From WolfWikis

Back to Instructional Strategies wiki home.

Peer Editing

Fredessa Hamilton

Description

Peer editing is an instructional strategy that uses collaborative feedback on adult student writing from other students to assist the writer in creating a fuller, richer, more organized and complete document. In teaching a college-level course on electronic media writing, the greatest impact peer editing can make to the writing process will occur early in the creation of a document. Since media writing often involves crafting short scripts of no more than 300 words, peer editing can be done quickly and does not involve time-consuming editing of punctuation, grammar or context. In fact, when used in this type of class, the goal is to have the peer editor determine overall persuasiveness, effectiveness and objectivity of the media writing. Each type of media writing assignment, whether it is a news or sports story, an advertisement or public service announcement, or a storyboard, will elicit several different reactions from peers, who bring their own experience and backgrounds to the writing. This is precisely the goal of peer editing, and such feedback cannot be accomplished solely by the instructor. A media writing assignment to write a news stories for broadcast, print or internet publication can be provided to the entire class, or can be individually assigned. Each individual is then responsible for doing the initial brainstorming and free writing to develop a short draft with bullet points. To begin the peer editing session, students are grouped with classmates in teams of no more than four, soon after the completion of the individual idea creation and early draft stages. Each team member then shares their initial concepts and approaches to developing the final piece. This fosters co-learning, and can occur without the direct intervention of the instructor.

Major Concepts

Peer editing involves the following major ideas and concepts. 1. Peer editing is most effective when it occurs early in the writing process. Gebhardt (1980) points out that “it seems a shame to limit the collaboration to the end of the writing process—to leave writers on their own while they generate material, crystallize a thesis, develop a sense of audience and voice, and organize a draft, and only then give them the benefit of other minds.” (72) 2. Peer editing can provide the variety of reactions and responses that adult learners can expect from their media audiences, as their peers bring a number of perspectives to the document. Gebhardt (1980) suggests that “Group members could discuss how much or how little they know about the subject and how they react emotionally to the topic. Since any group of four or five participants will probably have quite a range of knowledge, attitudes and assumptions on a given subject, such a discussion can provide a writer with a cross-section of possible audience diversity.” (74) 3. Adult students, particularly, are more adept at seeing their peers’ purposes in writing, and can “fill in the blanks” in a way that the instructor cannot. As Newkirk (1984) writes regarding peer response, students reviewing their peers’ writing “are more willing to do some of this elaboration as readers [italics in original]. If readers have had a similar experience, they are ready to use that background to extend what has been written.” (306) 4. Peer editing skills are valuable and necessary throughout the adult learner’s college experience, and will be used often as the learner progresses through the adult education process. Simmons (2003) writes that “It is important for students to learn these skills because they write better using peer feedback and attending to the effects of their writing on readers and themselves.” (684)

Relationship to Teaching Perspective

This section describes the association of the peer editing instructional strategy to the teaching perspective of nurturing, as described by Pratt and associates (1998). Peer editing is closely associated with this perspective because this strategy allows students to express empathy with each other through caring and sensitive feedback on each others’ writing. Caddie T’Kenye writes in the chapter on The Nurturing Perspective that “Empathy is most easily achieved with others who have had personal experiences similar to one’s own.” (Pratt and associates 1998, 165). In the peer editing strategy, the instructor plays a reduced role, consistent with the nurturing perspective, which, according to T’Kenye, requires that instructors have “a certain degree of faith and trust in the inherent goodness and value of learners.” (168)

Benefits

The benefits associated with this strategy are that it: 1. Allows adult learners to receive the benefit of their peers’ insights and perspectives while crafting their own writing in the earliest stages. (Gebhardt 1980); 2. Provides feedback from other adult learners who may share more similar backgrounds with their peers than they may with their instructors (Newkirk 1984); 3. Learning how to provide peer editing and feedback is a skill that will be necessary and valuable throughout the adult learner’s college experience (Simmons 2003).

Drawbacks and Cautions

With the peer editing instructional strategy, there are concerns that: 1. Differences in the expectations of peer editors and instructors may confuse the adult learner, and instructors’ feedback on the peer editing process may be seen as more judgmental and critical (Newkirk 1984); 2. It may take several years to fully develop effective peer editing and feedback skills (Simmons 2003); 3. Peer editing provided too late in the writing process may not be effective for the adult learner (Gebhardt 1980).

Final Thoughts

Peer editing as an instructional strategy can be unnerving to students who expect the instructor to perform all editing and feedback. It can also be misconstrued if peer editing is seen as peer evaluation or grading, which is not what is intended with this strategy. As long as students understand that the purposes of peer editing are to bring different sets of eyes, experiences and backgrounds to the writing of their peers, without being judgmental or “teacher-like”, adult students are more likely to engage in providing their peers with helpful, insightful comments and suggestions.

References

Gebhardt, Richard (1980). Teamwork and Feedback: Broadening the Base of Collaborative Writing. College English, 42 (1), 69-74.

Newkirk, Thomas (1984). Direction and Misdirection in Peer Response. College Composition and Communication, 35 (3), 301-311.

Pratt, Daniel D. and Associates (1998). Five Perspectives on Teaching in Adult and Higher Education. Malabar, Florida: Krieger Publishing Company.

Simmons, Jay (2003). Responders are taught, not born. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 46 (8), 684-693.

Smith, M. Cecil and Pourchat, Thomas, ed. (1998). Adult Learning and Development: Perspectives From Educational Psychology. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.