Unlike any other English class that I took or even observed, this is the first class in which peer review tasks are built into the course from the beginning. These tasks are not considered part of participation--rather, they hold %15 of the total grade. This, I hope, will cause the students to consider peer review as a serious assignment rather than a small assignment that may not count for more than 1 percent of the entire grade. In addition, building this interaction at the start of the semester will portray to the students the useful aspects of peer review. (Al Thowaini, "Exploring the Subject Matter Content")
In regard to my comments on peer review, Dr. Kinginger had this to say "I am interested in your remarks about assigning a major part of the grade to peer review as a way of encouraging students to take it seriously. It will be interesting to see if this pans out in the actual course."
These few sentences strongly marked their presence on me, which encouraged me to further reflect on this topic in my blog. Today, and a couple of weeks before the end of the semester, the students completed only three peer-review activities. I do not think that it is enough. A total of three 75-minutes peer reviews are not enough. The limited time for each session is an issue because it takes a while for a student to read an essay, come up with suggestions, type a feedback, and receive a response from the other student. I personally would have given the essay to the student a week before the session, and have the students spend 75 minutes talking about the essays together.
Furthermore, we are using a different method for peer reviewing--chatting. Nonetheless, I do not like the method even if there was some research to support it. For the purpose of peer-review, we are using an electronic chat website. When my mentor explained to the students that each student will be in front of a screen during class time and in the same room discussing the paper with their partner, one of the students laughed. The student simply asked "why don't we do it face to face" since we are going to be in the same room at the same time. Really, why? Yet, again, from my perspective as a member of the Applied Linguistics, there are researches that suggest that using this medium for peer review is beneficial because it allows the editor/reviewer to express themselves freely without the fear of upsetting their peer (as well as other reasons). But, really, when we are using this method, the students are not using their speaking or listening skills, skills that they will need in other class. In addition, a person who fears "upsetting" their peer will be conscious of that notion regardless of whether it was typed or orally articulated. If one of the goals of this class is to prepare students for academia, then how "learning how to review one's paper on a chat" will prepare the students for the new academic setting. On the other hand, they surly will use their speaking and listening skills to negotiate meaning. I would say that chatting may work if we tell the students to do peer review out side the class whenever they want, and have them print the chat as a proof of their engagement. In addition, when looking at the chats, most students discussed two or three issues. This actually was pointed out by the instructor herself. If online editing does work, then the way it was used in this class did not illustrate its benefits.
After the students completed two session of peer-review, I decided to debrief them. I asked the students to do a survey for me on their reaction to peer review. After all, they are the one doing it, and their opinions of its value matter. Their responses were compiled in this PDF file
peer_review_students_perspective.pdf |