peer review essay checklist middle school

• Peer Review Checklist

Each essay is made up of multiple parts. In order to have a strong essay each part must be logical and effective. In many cases essays will be written with a strong thesis, but the rest of the paper will be lacking; making the paper ineffective. An essay is only as strong as its weakest point.

Using a checklist to complete your review will allow you to rate each of the parts in the paper according to their strength. There are many different peer review checklists, but the one below should be helpful for your assignment.

• Is the thesis clear?
• Does the author use his or her own ideas in the thesis and argument?
• Is the significance of the problem in the paper explained? Is the significance compelling?
• Are the ideas developed logically and thoroughly?
• Does the author use ethos effectively?
• Does the author use pathos effectively?
• Are different viewpoints acknowledged?
• Are objections effectively handled?
• Does the author give adequate explanations about sources used?
• Are the sources well-integrated into the paper, or do they seem to be added in just for the sake of adding sources?
• Is the word choice specific, concrete and interesting?
• Are the sentences clear?
• Is the overall organization of the argument effective?
• Are the transitions between paragraphs smooth?
• Are there any grammatical errors?

Based on the rubric found at: Grading Rubric Template (Word)

• Authored by : J. Indigo Eriksen. Provided by : Blue Ridge Community College. License : CC BY-NC-SA: Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike
• Image of checklist. Authored by : Jurgen Appelo. Located at : https://flic.kr/p/hykfe7 . License : CC BY: Attribution
• Peer Review Checklist. Authored by : Robin Parent. Provided by : Utah State University English Department. Project : USU Open CourseWare Initiative. License : CC BY-NC-SA: Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike
• Table of Contents

Instructor Resources (Access Requires Login)

• Overview of Instructor Resources

An Overview of the Writing Process

• Introduction to the Writing Process
• Introduction to Writing
• Your Role as a Learner
• What is an Essay?
• Reading to Write
• Defining the Writing Process
• Videos: Prewriting Techniques
• Thesis Statements
• Organizing an Essay
• Creating Paragraphs
• Conclusions
• Editing and Proofreading
• Matters of Grammar, Mechanics, and Style
• Comparative Chart of Writing Strategies

Using Sources

• Quoting, Paraphrasing, and Avoiding Plagiarism
• Formatting the Works Cited Page (MLA)
• Citing Paraphrases and Summaries (APA)
• APA Citation Style, 6th edition: General Style Guidelines

Definition Essay

• Definitional Argument Essay
• How to Write a Definition Essay
• Critical Thinking
• Video: Thesis Explained
• Effective Thesis Statements
• Student Sample: Definition Essay

Narrative Essay

• Introduction to Narrative Essay
• Student Sample: Narrative Essay
• "Shooting an Elephant" by George Orwell
• "Sixty-nine Cents" by Gary Shteyngart
• Video: The Danger of a Single Story
• How to Write an Annotation
• How to Write a Summary
• Writing for Success: Narration

Illustration/Example Essay

• Introduction to Illustration/Example Essay
• "She's Your Basic L.O.L. in N.A.D" by Perri Klass
• "April & Paris" by David Sedaris
• Writing for Success: Illustration/Example
• Student Sample: Illustration/Example Essay

Compare/Contrast Essay

• Introduction to Compare/Contrast Essay
• "Disability" by Nancy Mairs
• "Friending, Ancient or Otherwise" by Alex Wright
• "A South African Storm" by Allison Howard
• Writing for Success: Compare/Contrast
• Student Sample: Compare/Contrast Essay

Cause-and-Effect Essay

• Introduction to Cause-and-Effect Essay
• "Cultural Baggage" by Barbara Ehrenreich
• "Women in Science" by K.C. Cole
• Writing for Success: Cause and Effect
• Student Sample: Cause-and-Effect Essay

Argument Essay

• Introduction to Argument Essay
• Rogerian Argument
• "The Case Against Torture," by Alisa Soloman
• "The Case for Torture" by Michael Levin
• How to Write a Summary by Paraphrasing Source Material
• Writing for Success: Argument
• Student Sample: Argument Essay
• Grammar/Mechanics Mini-lessons
• Mini-lesson: Subjects and Verbs, Irregular Verbs, Subject Verb Agreement
• Mini-lesson: Sentence Types
• Mini-lesson: Fragments I
• Mini-lesson: Run-ons and Comma Splices I
• Mini-lesson: Comma Usage
• Mini-lesson: Parallelism
• Mini-lesson: The Apostrophe
• Mini-lesson: Capital Letters
• Grammar Practice - Interactive Quizzes
• De Copia - Demonstration of the Variety of Language
• Style Exercise: Voice

How to Teach Peer Editing: Effective Strategies for the ELA Classroom

Wondering how to teach peer editing in your classroom? Dive into helpful reminders, effective strategies, and sample exercises to share with your students. Let this article guide you as you reassess your approach to this critical aspect of the writing process.

Even as teachers, providing feedback can be a struggle. There’s so much to process; where do you begin? How much is too little or too much? How can you ensure the feedback is constructive and effective? Now, imagine the challenge our students face when we task them with peer editing. Cue the ineffective “Your paper was good” and “I liked it” comments students typically give. There has to be a better way to teach peer editing, right? Read on for effective strategies you can use when considering how to teach peer editing in your classroom.

