Opinion and Perspective

Effective Peer Review in the
University Writing ClassPaul Tanner
Shiga University
A common lament of EFL writing teachers in Japan is that students do not seem
either capable or willing to read their classmates’ work to help improve content
and clarify ambiguity. Neither do they seem adept at self-revision. Is it possible
for peers to contribute towards improved second drafts? In my experience, I havefound a method that has been successful for implementing peer review (PR) by
focusing specifically on narrative essays, which have a high interest level for peers
and are generally easy to understand, making them appropriate for PR activities.
Peer Review: What It Is and What It Is Not
Peer review (PR), or peer response, can be defined as a process by which students
read their peers’ essays and respond to “what the essay says as well as how it saysit” (Mangelsdorf, 1992, p. 274). Response feedback does not mean assessing,editing or evaluating; rather it is “a process of carefully reading what a student has
written within the rhetorical context the student has created and communicated.
The response must be text-specific, understandable, clear in intent, and needs
to provide strategies for revision” (Goldstein, 2005, p. 100). Student responses
should focus on meaning changes rather than mechanical or surface changes,
which they may not be capable of making. Faigley and Witte (1981) define
meaning changes as involving “the adding of new content or the deletion ofexisting content” (p. 402). Surface changes include spelling, capitalization,and punctuation, and usually do not affect the overall intended gist of the text.
After they read their peers’ comments, students then revise their essays, which
involves “both the mental process and the actual changes” (Suzuki, 2008, p.
178

Effective Peer Review, OnCUE Journal, 10(3), pages 178-189

209) in order to add content and clarify ideas. In this article, I will explain thepotential problems of PR, review the benefits, and outline how written PR canbe implemented in a writing classroom with a minimum of student training time.
Potential Problems of PR
There has been much research done in the area of PR. However, there are problems
with how the research is conducted. For example, as Goldstein (2005) has noted,
how students say they have responded to peers’ comments is not necessarily thesame as what they actually do. Also, much of the PR research with EFL/ESL
students has been done with oral feedback (Mangelsdorf, 1992; Paulus, 1999).
For example, Connor and Asenavage (1994) had EFL students read their essays
aloud, with their peers offering spoken comments. Japanese students are often
limited in their ability to discuss their peers’ papers in a foreign language, or lackthe confidence to present opinions. Students can be more precise with writing
than speaking. Also, a written record is easier to review than the spoken word.
Students forget comments or possibly do not understand them in the first place.
On the other hand, even students with limited skills can provide useful written
feedback on an essay.
One potential problem in using PR is the amount of time that must be spent
training students to give feedback. Do the benefits justify the time required toutilize it effectively? For example, Berg (1999) used 11 steps of training from
5-45 minutes each in a year-long academic writing course, including learning
appropriate vocabulary and expressions for feedback, reading examples of PR,
and doing a class response to one piece of writing. Mangelsdorf (1992) tookclass time to model and practice suggestions, and made 10-15% of the class
grade based on peer reviews. Lundstrom and Baker (2009) trained ESL English
majors four times a semester on either how to give or how to receive PR. These
instructors were training ESL students matriculating in, or with a goal of
matriculating in, American universities. Most Japanese students of English are
not as motivated or as skilled, so this time investment may not be worthwhile
for a typical Japanese university class of non-English majors in their first (andpossibly only) essay writing class.
179

