New York College Learning Skills Association
Using Peer Response in the Classroom: Students' Perspectives
Author(s): Margaret E. Weaver
Source: Research and Teaching in Developmental Education, Vol. 12, No. 1 (Fall 1995), pp. 31-37
Published by: New York College Learning Skills Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/42802446
Accessed: 28-09-2015 16:17 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
New York College Learning Skills Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Research
and Teaching in Developmental Education.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 142.66.88.25 on Mon, 28 Sep 2015 16:17:30 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
E. Weaver
MissouriStateUniversity
; Southwest
ByMargaret
Using
Peer
Response
Students'
in
the
Classroom
Perspectives
Abstract
For most writingteachers,the value of peer responseis a "given."
whetherstudentsplace value in peer
fewstudieshave investigated
Unfortunately,
This
the
article
explores
discrepancybetweenwhat studentsthink
response.
thinkabout peer response. The authorconcludesbrieflydescribinga
instructors
Studiesprogramwhichaimsto minimizethediscrepancy.
Developmental
"Peerresponseis nottakenseriously."
I was takenabackwhenoneofmystudentssaid thistome. My first
thought
was who-who does nottakepeerresponseseriously?I knewmostofmycolleagues
withinthe Englishdepartmentuse peer responseas an importantpedagogical
intheteaching
ofwriting.Everysemester
worktogether
technique
theyhavestudents
in small groupsreadingand critiquingeach othes papers. Who, then,on our
campuswould nottakepeerresponseseriously?The obviousanswerwas reflected
in thesourceof thestatementstudentsin general.
mystudent,our students,
Thisrealizationfrightened
me,butit also servedas a catalyst.Ratherthan
toreadnumerousarticlesinacademicjournalson "howtofurther
facilitate
continuing
I foundmyselfcompelledto againquestionthe"given"-the
value of
peerresponse,"
peerresponse.
BeginningAssumptions
likemyselfenteredthefieldof teachingby acceptingthe
Manyinstructors
conclusionreachedby Bartholomae(1985): basic writerslack control. Feeling
enlightenedby Freire(1970), Giroux(1983), and others,we venturedinto the
classroomwiththedesireto "empower"
eachofourstudents.Forexample,ina paper
at theCCCC convention
inMarch1989,Drapersharedthefollowing
about
presented
herdesireto "empower"
one of herstudentsthroughpeerresponse:
severalkindsofpretexts
thathe has heardor readabout
Johnis unraveling
and tryingto put togetherhis own [pretext]. . . thisis riskybusiness.
Perhapshe could do it alone in his room,but mysenseis thatassistedby
concernedfellowstudentswho claim no superiorknowledge,he is more
willingto takethoserisks,(p. 7)
But thereis disagreementsurroundinghow peer response"empowers"
students.WhenstudentslikeJohnworkwithotherstudentsto developpretexts,
are
Volume12,IssueI,RTDE 31
This content downloaded from 142.66.88.25 on Mon, 28 Sep 2015 16:17:30 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Theorists
suchas
ofdifferences?
theyempoweredbyconsensusor acknowledgment
several
stances
dilemma
reflects
that
this
Tebo-Messina
varying
along
(1989)suggest
like
of authority.On one side are theadvocatesforconsensus-those
a continuum
in
as
conversation
...
is
similar
that
students'
to
ensure
"contrive
who
Bruffee
(1984)to readand write"
manywaysas possibleto theway we would likethemeventually
to the consensuspointof view attemptto
subscribing
(p. 642). Thus,instructors
students
by using peer responseto help themjoin in our conversation.
empower
However,Witteand Faigley(1983)suggestthatstudentsthen"abolishtheirownideas
ofwriting
qualityand adoptotherswhichare relativeto thegroup'sviewofwriting
and teachers
are thosetheorists
quality"(p. 15). On theotherside of thecontinuum
and
thatexistbetweenteachers
likeElbowwhoacknowledgethelanguagedifferences
intheclassroom.Theseinstructors
nottoretainanyauthority
so theyprefer
students,
to empowerstudentsby usingpeerresponseto "providespacesforstudents
attempt
attitudesand relationships"
to challengeauthoritarian
(Draper,1989,p. 3).
