Peer
Pressure,
Peer
Power:
Toward Systematic Collaborative Peer Review in the Composition
and Writing Across the Curriculum Classroom
Andrea L. Beaudin, Instructor
Steven J. Corbett, Ph.D., Co-Director, Composition Program
Ilene W. Crawford, Ph.D., Co-Director, Composition Program
Department of English, Southern Connecticut State University
Theory and Process–by Dr. Steven J. Corbett
At Southern Connecticut State University, New Haven, the Composition Program
aligns itself closely with the Writing Across the Curriculum Program. Together we
work to help faculty provide the best possible instruction in writing to students across
the disciplines. One of our most successful initiatives has been in our attention to the
practice of peer review and response.
What Is Peer Review and Why Do It?
Peer review is more than just having students read and comment on each other’s papers. The idea
of peer review extends into what academics do—to the idea of disciplinarity. We research and write.
Then we submit our writing to “peer reviewers” who comment on our essays in different ways, and
either accept or reject our attempts at publication. I believe that for students, we should think of peer
review in similar ways. Peer review can be “sold” to students for what it really is—the process through
which academic writing and communication gets done.
Peer review can get the power of student-student/student-teacher reciprocal teaching and learning moving full steam ahead. Rather than having the teacher play the role of all-wise, all-knowing,
systematic collaborative peer review can send a loud and clear message to students that they have
much to teach as well as learn—that the processes of teaching and learning go together quite well
and make each other, and everyone involved, much stronger. By conducting peer review in a systematic and collaborative way—by making it central to our curriculum—students and teachers can learn
to internalize the writing strategies and moves they wish to continue using and developing (and
avoid less-desired strategies and moves) so they can externalize these writing techniques in other
composing and communicative situations. (See Appendix for a brief literature review.)
Peer Pressure, Peer Power | Some Things to Consider
The huge variety of ways/methods of peer review
I think the way to approach peer review (as with most teaching) is with an experimental attitude. Start having students read and comment on each other’s papers, and soon you will begin
to make adjustments that suit your—and your students’—needs and desires. There is much choice
involved in the art of systematic collaborative peer review. For example, two things I have experimented with successfully over the years are:
1) Inviting peer tutors from the writing center into the classroom to help facilitate peer response.
Students can learn to analyze peer writing, and consequently their own writing better if
knowledgeable peers (tutors) circulate among the groups during writing workshops. Tutors
can help the instructor listen for how the students talk to each other about their writing and
can offer advice or strategies for communicating ideas as productively and helpfully as possible. This can also help build rapport with your campus writing center(s), tutors, instructors,
and students.
2) We play a little in-class game called 7-UP. In this game students read 7 of their peers’ papers.
They then rank them from strongest to weakest. Then they come into class and write their #1
choice on the board. As a class we take the top 2-3 papers and, with the writers’ permission,
project them on a screen and discuss and critique together as a class. Sometimes we even go
one step further and start with already-peer-reviewed papers. That way, students are studying
and critiquing models of strong peer reviews. With this method, both the reviewers and the
writers can discuss the process aloud for everyone’s benefit.
How to form groups/partners
An important initial choice involves how to form groups. Experts debate on the optimal size of
groups, but a good working group should be between 3-5 students. Again, you can experiment
with groups of 2, 3, 5. (I usually have them work in groups of 3 and sometimes 2; groups of 5 might
only be used for shorter papers.) Groups should be formed early in the term. Experiment a little with
how you form groups. For example:
1) You can have students initially form their own groups. They will typically gravitate toward
folks sitting close by.
2) You can form groups after, perhaps, seeing writing samples from your students.
3) Or you can do a combination of the two above: have them initially form their own groups,
then mix them up from time to time depending on the task.
Group members should exchange contact information. These group partnerships can also be utilized
for other collaborative learning endeavors and projects.
| Peer Pressure, Peer Power
How to give comments/feedback
You will want to explore and develop the many ways students can give each other feedback.
Do you want to have students give feedback during class or out of class? Do you want students
to talk about their essays before giving written feedback or after? How much conversation should be
included in peer review? (For example, having the reviewer read the essay and supply verbal suggestions while the reviewee writes commentary can work quite well.) Should commentary be hand-written or digital/typed?
I usually have students peer review papers first. Then I have them rewrite their papers. Then they submit these second drafts to me for my commentary (along with a little note describing what they’ve
done and what they’d like me to look out for). You can even comment on the same review as one or
more of the writer’s partners if you use different fonts or especially colors. This can create an on-thepage dialogue that can be very useful overall.