Tanner

Some researchers have found that students lack the skills to complete PR
activities successfully. Silva (1993) notes that learners revise only at a superficial
level, make few changes, and primarily focus on grammatical correction. Connor
and Asenavage (1994) found that only 5% of revisions resulted from peercomments, while Paulus’ study (1999) reveals that PR influenced only 13% ofchanges. Other researchers have found that student reviewers are sometimes
excessively harsh in their comments to peers, or offer advice that is irrelevant or
too vague (Min, 2003; Savic, 2010). These responses do not help their peers andcan actually be demotivating. Although PR is done by students, it takes carefulplanning on the teacher’s part as well (Nystrand, 1986). If teachers prepare
carefully and students participate actively, the activity can be successful.
A final potential problem involves trust. Savic (2010) observed student
resistance to PR due to the widespread belief that only teachers are reliable andqualified to review student writings. Paulus (1999) has noted that students
prioritize teacher feedback, which causes a discounting or ignoring of peercomments. Nelson and Murphy (1993) also recognized that students rely
more on teachers than peers for comments. One final issue concerning trust isthat students feel a sense of “ownership” of their text and are reluctant to allow
others to impact their writing (Min, 2003). Mittan (1989) has pointed out thatstudents do not trust other students’ criticisms. However, if students commentsincerely, consider their peers’ advice, and are considerate in their comments,
they can learn to critically evaluate their own work better and improve theiressays (Lundstrom & Baker, 2009).
Benefits of PR
PR can be beneficial if students understand the purpose and procedure and show
a little faith in their peers. Myles (2002) believes PR can be useful if it allows
for adequate negotiation of meaning. Liao and Lo (2012) point out that PR isconsistent with the learning theories of Vygotsky in that the PR process enables
learners to operate within each others’ zone of proximal development (ZPD).
When learners are closer to each other in their ZPD, they use language that canbe comprehended more easily than an explanation by a person with a higher level
180Effective Peer Review, OnCUE Journal, 10(3), pages 178-189

of development, such as a teacher.
Hafernik (1984) posited that PR helps improve class atmosphere. Students
take on a new role as decision-makers and evaluators, thus forcing them toconsider multiple perspectives. In addition, the activity promotes self-confidence,
improves class atmosphere through active student involvement, and establishes aclassroom climate of trust. PR though can be a failure if students are mistrustfuland feel their peers are unqualified to review their work (Makino, 1993).
However, Ferris (2003) pointed out the mounting evidence that L2 writers enjoy
peer feedback and find it valuable. She believed that PR offers students a morevaried and authentic audience and that reading and evaluating peer texts builds
critical thinking skills that can help students better assess their own writing.

An Effective PR Format and Procedure

I would now like to propose a simplified PR format that utilizes only written
feedback and that requires a minimum of training time. The goal for my modest
plan is that students read and comment on three to four essays in one 90-minuteclass, and then rewrite their own essay for the following class, implementing someof the suggestions that peers offered. Furthermore, this PR format is limited tothe personal narrative essay. Other types of essays require higher level criticalthinking skills that need to be taught and reinforced by the teacher before
students can review and offer pertinent feedback.
Before assigning the narrative essay, I work students through a numberof tasks and instructions. Students first do 10 minutes of freewriting, which
provides an opportunity to brainstorm and generate ideas on paper. Then, inEnglish, they explain the key ideas they have formulated in their freewriting
with partners or in small groups. Students are familiar with the importance ofa title through previous papers and teacher examples from earlier in the course.
I reinforce awareness of the narrative form, chronological order, time markers,
and the importance of detail and examples. Also touched upon are paragraphstructuring and the importance of what makes a strong ending. Students areprovided examples of descriptive language and are given a worksheet to practicedeveloping the skill. Probably the most important element is the personalization
181

Tannerof the experience. For example, if they wrote about their English language
learning history, students need to explain what their first experience or feelings
about English were like, how their skills developed, what difficulties wereencountered, how their progress developed, successes they had, what techniques
were used to develop their skills, and who helped them learn. Students have tochoose which key points to develop and explain from these general questions.
Essays are assigned to be four to five paragraphs and between 350 and 500 words.
For the PR activity, in one 90-minute class period, students bring four copiesof the narrative essay assigned. Examples of topics include: “Something I Have
Learned”, “My English Language Learning History”, “My Schedule”, and “AChildhood Memory”. Any student who does not have a completed paper will
still work as a reviewer, which means that everyone submitting an essay will
have four of them reviewed, but some students may possibly review only threepapers. The instructor randomly gives four essays to each student. All feedback
is written, and no discussion of the feedback is required. I have found thatJapanese students who are non-English majors are more capable of writing usefulfeedback than trying to discuss papers orally. Students need to be given concrete,manageable tasks to successfully do this activity (Hafernik, 1984). Furthermore,
it is important that students are instructed to be supportive, helpful, and tooverlook surface errors (Connor & Asenavage, 1994).
The following are the written instructions that I give to students for carryingout PR:
You are going to read and comment on your peers’ narrative essay. Your goal isto write comments and questions that can help add useful details and content
to your partner’s paper. Do not try to correct grammar or spelling mistakes(except for obvious ones). Your focus should be on content and ideas that canmake your peer’s paper better. Use a pencil or colored pen (other than red).
1. Read your partner’s essay.
2. Does the paper have a good title? If you have a suggestion for a better
title, write it next to the title.
3. What is the best thing about the paper? Write this at the end of the paper.
Every paper has some good points; you can find something. Also, write
182

