Report #3
FIPP Activity Report
Funded by the Basic Skills Initiative
Name Briita Halonen
Date 11/24/09
FIPP Partner Robin Bouse
Section #6440
Activity /Strategy Graded Peer Reviews
Category Homework/Out-of-Class Expectations
Briefly describe the activity/strategy.
1. Introduction Students conduct structured peer reviews of one another's first
drafts and are then graded on the quality of their feedback to their partners.
2. Set up & Supplies This requires good partners and a clear structure for
feedback. I have done both 1-on-1 partners and groups of 3-4 writers, and I
still have mixed feelings about which is more effective. My students were also
apparently split on this. Some preferred the comfort level and easier time
management of partners while others preferred the variety of feedback they
received from having multiple partners. Either way, I typically match writers of
different (but not too different) skill levels. For partners, I break a class of
twenty into fourths based on writing ability, and I match student #1 with student
#6, student #2 with student #7, student #11 with student #16, student #12 with
student #17 and so on. I also try to mix up linguistic backgrounds to
counterbalance grammatical error patterns, so I'll often match bilingual
students with monolingual, native English speakers. For groups of four, I'll
match students #1 & 2 with students #11 & 12, students #3 & 4 with students
#13 & 14 and so on. This can be the most time-consuming part of the set-up.
Other than that, I give the students a hand-out with specific instructions, which
are listed below.
3. Directions STEPS:
1. Read the Draft Writer A reads his or her own draft aloud while Writer B listens.
During this time, Writer B remains silent.
2. First Impressions (back of last page) After Writer A reads his or her essay
aloud, Writer B takes the paper and writes down his or her first impressions of
it (without rereading) directly onto the back of the paper.
3. Repeat Steps 1 & 2 for Writer B’s Paper
4. Objective Description (left margin) Exchange papers. Read your partner’s
paper silently. Go paragraph by paragraph. In the left margin, summarize
each paragraph. DO NOT give opinion. Simply state the main idea of that
paragraph in a phrase or sentence.
5. Constructive Evaluation (right margin & back of paper) Silently read through
your partner’s paper once more. Go paragraph by paragraph, but this time ask
questions, give compliments and offer suggestions in the right margin. There
should be at least one-four comments per paragraph. On the back of the
paper, below your first impressions, write five – eight sentences summarizing
your suggestions. Explain (in writing not speech) which revisions the author
should prioritize.
6. Discussion The writers then reconvene (come back together) and discuss the
essay. First, Writer B explains his or her written feedback to Writer A. Writer A
resists the urge to talk and just listens, making notes, and writing down the
readers' questions. When it is Writer A's turn to talk, he or she can ask for
clarification, explain confusing areas, and the partners can work out solutions
together. Then, repeat the discussion process for Writer B’s paper.
4. Conclusion The first time that we do peer review, I explain step 1 and then they
do it, I explain step 2 and then they do it, and so on. After that, I can generally
just let them spend the whole class period working through the stops with their
partner. During their peer reviews, I walk around to each group giving credit for
the level of completion of each draft (I don't read each one; I simply scan it for
thesis, length, use of quotes, etc.). When the final drafts are turned in, the
students attach the first draft and I grade the reviewing student for the quality
and quantity of his or her feedback. In prior semesters, I also graded the
writing student on the extent to which he or she implemented the feedback, but
I found that to be too time-consuming.
What worked well? Given the resounding positivity in the student surveys, they seem to
have found the additional perspective very helpful! Also, the final drafts by students
who had participated in peer reviews were dramatically better than the final drafts of
students who had not participated in peer reviews.
What would you change? I still can't decide whether to have groups of two or four…. I do
like to keep the groups consistent so that they can build trust with one another, so
perhaps I will do groups of four in the beginning for the shorter papers and groups of
two later in the semester.
Would you use the activity/strategy again? Why or why not? Definitely. It builds
community in the classroom, it prevents written-the-night-before papers, it teaches
young writers the value of writing as a process, and it gives them the "reader's"
perspective on their paper before it is graded. It is absolutely worthwhile.
Please describe any student learning outcomes/changes that you observed after the
implementation of the activity/strategy. The peer review process helps improve the
students' accomplishment of nearly all aspects of the English 1A SLO: "students …
show the ability to support a single thesis using analysis, to synthesize and integrate
materials effectively from a variety of sources, and to cite sources in MLA format
(including a workscited page). The report is organized, technically correct in paragraph
composition, sentence structure, grammar, spelling and word use, and demonstrates a
thoughtful treatment of the topic." I especially notice improvement in paragraph
composition, grammar, and thoughtfulness.