The Importance of Peer Editing

Revision is an essential part of the writing process, including peer revisions. Peer editing has many benefits once students move beyond superficial comments and simple proofreading.

One of the most significant benefits is receiving feedback on one’s writing from a reader’s perspective. We often read over our work with the understanding of what we meant to say. However, the intention does not always translate so clearly. Writers are so close to their work that it can be difficult to spot areas for improvement. That’s where peer editing comes into play. As students review and revise each other’s work, they provide a fresh perspective, new insight, and an overall second eye for any simple mistakes. However, peer editing is just as beneficial for the reader as the writer. By reviewing their peers’ work, students can learn about themselves as writers, gaining new insights into how they can improve their writing.

Introducing Peer Editing

Rather than assuming your students understand how to approach peer editing effectively, I recommend you begin with a brief introduction to remind students what it is, why it’s important, and how to do it. Sure, your students will likely believe they already know, but their lackluster comments and surface-level suggestions say otherwise.

Begin by explaining what peer editing is not. It is not the same as proofreading. Effective peer editing required students to look beyond surface-level spelling and grammar mistakes. Encourage students to consider the word re vision, emphasizing the idea of bringing a new set of eyes to a text.

Students need a reminder that peer editing includes critically analyzing aspects such as content and structure. Therefore, it is not just about corrections. More importantly, effective peer editing is about providing feedback and suggestions.

Introduce Various Types of Feedback

Simply telling students to leave feedback is not enough. Many students will continue to make basic corrections or stick to surface-level comments. Therefore, I find it helpful to explain the different types of feedback students can leave when peer editing:

• Compliments: This is what I call the feel-good-feedback. Making space for positive feedback is essential to building confident writers. Students should always leave at least one specific compliment about a particular aspect of the writing.
• Corrections: This type of feedback is not up for debate. Corrections are meant to note mistakes in spelling and grammar and mark something that is missing. For example, if a paper is missing a thesis statement, hook, evidence, or conclusion, a correction would point that out.
• Suggestions: Students shouldn’t take this type of feedback lightly. However, the how is up to the writer when implementing the suggestions in their next draft. The editor provides insight, but the writer decides what to do with it if anything at all.
• Questions: Questions are similar to suggestions in that the writer decides what to do with them when it comes to the next phase of writing. However, I always remind students to be mindful of their audience. If a reader has a question, it’s worth considering the answer and working it into your piece.

Regardless of which category of feedback the student is leaving, explain the importance of being specific . For example, don’t just identify something as confusing or intriguing. Remind them to explain why .

How to Teach Peer Editing: Effective Strategies

Relying on a peer editing handout isn’t the only strategy you can use. Consider the following as alternatives or in addition to your current practice:

Model the process: Before students can leave effective feedback on their own, it helps to understand how . Have a student volunteer their essay or use a model to read and revise with your students. Explain your thought process, including any questions or comments that come about as you read and annotate the piece. As you move through the paper, you can start asking students for their thoughts on what feedback they would leave.

Provide guidelines and rubrics : Before students engage in peer editing, be sure they know what they are looking for. Having a copy of the expectations on hand provides a guide for students as they engage in peer editing. Consider providing an extended rubric where students can leave specific feedback and suggestions for each category. That way, both readers and writers have a clear understanding of the feedback.

Provide a checklist: For more holistic revisions, consider providing a checklist. For each item on the checklist, leave space for the editor to leave a specific comment. If the item is checked off, the student can write a specific piece of praise or an optional suggestion for improvement. (Just because they have it, doesn’t mean it’s perfect!) If the item is missing from the paper or unsuccessfully incorporated, the editor should provide a suggestion, ask a question, or specify what is missing.

Narrow the focus: This is one of my favorite techniques.To avoid overgeneralized holistic feedback (“It was good”), consider providing a specific lens through which students conduct their revision. Students are often overwhelmed by power editing because they don’t know where to begin. Narrowing the focus to one to three specifics can help take some pressure off and ensure writers get relevant feedback on their drafts.

Offer thinking stems: Providing students with thinning stems can relieve some of the stress of peer editing. Guide them toward more effective feedback by helping them get started. Here are a few ideas:

• The … was effective because …
• I was confused by the … because …. Consider …
• You make a good point about … but it might benefit from more …
• Instead of … consider trying …
• Your piece made me feel/think …

Peer Editing Exercises to Try in Your Classroom

Ready to see peer editing in action? Consider trying one of these exercises:

Peer Edit Station Rotation: The value is peer editing is perspective, right? This activity allows students to receive feedback from various students and get up and move around. Arrange the desks into six groups and leave a stack of papers at each station. Randomly assign students to a table and have them pick one essay to edit until the timer goes off. When time is up, students must move to a new table and select a different paper to focus.  Allow enough time for each paper to be reviewed at least three times. Add a little extra fun by letting students pick a fun (yet legible) color to use for their feedback. The result? A rainbow of revisions!

