Widman 1

He Said She Said

If you were a superhero, what would your superpower be? This was the first thing I saw

when I walked into the dully painted, brightly decorated second-grade classroom of Ms. Johnson.

Ms. Johnson teaches 30 little angels, as she would call them, at Wasatch Elementary in Provo,

Utah and shes been doing so since 1992. Ms. Johnson is not someone you would describe as

warm, but theres a twinkle in her eye that says she knows what shes doing. Ms. Johnson

encourages her students to write constantly. They write about their thinking and processing in

math problems, their experiences in music and art class, and they write a daily journal entry. If

Ms Johnson were a superhero, her superpower would be teaching elementary writing.

Ms. Johnson incorporates a very interesting writing strategy in her second-grade

classroom that you often dont see in elementary schools. Once a week, Ms. Johnsons students

participate in peer review. Peer review activities in Ms. Johnsons classroom vary from students

meeting in small groups, to sharing their writing with the whole class. Ms. Johnsons students

produce good writing. I would know, because I am the creative writing tutor for their class. As I

sit with students, and I hear the peer review that goes on in the classroom, I attribute much of the

students good writing to peer review. I am often drawn back to this one question: to what effect

can peer review create a foundation for elementary students to become skilled writers? This

question has guided my research, and I have come to the conclusion, that when executed

properly, peer review in elementary school classrooms can strengthen not only students writing

skills, but also strengthen their social skills.

Heres the Deal

Peer review has been a common instructional approach in middle and high school

English classes since the 1980s and is often considered a key element of teaching the writing
 Widman 2

process (Schunn et al. 22). Peer review is nothing new. But, implementing it into elementary

schools is a bit of a new idea. Here are the principles that would need to be included to

successfully execute peer review in elementary schools.

First, students would be held responsible for taking the task of providing feedback

seriously, honestly, and kindly. These principles can lessen childrens fear of the social

repercussions of honest peer review (Schunn et al. 23).In recent studies, peer review was found

to be most effective when the guidelines for giving feedback were based on specific,

understandable criteria (Schunn et al. 25). The peer-review process requires students to give and

receive criticism and justify their position in a way that other students can understand.

Guidelines would have to include whether the reviewers grade papers or give written or oral

assessments. Other parameters are the degree of teacher involvement in the process and whether

or not students remained anonymous in the process (Lundquist et al. 261)

In one study, researchers argued that peer assessments need to be completed

anonymously so that students would avoid bias based upon personal relationships with their

classmates. The researchers explained that students are more prepared to make critical and

constructive comments when they are anonymous (Boase-Jelinek et al. 129). I see the point that

this study is making, and in the implementation of a peer review plan, it might be helpful to first

have students peer review anonymously to lessen the pressure on students to make their friends

feel good. But, as students build their evaluation skills, there is an added benefit in having

students interact face to face. Students will one day apply for college, jobs, have relationships,

and have to communicate their ideas effectively. Peer review with face to face interaction might

seem scary to students at first, but think of how much better prepared students will be to
 Widman 3

confidently share their ideas with others in the future because of the practice they learn in early

childhood.

Students and teachers can gain valuable feedback from peer review. Teachers can guide

students to focus more on global issues in writing, such as main ideas and evidence. Students are

then strengthening their inference skills, and their critical thinking skills. Peer review then can

become more than just evaluating writing. It develops students' awareness of audiences other

than the teacher and allows them to notice things about their own writing by evaluating someone

elses based upon the same criteria (Schunn et al. 25). Whether in peer review or in basic

revision instruction, students may at first focus on editing because they do not understand

evaluation criteria. Once they learn evaluation criteria students can make more substantive

revisions. Through instruction, students can learn how to give critical feedback and to understand

the procedures they should follow (Philippakos 21). Elementary students have to be taught how

to evaluate writing whether they are participating in peer review or not. Adding peer review as a

classroom activity would only provide another opportunity for students to strengthen their

evaluation skills and critical thinking.

Effective peer review depends on specific instruction to prepare students to be effective

reviewers. Research has shown that for peer review to be effective and meaningful to students,

there should be time devoted to training students on the reviewing procedures and time for them

to practice those procedures (Philippakos 16). Teachers can implement critical thinking skills

into the direct interaction of peer review. Studies have shown that doing this actually strengthens

students ability to think critically because they are doing so in their immediate social context.

When students compare others' work with their own, they will often reassess their own

work, discover weaknesses, and identify opportunities for improvement (Lundquist et al. 263).
 Widman 4

That being said, peer review should be taught throughout the writing process to allow students

multiple occasions to look at their work and how it can be improved (Lundquist et al. 264).

Research shows that from the preschool years through grade school, social interactions with

peers provide countless opportunities for children to learn and teach as they negotiate their way

through a variety of social interactions. Developmental theorists such as Vygotsky and Piaget

placed social interactions at the center of their theories of cognitive development. Vygotsky

hypothesized that peer interactions are filled with valuable exchanges of information and skills in

which children adjust their thoughts through relating to others who are at their developmental

level. While students may interact at the same developmental level, they may reflect differing

language, behavioral styles, and perspectives which allows the social interaction to be one of

learning and processing (Rohrbeck et al. 246).

For peer review to work, it is important that the teacher clearly communicates what is

considered important in the assessment. This is where peer review can be adapted to any grade

and age level. First grade standards for critical thinking will be significantly simpler than fifth

grade standards. However, peer review can still be effective in both grades (Lundquist et al.

