Responding to student writing: promoting engagement and understanding through peer review

1. Responding to student writing: promoting engagement and understanding through peer review Sheffield Hallam University Outside Speaker Programme, Quality Enhancement & Student Success 21 June 2012 Dr Kathy Harrington Centre for the Enhancement of Learning and Teaching London Metropolitan University

2. Aims • To introduce the theory and practice of structured peer review as a means of promoting student engagement and writing development • To model a feedback process you can use with your students to enable them to... • Clarify and hone ideas • Communicate clearly with readers • Find motivation and inspiration • Solve thought problems • Develop effective writing and reading strategies

3. Structure of session • Conceptual framing – writing and thinking in higher education • Writing as process • Responding to student writing • Importance of dialogue • Peer review exercise • Reflections and questions • Next steps

4. Conceptual framing 1: writing and thinking • Writing as a process of meaning-making within a disciplinary or professional field (Lea and Street, 1998) • Fundamental connection between writing and thinking: • ideas influence words we use, and words shape our ideas Meaning is not what you start out with but what you end up with. (Elbow, 1998)

5. Conceptual framing 2: writing to learn • Writing to learn vs learning to write • Both valid, but bringing former into view opens up possibility for writing to be used as a vehicle for learning and developing understanding within a subject area • Writing can foster engagement in ‘intellectual struggle’ (Bean, 2001)

6. Conceptual framing 3: importance of talk about writing • Enables students to become aware of how language shapes meaning (Lillis, 2006) • ‘The writing sandwich’ – writing, talking, more writing – builds feedback and revision into writing process (Murray, 2005) • Students talking about writing encourages active learning and provides practice in analytic skills (Lunsford, 1991)

7. Why peer review? Common practice sees feedback as correction • Little or no guidance on how to give feedback, so readers look for ‘mistakes’ • Author in role of passive recipient, especially when feedback is written only • However, there is another perspective...

8. Feedback as co-production of knowledge • Author as a participant (not a recipient) • Feedback as motivating (not threatening) The dialogic co-construction of knowledge is a particularly pertinent, though sometimes underrated element in academic knowledge production. (Dysthe, 2003)

9. Why is dialogue helpful? • Gives author insight into reader’s understanding of what has been communicated in writing • May reveal issues not picked up in one’s own reading • Author solves problems by talking about them • Insights can then be applied to one’s writing strategy

10. Feedback from peers When done well, peer feedback enables • Dialogue rather than monologue • Open-ended questions that reveal discrepancies in thought • Solving problems and clarifying ideas • Discussion and feedback across disciplines And it can motivate and inspire! When students find (peer) feedback unhelpful, it is because • They feel misunderstood • ...or attacked • The comments are too detailed • ...or hard to respond to

11. Structured peer review Guiding questions help with... • Focussed and active reading • Offering constructive feedback • Thinking about your own writing in discussion with someone else • Writing with purpose, clarity and an awareness of your reader

12. Guiding questions • What is the author’s research question or writing topic? • What is the author arguing or claiming? • On what basis does the author make this argument? • What evidence is offered and how convincing is it (valid, reliable, balanced, clearly expressed)? • What are the implications of the argument being made? • How does it relate to other theories/research? • Are there areas where the writing seems inconsistent, confusing or off topic? • What do you feel might be missing or could be considered?

13. Format • In pairs, read each others’ texts (10mins) • Keep guiding questions in mind as you read • First dialogue and feedback session, prompted by questions (15mins) • Second dialogue and feedback session, prompted by questions (15 mins) The aim is to engage in open-ended dialogue (rather than correct the text), prompted by the ‘peer reader’ and with the ‘author’ doing most of the speaking

14. References • Bean, J. C. (2001) Engaging Ideas: the professor’s guide to integrating writing, critical thinking and active learning in the classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. • Dysthe, O. & Westrheim, K. (2003) The power of the group in graduate student supervision: An empirical study of group based supervision combined with student groups and individual supervision. Paper presented at EARLI conference, Padova, Italy, 26-30 August. Available at www.uib.no/filearchive/earli_writing_symposium_dysthe-1-.pdf • Elbow, P. (1998) Writing Without Teachers, 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press. • Lea, M. & Street, B. (1998) Student writing in higher education: an academic literacies approach, Studies in Higher Education, 23(2): 157-172. • Lillis, T. (2006) Moving towards an academic literacies pedagogy: dialogues of participation’, in Ganobscik-Williams, L. (ed.) Teaching Writing in UK Higher Education, London: Palgrave Macmillan. • Lunsford, A. (1991) Collaboration, Control, and the Idea of a Writing Center, The Writing Lab Newsletter, 16(4): 1-6. • Murray, R. (2005) Writing for Academic Journals. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

15. Kathy Harrington k.harrington@londonmet.ac.uk Centre for the Enhancement of Learning and Teaching London Metropolitan University