assumethat
Asidefromthisdifference,
though,bothsidesofthecontinuum
has become
In
is
a
fact,
response
peer
technique.
peerresponse "good"pedagogical
associatedwithcompositionin the 1990swithas muchfervoras processbecame
in thelate 1970s. Formostwritingteachers,
associatedwithcomposition
then,it is
is
a
of
that
the
value
to
safe
peerresponse "given."
say
probably
how instructors
Freedman(1987)createda surveyto investigate
respondto
studentwriting. She gave writtensurveysto 560 instructors.Freedmanasked
on a scale of 1 to 4 how
teachersto respondto a varietyof questionsby indicating
activities
occurinthecomposition
certain
often
activities
were
and
how
certain
helpful
classroom.Includedamongthequestionswas thefollowing:
We would likeyouropinionsaboutthehelpnessofvariouskinds
ofresponsesstudentsgeton theirwriting:
nothelpful nottoo helpful somewhathelpful veryhelpful
4
3
12
EarlyDraft
* Peer
response
* Teacher
response
Mean
3.37
2.86
CompletedWriting
* Peer
response
* Teacher
response
3.36
2.91
She discoveredthatregardlessofthestagein thewritingprocess(an "early
teachersassumethatpeer responseis helpful-even
draft"or "completed
writing"),
of peer responseis a
moreso thanteacherresponse. For teachers,thehelpfulness
also
reveals
Freedman's
that
It
is
not
then,
peerresponse
survey
surprising,
"given."
in theclassroom.Another
occurs"often"
questionaskedin theFreedmansurveywas
thisone:
how
Whenstudentsin thisclassare workingon a pieceofwriting,
oftendo you have themworkin peerresponsegroups?
32 RTDE, Fall1995
This content downloaded from 142.66.88.25 on Mon, 28 Sep 2015 16:17:30 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
almostnever sometimes often almostalways
4
2
3
1
Mean
2.98
Like theseteacherssurveyedby Freedman,myown colleaguesacceptpeer
and thus,use it"often"
whenteaching
pedagogicaltechnique
responseas an important
like"Do
writing.The studentson campusverifythiseach semesterwithcomments
we have to do peergroupsin thisclass,too?" One studentevenwrotethefollowing
in hisjournal:
Peereditingseemstobe pickingup a wide arrayofacceptance.WhenI was
inhighschool,mysophomoreEnglishclassdealta lotwithpeerediting.We
used touse rowsand simplypass thepapersfromone personon tothenext.
It was prettysystematic.
His statement
confirmed
thatinstructors
use peer
(at least,his instructors)
I
was
startled
the
words
that
he
chose
to
describe
the
response.Unfortunately,
by
and
the
These
words
that
experience~"systematic" "simplypass
papers."
suggested
he saw peerresponseas a roteactivity
ratherthanan empowering
experience.His
wordsremindedme of O'Reilley's(1989)poignantjibe at peerresponse:
as
rats,as dutifully
They put theirchairsin a circlelike well-modified
studentsin 1967. . . one oftheteacher'shardestjobs is tobreakconditioning.
You don'tjustopenthecages,as someofmyfriends
in theanimalliberation
movementdo, and hope the poor beasts will run free. . . the studentcenteredclassroomwas predicatedon diffusionof power . . . this [is]
to students,
dangerousand confusing
(pp. 144-146)
My student'sjournalentrymademe questionifstudentsfindpeerresponse
as "dangerous"
and "confusing"
as O'Reilleysuggests.Do studentsuse peerresponse
becausetheyare coercedand conditioned
ofa courseorbecause
bytherequirements
see thevalue in peerresponse?
they,likeinstructors,
Curioustodiscoverwhetherstudentsplacevaluein peerresponsewhennot
coerced,I beganan informal
studyofmyown students.I chosestudentsenrolledin
EssentialElementsofEnglishclass to be participants
because99% of
myjunior-level
thesestudentshave declaredthemslevesto be educationmajors,and I wantedto
questionstudentswho had a desireto see peer responsefrombotha instructor's
and a student'sperspective.I asked thesestudentsto discussin writing
perspective
thinkaboutpeerresponseand 2) whatstudentsthink
1) whattheythinkinstructors
aboutpeer response. (All of thestudentcommentsthatfolloware takenverbatim
fromtheirwritten
responses.)
