Lynne Belcher

In 1972 when Donald Murray argued that writing should be taught as a process not a product, he foresaw many implications for teaching the process rather than the product. The first implication Murray lists in his essay "Teach Writing as a Process Not Product" is "The text of the writing course is the student's own writing. Students examine their own evolving writing and that of their classmates, so that they study writing while it is still a matter of choice, word by word" (91). Ten years later, Maxine Hairston argued for a paradigm shift in the teaching of writing in her "The Winds of Change: Thomas Kuhn and the Revolution in the Teaching of Writing." She argued that the new paradigm should focus on the writing process, a process that involves the intervention of readers in students' writing during that process. She also argued that students benefit "far more from small group meetings with each other than from the exhausting oneto-one conferences that the teachers hold" (17).

Clearly, the process method of teaching writing involves reader intervention by students in the writing of their classmates. But how successful has that intervention been in the writing that students produce? Since this part of the paradigm is so important to teaching writing as a process, we need to have some idea as to how well it has worked.

A careful examination of what instructors see happening as student readers intervene in the writing process of their classmates will show how this part of the process paradigm has failed. Students, for the most part, have not, as Murray argued, examined "their own evolving writing and that of their classmates . . . word by word." Nor has small group work been a greater benefit to student writers than the "exhaustive one-to-one conferences" between teacher and student writer, as Hairston argued. What seems to be an essential part of the process paradigm has been a failure in that it has not worked in the way many had hoped.

Much has been written about the work of peer response groups in the past, building on the work of Elbow and Bruffee, but much of that research has focused on what small numbers of students do when they respond to the writing of their classmates. The research generally can be classified into three categories: historical perspectives of peer review and peer response groups, descriptions of what peers do when they respond to the writing of their classmates, and suggestions for improving peer responses. Ann Ruggles Gere's book on peer groups written in 1987 includes both a historical perspective and an exhaustive bibliography. Muriel Harris includes a brief history in her comparison of writing center tutorials with peer response groups. Harris points out that "peer response, having been the subject of numerous studies, has a track record of conflicting results" (377).

Much of the research concluding with claims of the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of peer response begins with descriptions of what peers do when they respond to the writing of their classmates. Thomas Newkirk, Anne Ruggles Gere and Robert D. Abbott, Nancy Grimm, Nina Ziv, and Diana George among others have studied what peer reviewers actually do. Most of them conclude that more research needs to be done. Ronnie Carter concludes that though females outperform males as peer reviewers, "this study points out the lack of demonstrable short-term gains in peer evaluation by itself' (13). Carter also concludes that more research needs to be done (15).

Some researchers have tried to help make peer response more effective by looking at what instructors can do to better prepare their students to be good critical readers and responders. Mara Holt suggests a method for: helping instructors understand "the kinds of peer criticism that students can fruitfully engage in" (391). Karen Spear in her book Sharing Writing: Peer Response Groups in English Classes explains not only what peer writing groups do but also how they can be used more effectively in composition classes. More recently, Candace Spigelman looks at the tension students feel about the ownership of texts in peer writing groups and how that tension can be used productively (25051).

SURVEY FINDINGS

Kinds of and Locations for Colleges/Universities

Though I did not ask for information about the size and the mission of the schools where the respondents teach, those who answered the survey either included college/university web site addresses or used institutional addresses in their survey responses. I was able to visit the web sites of the schools for all but one respondent who had a commercial e-mail address. Ten of those thirty respondents (33 percent-totals will not always equal 100 percent since those numbers have been rounded off) teach at regional universities where undergraduate education is the primary focus, though most of these schools have some graduate programs. Two (7 percent) of those respondents teach at liberal arts colleges where the focus is on undergraduate education. Four of those respondents (13 percent) teach at liberal arts colleges with religious affiliations and a focus on undergraduate education. One respondent (3 percent) teaches at a larger Catholic university. Six of those respondents (20 percent) teach at community colleges, and five respondents (17 percent) teach at large, land-grant universities, though two of those respondents identified themselves as TA's, two were identified as part-timers, and one was identified as a lecturer. One respondent (3 percent) teaches at a professional/technical university, and one respondent (3 percent) teaches advanced placement writing classes at a high school.