How to train students
Importantly, students must be provided with ongoing, iterated training in peer review. Experts
encourage students to focus on higher-order concerns (HOCs) like claim, structure, and evidence
first in early drafts and later-order concerns (LOCs) like grammar and spelling in later more final
drafts. It is also a good idea to encourage a mix of praise and constructive criticism. Many students
feel they don’t have the authority or expertise to give constructive criticism. But ALL students can
be taught the value of giving substantial, detailed, and specific analytic praise to work they feel they
have nothing to “criticize.” After providing detailed summary and analysis of what works well in their
peers’ papers—repeatedly—sooner or later weaker writers will begin to incorporate some of those
same moves into their own writing. Students can also be given a rubric, perhaps the same rubric you
will use for assessing their writing, so everyone can be on the same page as far as expectations.
How to assess
You will need to develop methods of assessing peer review in order for students to truly take it
seriously. In my writing courses, peer review counts as 20% of their overall grade. Assessment (as
all good assessment should) then becomes integral to how you are training students to tutor each
other with their writing and writing processes.
1) Students should also be well-aware of the course goals and objectives, how they relate to
what they are writing, and how they can work in the language of the course goals and objectives into their reviews. If you are using a rubric for peer review, make sure they closely reflect
these goals and objectives.
2) A good way to get students involved in this assessment is to have them write about the process, including their own and their reviewers’ performances. I have students write two formal
letters to me— one closer to the midterm, one towards the final—that detail how they think
the overall process is working.
Teaching while Learning
Finally, peer review is a truly reciprocal learning experience—we will learn as much if not more
than our students. We can learn to be better responders to student writing. We can learn to be
better at, and perhaps conduct more frequent, one-to-one conferences. We can learn the value of
multi-draft or portfolio writing instruction. And we can learn just how much students have to teach
(and learn from) us and one another.
Peer Pressure, Peer Power | Appendix
At the 2009 Conference on College Composition and Communication in San Francisco, Chris
Anson presented on “The Current Nature of Response to Student Writing: Results from a National Survey of 23,000 Students.” This study shared “large-scale and situated analyses of the
state of the art in response practices today across a variety of settings and considered how current
theoretical developments in understanding discourse, learning, and pedagogy might reshape our
understanding of response.” Informed by this and other studies, Anson and his colleagues argued
that there are two things writing programs and instructors need to focus on to strengthen student
engagement and success in writing courses: 1. Systematic collaborative peer review; and 2. Interactions with peer tutors. Much has been written on the value—both pros and cons—of collaborative
peer review and response (CPRR) in the writing classroom since Kenneth Bruffee’s first edition of A
Short Course in Writing in 1972 (see, for example, Elbow; George; Newkirk; Grimm; Gere; Spear; Holt;
Bishop; Harris; Cazden; Murphy; Belcher; Spigelman and Grobman; Moss, Highberg, and Nicolas;
Corbett, “Bringing the Noise,” “The Role of the Emissary”; Corbett and Guerra; Corbett and LaFrance).
At SCSU we seek to provide new and experienced teaching assistants and instructors, writing center
personnel, and WAC personnel with workshops for CPRR where we engage with: information on the
variety of ways/methods of designing and conducting peer review; how to form groups/partners;
various ways to give comments/feedback; how to train students (including how to get students to
take CPRR seriously); how to assess student performance; and, importantly, how, when, and why to
engage in this pedagogical endeavor.
Over the past forty years, scholars have written on how CPRR can get the resuscitating power of
student-student and student-teacher reciprocal teaching and learning moving full steam ahead. In
the late 1960s Bruffee came upon the work of William Schwartz, who was moving away from the
predominantly individual, one-to-one model of social work in the ‘60s and ‘70s, to a model focusing
on “the social worker as a mediator interacting with small groups” (Trimbur and Kail xxiii). This interest in small group mutual aid led to his first edition of A Short Course in Writing in 1972. Anne Ruggles
Gere, in her influential 1987 monograph, linked Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development theory to
the history and implications of writing groups outside and inside the classroom. Gere claimed that
close in-class collaborations between students and teachers and students and each other allow each
to explore how the authority of the individual can coexist with the authority of consensus. Students
become empowered as their communication apprehensions are loosened, while “they discover new
capacities in themselves as they collaborate” (64). Students learn together the meta-language that
brings them closer to understanding how academic communication is dialogically constructed.
