next »

[zuzu_]

Please share your strategies. This is always a disaster.

I make the drafts due on Monday. They have the whole week--comments on your partner's draft are due the following Monday. I have a detailed worksheet that clarifies what issues to address in the partner's paper.

This is still always a big clusterfck. Some students forget to post drafts (even though they submit them to me); other students don't review, other students are just deadbeats overall. Conscientious partners start freaking out at their deadbeat partners. Some make an effort, but give up because of deadbeat partners.

I feel like I'm just setting up conferences because they are *supposed* to be a part of all first-year composition courses. I frankly think they have moderate-to-low value in regular (on campus) composition courses, but they seem to cross the line into "utterly useless" online.

Except, of course, in the several instances where I've actually seen a productive, thoughtful dialogue. But this is rare.

Maybe I should make these optional (or extra credit?) with the full expectation that almost no one will do it?

[starfleet_grad]

FWIW, I am among those who see value in peer review, but it's sort of like sushi: either you love it, or you can't stand it. Not much middle ground.

The online environment presents additional challenges for peer review, but there are three experiences I have made in general:

1. Peer review works only if students are familiar with group activities. If they never work in groups and then suddenly have peer review thrown at them, it's an unmitigated disaster. Thus, if you do not have a course with a lot of collaborative work, I might eschew peer review.

2. Peer review is a skill that must be practiced. Even if you have a collaborative approach, you still must give students instruction in the ins and outs of peer review, in what's expected of them, and in phrasing responses. A trial run is a good idea.

3. I have seen many peer review worksheets that are just far too complex for the average student. Often questions are quite obtuse (read Peter Elbow for examples), or the list of tasks/questions is too long. I have found 4 or 5 questions more than sufficient.

4. Peer review must count for something. I have started a rule that if students do not participate in peer review, they can no longer earn an A on their own papers. Plain and simple. That has cut down on slacking significantly. So don't make them optional, or no one will participate, and why should they?

5. Peer review must have value. For example, if you still read and comment on drafts, why should anyone bother with peer review? You have to be strict; anything addressed during peer review will not be commented on by you. For example, I will read paper outlines but not full drafts because those are reviewed by peers. Find a balance between what you must review and what you are willing to relinquish; I'll still help students with drafts if they come to my office hour, but few do.

Anyway, just a few observations.

[bone_gal]

I think Starfleet has excellent comments for you. I feel strongly that online students won't do anything unless there's a grade attached (or at least most students won't), so you need to make the assignment count for something.

I don't teach composition, but my students write four essays throughout the semester and peer review is used for the first three of them. This is what I do:

-I stress why peer review is important

-I post the essays for peer review, not the students. Students submit the essays through the dropbox, and I save them to my computer, rename them anonymously (essay 1, etc.), and then post them along with a list of what student reviews what essay.

-the peer review form is pretty straight forward, and focuses on areas covered in the grading rubric (so they can think for themselves how to grade on those areas).

-the peer reviews are worth 20 points (weekly discussion grades are 40 points, so the review is half that; in a situation like yours I might make it more)

-students sometimes don't turn in essays, so it's not uncommon for me to have more than one student assigned to do a peer review on a given essay. If a student is a deadbeat and hasn't turned in a peer review, I will either assign them to review the essay of another deadbeat, or will double up with a participating student (so the essay writer gets at least one peer review). I can't do this the first round since I don't know who will or won't participate, but I do it for all of them moving forwards.

With this, over 90% of my students do the peer review.

[goldenapple]

When I use peer review, I start the work in class, where I can monitor it. This allows me to go around the room and find out if there is a problem with a) the task I've given them or b) the paper to which they are applying it.

Sometimes, for instance, the paper they are reviewing is so poorly written or incomplete that the reviewer doesn't know where to begin. And if a student arrives without a paper to be reviewed, I tell that student to leave and match him or her with someone else who is late.

Sometimes my task is as simple as saying, "Do you have any questions? " or confirming that a student is doing what I've asked ("Yes, that's an example of an unsupported generalization, so you mark it just as you've done here. That's great.").

[goldenapple]

Note: I realize that your course is online, but I think you may be able to modify the in-class technique by having students post and comment  in a way that would more closely resemble an in-class workshop.

[finallyfullprof]

This is a timely topic because come this Friday, I will be experimenting with a new technique.  Since we now have Blackboard Vista, which slices, dices, makes Julienne fries, and solves all online pedagogical problems, I'm going to try out the groups feature for peer editing. In the past I have had them do it all through email, but this time I am going to have them post their drafts in the groups feature and do the editing within the context of discussion.

As far as making it worth something, I take points off their participation grades if they don't do peer editing. I offer optional conferences with me, but I have found that few if any of them take me up on it (maybe 1-2 students per paper). This is baffling to me given that I'm the one assigning the grade.

I do think peer editing is valuable because it gives them the sense of multiple audiences and the idea that "my classmates" is not a homogeneous group. I have seen a lot of good suggestions come through the peer editing process (as well as several not-so-good, but I always remind them that peer editing suggestions are theirs to do with as they deem best).

[new_bus_prof]

Also, is there some way to incorporate points for addressing peer review issues in the final paper from the draft?

If nothing else, you may want to start small with getting students to point out X number of issues and then build the number of issues they need to address in later peer reviews. This can be especially critical in lower level comp classes.