Approaching Peer Revision and Response 

The essence of writing is rewriting. I’ve never thought of rewriting as an unfair burden—extra homework that I don’t deserve. On the contrary, I think it’s a privilege to be able to shape my writing until it’s as clean and strong as I can make it. Like a good watch, it should run smoothly and have no extra parts.

​

Nevertheless, all this rewriting is a chore.

William Zinsser (1988, p. 210)

WI Course Design: Element #3

How does the course engage students in the writing process, including revision? 

​

Writing Intensive courses include assignments which require a multistage revision process to complete a writing assignment. Feedback (from instructors, teaching assistants, and/or peers) is an integral part of the course instruction. Revision involves rethinking and reformulating, not merely editing of conventional and stylistic elements. 

​

Reading Toward Revision

If you had unlimited time, what would you consider best practice for reading and giving feedback on student writing?

Themes from the scholarship on response 

• Teachers are often inefficient in their approaches to responding to student writing.
• With training and accountability, peer response provides similar and often more effective response than teacher response.
• With practice and direction from the teacher most students are capable of effectively assessing their own strengths and weaknesses as writers.

​

From Dan Melzer (2023), Reconstructing Response to Student Writing 

​

The Takeaways: 

More (& different types of) feedback 

More structure for peer feedback

More opportunities for self-assessment

Less teacher time spent actively marking papers

​

Teachers focus feedback on items which require disciplinary and/or genre expertise.

Response-centered 

• Readers merely provide their responses to the piece. 
• Writer has responsibility for deciding what to revise. 

​

Holistic

• Often written in paragraph form at the end of the composition.
• “Ask[s] students to pay attention globally” (Sommers, 2013)

​

Advice-centered 

• Readers provide advice to writers.
• “More product-oriented and directive” (Bean, 2011). 

�

Marginal

• Written in small bits throughout the composition. 
• “Ask[s] students to pay attention locally” (Sommers, 2013).

​

Streamlining Teacher Feedback: 

Applying the Most Efficient Commentary Method for the Task, Version, �and Desired Learning Outcomes 

Simple Feedback Strategy: The Golden Line �(Gallagher, 2005) 

a response-centered, marginal strategy

​

“When [students] find something in the paper they see as exhibiting ____, they highlight it. In the margin, they write brief notes explaining why they recognize these highlighted lines as having a high degree of ____.”

• Craft (i.e., interesting syntax or diction)
• Authority or evidentiary weight
• Critical thinking

This strategy (1) provides affirmative feedback, (2) creates a model for effective writing, and (3) is quick! Instructors, TAs, and peers can use it. 

Have you had peer review crash and burn? 

Improving Peer Response

Why Institute Peer feedback in WI Courses?

• It “provides writers with real readers who must make sense of the writing” (WAC Clearinghouse).
• “A teacher is too good a reader,” one who is able to fill in the blanks and gather the intention even if it’s not there (Elbow, 1998).
• The process can improve both the reviewer’s writing and the author’s writing. A good review session should do both and lead to substantive revision (Bean, 2011).
• Receiving comments on their writing “help[s] students feel less anonymous and convey[s] a sense of academic belonging” (Sommers, 2013). 

. . . and feedback throughout the process helps with the GenAI challenge, too. 

Major factors influencing students’ cheating on writing assignments include

1. time management
2. investment in the writing process

​

~ Sid Dobrin, 2023 AI in Higher Ed Conference Keynote�See his book on AI and Writing here. 

If you want to try out peer feedback: 

• Ask students to focus on one element of the writing at a time. 
• Consider instituting peer feedback sessions for partial drafts (a thesis, an intro, the first half of the paper) 
• Provide clear structure and expectations for examining the element under review. 
• Give students sentence starters like: 
• I appreciate how your language  _______. 
• When I read your thesis statement, I wonder _________. 
• Allow for multiple reviewers per student paper so students receive quality feedback. 

​

Different editors, different jobs

an advice-centered, holistic & marginal strategy

​

Editor #1: Structure 

Editor #2: Language 

​

Philosophy:

• Two editors help each student receive higher quality feedback on their writing.
• A specific focus for commenting allows for more substantive feedback.

Supporting Student Self-Assessment 

​

An editable self-editing checklist from Dr. Birt 

Other Self-Assessment Tools: 

​

Process memos

Reflections 

Response to Reviewers

Half of all errors are due to not editing or proofreading

50 %

We also know writers can catch errors by . . .

• Reading compositions aloud (to themselves, a family member, a group member.
• Locating patterns in their errors.
• For example, multilingual speakers often struggle with article usage—a/an/the—which can sound clunky to native speakers.

How do you teach revision?

• Build it into the syllabus through scaffolding assignments throughout the semester. 
•  Build it into the assignment through a range of writing done toward completing that assignment 
• Include opportunities for prewriting/exploratory writing that students can go back through and pull out the useful bits of text. 
• Incorporate peer review for hands on revision opportunities. 

​