finished reading aloud, responders take turns repeating back what they heard in terms of what they think the piece is doing in general. Follow this format in terms of a question: “this seems to be about _______?” or “the focus here is about _______ and _______?” If other group members have similar responses, they can agree with previous responders.
  • The writer can respond by talking through the big picture of their draft in response to the responders about their general take-away.
  •  Responders then share what is positive about the piece based on their notes about big-picture elements and also smaller sentence-level elements that are interesting to them. WRITER: take notes.
  • Responders then share where they think the draft might be getting stuck and proposed approaches in revision (e.g., expanding a section, cutting something, giving more focus on one area but less on another, a new approach to the argument). WRITER: take notes.
  •  Writer then repeats back what they hear as the big takeaways overall based on responder feedback. WRITER: take notes.
  • Responders clarify anything and follow up with refined ideas for revision. WRITER: take notes.
  • Together, writer and responders write down at least two steps to take toward revision. PRIMARY NOTE TAKER: go through your notes to assist in capturing anything most important from the conversation.
  • Finally, gratitude!!!!!! The responders thank the writer for sharing their writing with them. Writing is sacred; it is sharing a part of yourself. It is hard to share writing with other people! Likewise, the writer thanks responders for taking time to read and respond with useful feedback.
  • Once this is done, shift to the next writer and follow above steps again for this different draft and writer.

In subsequent peer response activities, you might want to try other strategies that differ from this initial structured version we did today. But I wanted you to start with a model to get a feel for how this can work. Next time, experiment with other things that you and your group feel works best for you to get good-quality feedback on your writing.

[1] Adapted from Benjamin Miller’s use of Sondra Perl and Mimi Schwartz’s Writing True.

Works Cited

Bartholomae, David. “The Study of Error.” College Composition and Communication, vol. 31, no. 3, 1980, pp. 253-269.

 Çetinkaya, Gökhan. “A Comparative Evaluation on Silent and Read-Aloud Revisions of Written Drafts.” International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, vol. 12, no. 2, 2020, pp. 560-572.

Crook, Stephanie. “A Social-Constructionist Review of Feedback and Revision Research: How Perceptions of Written Feedback Might Influence Understandings of Revision Processes.” College Composition and Communication, vol. 73, no. 3, 2022, pp. 593-614.

Elbow, Peter. “Part Three: Reading Aloud to Revise: A Role for the Tongue during Late Stages of Writing.” In Vernacular Eloquence: What Speech Can Bring to Writing. Oxford UP, 2012, pp. 213-340.

Gere, Ann Ruggles. “Part III: Implications.” In Writing Groups: History, Theory, and Implications. Southern Illinois UP, 1987, pp. 99-123.

Grobman, Laurie. “Building Bridges to Academic Discourse: The Peer Group Leader in Basic Writing Peer Response Groups.” Journal of Basic Writing, vol. 18, no. 2, 1999, pp. 47-68.

Launspach, Sonja. “The Role of Talk in Small Writing Groups: Building Declarative and Procedural Knowledge for Basic Writers.” Journal of Basic Writing, vol. 27, no. 2, 2008, pp. 56-80.

Newkirk, Thomas. “Direction and Misdirection in Peer Response.” College Composition and Communication, vol. 35, no. 3, 1984, pp. 301-311.

Ruecker, Todd. “Analyzing and Addressing the Effects of Native Speakerism on Linguistically Diverse Peer Review.” In Peer Pressure, Peer Power: Theory and Practice in Peer Review and Response for the Writing Classroom, edited by Steven J. Corbett et al., Fountainhead Press, 2014.

Stygall, Gail. “Women and Language in the Collaborative Writing Classroom.” In Feminism and Composition Studies: In Other Words, edited by Susan C. Jarratt and Lynn Worsham, Modern Language Association, 1998, pp. 252-275.