Rather than having the teacher play the role of all-wise, all-knowing, systematic CPRR can send a loud
and clear message to students that they have much to teach as well as learn—that the processes of
teaching and learning go together quite well and make each other, and everyone involved, much
stronger. By conducting CPRR in a systematic and collaborative way—by making it central to our
curriculum—students and teachers can learn to internalize the writing strategies and moves they
wish to continue using and developing (and avoid less-desired strategies and moves) so they can
externalize these writing techniques in other composing, pedagogical, and communicative situations
(Vygotsky; Burke, 311; Bruffee, Collaborative Learning).
But others have questioned this somewhat pretty picture of CPRR. Donald Stewart, drawing on Isabel
Briggs Myers, pointed out that people with different personality types will have more trouble collab | Peer Pressure, Peer Power
orating well with each other. In “Collaboration Is Not Collaboration Is Not Collaboration” Harris, focusing more on issues like experience and confidence rather than personality types (although there may
be a connection), compares peer response groups and one-to-one peer tutoring (also see Belcher,
108-9, for comparisons to student-teacher conferences). She explains how one-to-one tutoring at a
writing center offers the kind of individualized, nonjudgmental focus lacking in the classroom, and
how peer response is done “in the context of course guidelines” in the classroom with practice in
working with a variety of reviewers (381). But she also raises some concerns, especially pertinent to
CPRR. One problem involves how students might evaluate each other’s writing with a different set
of standards than their teachers: “Students may likely be reinforcing each other’s abilities to write
discourse for their peers, not for the academy—a sticky problem indeed, especially when teachers
suggest that an appropriate audience for a particular paper might be the class itself” (379). Obviously, the issue here is student authority and trust. Further, many students new to peer response, or
others who have tried it with little success in the past, may discount CPPR altogether. Since students
have not been trained in the arts of peer response, how, then, can they be expected to give adequate
response when put into groups, especially if the student is a first-year or an otherwise inexperienced
academic writer? How can students reap the benefits of both individualized and small-group CPRR?
Writing programs like the ones at Penn State, Berks, and the University of Washington, Seattle,
among many others, have answered Wendy Bishop’s 1988 call to be “willing to experiment” (124) with
CPRR group work. Practitioners have experienced first-hand the substantial collaborative value(s)
CPRR can inspire in their pedagogies, in the learning growth and development of their students. Still,
student anxiety around issues of plagiarism and autonomous originality can be hard to dispel. Spigelman suggests that students need to know how the collaborative generation of ideas differs from
plagiarism. If students can understand how and why authors share and appropriate ideas, they may
be more willing to experiment with more collaborative writing practices. Drawing on the work of
Andrea Lunsford, she concludes that “if we want our students to experience nonhierarchical forms of
learning, we will need to make explicit what is at stake in this effort” (204; also see Cazden 131-4). But
can this explicit meta-awareness in itself really help mitigate the deep socio-cultural force of student
desire and dependence on teacher—rather than peer—authority? Spigelman’s own accounts, as
well as the accounts of the scholars above, suggest that it is no easy job to work toward restructuring
authority and trust in the writing classroom. How can we, and why should we, make CPRR a central—
even the central—part of our teaching (and learning) in the writing classroom?
Sample Syllabus and Guidelines for Using MS Word for
Peer Review– by Dr. Ilene W. Crawford
Peer Pressure, Peer Power | Crawford spring 2006 ENG 112 course sched/1
English 112.37 Course Schedule
We meet TR 11-12:15 in EN A 109. The following schedule is subject to change. It is your
responsibility to keep track of all announced changes.
Additional readings will be assigned as the direction of your portfolio essays warrant.
You will also conduct independent research for your portfolio essays.
EA= Everything’s an Argument
EW=The Everyday Writer
NYT=The New York Times
USE=Using Sources Effectively
VE=Visual Exercises CD-ROM
Week
Da
Date Schedule
One
T
1/24
Introductions and prerequisite check; syllabus overview; introduce NYT
online; Discuss VE Elements & Contrast.
FOR NEXT TIME:
R
1/26
Collect syllabus p. 8; Discuss EA Ch 1; Introduce webblog;
Discuss VE Text & Purpose.
FOR NEXT TIME:
T
1/31
Discuss EA Chs 2,15; assign Visual Argument Analysis Essay; Discuss
VE Audience & Framing.