WhatStudentsThinkTeachersThink
I had originallyassumed thatthisgroup of studentswould understand
see value in peer
(especiallyaftertheirnumerouseducationcourses)whyinstructors
response. As expected,mostmentionedthatpeer responsereducestheamountof
Volume12,IssueI,RTDE 33
This content downloaded from 142.66.88.25 on Mon, 28 Sep 2015 16:17:30 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
mustspendcorrecting
timean instructor
papers. Theseeducationmajorsagreewith
ofspendingcountless
who use peerresponseare"relieved
Beaven(1977) thatteachers
did
not citeBeaven's
hourson gradingpapers"(p. 152). Ironically,
though,they
to have individualizedconferences
conclusionthatthisextratimeallows instructors
withstudents.Instead,theseeducationmajorssaw peer response,as one student
stated,as "aneasyoutforlazy teacherswho reallydo notwantto workindividually
studentsuggestedthat"mostteachersreallydo notlikepeer
withstudents."Another
responsebecause it cutsout timefromclass lectures."In short,theseprospective
on classtime
assumedthatmostteacherssee peerresponseas an intrusion
instructors
oras a way to reducethetimeneededto correctpapers. Even theone studentwho
thatsomeinstructors
mightfindvalue in peerresponsebelievedthat
acknowledged
"peerresponsecan be done onlyat certaintimesduringthecomposingprocess."
on whenwe as instructors
commentpromptedme to reflect
Thisparticular
chooseto use peer responseduringthe writingprocess. Accordingto Freedman,
and
ofpeerresponsebothon an "earlydraft"
do recognizethehelpfulness
instructors
as onlypossible
on "completed
writing."However,thisstudentdefinedhelpfulness
timesduringtheprocess."His reasoning?"Allof myteachershave had
at "certain
ourpeerresponsesoccuraftera firstdrafthas beenfinished.I thinkthisis so thatthe
studentalso expressedthatifstudents
knowwe didourownwork."Another
teachers
thinkmoreemphasisshouldbe placed
receiveextrahelpfromtheirpeers,"teachers
hisor
tocorrect
on theproduct... becausethestudentwas givena lotofopportunity
herpaper."
thinkand whatstudentsthink
betweenwhatinstructors
This discrepancy
abouttheroleoftheinstructor.
thinkreflects
instructors
Usinga student's
ambiguity
words,"Itis thejob oftheteacherto readand givea gradeon papers. I am notthe
I am herfriendwho she [mypeer]confidesin,who she eatslunchwith."
instructor.
The most revealingstudentcommentI read blamed societyfor this ambiguity
theroleof theteacher:
surrounding
Ourculturedoes notraiseus in sucha mannerthatmanyofus are open to
becauseoftheir
criticism
ofanykind. Froma student'steacheritis tolerable
because
of
theirequality.
it
is
a
student's
from
threatening
peer
authority,
WhatStudentsThink
withtheirpeers
collaborate
students
assumethatletting
Whilewe instructors
is
willbe a positiveexperienceforstudents,
mystudentssuggestthattheexperience
In
conclusion.
reveals
this
also
Freedman's
than
other
survey
something
positive.