Mystery Peer Edit Pile: This simple peer editing activity takes away the stress of students knowing which paper belongs to whom. (Bye-bye biases and social pressure!) Have each student bring a copy of their draft without their name on it to add to the mystery pile.  Hand each student a random draft from the stack (just make sure they don’t get their own) to read and review. Once they finish leaving their feedback, they return the paper to the pile and grab another. This cycle goes on for the duration of the activity.

Editorial Board: Roleplaying can make a seemingly dull task more fun, especially for younger students. Turn your classroom into a publishing house for the day. Begin the class by assigning students the role of junior editors. Their task? Finding the next piece with “big hit” potential in a pile of submissions (aka student drafts). However, that means finding the potential in a draft and providing appropriate feedback to make it great. Spend a few minutes exploring what an editor does (hint: it’s more than making simple corrections). Then, review the guidelines for publication (the assignment itself and its rubric or guidelines) and have them get to work!  This real-world context allows them to step away from the role of a friend or peer and into the role of an editor. How fun!

Peer Edit Press Conference: Trust me, this activity is far less intimidating than it sounds. Students won’t be standing in front of their peers, answering and deflecting questions. Instead, they will be the ones asking the questions about their writing. By having students come up with questions for their peers to answer during peer editing, they must first think critically about their work.  As they reflect on their writing, they can identify areas they would like to improve or know they are struggling with. Furthermore, it helps their peers have a sense of direction as they read and provide feedback. However, I remind students that they are free to mark corrections and make a few other remarks.

How to Teach Peer Editing: A Final Thought

Peer editing is a great learning opportunity for students. But it all begins by teaching students how to effectively revise and edit each other’s work. Not only will they learn ways to improve their writing, but they will also practice clear communication strategies. After all, clear communication is a must for effective peer revisions.

Let’s be honest. Peer editing takes a bit off of our plates as teachers too. However, if we don’t begin by teaching peer editing, it’s a waste of valuable time. Hopefully, these strategies help you with how to teach effective peer editing in your classroom!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

GUIDELINES FOR IN-CLASS PEER REVIEW

Professor david sorkin, history/jewish studies 529.

Instructions: Please read this sheet carefully in order to know how you are to help your peers.

Bring three copies of your paper to class.

Each of you will read your paper aloud. Reading aloud is the best way to judge the clarity and coherence of a paper because it enables us to connect the written word with the spoken one. If an argument has broken off; if a sentence is unclear, wordy, inaccurate or pretentious; if there is a lack of evidence; or if there is a logical gap—all of these will be immediately obvious (to the writer as well as the reviewers). Reading aloud can be a humbling experience, there is no denying that, but it is also a fundamentally productive one.

Reviewers: Concentrate on your own response to the paper rather than rendering judgment. Use the first person (e.g., “I hear…”, “I didn’t understand…”, “I’m confused about…”, “I’d like to hear more about…”, “I couldn’t follow…”). Avoid using the second person (e.g., “you should”, “you need to”, “you ought to”). Responses are a clear guide because they enable the writer to rethink the issues on his/her own. Your responses (1st person) are easier to listen to and accept, and in thus in the end more effective, than your judgments (2nd person).

Hand a copy of your paper to each of your peer reviewers.

Read your paper aloud slowly; pause at the end of each paragraph to give yourself and your reviewers time to write

When you are finished reading, discuss the paper candidly using 1st-person responses. Make sure the writer has

time to write down the comments.

Reviewers: when you have finished discussing the paper, answer the “Peer Review Questions” and then hand the

completed form, and your copy of the paper, to the writer.

Writer: when you hand in your paper

please be sure to include the reviewer forms as well. Staple them to your paper.

please write me a note describing what you found helpful/unhelpful in reading aloud and peer review and

how you revised your paper in light of the process.

Peer Review Questions

Writer: Reviewer:

Introduction. Is the first paragraph an adequate statement of the paper’s topic and approach? Did you know from the first paragraph where the paper was headed?

Continuity. Is the line of argument clear from paragraph to paragraph? Did each paragraph add to the argument?

Evidence. Did the writer support the argument in a convincing manner? Were quotations from the text well chosen?

Conclusion. Does the conclusion draw together the strands of the argument? Is it a sufficient statement of the paper’s main points?

Strengths. What did you find best in the paper?

• Grades 6-12
• School Leaders

Have you gotten your free poster delivered? ✨

5 Peer Editing Strategies That Actually Work For Student Writers

When you ask your students to do peer review of their writing, do they stare at you with puzzled expressions?[…] Continue Reading

When you ask your students to do peer review of their writing, do they stare at you with puzzled expressions? Here are five specific, hands-on approaches to peer conferencing that your students can really sink their teeth into.

Revising and editing a peer’s writing helps students learn to work as a team. It also gives them a fresh perspective on the proofreading process that will help them become more aware as they write and edit their own work. So, how can you make the peer review and editing process engaging, meaningful and fun for students? Here are five ways to get your students excited about peer review that actually work!

Highlighter Markers: 3 Colors Yellow – Mark the first word of each sentence. Questions to think about: Is there variety? Does the writer use transitional words? Are there any sentence fragments or run-ons? Pink – Highlight each adjective. Think about: Is the writing descriptive? Are the adjectives strong and specific? Blue – Highlight each verb. Think about: Are there too many “to be” verbs? Are the verb choices strong?

