While I think peer editing is important, I don’t know that it is that productive without a structured process—without providing some guidance, the feedback inevitably becomes “this was good.” Students simply don’t have the experience to determine what to provide feedback about, and they are a little uncomfortable giving it anyway. So this kind of structured peer-editing model gives students some tools to work with to really help their peers, and also to learn about their own writing, since part of the reason to do peer editing is for students to learn from each other as they read.
The “Two Stars and a Wish” model is adapted from a wonderful book on teaching poetry by Baron Wormser called A Surge of Language: Teaching Poetry Day by Day. The activity, and in fact the title itself, emphasized the positive and makes critical feedback seem, well, less critical.
Here are the instructions students will receive (I will write these on the board and model as I go through them):
1. Read your partner's rough draft carefully TWICE (this continues to emphasize that close reading usually requires a second read to be done effectively).
-while reading, pay particular attention to the following:
- evidence--use of relevant, specific evidence to support main idea in a logical manner.
- syntax--use of sentence structures to develop objective, fluid prose.
- organization--how the main idea builds throughout the essay.
2. For EACH of the above areas, identify two passages that you would give a "star" to and one passage where you "wish" something had been written differently, added, subtracted, had different word choices, etc.
3. Share your thoughts with your partner. Be sure to point to SPECIFIC passages as part of your explanation. (I will give them the option to do one complete paper at a time or bounce back and forth).
As students do this, I will listen in on conversations and interject if I want to clarify something, second the “star,” and I will also take questions. Additionally, I can get a good sense of who put a lot of time into the draft, and who is a bit behind—the ones who go through this rapidly generally didn’t do as much, and therefore have little to talk about. So this also gives me a chance to talk to them individually.
Next steps—students will write a second draft based on the peer review. I will also give some general feedback—to focus on specific evidence and logical progression, as well as transitions and general clarity. Students will hand this draft in to me tomorrow (at the beginning of class I will schedule each student with a time to meet with me later this week to go over their paper one-on-one before they complete a final draft).
ENG-105 Peer Review Worksheet: Rhetorical Analysis of a PublicDocumentPart of your responsibility as a student in this course is to provide quality feedback to your peers that will help them to improve their writing skills. This worksheet will assist you in providing that feedback. To highlight the text and type over the information in the boxes on this worksheet, double-click on the first word.Name of the draft’s author:Sarah TrujilloName of the peer reviewer:Hailey WilsonReviewerAfter reading through the draft one time, write a summary (3-5 sentences) of the paper that includes your assessment of how well the essay meets the assignment requirements as specified in the syllabus and the rubric.The paper was about ADHD with slight information on the rhetorical triangle. The paper is geared more towards ADHD analysis than it is of the analysis of ethos, pathos, and logos. The paper briefly mentioned all three, but was not centered onthe anaylisys of ethos, logos, and pathos.After a second, closer reading of the draft, answer each of the following questions. Positive answers will give you specific elements of the draft to praise; negative answers will indicate areas in need of improvement and revision. Please be sure to indicate at least three positive aspects of the draft and at least three areas for improvement in reply to the questions at the bottom of this worksheet.