FOR NEXT TIME:
R
2/2
Discuss EA Ch 3; Discuss VE Alignment; Planning and drafting the
Visual Argument Analysis Essay
FOR NEXT TIME:
T
2/7
Discuss EA Ch 4; Discuss VE Context; Planning and drafting the Visual
Argument Analysis Essay
FOR NEXT TIME:
R
2/9
Discuss EA Ch 5; Discuss VE Emphasis & Color; Planning and drafting
the Visual Argument Analysis Essay
FOR NEXT TIME:
T
2/14
Discuss EA Ch 6; Discuss VE Proximity; Planning and drafting the
Visual Argument Analysis Essay
FOR NEXT TIME:
R
2/16
Discuss EA Ch 7; Discuss VE Organization; Planning and drafting the
Visual Argument Analysis Essay
FOR NEXT TIME:
Two
Three
Four
| Peer Pressure, Peer Power
Crawford spring 2006 ENG 112 course sched/2
Five
Six
Seven
Eight
Nine
Ten
Eleven
Twelve
T
2/21
Discuss EA Chpt 8; Discuss VE Sequence; Planning and drafting the
Visual Argument Analysis Essay
FOR NEXT TIME:
R
2/23
Using Microsoft Word’s Comment feature for Workshop Assessments;
Assign Self-Evaluation Essay
FOR NEXT TIME:
T
2/28
Visual Argument Analysis Workshop: __________ and __________;
Discuss EW ___
FOR NEXT TIME:
R
3/2
Visual Argument Analysis Workshop: __________ and __________;
Discuss EW___
FOR NEXT TIME:
T
3/7
Visual Argument Analysis Workshop: __________ and __________;
Discuss EW ___
FOR NEXT TIME:
R
3/9
Visual Argument Analysis Workshop: __________ and __________;
Discuss EW ___
FOR NEXT TIME:
T
3/14
Visual Argument Analysis Workshop: __________ and __________;
Discuss EW ___
FOR NEXT TIME:
R
3/16
T
R
T
R
3/21
3/23
3/28
3/30
T
4/4
Midterm Portfolio due: add Visual Exercises assignments, drafts,
and final copy of Visual Argument Analysis Essay; add first draft of
Self-Evaluation Essay
No Class—Spring Break
No Class—Spring Break
TBA
EA Ch 13; Assign Humorous Argument Essay
FOR NEXT TIME:
EA Ch 20; USE 1, 2
FOR NEXT TIME:
R
4/6
EA Ch 21; USE 3, 4
FOR NEXT TIME:
T
4/11
EA Ch 22; USE 5
FOR NEXT TIME:
Peer Pressure, Peer Power | Crawford spring 2006 ENG 112 course sched/3
Thirteen
Fourtee
n
Fifteen
Sixteen
R
4/13
EA Ch 18; USE 6
FOR NEXT TIME:
T
4/18
EA Ch 19; Humorous Argument Essay Workshop: __________ and
____________
FOR NEXT TIME:
R
4/20
Humorous Argument Essay Workshop: __________ and __________
Discuss EW ___
FOR NEXT TIME:
T
4/25
Humorous Argument Essay Workshop: __________ and __________
Discuss EW ___
FOR NEXT TIME:
R
4/27
Humorous Argument Essay Workshop: __________ and __________
Discuss EW ___
FOR NEXT TIME:
T
5/2
Workshop: __________ and __________ Discuss EW ___
FOR NEXT TIME:
R
5/4
T
5/16
Final Portfolio due: add research notes, drafts, and final copies of
your Argument Analysis Essay, Humorous Argument Essay, and
your Self-Evaluation Essay; complete written course evaluations.
10:15am-12:15pm Final Exam session*
There is no final exam for ENG 112.37. Students may make an
appointment for a final portfolio conference during the final exam
session. Final conferences will be in EN D263.
| Peer Pressure, Peer Power
English 112.37
Composition II
Southern Connecticut State University
Spring 2006
Dr. Crawford
Using the Comment feature in Word (version 1997-2003)
1.Open Word and the document you want to comment on—your partner’s draft.
2.Copy the document and save it as “[writer’s][name of essay] with [assessor’s]
comments.”
3.Close the original file and work in the duplicated file.
4.When you are ready to make a comment, put your cursor on the point in the text
you wish to comment on.
5.Click on the “Insert” tab at the top of the screen and select “Comment.”
6. Then type your comment.
7.You can click the bubble again to add to your comment.
8.You can click “Edit” then “Undo add comment” to erase a comment.
