I became interested in the development of writing skills through feedback focused on alternatives to the teacher or professor as editor. I worked with educators who developed writing skills and was acquainted with the time demands of providing feedback and had my own experience reviewing students’ theses and dissertations. When you have read the 200+ page dissertation of a Ph.D. candidate through a couple of drafts, you have put in some hours. I felt sorry for the English department English composition adjuncts paid a few thousand for each of 4 sections of 25 students and the time it would take to review multiple writing assignments. Still, you learn to write by writing, and feedback and rewriting in response to feedback are essential.
There are ways to provide an acceptable alternative source of feedback. Peers and now AI can critique writing, and while some more expert involvement is important, the quantity and diversity of learning activities required for skilled performance cannot consistently be monitored by instructors.
I began reviewing the research on peer editing because I was aware of the time issue faced by instructors, but also because I was interested in the role digital word processing tools could play in the feedback and revision processes. For example, Google docs offers a great way to add comments at precise locations in a document and to exchange related remarks as a document is passed back and forth between the writer and reviewer. Revision is efficient and can be explained if the editor wants to take a second look. I thought that Goodle docs offered an example of a tool that would improve the efficiency with which learners could interact with peers and then rewrite efficiently in response to comments.
As I reviewed the research literature, I came across some studies that changed my thinking on how I should advocate for peer feedback. These studies (see Cho references at the end of this post) demonstrated that peer editing also had an impact on the writing performance of the editors, and this benefit might be more important than the feedback a writer received from others. The Cho research focused on a specific population of writers generating a particular type of writing product, and understanding the focus of such research is always important in considering how and if findings might generalize to other situations. Cho focused on college students writing lab reports, i.e., the description and results of experiments performed in the lab. I know my own profession has an undergraduate course (Research Methods) with a core focus on the same type of writing task. Cho conducted several studies in which peer editing was a component. Students could either review their lab reports without feedback, with feedback, or with feedback after providing feedback on the same task to other students. The greatest difference was found when writers also provided feedback to others. When it came time to revise their own original drafts, the product they produced was judged to be superior, on average, to the products generated by those in the other groups. Moreover, statistical analysis showed that editing had a more powerful impact than having the edits of others to review.
The researchers offered two possible explanations for their findings. First, they proposed that the process of editing provides a perspective on how others might view a written product (audience effect). Writers are always told to consider their audience, but perhaps serving as the audience might provide insight into what that means for a specific written product. The other explanation involved what I would describe as a generative effect. Serving as an editor has some similarities to the research topics of writing to learn and teaching to learn. When you must externalize a position you take, this forces a concreteness and specificity you may fail to generate when just thinking about something. Having to put a position into words can lead to the understanding that you really can’t explain yourself or make you work to come up with a concrete way to express what you think.
This notion that working to improve understanding and develop proficiency seems to be raised repeatedly as educators grapple with the role AI should play in educational settings. For all of the ways AI might reduce “busy work,” there seems to be a related potential that AI provides a way to avoid the cognitive work so necessary in developing a cognitive skill. So, while AI may provide a way to provide feedback to students, there is also evidence that the work of providing feedback to others involves work that is productive both for others and for yourself. Educators face a significant challenge in communicating this reality to learners and other stakeholders.
References:
Cho, Y., & Cho, K.. 2011. Peer Reviewers Learn from Giving Comments.” Instructional Science, 39 (5), 629–643. doi:10.1007/s11251-010-9146-1
Cho, K., & MacArthur, C. (2011). Learning by reviewing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(1), 73-84.
