An Instructional Critique of Peer Critiquing in Writing

The Method

Peer critiquing is a strategy often used in writing classes to provide more frequent feedback opportunities for students, more experience with writing as a process, the concept of a real audience for whom to write, and the experience of working with others around a written document. This strategy has been most used by composition teachers after making its debut about fifteen years ago when the process of teaching writing was reconceived as more process than product oriented. (Lundsford, 1981). Since the rise of the writing across the curriculum movement, instructors from all disciplines have been advised to incorporate peer critiquing as part of their courses ( Fulweiller, 1985; Sorcinelli and Elbow, 1997). Many of its advocates claim that the process more closely parallels what is done in the real world of writing and therefore can give students a better idea of what they will face.

Pressley and McCormick note that a heavy influence on the practice of peer critiquing has been the constructivist movement. The idea that ideas are socially constructed is very consistent with the communicative purpose of writing, and having one’s ideas molded by interacting with others during the initial stages of conceptualizing is a very close relative of getting a sense of audience as a writer.

Description of the method

In peer critiquing students are generally divided into dyads or triads that remain together for the entire semester. For each writing assignment the group meets during class time to review their work at each stage of the writing process. For example, after the assignment is given and all have had an opportunity to review it, the groups are given class time to discuss their understanding of the task and to do some initial brainstorming on each person’s basic concepts. The group members then go on their own to engage in the next steps, for example, some research on the topic. Since each member of the group is aware of the other’ topics, they are encouraged to be on the lookout for material that will be pertinent to each person’s paper.

After an appropriate amount of time the groups reconvene in class with their initial outlines for a critique session. Using instructor provided guidelines or class generated guidelines, each member’s initial outline is critiqued by the other two. Brainstorming is again done around the initial idea so that each person comes away from the session with a logical structure on which to base a first draft.

This process of group critique alternating with individual work outside of class is repeated for as many rounds as the instructor deems appropriate, but at least twice more, once for a draft and once for proofing, before the papers are submitted to the instructor for grading. In general the instructor lays down standards of accuracy and presentation quality that must be met before the paper will be accepted.

There are several variations on this theme. In some manifestations the peers who work with the writer on the drafting process are different from those who make the eventual critique of the finished product. This simulates the real writing process more closely and can make everyone more honest in their critiquing, knowing that others will be the final arbiters of the finished product.

The most common variable is the number of times the group drafts before submission. This variable depends mostly on time pressures and the writing process being modeled by the instructor.

A third variable is often whether the groups meet during class or on their own. Giving time during class indicates to the students how important the instructor believes the writing process is. It also allows the instructor to monitor group work.

Finally it makes the process somewhat easier for students, who have difficulty meeting outside of class. A fourth variable can be the extent to which grades for the group are interdependent.

In the most basic version the instructor will grade student papers completely independently of one another. To encourage more helping behavior, some instructors have the students assign grades to one another based on the degree to which they were helpful. In the most drastic case the instructor will base part of each student’s own grade on the grades obtained by the other members in the group. It is in everyone’s interest therefore that everyone do the very best they can.

Method critique

Peer critiquing has some very sound bases in learning theory. There are even peer teaching methods that parallel this strategy in other disciplines. Analyzed from the perspective of our standards, here is how I assess the grounding of peer critiquing from a learning and motivation perspective.

Level of learning - It is probably most useful to consider the two sides of peer critiquing when analyzing how well it meets the criteria of deep processing. One should consider both the writer and the critic. In both cases it is likely that a deeper level of processing is encouraged with this strategy than the standard drafting process that only involves the instructor as the sole critic. First of all, this process more closely resembles what is actually done in real writing. For the writer there is the reality of the audience (the peers), who must be communicated with through the written word. For the critics, having to read another’s paper at a different level gives them a different perspective on their own writing as they see models of what can go right and wrong in their colleagues’ papers.

In addition our text has discussed the idea that having to teach content to another causes deeper processing through organization, summarizing and paraphrasing. Both the writer in trying to defend his ideas and the critics in trying to clarify theirs are forced to process the writing and the writing process at a different level.

If the instructor also has the students create their own criteria for the critique, they will be forced to another level of understanding of what goes into successful writing then they would experience with only their own writing or in using criteria imposed by some outside authority. This might also be beneficial in moving students along the epistemological continuum.

Structure of Instruction - The success of peer critiquing in this area is less clear. Much depends on the way the instructor goes about organizing the task. For example, if peers are given no structure for their critiques and they have little prior knowledge about writing, the process could easily degenerate into an unproductive self-congratulatory exercise. On the other hand as noted earlier criteria imposed from the outside might not have the same impact as peer developed standards. The decision may rest on the level of prior knowledge that students bring. For example, an instructor with beginning students may have to provide a detailed initial prototype and then gradually turn the process over to the students across several assignments, all the while scaffolding their learning through whole group and individual work.

Obviously this method emphasizes active learning and collaboration and distributed practice depending on how the group tasks are divided. The group task could be considered a form of training within context since the students are writing for a real audience rather than just the instructor. Therefore this method seems to have many of the characteristics of quality instruction.

It can be improved by careful structuring by the instructor and possibly with some whole group modeling by the instructor of the writing and the critiquing process.

Student awareness characteristics - The method does not explicitly acknowledge student differences, but there is an implicit acknowledgment that students might benefit from working on their own projects with others at the same level. Certainly, since the emphasis in the method is on feedback on the students’ own writing, there is a degree of reactivity to student differences.

However, one of the possible weaknesses of this method is the fact that feedback is coming from non-specialists and they may not be able to meet the explicit needs of each of their colleagues to the degree that an instructor could. As noted earlier, however, the instructor could structure the process to give more individual feedback to those who need it most or to group students who need to work on similar tasks together so that they could be more targeted in the tasks they work on.

Motivational characteristics - Certainly one of the bases for this method is its enhanced motivational effectiveness. It allows for learner choice in the writing (though possibly not more than any regular writing class). There is the immediacy of more feedback from a more valued audience, especially for adolescents. And the ability to provide useful feedback to another can be very good for one’s self efficacy.

Where the method may fall down is clarity of objectives. Unless the instructor is careful about laying out the assignments or involves the students in the assignment construction, this aspect of motivation can be dampened.

Overall assessment

Overall the peer critiquing of writing seems to have many very positive aspects that are based on solid learning principles. If carefully designed, assignments such as this can enhance a student’s ability to write as well as his awareness of the process of writing.

References etc.