Clearly, the teacher is likely to be the most important source of guidance in developing the processes necessary for effective writing. However, peers are also an important resource. The generation of individual feedback is time-consuming and providing such feedback to a class of students multiple times would be extremely demanding. Our comments here reflect the proposal of writing experts who argue that peers as a group can likely respond more quickly than the teacher who would be working alone and the comments of peers can augment the feedback provided by the teacher. There is one more argument for involving peers (Bruning, Schraw & Norby, 2011, p. 300). Better writers at all ages appear to be better editors with poor writers often seeing little of substance that can be changed in their original first drafts. The learning of editing skills to provide a useful service to peers develops the same skills that can be applied to the student’s own work.
Peer editing has gained increased attention among researchers with the research offering greater insight as more specific issues are investigated. For example, Wu and Shunn (2021) note that most previous research has focused on the value of peer feedback in improving the document for which feedback was provided. This is a different issue than whether giving and receiving feedback results in improved performance on future writing tasks. In their research, which involved secondary students enrolled in an AP composition course, across multiple writing tasks, the researchers investigated both the impact of peer editing on the present and a future writing task. The study supported the positive impact of giving and receiving feedback on both document quality and future performance.
The proposed benefits of peer editing include (Pritchard & Honeycutt, 2007);
1 A non-threatening audience,
2 Increased opportunities to write and revise, and
3 Immediate feedback – to write and revise a lot, the teacher cannot do it all.
Note the use of the qualifier “proposed”. You might argue that some students can be quite insensitive in interacting with peers and so wonder about proposing peers offer a “non-threatening audience”. Proposed here implies that skills can be developed and offer advantages when a reasonable level of competence is present.
One should not assume that effective peer editing is a simple manner of having students exchange papers and offer the comments that come to mind. Without guidance and experience, student comments may be socially awkward and focused on the most shallow of writing skills (e.g., spelling errors).
Peers, by definition, are at approximately the same level of proficiency as those they are attempting to assist. In addition, they often lack the social skills and sensitivity to have their suggestions interpreted as helpful rather than mean. However, given some preparation, spending time responding to the written products of peers can be helpful to the peer writer and a way to develop the writing skills of the writer. (Pritchard & Honeycutt, 2007)
Here is a brief summary of a series of activities proposed by Simmons (2003) as a process for developing the skills of peer editors.
1) Teacher models editing. If possible, offer a document you (teacher) have written. Think aloud about what improvements might be made. Make the revisions and then compare the original and the revised documents.
2) Model how feedback should be communicated. Model praise. Model questioning – what was the author trying to do? Model how to offer suggestions.
3) Use peer pairs to initiate peer feedback experience.
4) Use examples from student work and student feedback with the class.
Those who have studied the development of peer editing skills want it to be understood that this is far from a one or two-lesson process. Often early efforts are a struggle. Student editors develop skills gradually and typically begin with superficial recommendations (spelling, grammar), unmerited praise (not to be confused with encouragement), or insensitive criticism. Regarding teacher expectations, it makes sense that the priorities of review applied to the work of others would be similar to changes, if any, developing writers would make with experience in their own work. Attention paid to the metacognitive processes of considering the audience and communication effectiveness of a document as a whole is more abstract than the recognition of grammatical rule violations. Hence, purposeful demonstration, discussion, and practice are important in developing editing skills whether applied to a document developed by the student or a document developed by a peer.
Peer comments should include and begin with positive comments. What did you like? The targeted writing skills will change as the goals of writing change either with experience or purpose.
A computer and classroom whiteboard or projector combination is a great way for the teacher to model and provide examples. Writing tools that save comments and recommendations and writing tools that allow a comparison of drafts offer the teacher an external representation of author or peer editor thinking and provide the teacher something tangible to address. What challenges were recognized and what changes were actually implemented? We provide some examples of such capabilities in our online resources.
One interesting model for upper-elementary developed by Sarah Dennis-Shaw appears on the ReadWriteThink site. This model suggests that students offer peers comments, suggestions, and corrections.
Compliments
e.g., My favorite part was ___ because ___
Suggestions
e.g., If you gave more details, I would be certain I can understand what you mean.
Corrections
e.g., I found this misspelled word – mispell
It is worth the effort to review Dennis-Shaw lessons no matter what grade level you work at as the online resources are quite specific in outlining the steps in the instructional process and also provide sample instructional materials. For example, what might a writing sample used in the training phase look like? We also recommend that you do an Internet search for rubrics or checklists that might be suited to your own instructional circumstances (e.g., Simon Williams rubric)
References
Bruning, R.H., Schraw, G.J., Norby, M.M. (2011). Cognitive psychology and instruction (5th ed). Boston: Pearson.
Pritchard, R. J., & Honeycutt, R. L. (2007). Best practices in implementing a process approach to teaching writing. Best practices in writing instruction, 28-49.
Simmons, J. (2003). Responders are taught, not born. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 46(8), 684-693.
Wu, Y., & Schunn, C. D. (2021). The Effects of Providing and Receiving Peer Feedback on Writing Performance and Learning of Secondary School Students. American Educational Research Journal, 58(3), 492-526.
