Peer-Review and Substantive Revision

by Maggie Neel, History

As an undergraduate, I did not find peer review helpful. I did not want others to read my drafts, and I did not believe their feedback helped me become a better writer. So, when I saw the pedagogical research supporting peer review, I was skeptical; however, after reading the literature, I realized that my undergraduate experiences with peer review were set up to fail. They did not provide the structure necessary for a successful and substantive review. Therefore, in the first peer-review session I led as a Writing Intensive Program (WIP) Teaching Assistant, I applied the skills I learned in the WIP course.

For one course’s first paper, students turned in a working draft two days before their final draft was due. As the course had twenty-four members, there was not enough time for me to provide substantive feedback to all students, so in-class peer review was an ideal option.

The class began with a five-minute prompt. Individually, everyone emailed me:

  • What they would have focused on had they had one more day to work on the paper.
  • What they believed their peers would identify as the key places their argument could improve.

Their self-reflection supported metacognition; it made them think about writing their paper. It also encouraged them to consider the draft as a work-in-progress and writing as a process. Additionally, I could respond to everyone with my general advice but targeted to their specific concerns.

After the entrance ticket, peer review began. I gave printed guides to each student. On the guide, students responded to targeted questions about the papers:

  • What is the thesis statement?
  • Does it introduce all key points of the essay?
  • How might the thesis statement be improved to be clearer to the reader?

These guiding questions focused on the paper’s argument and substance. It asked the peer to act as a reader and articulate their understanding of the essay; they could identify areas where the argument was unclear and supply suggestions.

After peer reviewers responded to all guiding questions, they presented their comments to the author, creating an opportunity for dialogue. Then, I prompted authors to respond to each comment by asking, “Is what my peer identified what I wanted to communicate to my readers?” and “How might I clarify my argument and/or apply my peer feedback?” This again encouraged metacognition and feedback incorporation.

[Students] were considering and reflecting on the structure of writing; they were approaching it as an evolutionary process.

After the review class, a few students attended my office hours. Their classmate’s feedback provided the basis of these meetings. Rather than discussing how they could make their paper stronger, vaguely, we had focused and substantive improvements to consider. Additionally, the final drafts I received, although not perfect, were the best examples of thinking about writing I had ever seen in a first assignment. Students focused on thesis articulation, sub-claims that focused paragraphs and helped support their thesis, evidence, and explanation. There were still spelling, grammar, and stylistic weaknesses; some students struggled to examine their topics beyond a surface level, but their attention to writing was clear. They were considering and reflecting on the structure of writing; they were approaching it as an evolutionary process.