9.Repeat 4-9 as many times as needed to address the questions that follow:
Assessing your classmate’s drafts with the Comment feature in Word
Read the entire essay, then make specific comments on the following:
1.Does the introduction explain where/when the image originated, who its audience was, and what its purpose was? What context do you still need?
2.Does the introduction end with a thesis statement? How could it be better?
3.Assess the writer’s ability to use the concepts from Visual Exercises and
Everything’s an Argument. Are they using the VE terms to explain how the different elements of the image make an argument? Are they using the concepts from
EA to explain the appeals the image is using to make its argument? To identify
the warrants the image’s argument relies on? Where could they? How?
4.Where are you lost or confused as a writer?
5.What are the best parts of this essay and why? Note the specific places where
you feel the draft is very effective for you as a reader and explain why.
6.Assess the argument structure of the essay—does the thesis make a specific
argument? Are there point sentences (making a claim) instead of topic sentences
at the beginning of each paragraph? How could the writer improve the argument
structure?
7.Assess the relationship of point to particulars in each paragraph. Does each
paragraph have a point sentence (making a claim)? Do the particulars in the
paragraph support that point? What does not seem to belong? What evidence is
missing?
Type your comment in
the box that appears. When
you are done, just move
your cursor to a new place
in the text, and your comment will remain. [IWC
1/15/2006]
REMEMBER—the
thesis of this essay should
assert how the elements of
the image come together
to make an argument. The
thesis SHOULD NOT assert whether you agree or
disagree with the argument
the image makes. [IWC
1/15/2006]
“I’m not sure what you
mean by____” or “I feel
confused here because” or
“I need you to explain ___
__ for this to make sense to
me” are all readerly ways
you can address #5. [IWC
1/15/2006]
Each workshopped draft you do will be graded check plus, check, or check minus.
You will benefit from comments you receive. The process of giving comments
will also teach you how to read your own paper critically and revise it. Save and
print two copies of the document with your comments on it—one for your reader
and another for me. You can see Ms. Stephens and/or me with your draft in office
hours for additional feedback.
Peer Pressure, Peer Power | English 110.05 & 06
Mind the Gap: Easing the Transition from High School to College
Southern Connecticut State University
Fall 2006
Dr. Crawford
Assessing Workshop Drafts Using the Comment Feature in Word (1997-2003
version)
I. Set-up/instructions for using Comment
1.When you open your classmates’ drafts as email attachments, save them to
your flashdrive immediately. Under the “file” tab in Word, choose the “save
as” option and label each draft like this: “workshop draft Informative Essay
[name] [date]”.
2.When you are ready to make a comment, put your cursor on the point in the
text you wish to comment on. (You can also highlight an entire sentence or
paragraph).
3.Click on the “Insert” tab at the top of the screen and select “Comment.”
4.
5.You can click the bubble again to add to your comment.
6.You can click “Edit” then “Undo add comment” to erase a comment.
7.Repeat 4-9 as many times as needed to address the questions that follow:
II. How to respond to your classmates’ drafts:
Read the entire essay first and then make specific Comments on the following:
1.Does the introduction provide you with a focused overview that leads to a
main claim expressed as a strong thesis? Why or why not? How could it?
2.Assess the argument structure of the essay—do you see a series of subclaims that add up to prove the main claim? Are the first sentences of each
paragraph point sentences instead of topic sentences? Why or why not? How
could the writer improve the argument structure?
3.Assess the relationship of point to particulars in each paragraph. Does each
paragraph have a point sentence? Do the particulars in the paragraph support
that point? What does not seem to belong? What evidence is missing?
4.Assess the writer’s ability to use sources. Is the writer showing the sources
they cite by quoting from class readings, interviews, journals, etc.? Is the
writer introducing quotes with an attributive tag/signal phrase, providing
an in-text parenthetical citation when necessary, providing complete source
information in a Works Cited page? Identify specific places where the writer
still needs to do so.
5.What are the best parts of this essay and why? Note the specific places
where you feel the draft is very effective for you as a reader. What persuades
you and why?
This is a graded assignment. You will be assessed on how accurately you can
identify and communicate what is working in the draft, what needs improvement, and how to make those improvements.
Print two copies of each Commented-on draft—one for your reader and another for me.