Respondents teach in a variety of places; eighteen states and Australia are represented in the survey. Pennsylvania is most represented with four respondents while Texas and Kansas have three each. New York, Georgia, Wisconsin, and North Carolina are each represented by two respondents. Wyoming, Indiana, North Dakota, Illinois, Nebraska, Massachusetts, Utah, Virginia, Iowa, Connecticut, Georgia, and Colorado are each represented by one respondent.

What I was looking for with the surveys is instructors' attitudes about using peer response work in the classroom. I wanted to see what it is teachers think they are accomplishing when they use peer review. I was also interested in what instructors think of the quality of the comments their students make about other students' writing. I wondered if teachers think using peer review allows students to understand writing word by word and if making use of peer reviewers frees instructors from the demanding work of one-to-one conferences.

Semester Course Loads

Respondents reported that semester course loads range from five classes to one class, though many who teach smaller loads are either running writing centers/labs or are graduate students. In cases where respondents reported two different loads (e.g., three classes for fall, two for spring), the greater number was recorded since those respondents teach the greater number of classes at least one semester of each year. The responses to the question on semester class load are as follows:

Respondents teach an average of 2.9 classes per semester. Eight of the respondents who say they teach either one or two courses a semester explain that they also work in or direct a writing center. Two other respondents identified themselves as graduate students.

Writing Course Load per Semester

Respondents also indicated the number of writing classes they teach each semester:

Respondents teach an average of 2.35 writing classes per semester.

Enrollment Limits In First Year Writing Courses

Enrollments in first year composition courses range from 16 to 30 students, though five respondents say that the enrollment limits are regularly exceeded. Here are the enrollment limits indicated by respondents:

Class size average is 22.5 students for respondents.

Peer Review as Part of Instruction in The Writing Process

All thiry-one respondents said they use or have used peer review as part of their instruction in the writing process. One respondent claimed to be "currently rethinking" using peer review. This respondent said, "I have tried a variety of ways to peer edit. Very few of them [peer reviewer comments] have had positive results; most of the time peer [reviewer] comments are too vague, [peer reviewers] comment on things that are a matter of personal style, or [peer reviewers] are just plain wrong." Another respondent said, "I have used it [peer review] quite a bit in the past. I'm taking a couple of semesters to try teaching without it right now." Though all the respondents have used peer review, not all of them are satisfied with the results.

Kinds of Information Solicited From Peer Reviewers

Most respondents (thirty) said they ask peer reviewers to consider global revision in their responses to their classmates' papers. Almost as many respondents (twenty-one) solicit paragraph and sentence level revision comments. Almost half of the respondents (fourteen) said that they have peer reviewers make editing comments about their classmates' papers. One respondent said that students are required to write "two-page critiques referencing audience, purpose, content, and style." Only one respondent asks students to review "mainly sentence level and editing."

The Quality of Peer Comments

The respondents were asked to comment on the quality of the peer review responses, identifying those comments as excellent, good, fair, or poor. Some respondents said the comments cover a wide range of quality while others said that the quality of the comments improves over the course of the semester. Here is how the respondents categorized the quality of peer reviewers' comments:

Three respondents said the quality of peer comments improves over the semester. Nine respondents said there is a wide range in the quality of the comments by peer reviewers. One respondent said the quality of peer review comments is "fair to poor, usually. I also think they don't take it too seriously . . . I really wish I could figure out how to induce them to take it more seriously. (One time I tried anonymous peer reviews to see if people would be more candid. Not really-although one usually quiet, diplomatic student wrote a scathing peer review.)"

One respondent voiced the frustrations that many composition instructors must sometimes feel about peer review comments: "I've never been completely satisfied with the way it's gone, and students have consistently indicated on course evaluations that they are frustrated with it. I've tried modeling the process on sample papers. I've tried giving them detailed guidelines for comments. I've tried providing minimal guidance; I've tried putting students in peer revision groups that they stay with all semester. I've tried moving them to new partners every time. The main problem has been lack of thoughtful and useful commentary and/or commentary that directly contradicts my advice to the student. For this reason, students have seen it as a waste of time if not downright counterproductive."

