Things That Work: Making Peer Review Work

PEER REVISION GROUP WORKSHEET
ENGLISH 100

Writer:
Editor:

Writer: PLEASE SAVE AND HAND IN WITH FINAL DRAFT. IF YOU DON'T HAVE AT LEAST TWO WORKSHEETS ATTACHED TO YOUR FINAL DRAFT, I WILL LOWER YOUR GRADE BY 1 / 2 A LETTER (i.e., a B+ will become a B, a C will become an F. etc.)

1 a.) Go through and mark with brackets, [ . . . ], and an asterisk, *, all the places where you feel the writer is interpreting, thinking--rather than supplying straight information or summarizing the essay.

1 b.) Which of these moments is most interesting? Which ones make you sit up and take notice or think about the essay in a new way? Give a helpful list of these moments below.

2. Which of the ideas in (1b) serve as a good main idea that could unify the essay?

[Guidelines: A main idea is not simply a statement of fact. For example, "Barbara Garson writes about working at McDonald's" is NOT a main idea. It is so obvious, it's not really worth writing! On the other hand, a main idea is not just opinion. For example. "McDonald's is a disgusting place to work" CANNOT serve as a main idea either. Readers may understand your opinion, but they won't understand how it relates to the ideas of the essay. I am not simply interested in your opinions; I am interested in how your opinions can help you to uncover a new understanding of these essays. Can your opinion help us to uncover a problem with the author's approach. connections between the essays, or help us to see a dispute between the authors in a new light? A better main idea might be something like this: "Barbara Garson's intellectual prejudices blind her from seeing the real interpersonal work that goes on at McDonald's." It's an opinion in as much as it's your idea. However, it also is an idea that engages with the ideas of the essay and shows the reader a different way of thinking about them.]

3. Does the student have at least one quotation for each paragraph? Does the writer make clear how each quotation is being used within the paper?

[Guidelines: Generally the writer should follow each quotation with at least one sentence that explains, in his or her own words, what the quotation means. Then the writer should explain--in several sentences or more-how this quotation is part of his/her argument. This explanation should include references to the actual language used in the quotation and relate it to the more general argument. The more detailed the better. When evaluating their use of quotation, ask yourself whether the author makes clear how this quote relates to his/her main idea. Does the writer show you what is important or significant about this quote for this paper?]

Suggest ways to use at least one quotation better: underline key words in the quotation and ask questions to elicit more interpretation. Specify the quotation you've chosen: page (of writer's essay) _____, author of quotation____________________________________
Please list 2-3 questions about how the quotation relates to what you think is the main idea in order to prompt the reader to be more specific about the connection between argument and quote:

4. Locate at least one place where the writer can strengthen connections between essays. Explain what connection you are working with: essays__________________________________________________
Is the connection between the essays clear? Does this connection relate back to the main argument?
How might he or she explain this connection more specifically?

--David Toise

Peer Review Session (for later in the semester)

You will need a partner for this exercise.

After reading your partner's rough draft, compose a paper that responds to your peer's essay. Write about your peer's work like you would about any of the essays that appear in Ways of Reading. In this model, you will have to make an argument about why and/or how as well as where the essay succeeds and/or fails, employing quotes from your peer's paper as support for your argument. This critique should also consider all the points you look for in our standard peer review session. Does the writer make a common argument or an uncommon and interesting one? Do they make claims without textual evidence? How do the connections they make support their argument? You must incorporate your answers to these questions in the body of your paper as support for your argument, rather than simply answering them in paragraph form. Like you would the essays in Ways of Reading, you should try to complicate, problematize or enhance your peer's reading. This paper should be at least 2-3 pages in length.

-- Piper Kendrix

Peer Revision
This exercise can make students more self-conscious about what they're doing in their essays, and can help them advance from the C range to the B range. Class discussion generally addresses the differences between kinds of analysis (for instance, on the list below, how is #ii different from iii?) and observes that at a certain amount of summary is necessary.

I've found this exercise to be useful around the middle of the semester or shortly thereafter. Select one of the better student essays to copy and distribute to the class. Organize students into small groups, and give them the following assignment:

Discuss your classmate's essay and identify the kind of analysis being undertaken in each paragraph. Write the number (i through iv) in the margin, or make a note if you think the author is doing something that doesn't fit any of the categories. Remember that a single paragraph can contain more than one level of analysis:

i. Summary. Is it directed summary? Is the author using summary to lay the groundwork for later analysis?

ii. Comparison and Contrast.

iii. Using one author's concepts or terms to explain or analyze material from another essay.

iv. Critical interpretation.

Be prepared to report to the class. I'm particularly interested in the places where you think the student is analyzing on levels iii and/or iv. What does it take to develop a critical reading of an essay? How are levels iii and iv related? Is it possible to do level 3 analysis without constructing a critical interpretation (or vice versa)?

The difficulty with this exercise is the difficulty with any attempt at formalization: some students might use it prescriptively, as an outline or model into which they can plug their current assignment. I've found it important to emphasize that there are many different ways of achieving critical interpretation, and that the best readings are those that come out of the drafting process.

--Katie Henry

Making Peer Review Work
For the first assignment, I have the students start peer review in class, but make sure that time will run out before they are finished. That way, I assign the remainder of rough draft workshopping as homework. Students often think that "in-class" work is not worth much, but will take a "homework" assignment seriously. Many think that peer review doesn't help them at all (i.e., "I don't trust my own editing skills, so how and why am I supposed to trust another student just like me?!?"); but if they take their peer's rough draft home and spend an hour editing it, they will believe more in their own ability to edit, and may take the hard work of their peers more seriously as well. This only works if they sign the paper they workshop, and if you make it very clear that you will grade their "homework." In other words, make them accountable for their rough draft workshopping, and give them plenty of time (at home) to be thorough with their work. They will only benefit from the panoptic pressure.

--Michelle Brazier

Beyond Peer Review: Partnering
As we know, some students do not get as much from peer review as we might like since many are reluctant to criticize their classmates' work or want to keep their critiques "politically correct." Indeed, many students have yet to learn to look past the surface revision and work with meaning-centered revision. "Partnering" seems to help students get past that surface layer and address deeper issues in their rough drafts. This strategy works best as a supplement to peer review or as an alternative to class review of photocopied papers, and helps avoid falling into a routine. Here is how it works:

Students should bring a draft they have revised after peer review day. Have the students pair up, making sure they work with someone with whom they have never worked before; like peer review, working with the same people over and over can not only become tedious, it also can detract from its effectiveness.

Have the students read their partner's paper, but unlike peer review, make no marks on the paper. It helps to have Ways of Reading handy for reference as they read.

After reading their partner's paper, the students should write a one-page abstract in which they summarize the paper, point out the main argument or thesis, note the key terms and concepts used by the authors, and if they find it helpful, provide additional general feedback. The abstract is returned with the draft, and reviewed by each student author, who then reads the abstract to see if her intended meaning got across--if the partners were on the same "wavelength," that's a good sign! If not, the places where clarification or elaboration are needed are apparent. The partners next talk about their abstracts, which inevitably leads to references back to the drafts.

The majority of my 101 students find this "personal" touch very effective for helping them identify the strengths and weaknesses within their papers, so much so that in the fall I plan to have the next classes include an abstract as a "cover" page to their rough drafts for peer review day.

--John Abbott