Peer Response Improvement
Student writers need far more feedback than any single teacher can provide.
What’s more, responding to someone else’s work can be a learning experience for
the responder as well as for the recipient of the advice. For these reasons,
many experts recommend the use of peer response groups, groups of students who
respond to the work of their classmates.
There are many different ways to set up such groups in the classroom. Some
teachers prefer to assign students to long-term groups which meet on a regular
schedule. Others assign students to groups, but change the composition of the
groups often. Other teachers identify certain students who form a revising
committee and another group which functions as an editing committee. Students
take their papers to these committees whenever they need help. Periodically the
membership of these groups changes. Teachers who are using a workshop approach
often prefer to let the groups form and dissolve according to need. Students who
need help with revising put their names on the board and when four or five names
appear, the group gathers for as long as they need to meet to help each other.
Similarly, editing groups are formed and then disband when their work is done.
Other teachers allow students to decide whether they need to recruit a group or
just share their work informally with people they choose. Each of these systems
has advantages and drawbacks, such that no single method has been found to be
more effective than the others.
What we need to focus on is not how the groups are formed but what happens in
them. How can we help students provide effective responses to peers’ writings?
If peer response groups are to function at all, students must be taught how to
work together. They also have to know the teacher’s rules and expectations for
group work. It is helpful if students have worked together enough to trust each
other and share their writing and their responses willingly. Even when these
circumstances exist, students may still be unable to offer constructive
criticism. They may give each other suggestions which will help initiate writing
and they may offer additional ideas while the writer is drafting, but they may
falter when they need to suggest improvements. They may. for example, praise
work even when they know it is awful, point out only the surface errors, or
criticize in a way that demeans the writer (e.g., “That’s a dumb idea! What a
stupid paper!”). Actually, none of these responses should surprise us. When
students share papers informally, they usually share with friends. Friends are
expected to support and encourage, not criticize. They really don’t want to hurt
the writer’s feelings. The correction of mechanics is often a reflection of what
teachers and parents point out when they look at papers, so students may be
doing nothing more than modeling adult behavior. Whenever students work in small
groups, peer pressure is a factor. Offensively critical comments are the same
kinds of put-downs young people use in social groups to establish a pecking
order. Thus, offering unwarranted praises or sharp, personal criticisms are
typical behaviors. If we want students to behave differently, we have to teach
them how to respond.
To help students, we need to know first what we can expect from them.
Observations indicate that responses typically form a hierarchy. The lowest
level of response, the one used by inexperienced responders, is a subjective
personal response. The reader basically states whether or not the topic is of
personal interest. If the reader likes the topic, then the paper is judged as
okay. The second level of response is to comment on the surface features of the
work. The reader points out factors such as length, neatness of handwriting, and
mechanical accuracy (i.e., incorrect spelling, punctuation, and so forth). The
third level includes comments about the effectiveness of the content as basic
communication. The reader may note, for example, that part of a paper makes
sense but another part seems incomplete. The next higher level of response is
one which includes some comment about how the writer expressed content. For
instance, the reader may say that the paper is good because it shows imagination
or has well developed characters. The highest level of response is one which
includes some concern for how well the paper addressed audience needs. For
example, the reader may note that the writing could offend some readers or that
it should entertain a broad range of readers. Much of what students do is at
Level 1; they give a subjective personal response which is not very helpful to
the writer.Students may also use a Level 2 response, especially if surface
features are what their own teachers have emphasized. What most of us want is
for students to move to the higher levels where they look at the piece more
objectively and respond to its communicative quality, the effectiveness of
expression, and its impact on the audience.
But how do you get students to move beyond personal reactions and surface
features? In Strategies for Teaching the Composing Process (Koch & Brazil, pp.
8-12) there is a section on evaluating essays which makes an excellent point.
Students may need reassurances that they can recognize good writing. Often they
feel that what they consider good is not the same as what the teacher and other
adults consider good. They really have little confidence in their own judgment.
The book suggests that students be given three essays written by students whom
they do not know. Working independently, they are to read each paper carefully
and write notes telling why and how each paper represents good and/or bad
writing. Students then meet in small groups, share their comments, and determine
which comments were made most often and with which ones everybody agrees. These
are recorded. Then they are shared with the class. A summary statement for each
essay is written on the board. The teacher and the class discuss the
similarities which appeared and acknowledge that they all can recognize good
writing and agree on which papers are best.
Once this confidence is established, the teacher can move on to address the
quality of responses. One way to help students focus attention is to distinguish
clearly between revising and editing. To accomplish this the teacher can insist
that students read their papers to peers but not exchange them when the goal is
revising. Then when they edit, papers should be exchanged. This approach does
help students avoid the trap of attending to mechanics when they need to focus
on content. This also gives the teacher an opportunity to teach strategies
associated with these two different writing activities.