264). I was curious when I was researching to see if peer review really could work for younger

grades.

Ms. Johnson, whom I mentioned earlier, uses peer review in her second grade classroom

often. Ms. Johnson explained to me that at the beginning of the year she has students engage in

peer review anonymously. For example, Ms. Johnson has each of her students write a sentence

that has to contain at least five words, a subject, and a verb. Then, Ms. Johnsons students type

the sentences into a word document, and Ms. Johnson displays the different sentences on the

board. The authors of the sentence of the sentences remain anonymous, but the class is able to
 Widman 5

learn together the requirements that form a sentence. One classroom rule that Ms. Johnson has

for her students is that they are not allowed to make fun of people for trying. So, if a student

were to laugh or giggle at another for something they wrote, Ms. Johnson would explain that its

ok not to know something, but its not ok not to try. With this added support, students in Ms.

Johnsons class are provided an open and safe platform to present their work for peer review.

Ms. Johnsons approach to peer review resembles one study in which two first grade

teachers had their students pass around their writing journals and students were to determine if a

set of sentences had both a subject and a verb. One teacher was asked to encourage students that

even if they did not know how to write a sentence with a subject and verb, that they should still

try. The other teacher was asked to mark students down for sentences that did not have a subject

and a verb. This study concluded that peer review, when students are encouraged for effort rather

than correct production actually increases students motivation to participate (Rohrbeck et al.

255). Based on this study and my own personal interaction with Ms. Johnson, implementing a

peer review system into an elementary school seems so simple, but there is still the question of

resources.

There are different opinions on whether peer review saves teacher resources. Christian

Lundquist and his associates conducted a series of studies of peer review programs in

elementary, high school, and college level courses. Lundquist and his associates concluded that

in the short term, before the peer review system has been established, it requires more resources

than expected (262). In the beginning, teachers can expect to spend classroom time teaching

students how to interact appropriately for peer review. As time goes on student responses from

peer review let the teachers gain new insights into the students' understanding, learning, and their

perceptions of writing standards and goals (Lundquist et al. 263). For these reasons, Lundquist
 Widman 6

and associates found that teachers who allocate resources to teaching students how to peer

review are able to promptly detect errors in students writing from what students say about each

others writing (Lundquist et al. 264).

In a different study, twenty fourth grade classes and twenty fifth grade classes

participated in peer review based writing instruction (Philippakos and MacArthur 432) . Overall,

the study found that when teachers taught students how to interact in peer review, and when

students evaluated each others writing throughout the school year, it led to improvements in the

quality of students own writing. The researchers explained that this is likely due to the fact that

reviewing helped students learn the evaluation criteria and apply the criteria themselves when

writing and revising their own essays (Philippakos and MacArthur 430).

Why it Works

So, now what? Ive talked about some of challenges of peer review, Ive talked about

different programs and activities that can meet those challenges. But now the question is why?

Why would teachers take time and resources to change their writing instruction? Heres the

answer.

In longitudinal studies conducted in the United States and all over the world, it has been

concluded that early academic successes is associated with numerous positive developmental

outcomes in adolescence and adulthood (Rohrbeck etal. 242). Peer review in elementary school

can provide a platform for students to have early academic success. Peer review has been shown

to improve academic writing across disciplines, school settings, and grade levels without

severely increasing the demands on teachers' time (Schunn et al. 14).

There are numerous ways that English language arts can be taught to students across all

different age groups. But in peer review, students typically read their peers' essays and provide
 Widman 7

feedback in response to teacher-generated questions or prompts. Writers can then use the

feedback to revise and ideally improve their essays before submitting them to the teacher for a

final grade. (Schunn et al. 15) Students struggle with writing and revision because they do not

know how to evaluate their own writing as readers (Philippakos 13). Preparing students for peer

review via practice in applying evaluation criteria can develop their evaluation skills and prepare

them not only to be good writers but strengthen their reading and critical thinking skills

(Philippakos 14).

Unfortunately, large numbers of U.S. students do not adapt successfully to school. Based

on recent research, thirty-seven percent of fourth graders perform below basic levels of

proficiency in reading. Among vulnerable groups of children, those who belong to minority

groups and have a low socioeconomic status, these rates nearly double (Rohrbeck et al. 242). In

search of explanations and remedies for these poor academic outcomes, educational researchers

have found that large numbers of students are disengaged from learning (Rohrbeck et al. 244).

This disengagement is a major predictor of low academic achievement. Researchers have found

that one way to combat disengagement is to increase students social experiences with peers.

(Boase-Jelinek et al. 120). Using peers in the learning process capitalizes on the natural ways that

peers can enhance student-centered learning (Rohrbeck et al. 244). Peer review may also

positively alter students attitudes toward writing and their self-perceptions as writers,

encouraging students to be more engaged (Philippakos and MacArthur 425).

Conclusion

The success of peer review depends on many elements. Teacher resources, student

motivation, students skills, and students ability to interact socially. For peer review to work,

have to instruct students that peer review is more than interacting socially. Rather, it is a way for
 Widman 8

students to engage in a valuable activity that will strengthen their writing. Teachers have to move

children away from the he said she said mentality and move into a safe space where students

can share their ideas freely. Once this happens, the benefits start flowing. Students begin to

evaluate others work, and in turn learn more about themselves as a writer. Students also learn

how to strengthen their critical thinking skills, which provides them with a strong foundation for

future academic success. While peer review may take time to implement, the benefits far

outweigh the costs.