Posts Tagged: peer response


Posts Tagged ‘peer response’

Apr 14 2010

Activity Showcase: Peer Review and Self-Assessment (Paula Patch)

Published by

The grading rubric is a great tool for facilitating both self- and peer assessment. During most of our peer review sessions, the students refer to and use the grading rubric for the assignment, which is useful for several reasons:

  • They are using the same criteria to assess their work and their peers’ work as I will use to assess the product. They have no excuse for not understanding the expectations for the assignment.
  • On that note, if they don’t understand the expectations as they are written on the rubric, this is a good time to ask me questions about it.
  • The rubric stands in for me in the role of assessor, which
    • frees me up to play different roles during the review session, such as mentor or “pretend” peer
    • allows students to step into my role for a while, to view their own writing from my perspective. I tend to refer to this shift as the “What would Professor Patch say?” perspective. It works best on the second and subsequent assignments, when they’ve “heard” me in feedback on at least one major writing assignment.

The students evaluate one another’s writing by marking the rubric and by making comments in the margins of the peer’s essay.

After they have received feedback from their peers, students complete the reflective self-assessment activity, which I copy onto the back of the rubric. When they leave the review session, they have multiple types of feedback, along with a plan, to refer to as they revise their essays.

Rhetorical Analysis Essay Grading Rubric

Essay Is

Exceeds Expectations

Meets Minimum Expectations

Needs Work

Does Not Meet Assignment Requirements

Points Earned/ Allotted

Argumentative

  • Includes a thesis
  • Focuses on the thesis throughout

_____/15

Analytical

  • Describes, explains, and reflects on how/why/to whom your sources present information
  • SHOULD NOT simply summarize what the sources say
  • SHOULD NOT attempt to answer your research question

_____/25

Well-supported

  • Includes multiple examples of relevant textual evidence from each source
  • Provides an explanation or interpretation of the evidence that clearly ties the evidence to the argument

_____/25

Meets audience expectations

  • Engaging
  • Clean and clear
  • MLA formatting and documentation

_____/15

Comments:

Self-Assessment and Revision Plan

What do you like best about your essay?

What do you like least?

Look at the rubric:

What does your essay seem to be missing?

Where can your essay be strengthened?

Based on the feedback from your peers and your self-assessment, list at list 5 things to work on in your revision:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Apr 14 2010

Peer Review – Activities Shared by Faculty

Published by

  • Paula Rosinski:
    • Lately I’ve been using the Evaluation Criteria for peer-response – so in groups they read and make comments based on how well the Evaluation Criteria are being met. I also use the Writing Center model, instructing the writer to select 2 or 3 things they want feedback on.
    • The peer-response to a Writing Center Report (attached) is very specific to the assignment, but I try and change up how we do peer-response in class (not only for diverse learners but for students who are going to be future teachers).
  • Paula Patch :
    During most of our peer review sessions, the students refer to and use the grading rubric for the assignment, which is useful for several reasons:

    • They are using the same criteria to assess their work and their peers’ work as I will use to assess the product. They have no excuse for not understanding the expectations for the assignment.
    • On that note, if they don’t understand the expectations as they are written on the rubric, this is a good time to ask me questions about it.
    • The rubric stands in for me in the role of assessor.
  • Jessie Moore:
    I ask students to practice collaborative writing strategies, using digital literacy tools, while developing expectations for peer response participation in the class for the remainder of the semester. (See attachment for the Revson Digital Literacies Project version of this activity, as well as a sample document created by one of my classes.)

Feb 10 2010

Activity Showcase: Drafting Class Expectations for Peer Response (Jessie Moore)

Published by

Description of Activity

Students practice collaborative writing strategies, using digital literacy tools, while developing expectations for peer response participation in the class for the remainder of the semester. Small groups draft sections of the class document and then post them for comment by other groups. Based on the feedback they receive, groups revise their sections before the sections are combined to form the class document.

Goals

The activity gives students an opportunity to practice using collaborative writing tools (i.e., Track Changes and Comments) and strategies (i.e., file naming, tracking revisions, accepting or rejecting proposed changes, discussing proposed revisions). In turn, it supports students’ development of a more sophisticated writing process.

Timing

If students have previous experience with peer review, this activity could be completed early in the semester. If students don’t have much experience with peer review, they might take more ownership of the class expectations after the first peer review activity of the semester.

