Improving peer editing

One of our core recommendations has long been a modification of writing across the curriculum or writing to learn we have labelled authoring to learn. The phrase “authoring to learn” allows an extension of writing to learn to approaches that involve multimedia authoring. We argue such recommendations are concrete, efficient, and thoroughly researched as strategies appropriate for various implementations of project based learning.

In our most recent edition, we explore the role online tools such as Google docs offer in developing writing skills and applying writing to learn strategies. A key component of effective instruction in either area is the revision process - writing is an iterative process that moves toward a higher quality product and a deeper level of understanding when revision is emphasized. A reality associated with such benefits is the time intensive nature of supporting revision. Ideally (although some might question the use of this superlative), teacher review and guidance would offer the best approach. However, heavy use of writing to learn tasks would also place what might be unrealistic demands on teacher time. Peer editing may offer the solution. In addition to the advantage of a division of labor, peer editing should offer a way to develop editing skills. Improvement in editing skill not only benefits peers, but also the writing skills of the “editor”.

Our book already reviews the challenges of developing skilled peer editors and provided references both supporting this approach and identifying issues that can occur when peer editors are “turned loose” without preparation and training. Our suggestions for how to support editors offered general guidelines, but did not provide specific examples. One challenge in writing a textbook on technology integration is knowing when to stop including things. You do not want to drift into areas covered in other courses (e.g., Methods) or to extend your comments beyond your areas of expertise. Of course, you also want to include enough information that what you do write leaves learners with enough guidance that they feel they can act on the information provided. One goal in separating the content in the book from the online resources was to offer instructors or students the option of greater depth when desired.

While we see technology as playing a very practical role in developing and applying peer editing skills, it probably makes the most sense to separate our comments concerning the development of peer editing skills from the specifics of editing with technology. The comments that follow focus on editing skills. Another link from the resource page for the “Productivity Tools” chapter will take you to a description of how editing strategies can be implemented using Google docs.

Peer editing

A different perspective is usally helpful to a writer. There are advantages in having separation from the product. Even when attempting to improve a product you have written, putting the product aside until tomorrow sometimes reveals flaws you are unable to see in the moment. Peers provide separation. As a writer, there is always the problem of thinking you communicated something when you have not. If someone from your intended audience is willing to say “I do not understand”, this should be a sign you have more to do. Finally, there is never a perfect overlap in the personal knowledge and skills of writers so different issues can be identified by different people.

The proposed benefits of peer editing include (Pritchard & Honeycutt, 2007);

1. A nonthreatening 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 “nonthreatening audience”. Proposed here implies that skills can be developed and offer advantages when a reasonable level of competence is present.

Most students are not prepared to be effective peer editors. Depending on the content area emphasized in professional preparation, the same might also be true of many teachers. An emphasis on writing across the curriculum and writing to learn might have provided future educators this background, but these perspectives are not always emphasized. Helpful feedback and grading are different things.

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 be 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, Simmons, 2003)

A general model of skill development might go something like this:

1. Teacher models comments in reaction to a writing sample displayed on interactive white board.
2. Teacher requests from class suggestions in response to a writing sample. Suggestions are discussed.
3. Individual students generate written ideas in response to a writing sample.
4. Students generate responses to a peer writing sample that are reviewed by teacher before forwarding to partner. Teacher may make suggestions before forwarding.
5. Peers/small groups begin to function as editors. Teacher reviews comments from time to time.

This model is intended both to encourage a positive approach and an emphasis on specific writing skills. 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.

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 check lists that might be suited to your own instructional circumstances (e.g., Simon Williams rubric)

Return to chapter topics