It’s a topic we have all thought about deeply. We have attended workshops and presentations, read scholarship, tried new and exciting ways of getting our students to collaborate during the revision process in our writing classes – and collaborate effectively. I thought I had it down, really. Then, the other day, I had a conference with one of my most impressive and hard-working students, and that all changed.
This student works diligently to revise his essays and to earn his grades. He is straightforward and participates in class regularly, and has never missed an assignment. Overall, this is a student whose feedback I seriously value in terms of what might work in class and what might not work. As we were conferencing over a draft of his essay, he asked, “Will we be doing peer review for this essay?” When I answered that no, we would instead be using one-on-one conferences and instructor feedback for this one essay, he replied, “Oh good. Peer review has mostly been useless for me.”
Punch to the gut! Man down! Red Team Go! S.O.S.! All manner of emergency exclamations ran through my mind. Useless? How could this be? Grades are improving (for the most part). Writing is getting better (through my rose-colored glasses). In short, I had gotten cocky. So, I asked my student, “Why do you say that, Student?” His response was an eye-opener, and something I hope we can all use as a catalyst for discussion on the topic.
Student said, “Well, the one time we sat in a circle was helpful.” (To be clear, this is what I call “Carousel Peer Review.” I sit students in a circle and give them each four identical sheets of paper. Each paper contains a space for the reviewer’s name, the writer’s name, and three questions:
1. What is the author’s central claim? Explain whether or not it is arguable and if not, how it could be.
2. What is the best part of the essay and why?
3. What part of the essay needs the most improvement and why?
Students pass their essay to the left once, read and fill out the sheet and when I call time, pass the essay to the left again and complete it for another, and so on. This way, they get four short but focused peer reviews, which I hand back at the end of class.) So, I asked Student, “Is it because you got so many reviews back?” And he replied…
“No. It was the best because everyone had to be quiet.”
He went on to explain that during past peer reviews, in which students had been placed in small groups with traditional and more elaborate peer review sheets to fill out, he felt that nothing got done, that it was just an opportunity to socialize and that the last time we had done it, the other students in his group had not revised their essays at all. “And,” he asked, “Why should I revise their papers for them if they do not want to do the work?” So of course, I start questioning my methods. I mean, it’s not as if I do not circle the room and meet with each group during peer review, but we all know that small group work can be a tricky monster; students can seem really on-task when we approach their group, but then revert back to talk of Facebook and what is going on that night or what they watched on TV that week as soon as we are out of ear shot. In addition, if we are using peer review as a way for students to receive revision comments outside of instructor feedback (say, for a middle draft when we have already extensively commented on first drafts), unless we closely evaluate each essay on peer review day (which sort of defeats the purpose), we don’t really have a way of knowing whether or not a student has truly revised the essay.
Several ideas are coming to the surface. Should students show up to peer review day with a written summary of their revisions? Should a requirement of peer review be that they somehow articulate their revisions to the group? Do we have to be such police officers?
So, I put these questions to all of you. How do you handle the not-doers, the “I refuse to revise because only my classmates are going to be reading this anyway” students? To beat a dead horse, how do you make your peer review effective?