Students begin by highlighting specifics. Then, remind them to look at the big picture. After highlighting, they can make comparisons and add suggestions about what the student needs to add, adjust or remove. Proofreading will come later. First, they are helping a peer with sentence fluency and word choice—both descriptive language and “showing without telling.”

Teach students about the revision sandwich: compliment, suggest, correct. Remind students that when reviewing someone’s work, always start out by saying what they like about their work. Next, they make a suggestion and converse with their partner. Students ask questions. Then, they make corrections. By working together, they both learn from each other.

Click here for a PDF of the Writing Wheel Checklist.

Revising (The big picture) A dd words and sentences (be descriptive, capture all ideas). R emove words and sentences (be concise). M ove words and sentences (sentence fluency, organization). S ubstitute words and sentences (word choice, voice).

Editing (Conventions) C apitalization U sage (Verbs and nouns—does it make sense?) P unctuation S pelling

To help students with their understanding, say you use your arms and hand to hold your ear to help them remember that when you revise, you want the writing to sound better. If you punch a hole in a cup and look through it, you are using your eyes. This will help them remember that when you edit, you want your writing to look better. Students could even create a telescope made out of a paper cup and call it their Revisoscope! Check out Busy Bee Kids Crafts to see how to construct one. Once students know the difference between revising and editing and have the acronyms memorized, they can jot them down on a Post-it note when checking a peer’s writing. The acronyms will remind students of what to look for and how writing can be improved to make it look and sound better!

Print out Be the Editor task cards for students to use when revising and editing at each station. Students use Zaner-Bloser’s task cards to help them discuss and check one another’s writing! The task cards provide the children with prompts, making editing/revising easier. By concentrating on one writing trait at a time at each station, students will not feel overwhelmed. Along with the task cards, put out highlighters, sticky notes, colored pencils and other writing utensils to keep students interested.

You Might Also Like

Questions That Set a Purpose for Reading

The last time you read, you had a purpose, even if you didn’t realize it. Maybe you were reading to Continue Reading

Copyright © 2024. All rights reserved. 5335 Gate Parkway, Jacksonville, FL 32256

Narrative Writing Peer Review Checklist

Once students have completed their first draft of narrative writing, use this handy checklist to guide them through the peer review process. Students will review their peer's writing for clear sequencing, compelling details, complete sentences, and correct spelling and punctuation.

View aligned standards

Related guided lesson.

Literature 1

• Request a Consultation
• Workshops and Virtual Conversations
• Technical Support
• Course Design and Preparation
• Observation & Feedback

Teaching Resources

Planning and Guiding In-Class Peer Review

Resource overview.

How to plan and guide in-class peer review.

Incorporating peer review into your course can help your students become better writers, readers, and collaborators. However, peer review must be planned and guided carefully.

The following suggestions for planning and guiding peer review are based on our approach to peer review. This approach implements four key strategies:

• Identify and teach the skills required for peer review.
• Teach peer review as an essential part of the writing process.
• Present peer review as an opportunity for students to learn how to write for an audience.
• Define the role of the peer-reviewer as that of a reader, not an evaluator.

These tips are are organized in four areas:

Before the Semester Starts

During the semester and before the first peer-review session, during and after peer-review sessions, peer review is challenging work.

The Center for Teaching and Learning provides sample worksheets (Peer Review Worksheet for Thesis-Driven Essay) that may be adapted to suit various types of courses and genres of writing.

1. Determine how peer review will fit into the course.

A. Decide which writing assignments will include a peer-review session. Given the time that is required to conduct peer-review sessions successfully (see below), in undergraduate courses, peer review will work best with papers of 5 pages or less. Instructors who want to incorporate peer-review sessions for longer papers will have to ask students to complete part of the work outside of class (e.g. reading peers’ papers and preparing written comments); such an approach is likely to be more successful if students first practice peer review during class, with the guidance of the instructor.

B. Decide when peer-review sessions will occur.  The ideal time for peer review is after students have written a complete draft of a paper, but while there is still time for substantial revision.

Each peer-review session will require at least one class period. While it is possible to complete a session in one hour, a one-and-one-half hour class period is preferable (see below for a detailed discussion of how to structure peer-review sessions).

As you look over your course schedule, make time for a “mock” peer-review session before you ask students to review one another’s writing, so that they can learn to identify and begin practicing the skills necessary for peer review. Before the semester begins, furthermore, you should find a short sample paper that will serve as the focus of the “mock” peer review. You can also write this short paper yourself (for more detailed suggestions on how to set up a mock peer-review session, see below).

Instructors should schedule the first peer-review session early in the semester to give students time to get to know one another and to develop peer-review skills. The atmosphere of trust and mutual respect that is necessary for the success of peer-review sessions does not develop instantaneously. Ideally, the first peer-review session should focus on a short piece of writing, such as a paragraph or two, so that students develop comfort with giving and receiving feedback before taking on the task of reading longer papers.

2. Design peer-review worksheets that students will complete during each peer-review session.

These worksheets  should include specific tasks that reviewers should complete during the session. The guidance you provide on the worksheets should help students stay “on task” during the session and should help them discern the amount of commenting that is desirable.