One of the most effective ways to teach students how to revise and edit in small
groups is to use a 3-step sequence:
1. Model
2. Fishbowl demonstrations
3. Independent practice
To model, the teacher begins working with the whole class as they examine a
student-written (anonymous and not from this class) paper. This may be done by
giving each student a Xerox copy of the paper or by making an overhead
transparency of it. The teacher helps the students understand the kinds of
questions to ask and the kinds of comments that are most likely to be helpful to
the writer by modeling. A fishbowl demonstration is one in which a single small
group meets in the middle of the classroom and conducts a discussion while the
rest of the class sits around behind them and listens. The discussion may be
interrupted occasionally to point out or discuss with the whole class what is
going on and how the discussion could be improved. When the discussionis done,
the teacher leads a class assessment of how well the group functioned, what
helped the group move forward, what hindered the group, and what comments seemed
to be of most help to the writers. The next step is to have students practice in
their own small groups. As they do this, the teacher must circulate, listen,
prod, and praise. She must keep in mind that the goal is to teach the students
how to respond in small groups. At this point the process is more important than
the result. Throughout these three steps, students use papers provided by the
teacher rather than their own papers.
When the students begin to use their own papers, the 3-step sequence might be
repeated with reminders aboutcommenting on the writing and not the writer. Also,
those who are sharing papers with their group members should be advised to
listen and jot notes while others respond, but to not talk except to answer
questions posed by the responders. The reason for this is that students have a
tendency to defend their work. This often leads to arguments rather than
responses. Since the writer retains ownership and decides what advise to take
and what to disregard, defenses are generally unnecessary in response groups. As
students come to trust one another, they will gradually learn when it is
appropriate to explain something which the group has misunderstood. In the
meantime, writers should simply note that something went awry because the group
missed the point they were trying to make.
While we hope that response groups will help writers produce better papers, it
is important to keep in mind that one of the main reasons for response groups is
to involve students in discussions about composing. One way to do this is to use
sentence combining activities as a starting point. The entire class can be given
an uncued sentence combining activity which they work on independently. They
then write their results on an overhead transparency, a paper for Xeroxing, or
the chalkboard. The variations are discussed and compared. One significant value
of this approach is that no single version is best. Rather, different versions
achieve different aims and produce different audience reactions. All of these
can be discussed. This activity can then be repeated in small groups once
students understand how the discussion is supposed to proceed. Eventually,
students can use their own writing as the basis for similar activities and
discussion.
Another possibility for involving students in discussion of composing is to
engage them in devising the criteria for evaluation. In general, this is
difficult to do until students have had some experience with the task at hand.
If this is the first time that students have attempted a particular kind of
writing, then they need to work on the discourse for awhile before trying to
identify the factors which distinguish an effective from an ineffective product.
Another method is to have students complete a sequence of activities which leads
to devising a sound list of criteria. One such sequence which has been found
useful with college freshmen begins with students interviewing each other in
pairs. Students then write a personal ad for themselves to which a partner
responds in a structured way by restating some of the information in writing.
The next task is the writing of a letter of application for a job. Once students
know what the assignment is, the class brainstorms the criteria for evaluating
the papers. Based on what the class with the teacher’s assistance sets up, a
response sheet can be devised which students use to guide their discussions.
There are many other approaches which can be used to help students become more
effective responders. You might want to try some of the activities suggested in
“Peer Response: Teaching Specific Revision Suggestions” or the sequence
recommended in “Improving Students’ Responses to Their Peers’ Essays.” One of
the most elaborate systems for improving responses is a sequence of experiences
designed by Peter Elbow and Patricia Belanoff which is described in their book,
Sharing and Responding. While these experiences were designed for college
students, several of them can be used at the secondary and even elementary
levels. There is also a videotape available which explains and demonstrates each
of these techniques.
One final point to keep in mind is the idea that finding problems and fixing
them are two different operations. Response groups may help writers find
difficulties, but they may still be unable to help them improve the work.
Nevertheless, being able to locate and communicate about strengths and problems
are necessary first steps.
Recommended Further Reading:
Elbow, P., & Belanoff, P. (1989). Sharing and responding. NY: Random House.
Grimm, N. (1986). Improving students’ responses to their peers’ essays, in
Staffroom interchange, College Composition and Communication, 37 (1), 91-94.
Koch, C., & Brazil, J. (1978). Strategies for teaching the composing process.
Urbana, IL: NCTE.
Neubert, G. & McNelis, S. (1990). Peer Response: Teaching specific revision
suggestions. English Journal, 79 (5), 52-56.
I used this form with my class for their recent speeches. It worked really well! It is ...