Effective Peer Review, OnCUE Journal, 10(3), pages 178-189

hearts or stars next to passages you liked or found interesting.
1. If there are any parts of the paper you do not understand, underline themwith a wavy line, or put question marks next to the section.
2. Ask at least five questions throughout the paper. Write these questionsin the margins near the passage in question rather than at the end of thepaper. Your questions should concern details, missing information, or
what you would like to know more about. This is the most important partof doing a peer review activity. Five questions are the minimum; more isbetter.
3. How is the ending? Can you offer any suggestions or help?
In the aforementioned instructions, I suggest students avoid the use of
red pen as they tend to associate its use with the teacher. Also, when using itthemselves, they often start making mechanical corrections, which is not the
purpose of the activity. Using different colors helps signify that this activity isdifferent. The multi-colored comments will seem more like suggestions, rather
than calls for correction. In point three, I encourage the use of symbols as they
help contribute to the visual appeal. In point four, the use of underlining orquestion marks can be particularly useful to students if more than one reader
does this by doubly reinforcing the need for clarity.
Another key point is that during the PR process, if the instructor is helping
out by writing comments on papers, they should be anonymous. This will
prevent “instructor bias” whereby students ignore all comments except those of
the teacher (as mentioned in Mittan, 1989; Paulus, 1999; Yang, Badger, & Yu
2006). However, the instructor should make suggestions to slack editors andalso assist students who are working slowly and will not be able to review threeor four papers during the 90-minute class period.
After students receive their peer-reviewed papers, they rewrite their essay
with improvements. They should respond to some of their classmates’ questionsin the text and think about clarity and detail. The revised essay should be longer,
clearer, and more detailed. The teacher can require a word count improvement
such as a 50- or 100-word increase. I announce that 25% of the grade will bebased on improvement from the first draft, which encourages students to add
183

Tanner

content in a subtler way than requiring a set number of words. Students submit
the four peer-reviewed papers and their revised essay (labeled ‘Rewrite’) in thefollowing class. Although seemingly obvious, this step saves the instructor thetrouble of sifting through multiple papers to find the rewrite.

Useful Feedback and Critical Thinking

By focusing on content, and deemphasizing grammar and mechanics, students
can avoid revising at a superficial level with a primary focus on grammar, as Silva(1993) warns against. Question marks or underlines for unclear sections allow
students to “activate their linguistic competence” by using these hints to make
improvements (Makino, 1993). Peer reviews provide students with an authentic
audience, which allows them to receive different views on their writing andcritically read their own writing (Mittan, 1989).
I do not allow student reviewers to write their names on the papers they
are reviewing. This can prevent the essay writers from being overly influenced
by who makes the comment rather than what the comment is, especially if
the teacher participates. Coomber and Silver (2010) found that anonymous
feedback provided a safe environment in which students feel more comfortablegiving honest feedback. On the other hand, it may be helpful for teachers torequire students to sign their name in order to monitor their editing and help
ensure conscientiousness.
N. Lee (2009) delineates three types of written feedback. One is praise,
though false praise can discourage writers, and premature praise may confuse
writers and discourage self-revision (I. Lee, 2012). Consequently, the teacher
should discourage “rubber stamp” praise comments such as “very good”, or“interesting,” which provide little useful information and do not provide any
hints or suggestions for improvement. The second type of feedback is criticism,
which consists of negative comments used to express dissatisfaction with thetext. Finally, there is suggestion, which has a positive orientation and includes
clear and achievable action for writers. Ferris (1995) has observed that students
remember encouraging remarks but also prefer constructive criticisms over false
positive appraisals.
184