The role of the peer-reviewer should be that of a reader, not an evaluator or grader. Do not replicate the grading criteria when designing these worksheets. Your students will not necessarily be qualified to apply these criteria effectively, and they may feel uncomfortable if they are given the responsibility to pronounce an overall judgment on their peers’ work.

Peer-review worksheets should ask the reviewer to begin by offering a positive comment about the paper. After that point, the peer-reviewer role in commenting should be descriptive: each reviewer should describe his response to the paper. For example, a peer-reviewer might write: “I found this description very clear” or “I do not understand how this point relates to your thesis.” The worksheet should give students specific tasks to complete when recording their response to a paper (Nilson 2003). Where evaluation is required, it should be based on the reviewer’s impressions as a reader. Examples of specific tasks include:

• Indicate which parts of the paper the reader finds most or least effective, and why
• Identify or rephrase the thesis
• List the major points of support or evidence
• Indicate sentences or paragraphs that seem out of order, incompletely explained, or otherwise in need of revision

Performing these tasks should enable each peer-reviewer to provide the writer with a written response that will help the writer determine which parts of the paper are effective as is, and which are unclear, incomplete, or unconvincing.

Do not require students to tell the writer how to revise the paper. Advanced undergraduates, students who have been meeting in peer-review groups for an extended time, and graduate students may be able to handle adding more directive responses (e.g. suggesting that the writer make specific changes).

3. During the course-planning process, think carefully about the kind of comments that you will provide students when you review drafts and grade papers.

With your comments, you can model for your students the qualities you would like to see reflected in their comments as peer-reviewers. For example, you can give them examples of comments that are descriptive and specific.

4. Decide whether and how you will grade students’ contributions to peer-review sessions.

One way to communicate to students the importance of peer review and the skills it requires is to grade their contributions to the peer-review process. If you do grade students’ performances in peer review, you will need to decide ahead of time what exactly you will be grading and what criteria you will use to judge their achievement. Furthermore, you might decide to use a straightforward -√/ √/ √+ system, or you might assign a point-value to different aspects of the work required for peer review. You should then decide how to incorporate each peer-review score into the course grade or into the grade earned for each paper.

The following example illustrates a point-system approach to grading student performance in peer review:

Brought 2 copies of paper to class: 5 pts Provided peers with specific, constructive written feedback: 0-5 pts Participated actively in discussion of each paper: 0-5 pts Wrote specific response to peers’ feedback: 0-5 pts Total score for each peer-review session: 0-20 pts.

This example makes it clear that those students who do not bring a draft to be peer-reviewed would nevertheless earn points by acting as reviewers of their peers’ work. Of course, if you use such a point-system, you will need to explain to the students the criteria by which you judge their performance in each category. Providing students with graded examples will help to clarify these criteria.

Whatever you decide regarding whether and how you will grade each student’s performance in peer review, you should observe and evaluate what students are doing during peer review so that you can give them some feedback and suggestions for improvement throughout the semester (see below for further suggestions on how to observe and evaluate peer review).

1. Hold a “mock” peer-review session.

First, copy and distribute a brief sample paper. You can either use a paper submitted by a student in an earlier semester (block-out the name and ask the student’s permission to distribute the paper) or write a sample paper yourself, approximating a draft that would be typical of students in your course. Next, ask students to take 5 minutes to read the paper and 10 minutes to write some comments, using a peer-review worksheet. If time allows, you can ask students to work in groups of 3-4 to produce written comments; if you do so, give them an additional 5-10 minutes for group discussion.

After students have produced written comments individually or as a group, use a document camera or overhead projector to display a blank peer-review worksheet. Then, ask students to present their reviewing comments to the class and use these to write comments on the displayed worksheet. When necessary, follow-up with questions that help the students phrase their comments in more specific and constructive ways. For example, if a student comments, “I like the first paragraph,” you might ask, “can you tell the writer what you find effective or appealing about that paragraph? And why?” Your aim should be to help students understand that the point of their comments should be to describe their experience as readers with specific language, not to praise or condemn their peers or to tell the peer how they would write the paper. Note that while students often hesitate to give specific feedback to a writer face-to-face, they may actually be overly critical when critiquing something written by a writer who is not present. Therefore, it might be helpful to direct students to construct their comments as if the writer were indeed in the room, listening.

2. Teach students how to think about, respond to, and use comments by peer-reviewers.

Just as your students will need to learn and practice the skills involved in providing constructive feedback on their peers’ writing, they will also need to learn how to respond, as writers, to the feedback they receive. Therefore, you might consider including in the “mock” peer-review session, described above, an exercise in which you ask your students to put themselves in the position of the writer and come up with a plan for revision based on the comments that they and their classmates have formulated in response to the sample paper.

Students must learn how to approach a peer-review session with an open mind (and a thick skin, perhaps). Often, undergraduate students go into a peer-review session thinking that their papers are essentially “done” and need to be edited or changed only slightly. Thus they “hear” only those responses that confirm this view and they end up making very few changes to their papers after the peer-review session and before submitting the final draft to the instructor. Alternatively, they can become so discouraged by what they view as a negative response from a peer that they are not able to discern what is useful about those responses.

