1. Jeff Paschke-Johannes ID 601 – TPrep October 25, 2007
Peer Response for Privateers: Elbow and Belanoff’s Sharing and Responding
Jeff Paschke-Johannes
ID 601 – TPrep
October 25, 2007

2. My Sorry Attempts at Peer-Response
“It’s a problem of motivation…”
Early attempts effectively focused on editing, not
revising
Provided vague, short prompts to get students
started
Maybe I did it because it was expected and filled a
class session
“Blind leading the blind”
Desired more substantial peer-response from students, but how to get
there?
Even after developing thorough critique sheets for students to follow,
leading them to comments on higher order concerns, uncritical comments,
lack of participation, and advice that could actually be detrimental to
student writing persisted.

3. My Sorry Attempts at Peer-Response
Doing “Peer Review” not “Peer Response”
A Problem of Philosophy
Considered peers’ role to give advice and evaluation, such as the teacher might give; students get suggestions that they can implement in changing their drafts
Administered peer-response groups late in composition process, when students have “finished” product that will be submitted in a day or two for a grade

4. Sharing and Responding
By Peter Elbow and Patricia Belanoff in A Community
of Writers: A Workshop Course in Writing. NY:
McGraw-Hill, 1989, SR-1-SR-60.
Students need an audience, not evaluators or advice givers (SR-5), to
feel “presence of interested readers” (SR-6)
“What we need most as writers is not evaluation of the quality of our writing or advice
about how to fix it, but an accurate account of what goes on inside readers’ heads as
they read our words” (SR-31).
Because…
“We speak because we are trying to communicate.” Likewise, we write for, “a reply, not
an evaluation” (SR-18).
Evaluation and Judgment can be hard to receive before we know how well our readers
understand our composition, before we know what to expect of our readers
“We benefit most from feedback on early drafts, but it doesn’t make sense to evaluate
an early draft” (SR-20).
Varied forms of response help clarify whether the writer’s point is coming across and
helps peers develop a clear understanding of the composition, which is vital if useful
suggestions about the composition are going to be offered.

5. Sharing and Responding
11 Peer Responses
Written to students
Focuses on ways peers can effectively respond to
each other as good readers, giving fellow writers a
vision of what their readers might expect and ideas
on how to revise and develop based on that
perspective.
Responses are scaffolded, some working better for
early stages in writing and some for later stages of
writing, recognizing that different kinds of responses
are needed depending on the development of the
composition.
Likewise, responses allow for scaffolding for peer readers as well,
acknowledging that they may not yet be ready to respond in more refined and
technical ways.

6. (2) Pointing & Center of Gravity
Sharing: No Response
(2) Pointing & Center of Gravity
(3) Summary & Sayback
(4) The Almost Said
(5) Reply
(6) Voice
(7) The Readers Mind (A Movie)
(8) Metaphorical Descriptions
(9) Believing & Doubting
(10) Skeleton & Descriptive Outline
(11) Criterion-Based Feedback
(9)
(4)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(5)
(7)
(8)
(6)
(9)
(11)
(10)

7. Sharing and Responding
Sharing: No Response
Student reads work out loud to peers
Peers do not respond but only listen attentively
Student gains from actually having to think of her work as communicating to others
Useful in early & late stages of writing
Pointing &
Center of
Gravity
Pointing – ident-
ify striking words
or phrases
Center of Gravity – identify particularly powerful moments in the text
Allows writer to see areas of development to enhance readers’ experience or to see new directions in which the composition could go.
Useful in early & late stages of writing
Map

8. Sharing and Responding
3) Summary & Sayback
Summary – Peers summarize what the text says
Sayback – Peers describe they think the writer is getting at
Helps writer see whether main idea is coming across or helps writer establish what he or she is really trying to say
Useful in early & late stages. Sayback particularly useful in early stages when writers ideas may still be vague
4) The Almost Said
Writer asks peers
questions about what
is implied but not
stated and what peers
would like to hear more
about
Helps writer with development of
composition by finding details
that may be missing or
determining whether subtle
details are working as intended
Useful in middle to late stages
Map

9. Sharing and Responding
5) Reply
Readers respond with their thoughts about the topic and/or the writer’s view (discussion of content, not composition)
Discussion can generate problems with topic/view, reveal counterarguments that need to be made, or provide ideas that writer hadn’t considered
Useful in early to middle stages
6) Voice
Peers help assess tone and
language of the work – feelings
and attitudes expressed,
trustworthiness, vividness,
uniqueness
and
individuality
Thinking in
terms of voice
allows peers to describe writing
with less need for technical
language
Useful in early or late stages,
depending on what aspect of voice
is examined
Map

10. Sharing and Responding
7) The Reader’s Mind
(A Movie)
Peers describe what they are thinking while they listen to or read the composition,
their progression as a
reader.
Writer might stop
peers in the middle of
the text or ask for “I” statements about readers feelings
Useful in later stages, when writer is fairly confident about composition and is
looking for effect on
the reader
8) Metaphorical Description
Peers build metaphors for the
writer’s composition
Such indirect description can
help writer see
composition in new
ways
● Useful at any stage, but may be more useful in later stages when writer needs new vision
Map

11. Sharing and Responding
9) Believing &
Doubting
Believing – Writer asks
peers to pose as though they
believe everything in the
composition and to provide additional ideas/development that will
enhance and improve arguments
Doubting – Writer asks peers to pose as though they doubt everything
in the composition and to propose what problems exist in the argument
and what opposing views must be responded to or counterargued.
Helps writer get opposing feedback from readers about the
persuasiveness or argumentation in the composition
Useful in middle to late stages, when arguments need to be fine tuned.
Map

12. Sharing and Responding
10) Skeketon
& Descriptive
Outline
Skeleton Feedback –
Peers identify how
the composition is
outlined – main points, subpoints, evidence, assumptions, etc.
Descriptive Outline – Peers break up the composition into “says” and “does” statements: “says” statements summarize sections of the composition; “does” statements describes each sections purpose for the whole composition (rhetorical effect, function for the rest of the piece, etc)
Useful in later stages
11) Criterion-Based Feedback
Peers respond to specific
criteria or standards for the
paper, whether generated by
the writer or by outside
demands (i.e. grading –
thesis/focus, organization,
development, etc.)
Calls for specifics from peers,
references to
passages & words
Useful in later
stages, esp. when
preparing for
grade.
Map

13. Sharing and Responding
Implementing Peer Response
Model the peer-response process
Use it throughout the writing process
Allow students to make decisions about what kind of questions to ask and response to ask for
Consider students’ development as readers as well as writers and adjust peer response activity accordingly
Apply all techniques of any small group work – consider group dynamics and construction; give clear instructions before students disperse into groups; establish a clear and demonstrable outcome; limit time allowed so that students must stay on task to finish; circulate, ask questions, check progress, and make suggestions
Make yourself a resource that students can use during peer response

14. A Bibliography
Elbow, Peter and Patricia Belanoff. Sharing and Responding. A Community of Writers: A Workshop Course in Writing. 2nd ed. NY: McGraw-Hill, SR-1-SR-60. Grimm, Nancy. “Improving Students’ Responses to their Peers’ Essays.” College Composition and Communication (Feb. 1986): Graner, Michael H. “Revision Workshops: An Alternative to Peer Editing Groups.” The English Journal (Mar. 1987): Hansen, Jette G. and Jun Liu. “Guiding Principles for Effective Peer Response.” ELT Journal (Jan. 2005):