Student peer reviewers can provide feedback that improves writing. Lots of research can be cited in support of that statement. The problem, as Kimberly Baker sees it, is there’s “substantially less research available on the process of structuring the peer review to maximize these benefits” (2016, 180). She raises questions about three structuring decisions that teachers face when designing a peer review activity.
When in the writing process should the peer review be scheduled? Given how regularly students procrastinate, it would seem prudent to schedule a peer review earlier rather than later in the process. If it occurs, say, a week before the paper is due, that also dictates the kinds of revisions students can make. That late in the writing process, it becomes more about polishing what they have and less about substantial content changes.
Research makes it clear that students are best positioned to provide formative feedback—to offer suggestions that will help the writer improve the paper, as opposed to rendering judgments or suggesting grades. They don’t have the experience necessary to make these quality decisions, and most are too emotionally vested in the grading process to be objective. Baker’s question here is how to elicit formative feedback from student reviewers. Many faculty do, but few have collected evidence documenting the efficacy of their approaches.
Finally, there’s the question of what students do with the feedback they receive from peer reviewers. There are several relevant issues here, starting with how most students see the revising as a straightforward process of “cleaning up” the first draft. “They revise their drafts in a linear manner, starting at the opening paragraph and working their way to the end. They make changes in words or phrases but leave the original meaning intact” (2016, 182). These “surface-level” changes usually improve the paper marginally but not significantly, and more often than not, it’s the significant improvement that’s needed.
Questions like these show that even though numerous studies have investigated peer review, most of them have focused on outcomes, and not the process. In response, Baker designed a study that explored process issues in these three areas. She used six junior level sociology courses (enrolling a total of 91 students) that required a final term paper. Four weeks before the papers were due, students were required to submit a draft for peer review. Drafts were submitted online, which allowed Baker to blind them so that the reviewer did not know the paper’s author, and the author did not know who reviewed the paper. The reviewers received an instruction packet and a rubric along with 20 minutes of in-class instruction. Each reviewer completed the rubric and added comments. The reviews were graded.
Structuring the peer review activity in this way garnered three results. First, students started working on their papers earlier. Only 16 students, or 16.6 percent, submitted an incomplete draft, one that was less than 33 percent of the final paper length. The rest of the students had drafts with content for the multiple required sections of the paper.
Second, a detailed analysis of the feedback provided by the reviewers revealed that “student reviewers consistently gave appropriate and substantive feedback” (2016, 187). The majority of their comments recommended “meaning level” changes (81.5 percent).
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, a comparison of the draft and the final paper revealed that the papers had been revised with most of them having been changed significantly. Almost 60 percent of the students had added new material. Most of these “meaning level” changes involved the addition of new material, rather than revisions of existing material. The revision process still appeared to be linear, with most of the new material being added to the end of the paper. Experienced writers move text around and redevelop content throughout the paper. Baker says that the approach taken by these students meant that they “were framing their papers in the early paragraphs before they knew how the end would develop” (2016, 189).
Many teachers continue to be hesitant about peer review, and with some good reasons. The benefits do not accrue automatically. The peer review activity must be designed carefully and implemented in ways that convey its importance to students. If it’s an activity taken seriously, then students learn both by offering the feedback and receiving it.
Reference:
Baker, K.M. 2016. Peer review as a strategy for improving students’ writing process. Active Learning in Higher Education, 17 (3): 179–192.