Materials/tools needed:

  • Blackboard discussion board.
  • MS Word
  • Track changes/Comments handout
  • Optional reading for homework
    • From Writing: A Manual for the Digital Age: Contributing to Group Projects (2g, p. 27), Peer Review (6h, pp. 101-105), and Tracking Changes (pp. 110-113)
    • From The Academic Writer: Guidelines for Group Work (pp. 39-40), Guidelines for Group Brainstorming (p. 239), and Guidelines for Working with a Writing Group (p. 288)

Overview of Activity:

1. As a class, brainstorm characteristics of helpful/unhelpful feedback (from peers, faculty, family members, Writing Center consultants, etc.). (5-10 minutes)

2. Divide the class into five (5) groups.

3. Students work in groups to draft one of five sections:

  • Writer’s Responsibilities in Preparation for Peer Response
  • Writer’s Responsibilities during Peer Response Discussions
  • Reader’s Responsibilities when making Written Comments
  • Reader’s Responsibilities during Peer Response Discussions
  • Instructor’s Responsibilities during Peer Response

Students draft their section in a Word Document.

Optional ways to encourage participation:

  • Each student could be required to contribute at least one idea to their section. (Students could practice using track changes within their group to demonstrate their individual contributions.)
  • Group members could be assigned roles (examples: time keeper, recorder, creative idea person, etc.)
  • Faculty member could prompt participation while circulating among groups.

4 Groups post drafts (written in MS Word) to a Blackboard discussion board. (10-20 minutes for drafting and posting, at instructors’ discretion)

    5. Instructor introduces track changes and comments. (5-10 minutes)
    (Consider having students explain how to use these features. While one student might not know all the features, you could pose questions to the class – i.e., If I wanted to hide the comments but didn’t want to delete them, what could I do? – and let students who are familiar with the tools answer while you demonstrate on the screen.)

    6. Another group offers feedback/suggests revisions using comments (to pose comments or questions) and track changes (to suggest revisions) and posts their document as a reply to the first group’s post on the Blackboard discussion board. (10 minutes)

      7. Instructor leads a whole-class review of each section and discussion. The drafting group introduces their ideas and the response group shares their suggestions/critiques. The drafting group is responsible for taking notes about the class discussion, reviewing the response group’s suggested revisions, and re-posting their portion of the document (with tracked changes accepted/rejected and other revisions based on the class discussion). (15-20 minutes)

      [The activity could end here for one class session and the class could briefly return to the activity during the next class session. Students could read the final document (created in step 8) for homework.]

        8. Faculty member (or student volunteer) combines sections and posts for final review.

          9. The class discusses this activity as an example of collaborative writing. (5-15 minutes, at instructors’ discretion)

            • What worked well?
            • How did the review tools facilitate collaboration among groups?
            • What did students do within their groups to facilitate collaboration?
            • How do the commenting and track changes tools change the act of collaborating?
            • In what ways did your group apply what you discussed about peer response to this activity?

            10. Final Reflection: Students write a 5-minute reflection on the experience and how they might use the strategies they learned in other contexts.

              Reflect on your collaborative writing experience. What strategies worked well for you as you collaborated with your group? What experiences challenged your individual writing process? How might you use the strategies you learned today in other contexts?
              Extensions

              • Consider using different strategies for peer response (handwriting, Word features, summative response, etc.) throughout the semester and prompting student reflection on which strategies they would use for different circumstances.
              • Facilitate a discussion highlighting these tools as one strategy for managing collaborative writing and response. Talk about challenges of different strategies and how you might decide which strategies are best for your current collaborative writing circumstances.

              Oct 14 2009

              Peer Response and Other Feedback

              Published by

              Identifying Goals for Feedback, Framing Questions for Feedback, Point/Summarize/Reflect, Comment Tags for Situated Questions

              • Targeted Feedback – Activity Contributed by Victoria Shropshire
                “I setup a discussion board in BB in which all students must post 2 versions of the introduction to the essay on which they are all currently working, and then their classmates must reply as to which version of the PRG they prefer, and why (emphasis on this latter part).  I post a series of questions to consider for those who need guidance with peer review and then let them at it!  The posts are typically insightful, and the authors really like the “free space” to try out new ideas, but it also forces students to look critically at this particular piece of writing, a skill they can always hone and use towards their own. I try to reply to everyone the first time I use such a DB, but as the semester progresses, I will read them all but only comment on a few.

                “Students are assessed on a complete/incomplete scale so the pressure of assessment is virtually removed. 10 points for the original post, and 5 points each for 2 responses to classmates for a 20 point (total) DB, which is like a quiz grade. I praise really in-depth and insightful responses and mention the need for more substance in ones that are non-committal, but the directions include a few comments about the importance and value of substantial responses, and thus far I am pleased with the result.”

              • Conferencing
              • Rhetorics as Resources: The Academic Writer (Chapter 12), Writing: A Manual for the Digital Age (Chapter 6)