One respondent said that the quality of peer comments is "excellent to poor; some students don't offer any constructive feedback at all; others are excellent at responding--it's too hard to give an overall judgment except to say that I find it valuable enough to continue." For many of the respondents, it seems that in spite of (or because of) the quality of the comments, they will continue to use peer responses to drafts of papers in their classes.

Grading Peer Reviewers on Their Comments  

Respondents were asked if they grade the peer reviewers on their comments. Twelve (39 percent) said they do, while eighteen (58 percent) said they do not. Four respondents said they include peer comments as a grade for participation. Seven said they periodically review peer comments. Many respondents commented about the value of grading or not grading peer review comments. One respondent said that the review comments aren't graded, "but I make them sign off on their comments and I review the peer review sheets to identify weaknesses in their process and then focus on those areas more for the next review. A peer review is just as much a learning process for the reader as it is for the writer. This is practice to help them understand how to find mistakes in their work and how to offer critiques of others' work in a manner that is helpful." Other respondents expressed the idea that peer review comments are as much a learning experience for the reader as for the writer.

Several respondents said they do grade the peer review comments as a way to get students to take responding to drafts seriously. One respondent who grades the peer review comments said that "Sad to say, if students know they are accountable, most seem to take the activity more seriously." Another said, "I have found that students spend more time and give better comments when they know they are being held accountable."

Several respondents said they do not grade review comments because of a lack of time: "I think maybe I should [grade the review comments] because that might make students take it seriously," but this respondent also said that the comments are not graded because the respondent is already "too busy." Another respondent replied "no" to the question about grading peer review comments because "I already have too much work with forty-four students." Others said they do not grade the comments but for different reasons: "I am more interested in the social aspect of writing for real readers. Also, I give grades only on midterm and final portfolios, based on writing quality, amount of work (i.e., how much revising, what depth of revising), and participation. Any individual set of peer comments is only a small part of the overall picture. I do ask for peer evaluation of midterm and final portfolios, and I comment on those one- to oneand-a-half-page evaluations as part of the feedback which the portfolio author receives." Another respondent said that, "I think that would inhibit the comfort level of the groups. I don't want it to be competitive. Also the logistics would be a problem. I can't sit in on all the groups at the same time." Though not all respondents grade the comments of the reviewers, they do seem to spend time looking at the kinds of comments reviewers are making in order to help reviewers become better critical readers.  

Peer Reviewers Make Instructor's Job Harder and Easier

Respondents were asked if using peer reviewers makes their job in the classroom easier or harder. Many respondents did not like the choices for answers and so came up with other answers. Ten respondents (32 percent) did say that the use of peer reviewers makes their jobs easier. Five (16 percent) said it makes their jobs harder. Nine (30 percent) said using peer reviewers makes no difference in their workload. Two (6 percent) said it makes their jobs both easier and harder while three (10 percent) said it makes their jobs neither easier nor harder. One respondent (3 percent) said it makes the job more interesting while another (3 percent) said it makes the job different. Many respondents had more to say. One respondent believes using peer reviewers makes the job harder "because I spend a great deal of time trying to teach them the fundamentals of peer review and then I spend time constructing a variety of different peer reviews. It also takes time to evaluate the success of each peer review session." Another respondent said that using peer reviewers makes the job "harder, I think. . . . I'm always tinkering with the process to try to make it work better. I love the idea in theory--and have found it useful in grad courses--but I think it needs to be done differently." Another respondent said that using peer reviewers makes the job harder, "but that's not a bad thing." One respondent who believes using peer reviewers makes the job harder said that, "ideally, it should make it easier. If students are responding as engaged and intelligent readers they should provide backup for my comments and provide insights of their own that I might have missed. However, this has rarely been the case. Instead, I've had to do a lot of extra work preparing guidelines, checking that they did it, etc. That's why I've decided to give it a break for a few semesters. Maybe I'll get some fresh ideas, a new perspective, and try it again."

Respondents who reported that using peer reviewers makes their jobs easier had a variety of reasons for answering as they did. One respondent said, "I'd say that classes involving a lot of workshopping are easier for me--because that's what I know. It has little to do with the time I spend reading papers, however. It has more to do with how class time is spent, and how much I have to allocate in preparing for it. I also sleep better at night knowing that my comments aren't the only comments they are depending on." One respondent said that using peer reviewers makes the job "easier; one less day that I have to lecture, which is often a waste of time anyway." Another said that using peer reviewers makes the job neither easier nor harder: "If I didn't use them I would read every draft, but since I do use them I spend a lot of time modeling and teaching students how to respond to one another's writing." One respondent reflected the views of many in saying, "It helps students to see a variety of opinions (hopefully), but it also gives me more work to do in checking over the responses to grade them."