tocompletethesame
Freedmanasked715students
560teachers,
additiontosurveying
on a
survey.She asked studentsto respondto a varietyof questionsby indicating
classroom.The
werein thecomposition
scaleof1 to4 how helpfulcertainactivities
fromtheteacherresponseson thefollowing
studentresponsesdiffered
question:
ofvariouskinds
We wouldlikeyouropinionsaboutthehelpfulness
ofresponsesstudentsgeton theirwriting:
nothelpful nottoo helpful somewhathelpful veryhelpful
4
3
12
34 RTDE, Fall1995
This content downloaded from 142.66.88.25 on Mon, 28 Sep 2015 16:17:30 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
EarlyDraft
* Peer
response
* Teacher
response
CompletedWriting
* Peer
response
* Teacher
response
Teachers
Mean
3.37
2.86
3.36
2.91
Students
Mean
2.77
3.20
2.35
2.98
"Studentsratetheteacher[nottheirpeersjas themosthelpfulresponder"
to the lack of reliability
(Freedman,1987,p. 88). This responsecan be attributed
attachtopeerresponse.My studentscontinually
students
expressconcernaboutpeer
responseby askingsuch rhetorical
questionsas "Whatmakesmypeersqualifiedto
judge my personalwork?" Many of my studentseven label peer responseas
in theirwritten
"dishonest"
discussionof "whatstudentsthinkaboutpeerresponse":
"Sometimes
thatsome people
duringgroupfeedbacksessions,I get theimpression
aren'tgivingtheirhonestreactions"
and "I mustadmittherewas a lackofhonestyon
mypartwhileeditingmybuddy'spaper. I didn'twantto admitthathis paperwas
betterthanmine." As thesetwo studentshintin theirwrittencomments,
lack of
honestyresultsfromthecompetitive
spiritthatexistsamongstudents.Even though
studentsuse peer responseto help each otherimprove,each studentis concerned
aboutgetting
thebestgradein theclass. Quotinganotherstudent,
"Weall knowthe
ofone anotherso whenwe receiveda gradewe did notlike
writing
style/capability
we immediately
asked othergroup memberswhat theyreceived. . . we became
in
a
competitive veryunpleasantway becauseofpeerresponse."Commentssuchas
theseverify
aboutpeerresponse:"Whatwas meantto be
Draper's(1989)observation
an empowering
experiencecan becomeevenmorethreatening"
(p. 3).
PilotStudy
Concernedthatour DevelopmentalStudiesprogram(whichuses extensive
use ofpeerresponsegroupsin theclassroom)maynotbe "empowering"
forstudents
(as evidencedby students'commentsand thenumberof studentshavingto repeat
courses),I and severalofmycolleaguesembarkedon a pilotstudy.Sincemostofthe
opposition to peer response was directed at working with other students
enrolledin thecourse,our pilotstudysetout to investigate
ifgiving
("competitors")
studentstheoptionto workwithsomeonenotenrolledin theclass could influence
students'successratein DevelopmentalStudies. As such,studentsenrolledin the
100students)
weregiventheoptiontoreceiveweeklyonepilotstudy(approximately
to-onepeer responsein theWritingCenterin additionto classroompeer response
groups. All studentson campuscan receivepeer responsein theWritingCenter.
Whatdifferentiated
the pilotstudy,though,was thatthe studentswho chose this
additionaloptionwereguaranteeda one-hourslotper week in theWritingCenter,
evenduringthebusiesttimesof thesemester.Each studentwho chosethisoption
was givena weeklystandingappointment-regardless
of whether
or notthestudent
kepttheappointment.
Our findings(aftertwo semesters)revealthatthosestudentswho optedto
receiveweeklypeer responsein theWritingCenterexperienced
a higherdegreeof
success(as exhibited
on individualcomposition
ofstudents
gradesand thepercentage
who completedthecourse)thanstudentswho did notreceivepeerresponsein the
Volume12,IssueI,RTDE 35
This content downloaded from 142.66.88.25 on Mon, 28 Sep 2015 16:17:30 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Center.Our studentsexperiencemoresuccesswiththepeerresponsethat
Writing
occursin the WritingCenteras opposed to the peer responsethatoccursin the
classroom.
in thesetwoformsofpeerresponse(i.e.,
Asidefromtheobviousdifferences
we identified
betweenpeer
difference
the
vs.
individualized
help grouphelp), primary
responsein theWritingCenterand peerresponsein theclassroomis training.All
tutorswho workin the WritingCenterhave successfully
completeda threehour
different
formsof
from
course
which
exploreseverything
training
semester-long
communication.
and
to
nonverbal
to
Through
interpersonal
response learningstyles
thatmake "good"tutors.As
training,
prospectivetutorslearnabout theattributes
likestudentsand wantto helpthem.