To help students resist the understandable temptation to become either discouraged or defensive during the peer-review session and to help them focus on listening carefully to their peers’ comments, it is useful to institute a rule that prohibits writers from speaking when peer-reviewers are offering feedback. An exception might be made in a case in which the writer does not understand a reviewer’s comments and needs to ask for more information.

In addition, instructors should require each writer to respond in writing to their peers’ comments. This written response can be recorded directly on the peer-review worksheet, or it can take the form of an informal letter (addressed to the peer-reviewers). Alternatively, instructors might require each writer to sketch out a plan for revision that 1) indicates any changes she will make in response to the reviewers’ comments and 2) explains any decisions she has made to disregard a specific comment or suggestion.The point of such writing exercises is to ask students to take their peers’ comments seriously and to think carefully about how readers respond to the choices they have made in their writing–even if that means determining that they will decide not to make changes based on those comments.

3. Assign three students to each peer-review group: maintain the same groups throughout the semester.

With groups of three, each student will be reviewing the papers of two peers during each peer-review session, but each group will discuss three papers (for detailed instructions on how to structure each session, see below).

It is best to assign students to groups, rather than to have them define the groups themselves. Students often want to form groups with friends, which may actually create difficulties. As you may want to explain to your students, it can be more difficult to provide honest feedback to a writer when that writer is a friend. Moreover, assigning students to the groups will allow the instructor to ensure that the groups are heterogeneous in terms of, for example, student ability, gender, race, and academic major. Such heterogeneity can enhance student learning in groups (Millis 2002).

Maintaining the groups throughout the semester will help your students build the trust that is necessary for peer review to be successful (Millis 2002). You should only reassign students to another group in the rare case when one or two group members drop the course. You should encourage your students to speak with you if they find that their peer-review groups are not functioning as well as desired, but you should also make it clear that you are interested in helping them find ways to work together to solve whatever problems have surfaced.

4. Ask each student to bring 2 copies of his or her paper to class on the designated day.

You can tell students that these copies are required, but if they do not bring copies of their own paper to class, they should come to class anyway, so that they can act as reviewers of other students’ papers.

1. Structure each peer-review session: give students clear instructions and time limits.

To start each session, distribute peer-review worksheets (see above), explain how students should complete the worksheets, set time limits, and ask each group to designate one person as a time-keeper to make sure that the group stays on schedule.

Peer-review sessions can be accomplished during one-hour classes, but instructors may find that a 90-minute class is preferable. If you teaching a one-hour or 50 minute class, consider asking students to read their peers’ papers before coming to class, then spending the first 10 minutes reviewing the paper and writing comments.

The following is a peer-review schedule that can work in a 90-minute class.

I.  When papers are around three pages long, peer-reviewers should spend about 20-25 minutes reading and reviewing each paper: 15 minutes reading the paper (tell students to read each paper twice) and 5-10 minutes writing comments. You should lengthen the time limit when necessary, for instance when papers are longer or when they are written in a foreign language. This schedule will mean that during the first 45-50 minutes of class, each student will be reading and writing comments on papers written by two peers.

II.  After all 3 students have finished commenting on the two papers submitted by their peers, the group should then devote 5-10 minutes to a “discussion” of each paper (spending a total of 15-30 minutes discussing three papers). During this discussion, the 2 reviewers should present spoken feedback to the writer. If reviewers feel uncomfortable with providing spoken feedback, they might start by reading their written comments out loud to the writer. Doing so can produce the added benefit of helping the reviewers clarify their written comments. As noted above, the writer of the paper should not speak during this discussion, except perhaps to ask a clarifying question.

2. Take an active role in observing the progress of each group and offering guidance when appropriate.

Even with clear instructions, peer-review sessions can go awry. Circulate throughout the session to make sure that the groups stay focused. Listen carefully to the spoken feedback, and use questions to help students make their comments as specific and descriptive as possible. For example, if you hear a student saying, “I was confused by the third paragraph,” you might prompt them to say more by asking, “Can you tell the writer where you got lost?” or “What word or phrase confused you? Why?” Students will soon learn to supply such details themselves.

Paying attention to how the groups are functioning overall can help you determine whether you need to give additional guidance to the class as a whole. For example, you might tell students that you noticed that many groups seem to be rushing through the spoken feedback period for each paper, and that even reviewers who wrote detailed and constructive comments on the worksheet are giving only cursory responses when speaking to the writer (e.g. “I thought you did a good job,” or “Your paper was interesting”). You might then remind them that they do not need to present an overall judgment of the paper, but they should try to say something specific that can help the writer revise the paper.

3. Have each student submit the completed peer-review worksheets when they turn-in the final drafts of their papers.

Whether or not you are grading the responses that reviewers and writers write on the peer-review worksheets, you should read the completed worksheets to get a sense of what students are actually doing during the peer-review sessions and how they are responding to one another’s comments. Having the students turn in the worksheets also helps you communicate to them that you are taking the peer-review process seriously. Instructors should also give students feedback on their performance during peer review so that they know what they are doing well and what they should try to improve upon.

4. Regularly assess how the peer-review sessions are going; seek and incorporate student input.

You should review completed peer-review worksheets when you grade papers not only to evaluate individual student performance, but also to gauge the success of the peer-review sessions and to determine what you might do to improve them.