Peer Reviewers Do Not Save Time For Instructors

Respondents were also asked if using peer reviewers saves time for instructors. While eleven respondents (35 percent) said that using peer reviewers saves them time, seventeen (55 percent) said it does not. Two (6 percent) weren't sure, and one respondent (3 percent) said that saving time isn't a priority. One of those "yes" votes was a probably: "Probably yes, because it teaches critical thinking skills as it has students review their own writing and their knowledge of writing." Another said the time it takes to make use of peer reviewers is "time better spent. . . . Because I don't have to personally respond to every paper, I get better writing from students when I do see it, and I'm teaching them not to be dependent on me for feedback. It doesn't save time compared to a pure lecture, though, because I have to make up peer review sheets and guidelines, facilitate those groups and actively engage students in the process of peer review." One respondent said that "the students quickly begin making comments about problems I used to have to tell them about." Another said that "the peer review substitutes for a conference with me. The papers don't end up as good, but they learn more about working in such groups." Another respondent said, "I don't use it as a substitute for my own work."

Most of those who said that using peer reviewers does not save them time noted that it actually takes more time: "I need to spend a great deal of time setting them up to be good reviewers--that usually takes at least half the semester. Then I work on checklists and comment sheets for each assignment. That takes time. Then I go over the peer comments with my students in conference. . . . Just conducting class and conferences would be less time consuming, but I want my students to learn how to be good writing partners later, so I think the time is worth it." Another echoes that concern: "It is another means to giving feedback on work in progress, and thus can relieve me of some of that load, but students need to learn how to review others' work, and that must be built into class time and practiced." Many of those who said using peer reviewers does not save them time explained that they respond to drafts of papers as well as have peer reviewers respond to them.

Some respondents pointed out that peer review is probably a greater benefit to the reader than to the writer: "The main benefit I see is to the reader, not the writer. The comments they made toward the beginning of the semester were mostly about surface error, even though they had strict instructions to discuss only content issues--I think that is because they didn't really understand what I meant or how to do it. . . . Because I think the helpfulness of their comments is limited until they get some experience, I also read and comment on all their drafts, and meet with them individually. . . . If you start out teaching kids who are more comfortable with writing, then maybe peer editing as a source of information for the writer is more realistic. For me, it is still extremely useful--just more so for the reader." Another respondent expressed a common opinion: "peer review (as you know) doesn't just happen, but like everything has to be taught, modeled, what-have-you." One respondent found that question about saving time "absurd." This respondent said that after many years of teaching, "saving time has not been a priority in my teaching."

Teacher Conferences Are More Effective Than Peer Reviewers

Almost half of the respondents (fourteen--45 percent) believe that one-to-one conferences between teacher and student are a more effective intervention method than peers working together. Three respondents (10 percent) believe peer groups are more effective than student/teacher conferences. Two respondents (6 percent) said a mixture is effective while four (13 percent) said each is equally effective. Four respondents (13 percent) said teacher conferences have a different purpose than peer reviews, and two respondents (6 percent) said each has its strengths and weaknesses. Two respondents (6 percent) said that teacher/student conferences are more effective for the short term but that peer review work has a long-term effect. One respondent said "students learn more from each other than from the teacher and that knowledge is more deeply structured or implanted when students are able to work together to internalize it. Ultimately, students just learn more from collaborative groups than from a teacher trying to impart knowledge." Another respondent supporting the effectiveness of peer review work summed up that opinion by saying, "Students learn more by giving advice than by getting it."

Those who responded that teacher/student conferences are more effective than peer review work seem confident of their opinions about this issue, saying "no question about it" and "definitely one-to-one conferences between teacher and student." One respondent said that "students often ignore peer comments, and many students just can't figure out how to give useful suggestions." Another respondent said, "I am a great fan of one-on-one conferences, and this year have finally managed to bring each in under twenty-five minutes." Another said, "Although peer reviewers are quite useful as a way of giving the student an audience, I think the one-to-one conference between teacher and student is hard to beat. I find I can verbalize suggestions for writing improvement better than the students can." One respondent explained that although a one-to-one conference between teacher and student is a better method, "I can't use it with my teaching load. Too bad."

