I’ve used peer critique since I started teaching writing. I gave directed goals: You have 20 minutes to comment on how the thesis could be better supported, whether each paragraph has a single idea, and whether opposing viewpoints are included and answered. Even with elaboration and specific points to look for, I was dissatisfied. Some pairs worked intently, conferencing and scribbling useful notes in the margins with their colored pens. Others randomly glanced about the room after five minutes. Peering over their shoulders, I found only a few bland marginal notes. Pairing strong writers with those who gave superficial feedback seemed unfair, and I was unsure how to help my less skilled students who needed it most.
Then I stumbled on “speed dating.” Desks in pairs, inner and outer circles, two lines facing each other… it didn’t matter. I gave ONE very specific task and five minutes to complete it.
With your partner’s paper, underline the thesis (near the end of paragraph 1). Then read only the topic sentences (first sentence of each paragraph). See if they support the thesis. Tell your partner what’s good and what’s weak. You have 5 minutes. Go.
or
Read paragraph 2. Circle the topic sentence. Cross out anything in that paragraph that doesn’t fit that sentence’s one idea.
or
Read paragraph 3. Underline the topic sentence. Pretend you disagree. Write down as many objections and questions the paragraph doesn’t answer for you as you can.
Aside from strong students only getting stuck with weak critiquers for five minutes, weaker students actually start giving better feedback. The single specific task helps them figure out what to comment on.
This works for more than college composition and developmental English. It’s useful for creative writing as well:
Circle every verb. In the margin, write two more specific, more vivid verbs with similar meanings.
or
Circle every description that makes you visualize something specific. Underline every description that needs more detail.
or
Read the first stanzas. Circle everything that’s not rooted concretely in the senses.
If comments could warrant clarification, with a minute left, ask students to pass comments to their partners and discuss.
Students rotate to new partners, and critique begins again. Sometimes I use the same critique question for two or three rounds so students get multiple perspectives or feedback on multiple paragraphs. (When I do this, I tell them in advance to bring 3 copies of relevant parts so each reviewer starts with a clean copy.) Sometimes every round looks at a new aspect. Either way, students give and get better feedback with one focus at a time. More importantly, since peer critique’s biggest goal is to help students notice more in their own writing, this approach helps students focus more carefully and consciously on each critique point, some of which they’d have glossed over if given a list of options to comment on. Students come away conscious of more aspects to consider in their own writing.
–
E. K. Taylor is the author of Using Folktales (Cambridge University Press, 2000), and editor of William Penn’s Some Fruits of Solitude (Herald Press, 2003). He writes, teaches, and holds an M.F.A. in writing from VCFA. Recent work has appeared in River Teeth, English Journal, Plough Quarterly, Caterpillar, and elsewhere.