Are students writing thoughtful comments that provide an adequate amount of detail? If not, spend some time in class before the next peer-review session giving students suggestions for how to phrase comments in a specific, constructive way.

Are students using the peer-review worksheets to develop thoughtful responses to peer comments? Are they coming up with plans for revision that take into account at least some of their peers’ comments? Again, if needed, give your students additional guidance and in-class activities that will lead them through the process of identifying potential aspects needing revision and coming up with a plan for revision that takes into account peer comments.

Around midterm, ask students to complete anonymous evaluation forms that include questions such as, “What is the most important insight that I have learned as a result of the peer-review process?” and “What can be done (by the instructor or by students, or both) to make the peer-review sessions run more smoothly?”

Be prepared to hear that the peer-review sessions are not functioning as well as you believe they are, and be open to making changes that incorporate your students’ observations and ideas. In other words, model the same open-mindedness to revision that you want them to display as writers during peer review.

Instructors who ask their students to review their peers’ writing should recall how difficult it is–even after years of experience–to accomplish with efficiency the tasks involved in responding to student writing: reading drafts of papers (usually multiple papers at one sitting), quickly discerning each draft’s strengths and most pressing problems, then formulating specific and well written comments that will help the writer improve the paper. It can also be difficult, even for experienced writers, to respond effectively to the comments they receive from reviewers of their work. It is essential, then, that you plan carefully the guidance you will give your students on how to conduct and utilize peer review, and that you give them a chance to reflect on the process.

Bean, John C. (2001).  Engaging Ideas: The Professor’s Guide to Integrating Writing, Critical Thinking, and Active Learning in the Classroom . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Gottschalk, Katherine and Keith Hjortshoj (2004). “What Can You Do with Student Writing?” In  The Elements of Teaching Writing: A Resource for Instructors in All Disciplines . Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s.

Millis, Barbara J. (2002). “ Enhancing Learning-and More! Through Collaborative Learning. IDEA Paper 38 . The IDEA Center.

Nilson, Linda. (2003). “Improving Student Peer Feedback.” College Teaching, 51 (1 ), p. 34-38.

Peer Edit With Perfection: Effective Strategies

• Resources & Preparation
• Instructional Plan
• Related Resources

Do students' eyes glaze over when they try to edit their own writing? Give them a fresh perspective with peer editing. Students are introduced to a three-step strategy for peer editing, providing (1) compliments, (2) suggestions, and (3) corrections in response to a sample of student writing. They practice these steps in a small-group session and share the results with the class. Then they move to individual editing practice guided by a PowerPoint tutorial and accompanying worksheet. This series of practice activities prepares students to engage in constructive peer editing of classmates' written work on a regular basis.

Featured Resources

• Peer Edit with Perfection! tutorial : Individual students can use the Peer Edit with Perfection! tutorial for a step-by-step practice session on peer editing strategies
• Peer Edit with Perfection! worksheet : The accompanying worksheet provides more practice with the Peer Edit with Perfection! tutorial.

From Theory to Practice

• Writing and revising in the classroom often involves peer discussion, whether in a one-to-one or group setting.
• Editing is an arduous and unwelcome task for many students; peer editing can improve students' interest in and enthusiasm for the revision stage of the writing process.

Common Core Standards

This resource has been aligned to the Common Core State Standards for states in which they have been adopted. If a state does not appear in the drop-down, CCSS alignments are forthcoming.

State Standards

This lesson has been aligned to standards in the following states. If a state does not appear in the drop-down, standard alignments are not currently available for that state.

NCTE/IRA National Standards for the English Language Arts

• 4. Students adjust their use of spoken, written, and visual language (e.g., conventions, style, vocabulary) to communicate effectively with a variety of audiences and for different purposes.
• 6. Students apply knowledge of language structure, language conventions (e.g., spelling and punctuation), media techniques, figurative language, and genre to create, critique, and discuss print and nonprint texts.
• 11. Students participate as knowledgeable, reflective, creative, and critical members of a variety of literacy communities.
• 12. Students use spoken, written, and visual language to accomplish their own purposes (e.g., for learning, enjoyment, persuasion, and the exchange of information).

Materials and Technology

• Computers with Internet access and PowerPoint software
• Overhead projector (optional)
• Peer Edit with Perfection! tutorial
• Peer Edit with Perfection! answer key
• Peer Edit with Perfection! handout
• Peer Edit with Perfection! worksheet
• Sample student work-5 points
• Sample student work-4 points

Preparation

Student Objectives

Students will

• Learn the definition of peer editing
• Understand and apply a three-step peer-editing process
• Peer edit sample student writing in a whole-group, small-group, and individual setting
• Use their knowledge of peer editing to develop a peer-editing assessment tool

Peer Editing as a Whole Class

Peer Editing in Small Groups

Individual Peer-Editing Practice

• Have students practice their skills by peer editing a piece written by a classmate. Implement and instill the peer-editing technique by having students edit their classmates' written pieces on a regular basis.
• Have students teach a fellow class to peer edit using the information they learned in this lesson.