Effective Peer Review, OnCUE Journal, 10(3), pages 178-189

Unlike oral comments, the syntactic form of written comments does notmatter to students. They often hedge or use mitigation to soften oral comments,
which can result in confusion about the importance and necessity of making
changes if the comments become too soft, and the suggestions seemingly become“optional” to the writer. There is less ambiguity in writing than with the spoken
word, so students can be direct in their comments (Goldstein, 2005; N. Lee,2009). Being honest yet direct becomes easier for students when comments canbe anonymous.

Benefits of Varying Types of Feedback andComments

Some teachers may worry that the quality of PR may vary greatly. Liao and Lo(2012) found that high performing writers tended to provide more details andexplanation when describing the problems they have identified and offeringsuggestions for revision. Weaker writers naturally provided less detail and offered
fewer suggestions. Of course, a diverse audience brings multiple perspectives.
Berg (1999) thinks that PR requires the writer to consider more than just theactual comments written:
Students cannot just take the advice as given and make the change, as is likely
when the expert (i.e., the teacher) provides feedback. Instead, the student willneed to consider the advice from a peer, question its validity, weigh it against hisor her own knowledge and ideas, and then make a decision about what, if any
changes to make. (p. 232)
In a similar vein, Mangelsdorf (1992) believes it is good to get different
responses, even if they are conflicting, because different responses make students
revise more reflectively. On the other hand, if more than one peer asks the samequestion, it doubly validates the point raised. Not every suggestion needs tobe taken or included. The reflection process enhances the writer’s judgment ofwhat makes quality writing and heightens awareness of their own composition(Liao & Lo, 2012). Nystrand (1986) believes reflection and revision entail a“reconceptualization” of writing, which offers new points of view, opportunities
for change, and a healthy rethinking.
185

TannerConclusion

The PR activity outlined in this article suggests that students can revise a paper
without teacher assistance, increasing student autonomy and disproving thenotion that the teacher is the only qualified reviewer. I have been using PR for the
past 10 years, and student feedback on end-of-year surveys and portfolio coversheets has shown that students deem the activity highly beneficial. Students findtheir classmates’ comments and questions very helpful. They also mentionedthat they enjoyed reading other students’ essays. I have found that all skill levels
improve their rewrites based on peer feedback. Students appreciate the varietyof their peers’ feedback and respect feedback coming from fellow classmates, inaddition to that of the teacher.
By focusing on adding descriptive detail and content, written PR can be aneffective activity and improve student awareness of the writing process. DoingPR helps reviewers as well as the writers. Lundstrom and Baker (2009) notethat reviewers who did not receive PR feedback still made significant gains bytransferring abilities they learned when reviewing peer texts. Hafernik (1984)
found that good reviewers generally became good writers, and they looked attheir papers differently and more carefully. Suzuki (2008) analyzed negotiation
episodes from think-aloud protocols of self-revisions and transcription of
discussion during peer revisions of Japanese EFL students, then noted changes
made to student texts in both conditions of revisions. She found that more
episodes of negotiation appeared in peer revision than self-revision.
One final option for making PR more effective is broached by N. Lee (2009),
who suggested students using L1 to comment on papers. Since they are more
comfortable writing in their L1, they can write more clearly than in the foreign
language. However, writing in the L1 might hinder the instructors’ monitoringof comments, especially those with a different L1 or a limited ability in Japanese.
Although many of the researchers cited in this article trained students
extensively in PR procedures and techniques, it can be effective even if used only
once or twice in a semester. When students organize their writing portfolios atthe end of the semester, they put their essays in order from best to worst. Morethan 65% of students put their peer-reviewed essay first. The activity provides a186

Effective Peer Review, OnCUE Journal, 10(3), pages 178-189

change of pace for both teacher and students, promotes student autonomy, andmost importantly, helps make students better, more reflective writers.