10 | Peer Pressure, Peer Power
Type your comment in
the box that appears. When
you are done, just move
your cursor to a new place
in the text, and your comment will remain. [IWC
9/1/2006]
Remember, there is a
difference between a thesis
and a strong thesis. [IWC
9/1/2006]
If the thesis is not
strong, how could it be? If
the paragraphs do not have
point sentences, what could
they be? [IWC 9/1/2006]
If the particulars or
evidence given in the paragraph do not support the
point sentence, what more
effective evidence could
the writer use? Does the
evidence support a different
sublclaim? This is a major
focus of the second half of
the semester for us. Writers
need to be using sources
and following these guidelines for doing so every
time they quote, paraphrase,
or summarize a source.
[IWC 9/1/2006]
Works Cited
Page Layout and Design–by Andrea L. Beaudin
Belcher, Lynn. “Peer Review and Response: A Failure of the Process Paradigm as Viewed from the
Trenches.” Reforming College Composition: Writing the Wrongs. Eds. Ray Wallace, Alan Jackson,
and Lewis Wallace. Westport, CT: Greenwood P, 2000. 99-111. Print.
Bishop, Wendy. “Helping Peer Writing Groups Succeed.” Teaching English in the Two-Year College 15
(1988): 120-25. Print.
Bruffee, Kenneth A. Collaborative Learning: Higher Education, Interdependence, and the Authority of
Knowledge. 2nd ed. Baltimore: The John Hopkins UP, 1999 [1993]. Print.
_____. A Short Course in Writing: Composition, Collaborative Learning, and Constructive Reading 4th ed.
New York: Pearson, 2007. Print.
Burke, Kenneth. A Grammar of Motives. New York: Prentice Hall, 1945.
Cazden, Courtney B. Classroom Discourse: The Language of Teaching and Learning 2nd ed. Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann, 2001. Print.
Corbett, Steven J. “Bringing the Noise: Peer Power and Authority, On Location.” Spigelman and Grobman 101-111. Print.
_____. “The Give and Take of Tutoring On Location: Peer Power and Authority in Classroom-Based
Writing Tutoring.” Praxis: A Writing Center Journal 4.2 (Spring 2007): n. pag. Web. 7 August 2009.
Corbett, Steven J., and Juan C. Guerra. “Collaboration and Play in the Writing Classroom.”
Academic Exchange Quarterly 9.4 (Winter 2005): 106-11. Print.
Corbett, Steven J., and Michelle LaFrance. “From Grammatical to Global: The WAC/ Writing Center
Connection.” Praxis: A Writing Center Journal 6.2 (Spring 2009): n. pag. Web. 7 August 2009.
Elbow, Peter. Writing without Teachers. New York: Oxford UP, 1973. Print.
George, Diana. “Working with Peer Groups in the Composition Classroom.” College Composition and
Communication 35.3 (1984): 320-26. Print.
Grimm, Nancy. “Improving Students’ Responses to Their Peers’ Essays.” College Composition
and Communication 37.1 (1986): 91-94. Print.
Harris, Muriel. “Collaboration Is Not Collaboration Is Not Collaboration: Writing Center vs. Peer
Response Groups.” College Composition and Communication 43 (1992): 369-83. Print.
Holt, Mara. “The Value of Written Peer Criticism.” College Composition and Communication.
43.3 (1992): 348-92. Print.
Moss, Beverly J., Nels P. Highberg, and Melissa Nicolas, eds. Writing Groups Inside and Outside the Classroom. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2004. Print.
Murphy, James J., ed. A Short History of Writing Instruction: From Ancient Greece to Modern America 2nd
ed. Mahwah, NJ: Hermagoras, 2001. Print.
Newkirk, Thomas. “Direction and Misdirection in Peer Response.” College Composition and Communication 35.3 (1984): 301-11. Print.
Spear, Karen. Sharing Writing: Peer Response Groups in English Classes. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook,
1988. Print.
Spigelman, Candace. “The Ethics of Appropriation in Peer Writing Groups.” Perspectives on Plagiarism
and Intellectual Property in a Postmodern World. Eds. Lise Buranen, and Alice M. Roy. Albany:
SUNY UP, 1999. 231-40. Print.
Spigelman, Candace and Laurie Grobman, eds. On Location: Theory and Practice in Classroom- Based
Writing Tutoring. Logan: Utah State UP, 2005. Print.
Stewart, Donald C. “Collaborative Learning: Boon or Bane? Rhetoric Review 7 (1988): 58-83. Print.
Trimbur, John, and Harvey Kail. “Foreword.” Bruffee, A Short Course xix-xxix. Print.
Vygotsky, Lev. Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT P., 1962. Print.
Peer Pressure, Peer Power | 11