In my daily discussions about writing with Lehigh faculty from across the colleges and disciplines, there are two perceptions that seem almost universal: (1) our students’ writing skills are inadequate and in need of improvement; and (2) teaching discipline-specific writing is so time intensive as to be practically prohibitive for faculty. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that, generally speaking, most faculty have not been trained in teaching writing or responding effectively to student drafts. Considering the abundant evidence on the increasing importance of writing and other communication skills in both professional and civic life in America—not to mention the value of writing as a means of learning and discovery—this situation is a serious problem for the university and our students.

Writing is a process, and students improve at writing—at the production of good final drafts—when they work consciously at developing their ability to engage in that process. Without focused effort on learning how to advance writing projects through thoughtful revision of multiple drafts, students are much less likely to improve their writing skills. Considering the enormous demand on time such a process entails, the question inevitably arises: What’s a concerned professor to do?

While it seems quite clear that there is no easy answer to this question, a recent article in Journal of Writing Research(1) suggests that peer response activities may indeed be an attractive option for faculty to consider. The authors begin by describing the importance of good assignments:       

The largest gains in writing ability seem to come from instruction that provides   clear objectives through the use of specified criteria or scales, illustrates principles by working through concrete examples, and encourages students to interact in small groups (Hillocks, 1984). Such practices build upon learning theories that promote active learning, including collaborative and cooperative learning, provision of feedback, repeated opportunities to practice, and relevant domain-specific tasks (Ashbaugh, Johnstone, & Warfield, 2002; Palincsar & Brown, 1984; Prince, 2004). Therefore, the ideal writing assignment would involve realistic writing tasks, multiple drafts to allow for    planning and revision, and feedback from readers.

This is nothing new to experienced teachers. Carefully crafted assignments that promote the kind of active engagement described here are important to learning in all fields. The real contribution of the article is what the authors have discovered about the ability of students themselves to participate in this process by providing quality feedback to one another. With a modest amount of preparation, students can provide comments on working drafts of writing projects that can be very effective. Patchan, Charney, and Schunn conclude even that students’ comments “seem to be fairly similar to instructors’ comments.”

But even that doesn’t tell the full story of the value of peer response in the teaching of discipline-specific writing skills.

When students are guided through effective peer-response activities, they become engaged in the process in ways that are difficult to facilitate through any other means. First, and most obviously, students benefit in a strictly practical sense from the feedback they receive from their peers—points they have overlooked, identification of passages that struggle with coherence, and sentences that need editing for clarity. Often, students find it easier to recognize mistakes they make in their own writing when reading the work of others. And through this process they also learn the potential of revision (re-vision—to see again) by getting the perspective of a “fresh pair of eyes."

But there’s more. Students learn by giving feedback as well as by receiving it.  The act of reading the written work of classmates with an eye on what they did well, what needs improvement, and so forth, and formulating constructive commentary, brings the writing process itself into sharp focus. In effect, then, each exchange of papers presents multiple learning opportunities.

Finally, the Journal of Writing Research article addresses one of the objections I often hear to the use of peer response activities:  the fear that students are not qualified to advise one another on matters of writing, and that peer response exercises only serve to reinforce the bad habits that students often bring with them to our courses. Patchan, Charney, and Schunn have discovered that this assumption is not necessarily true, that the use of carefully designed and structured peer response exercises can be successful even with feedback supplied by “students whose own writing scores fell below the class median,” and that even these students are capable of providing helpful feedback that is even comparable to that given by instructors.

The key factors are preparation, structure, and guidance, but the benefits of work at the front end are many. To discuss peer response exercises and how they might by utilized in various courses and assignments, feel free to contact me at grs206@lehigh.edu or at extension 8-4932.