Student peer review sessions often result in students going through the motions, providing superficial comments and a few edits in order to fulfill a class requirement. In this session, we’ll explore why this happens and a scaffolding method that engages blended and online students to collaborate and produce meaningful feedback.
Peer review sessions between students often result in students simply going through the motions, providing superficial comments and making a few edits in order to fulfill a class requirement. Conducting peer review in blended and online classes can present special challenges, and because of this some instructors choose to omit it. However, in classes with a significant writing component, it is hard to deny that peer review needs to be part of the curriculum. Orlando (2011) made the point that researchers do not submit work to journals without undergoing peer review, so why should we expect students to forgo the same beneficial process before we grade their work?
In a brief review of the literature on student peer review of writing, it was found that Moore (2016) agreed with VanDeWeghe (2004) that students are not trained to do peer reviews. Moore shared a memo method to focus peer review and review by instructors. She also recommended a frank discussion of past peer review experiences, holding them accountable for their feedback, and modeling the feedback they are expected to give.
Not only do students need to be trained, but also they need to practice giving and receiving feedback for more than a single semester or year to be effective at it (Simmons, 2003). Simmons also found that students who undergo training and practice reviewing learn to be both better reviewers and writers.
Some studies focused on student attitudes toward peer review experiences. Wolfe (2004) shared that students liked peer review of assignments, as it provided fast feedback and helped to build community in the class. On the other hand, Lu and Bol (2007) noted that students perform better when doing peer reviews anonymously. Ertmer et al.’s (2007) examination of peer review found that students noted it as a “valuable” experience and that giving reviews helps students to come to a better understanding of course topics (p. 421).
While writing instructors can generally find time to integrate the teaching of peer review skills into their lessons, this is not always the case, and disciplines other than English can be writing intensive. Indeed, Cho and Schunn (2005) felt instructors within the disciplines are too busy to teach students to write, let alone teach peer review, or provide feedback themselves and re-grade work that was revised based on that feedback. Meaningful peer review in the disciplines is usually harder for students, as well, because undergraduates are less likely to have enough content knowledge to do more than give comments on style and do some editing (Cho & Schunn).
In this session, we’ll explore the scaffolding for both blended and online classes that the presenter uses, one which incorporates many of the ideas and considerations from the studies cited here, and engages students to work together to provide meaningful feedback to one another’s work prior to submission for grading. We’ll also discuss how the activities shared could be incorporated into classes that are not in the English department. Copies of all materials shared in the presentation will be posted on the OLC site for download or linked for access. Participants will be asked to share their experiences, as well.
References
Cho, K., & Schunn, C. D. (2007). Scaffolded writing and rewriting in the discipline: A web-based reciprocal peer-review system. Computers and Education, 48, 409-426.
Ertmer, P. A., Richardson, J. C., Belland, B., Camin, D., Connolly, P., Coulthard, G., Lei, K., & Mong, C. (2007). Using peer feedback to enhance the quality of student online postings: An exploratory study. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12, 412-433.
Lu, R., & Bol, L. (2007). A comparison of anonymous versus identifiable e-peer review on college student writing performance and the extent of critical feedback. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 6(2), 100-115.
Moore, C. (2016 Jun. 6). Frame your feedback: Making peer review work in class. Faculty Focus.
Orlando, J. (2011, Nov. 22). Using peer review to improve student writing. Faculty Focus.
Simmons, J. (2003). Responders are taught, not born. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 46(8), 684-693.
VanDeWeghe, R. (2004). “Awesome, Dude!” Responding helpfully to peer writing. English Journal, 94(1), 95-99.
Wolfe, W. J. (2004). Online student peer reviews. Presented at the ACM Special Interest Group on Information Technology Education Annual Conference, October 28-30, 2004, Salt Lake City, UT,