References

Berg, E. (1999). The effect of trained peer response on ESL students’ revision
types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(13), 215141.
Connor, U., & Asenavage, K. (1994). Peer response groups in ESL writingclasses: How much impact on revision? Journal of Second Language
Writing, 3(3), 257-276.
Coomber, M., & Silver, R. (2010). The effect of anonymity in peer review. In A.
M. Stoke (Ed.), JALT 2009 Conference Proceedings (pp. 621-631). Tokyo,
Japan: JALT.
Faigley, L., & Witte, S. (1981). Analyzing revision. College Composition andCommunication, 32(4), 400-414.
Ferris, D. R. (1995). Student reactions to teacher response in multiple‐draftcomposition classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 29(1), 33-53.
Ferris, D. R. (2003). Response to student writing: Implications for second language
students. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Goldstein, L. (2005). Teacher written commentary in second language writingclassrooms. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
Hafernik, J. J. (1984). The how and why of peer editing in the ESL writing class.
CATESL Occasional Papers, 10, 48-58. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 253-064).
Lee, I. (2012). Spare the red pen! Modern English Teacher, 21(2), 60-64.
Lee, N. S. (2009). Written peer feedback by EFL students: Praise, criticism andsuggestions. Komaba Journal of English Education, 1, 129-139. Retrieved
from http://park.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp/eigo/KJEE/001/129-139.pdf
Liao, H., & Lo, Y. (2012). Peer review comments provided by high- and lowproficiency L2 learners: A comparative study. International Journal of
English Linguistics, 2(5), 45-54.
Lundstrom, K., & Baker, W. (2009). To give is better than to receive: The
187

Tannerbenefits of peer review to the reviewer’s own writing. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 18(1), 30-43.
Makino, T. (1993). Learner self-correction in EFL written compositions. ELT
Journal, 47(4), 337-341.
Mangelsdorf, K. (1992). Peer reviews in the ESL composition classroom: What
do students think? ELT Journal, 46(3), 274-284.
Min, H. (2003). Why peer comments fail. English Teaching and Learning,27(3), 85-103.
Mittan, R. (1989). The peer review process: Harnessing students’communicative power. In D. M. Johnson & D. H. Roen (Eds.), Richness
in writing: Empowering ESL students (pp. 207-219). New York, NY:
Longman.
Myles, J. (2002). Second language writing and research: The writing process anderror analysis in student texts. TESL-EJ, 6(2). Retrieved from http://tesl-ej.
org/ej22/a1.html
Nelson, G., & Murphy, J. (1993). Peer response groups: Do L2 writers use peercomments in revising their drafts? TESOL Quarterly, 27(1), 135-142.
Nystrand, M. (1986). Learning to write by talking about writing: A summaryof research on intensive peer review in expository writing instruction at the
University of Wisconsin-Madison. In M. Nystrand (Ed.), The structure of
written communication: Studies in reciprocity between writers and readers(pp. 179-211). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Paulus, T. (1999). The effect of peer and teacher feedback on student writing.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(3), 265-289.
Savic, M. (2010). Peer assessment: A path to student autonomy. In F. Dervin &E. Suomela-Salmi (Eds.), New approaches to assessing language and (inter-)
cultural competences in higher education (pp. 253-266). Frankfort, Germany:Peter Lang.
Silva, T. (1993). Toward an understanding of the distinct nature of L2 writing:
The ESL research and its implications. TESOL Quarterly, 27(4), 657-677.
Suzuki, M. (2008). Japanese learners’ self-revisions and peer revisions of theirwritten compositions in English. TESOL Quarterly, 42(2), 209-233.
188

Effective Peer Review, OnCUE Journal, 10(3), pages 178-189

Yang, M., Badger, R., & Yu, Z. (2006). A comparative study of peer and teacher
feedback in a Chinese EFL writing class. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 15(3), 179-200.

Author bio

Paul Tanner teaches in the Department of Economics at Shiga University in Hikone.
His research interests include essay writing, the use of dictation, and critical thinking.
Outside of the classroom, he is a fan of major league baseball. meansbynomeans@gmail.com
Received: December 26, 2016
Accepted: March 9, 2017189