Student Assessment / Reflections

• Review the Peer Edit with Perfection! worksheets completed during the PowerPoint tutorial. Assess using the answer key .

Start by asking students what they need to remember about the first step—compliments. Guide the class to create one or two checklist items related to compliments. Some ideas might include, "I gave the author of this piece at least two compliments" or "I was specific about what I liked about this piece of writing." Record these student-generated checklist items on the board or on chart paper. Move through the other two steps of peer editing (suggestions and corrections) and generate several other checklist items. Some ideas might include, "I gave the author detailed suggestions about how to improve this piece of writing" or "I marked all the spelling and grammar errors that I saw in this piece of writing." Once students have generated six to seven checklist items, record and type them up. Have students use the checklist as an assessment tool for future peer-editing sessions.

• Strategy Guides
• Lesson Plans

This strategy guide explains the writing process and offers practical methods for applying it in your classroom to help students become proficient writers.

Students are encouraged to understand a book that the teacher reads aloud to create a new ending for it using the writing process.

While drafting a literary analysis essay (or another type of argument) of their own, students work in pairs to investigate advice for writing conclusions and to analyze conclusions of sample essays. They then draft two conclusions for their essay, select one, and reflect on what they have learned through the process.

Add new comment

• Print this resource

Explore Resources by Grade

• Kindergarten K

• Rating Count
• Price (Ascending)
• Price (Descending)
• Most Recent

Peer revision checklist argument essay

Resource type.

Argument Essay Peer Revision Checklist & Essay Rubric

Self and Peer Revision Checklist for Argument Writing

Writing Checklist : Edit & Revision Argument Essay

Argument Checklist | Argument Unit | Any Text Set | Research + Literary Essay

Argument Writing Unit

Revising & Peer Editing Checklist : Argument , Narrative, Literary Analysis Essay

Essay Revision Checklist | Writing Revision Activity

14 Argument Essay Revision Stations - Editable and PDF Versions

The Glass Castle Essay Summative Assessment (3 Options)

Persuasive Writing Revision Checklist for Self or Peer Review

Peer Review Sheet for Argument Essay

Argument Writing Revision Checklist

Argument Writing Revision Stations

Detailed Persuasive Research Paper Peer Editing Checklist

Argumentative Essay Template and Editing Checklist

DBQ/ Argument Writing Bundle!

Argument Writing Revision Stations | Editing & Revising | Customizable

Argument Revision Bundle

• We're hiring
• Help & FAQ
• Privacy policy
• Student privacy
• Terms of service
• Tell us what you think

Introduction

Background on the Course

CO300 as a University Core Course

Short Description of the Course

Course Objectives

General Overview

Alternative Approaches and Assignments

(Possible) Differences between COCC150 and CO300

What CO300 Students Are Like

And You Thought...

Beginning with Critical Reading

Opportunities for Innovation

Portfolio Grading as an Option

Teaching in the computer classroom

Finally. . .

Classroom materials

Audience awareness and rhetorical contexts

Critical thinking and reading

Focusing and narrowing topics

Mid-course, group, and supplemental evaluations

More detailed explanation of Rogerian argument and Toulmin analysis

Policy statements and syllabi

Portfolio explanations, checklists, and postscripts

Presenting evidence and organizing arguments/counter-arguments

Research and documentation

Writing assignment sheets

Assignments for portfolio 1

Assignments for portfolio 2

Assignments for portfolio 3

Workshopping and workshop sheets

On workshopping generally

Workshop sheets for portfolio 1

Workshop sheets for portfolio 2

Workshop sheets for portfolio 3

Workshop sheets for general purposes

Sample materials grouped by instructor

Peer-Review Checklist for Draft of Argument Essay

Read the essay through, quickly. Then read it again, with the following questions in mind. Please write extensive comments either on your workshop partner's draft where applicable or on this handout. If you need more room, continue writing on the back of this page.

• Does this draft respond to the assignment? (Argument of a debatable issue with Rogerian slant?)
• Looking at the essay as whole, what thesis (main point including writer's opinion) is advanced? Please underline the thesis on your workshop partner's draft. If it is implied only, jot down what you perceive to be the thesis here.
• Are the needs of the audience kept in mind? For instance, do some concepts or words need to be defined? Is the evidence (examples, testimony of authorities, personal observations) clear and effective? Get into the margins of the draft and comment.
• Is any obvious evidence (or counter-evidence) overlooked?
• Can you accept the writer's assumptions? If not, why not? Please be honest and specific.
• Looking at each paragraph separately:
• What is the basic point?
• How does each paragraph relate to the essay's main idea or the previous paragraph?
• Should some paragraphs be deleted? Be divided into two or more paragraphs? Be combined? Be put elsewhere? (If you outline the essay by jolting down the gist of each paragraph, you will get help in answering these questions.)
• Is each sentence clearly related to the sentence that precedes it and to the sentence that follows?
• Is each paragraph adequately developed? Are there sufficient details, perhaps brief quotations or paraphrases from credible sources?
• Are the introductory and concluding paragraphs effective?
• What are the paper's main strengths?
• Make at least one specific suggestion that you think will assist the author to improve the paper.
• Last but not least--mechanics. If time permits, point out errors in spelling or grammar that distract from the argument of this draft.