User:Miaisa5224/Peer review

The page I am editing:


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review

Results of peer review in a classroom setting
Peer review is the method by which editors and writers work together in hopes of helping the author establish and further flesh out and develop their own writing. As stated before peer review can be used in the classroom to provide different results that occur among students to further improve their own writing. Peer review can be used in a classroom setting, although it can impact the student's opinion of themselves as well as others. Sometimes students feel a personal connection to the work they have produced which can make them feel reluctant to receive or give out criticism as it can make them feel bad. Rather than critiquing each other's work, peer review should be used in a way to build a connection between author and editor as it can help develop their identity as writers as well as the interactions they have with others because writing can be a reflection of who we are. There are several studies that have been conducted to assess how peer reviewing works in the classroom setting.

One instance is an experiment conducted on 21 students from other countries that carried on for six weeks. The purpose of the experiment was to explore the benefits and the limits of peer review. It was also used as a way to determine if verbal and written feedback was beneficial for the students. As research shows the preferred method was verbal communication. Students in both groups labeled L1 and L2 liked verbal communication as it was easier to convey their thoughts and concerns much easier than using written feedback as a way to peer review. In a different classroom setting, it was stated by one of the students that peer review wasn't helpful as the student viewed herself as inferior to giving out any suggestions and has never asked other writers for help.

'''In another study “What role for collaboration in writing and writing feedback”, authors Wigglesworth and Storch discuss the significance of peer reviews to gain constructive engagement with writing. They emphasize that collaborative feedback is able to give the author ideas on what they do well and what they need to work on. Their work focused on the question of which aspects of their writing help people understand their writing better and which ones don’t necessarily. They found that discussing your own work with others also gives you more to reflect on and think about how to improve your writing. So it can be made with the best techniques that suit each reader as well. Nevertheless, the article acknowledges that collaborative writing and feedback can be negative. Issues such as students not giving equal amounts of effort when reading and having differences in writing styles can decrease the effectiveness of collaboration. In order to address these challenges, the authors underscore the importance of establishing clear guidelines, promoting open communication, and creating a safe work atmosphere. They note that these actions can reduce conflicts and make sure that working together and giving feedback is helpful for everyone.'''

'''In addition, in another study titled "Peer review from the student's perspective: Invaluable or invalid?" Charlotte Brammer delves into the need to shift students from viewing peer review as only a correction mechanism to recognizing its value as a collaborative engagement. The study reveals that students who received extensive instruction and preparation in conducting peer reviews displayed a higher level of appreciation for the process. However, the findings also highlight concerns regarding unhelpful feedback and the reliability of peers' reviewing abilities. Consequently, the study underscores the importance of teachers assisting students in proper preparation and dedicating class time to facilitate effective peer review. This includes having an understanding of the writer's audience, promoting meaningful group interaction, and encouraging thoughtful responses and revisions within the feedback. Establishing a sense of shared community among students is crucial for creating trust and confidence in their peers' ability to provide accurate and valuable revisions, thereby avoiding unhelpful feedback in the process.'''

'Chapter nine of the book Multimodal Composition'' titled "More about Reading, Responding, and Revising: The Three Rs of Peer Review and Revision," by Kara Poe Alexander, builds upon the insights from the studies above. It delves into the crucial aspects of presenting and revising student works through peer review. Her chapter goes on to say that teachers play a pivotal role in guiding students through this process effectively. Example projects, assessment criteria sheets, and of expectations are essential. Holding multiple sessions of peer review with teacher involvement is helpful in providing comprehensive feedback. Taking in different types of feedback can give the writer an idea of how others see their work. Writers need to engage readers with questions, and the readers should look at writing as if they are the intended audience for it. Feedback sheet guides help keep readers focused during a review and give them a reference to look at when deciding what type of feedback to give. Both written and verbal feedback contribute to valuable insights for revision.'''

'''Wendy Bishop's article "Revising the technical writing class: Peer Critiques, self-evaluation, and portfolio grading" explores innovative methods to enhance writing education. Integrating peer critiques, self-evaluation, and portfolio grading can promote collaboration, critical thinking, and student growth. Bishop argues that peer critiques encourage active feedback exchange, and self-reflection is improved. Portfolio grading showcases progress and achievements. Bishop emphasizes how these approaches develop a deeper understanding of writing, boosting the confidence and proficiency of students as writers.'''

Article bodies
References