This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
Single author peer review can take several forms.


 One-on-one meetings between a reviewer and a student writer. The writer may read the paper aloud, or the reader may read the paper prior to the meeting.


 Draft exchanges. Two writers might exchange drafts and thereby become two reviewers as well.


 Pair-Share. Students exchange papers multiple times and thus get multiple readers (Caution: the number of exchanges should be somewhat limited since too many comments can overwhelm a writer).


 Targeted review groups. Groups can be designed for different purposes. For example, one group might be responsible for reviewing thesis statements while another group is responsible for critiquing evidence or citations.


 General review groups. For general review purposes, a group of students may collectively critique a student text. One option is to include the writer in the review process by having him or her read the paper aloud. The writer then becomes a listener and must consider the role of audience in the writing process.


 Class workshops. Class workshops provide an opportunity for faculty to model and train students on effective methods for peer review. During a class workshop, faculty members can guide the review process without commenting on the individual drafts specifically. The workshop might begin with the faculty member modeling the peer review process with a sample essay. Modeling peer review will help students identify areas to focus on and will aid in determining what kind of comments are meaningful (getting past the ―good job‖ comment). The workshop model can also aid faculty in working with weaker students. Faculty can move around the room and check in with students during the review process in order to help them negotiate the process. Before beginning a peer review workshop, faculty will want to assess class time. The workshop model does take a large amount of class time to complete effectively.


Whichever format faculty choose to explore, there are several general best


practices that will help to facilitate a smooth and productive single author peer review. Insert 2.1a provides an example of a sample assignment and Insert 2.1b provides a


35


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128