The fourteen respondents who have mixed opinions about which method of intervention is more effective have a variety of reasons for their mixed opinions. One respondent uses "a mixture of small groups and occasional larger ones. The first for active participation, the second for seeing more how other people comment, and seeing the wide range of things that can be said about student work. One-on-one conferencing can be very effective, but I think only if the students want to--I'm hesitant to assign whole classes to come and see me individually." Another respondent said, "They have different uses. I use small groups to comment on things like coherence and the quality of evidence--that is effective because it lets students develop a 'metalanguage' for analyzing writing. But if student reviewers are less able to say why a text appears disjointed, etc. or how it could be improved, then a teacher-student conference is important." Another respondent said, "Both are effective; for the short-term goal of getting a good grade on the paper at hand, the one-to-one works better, but perhaps for long-term, general growth as a writer, the peer conference is better because writers can see how real people react to confusing, unclear writing, and that makes a strong impression and provides motivation to write more clearly." One respondent who said that both methods are effective added, "But small groups without teacher guidance at the individual level is, I'm afraid, a cop-out. Peers simply do not know what we (presumably) know about the writing process."

New Instructors Should Use Peer Review

Thirty (97 percent) of the thirty-one respondents would recommend that a new writing instructor make use of peer review as part of writing instruction. Some respondents were quite emphatic in their recommendations while others gave more qualified answers. One respondent said, "Beyond the obvious goal of helping each other improve their writing, I think the peer groups have other benefits that are more intangible. Having a real audience fosters the sense of writing as genuine communication as nothing else can. I encourage them to discuss the concepts and learn from each other about all kinds of ideas. They get ideas for their own future writing. They find out that not everyone else is a fabulous writer--that they have similar frustrations with writing. They also are exposed to those students who take the same assignment they had and develop something really insightful and eloquent. Students actually become part of that community of writers we read about." One respondent who has had negative experiences with using peer reviewers said, "Despite my bad experiences with it, I know there are others who've found it very useful. I certainly think new teachers should try it out in a couple of different formats. They may find it very helpful and interesting." One respondent pointed out that "Peers listen to peers--you and I do it, too--but new writing instructors need to learn how to teach peer review--it doesn't just happen." Another respondent believes new instructors should use peer review "Just to begin the practice of de-centering the classroom from the beginning--it's a difficult transition to make." One respondent said that "whether I recommend this or not depends upon the teacher's personality. Peer reading may or may not suit what the teacher wants to do. Although I use peer reading in both comp. classes, many teachers find the second semester of peer reading a waste of time."

CONCLUSION

The original motivation for this survey was my own frustrations with what I saw as the failure of peer review to do what I hoped it would do: free me from the exhausting work of either reading drafts of students' papers or having individual conferences with students, something that is difficult to do while teaching four classes, two of which are writing classes. Since reader intervention is such an integral part of the process paradigm, I have always worried about the problem of giving feedback to all students. Making use of peer responders has not solved this problem for me. Other composition instructors seem to be more optimistic about this practice, though many do not see peer review as a way for writers to learn about writing or as a time-saver for instructors. They see peer review as a way for students to learn how to read critically. The dedication to teaching of the respondents to this survey and their willingness to work long and hard at what they do are impressive. I am amazed at the time and energy this hard-working group of professionals must put into their teaching.

When I was in graduate school in the early 1980s, one of my professors said that teaching writing as a process is much easier than teaching it as a product. I have always wondered how that could be possible given the demands of teaching writing as a process with multiple drafts and constant feedback. I now understand that my professor could say that because most of the people teaching in graduate programs do not teach first-year composition or only teach an occasional honor's section. According to the October 1998 PMLA, 96 percent of all writing classes in Ph.D.-granting English departments are taught by graduate students, parttimers, or full-time non-tenure-track faculty members (1157). Also, according to PMLA, "between one-half and two-thirds of the total number of professorial-rank appointments are located outside doctorate-granting research institutions" ( 1166).