Morris(1987) elaborates,"goodtutorssincerely
in
reflected
is automatically
Goodtutorsare non-judgmental"
(p. 11). This"sincerity"
theway thattutorsrespondto studentwriting.Becausetutorsare oftenunfamiliar
withthecontentof specificcourses,tutors'responsesare perceivedby studentsas
more"honest"than the peer responsesgiven in class. "Withoutany specialized
ofthecourse,"Perdue(1987) explains,"thetutoris freeto reactas a 'dumb
knowledge
reader,'who can sincerelyask what a specifictermmeans or expressconfusion
inthecourse"(p. 11). This,
a judgmenton thestudent'scompetence
without
implying
in turn,encourageshonestyon thepartofthestudent.As Harris(1992)discovered,
"tutorsare likelyto get bothhonestanswersand honestquestionsfromstudents
nonbecausethe tutorhas the unique advantageof beingbotha nonjudgmental,
who
evaluativehelper"(p. 376). The tutoris notperceivedas a competitor-someone
makea judgmentabouttherelativeworthof thepapercomparedto
will ultimately
ofthe44 studentswho optedat the
otherstudentpapersin theclass. Consequently,
to
receive
of
the
semester
Center,39 students
peerresponsein theWriting
beginning
Centerthroughout
continuedto attendtheweeklyone-hoursessionsin theWriting
on classevaluations,
thesemester
because,as all ofthesestudents
theyfound
reported
Centerto be helpful.
peerresponsein theWriting
This invaluabletypeof trainingin "honesty"
helps tutorsto createa very
createdin theclassroom.
than
the
student
for
the
different
atmosphere
atmosphere
resultsofBoylanand Bonham
helpstoexplainthefascinating
Perhapsthisdifference
(1991). In a nationalfollow-upstudyof over 6000 developmentalskillscollege
students,they found that tutortrainingis the best programmatic
predictorof
was
successfulcollege developmentaleducation programsonly tutor-training
relatedto academicsuccess.
significantly
Professor
Centerand an Assistant
MargaretE. Weaveris theDirectoroftheWriting
at SouthwestMissouriStateUniversity
in theEnglishDepartment
References
D. (1980). The studyof error.College Compositionand
Bartholomae,
Communication,
31,253-69.
and peer
Beaven,M. (1977). Individualizedgoal setting,self-evaluation
evaluation.In C. R. Cooper & L. Odell (Eds.), Evaluatingwriting(pp. 135-156).
Urbana,IL: NationalCouncilofTeachersofEnglish.
36 RTDE, Fall1995
This content downloaded from 142.66.88.25 on Mon, 28 Sep 2015 16:17:30 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Boylan,J.R., & Bonham,B. S. (1991).Researchprojecton developmental
education. Boone,NC: NationalCenterforDevelopmentalEducation,Appalachian
StateUniversity.
K. (1984).Collaborative
ofmankind."
Bruffee,
learningand the"conversation
CollegeEnglish,46,635-53.
Draper,V. (1989March16-18). Writing
responsegroups:Frompowertrips
to empowerment.
and Communication
Paperpresentedat theCollegeComposition
Seattle.(ERIC DocumentReproduction
ServiceNo. ED 310401)
Conference,
Freedman,S. (1987). Responseto studentwriting.Urbana,IL: National
CouncilofTeachersofEnglish.
Freire,P. (1970). Pedagogyoftheoppressed.(MyraBermanRamos,Trans.).
New York:Seabury.
in education:A pedagogyforthe
Giroux,H. (1983). Theoryand resistance
opposition.SouthHadley,MA: Bergin& Garvey.
is notcollaboration:
Harris,M. (1992). Collaborationis notcollaboration
centertutorials
vs. peer-response
and CommunWriting
groups.CollegeComposition
cation,43, 369-383.
Rolesand attributes
oftutors.Writing
Morris,K. (1987). Hats and feathers:
Lab Newsletter,
12, 10-11.
. . . thebrutes"-Andotherthingsthatgo
O'Reilley,M. (1989). "Exterminate
wrongin student-centered
teaching.CollegeEnglish,51, 142-146.
centerpedagogy:Developingauthority
instudent
Perdue,V. (1987). Writing
writers. Writing
Lab Newsletter,
11,9-11.
M. (1989). Authority
and modelsof thewritingworkshop:
Tebo-Messina,
All collaborative
Instructor,
8, 86-92.
learningis notequal. Writing
Witte,S. P., & Faigley,L. (1983). Evaluatingcollege writingprograms.
Carbondale:SouthernIllinoisUniversity
Press.
Volume12,IssueI,RTDE 37
This content downloaded from 142.66.88.25 on Mon, 28 Sep 2015 16:17:30 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
