1. Responding to student writing: promoting engagement and understanding through peer review Sheffield Hallam University Outside Speaker Programme, Quality Enhancement & Student Success 21 June 2012 Dr Kathy Harrington Centre for the Enhancement of Learning and Teaching London Metropolitan University

2. Aims To introduce the theory and practice of structured peer review as a means of promoting student engagement and writing development To model a feedback process you can use with your students to enable them to... ◦ Clarify and hone ideas ◦ Communicate clearly with readers ◦ Find motivation and inspiration ◦ Solve thought problems ◦ Develop effective writing and reading strategies

3. Structure of session Conceptual framing – writing and thinking in higher education ◦ Writing as process ◦ Responding to student writing ◦ Importance of dialogue Peer review exercise Reflections and questions Next steps

4. Conceptual framing 1: writing and thinking Writing as a process of meaning-making within a disciplinary or professional field (Lea and Street, 1998) Fundamental connection between writing and thinking: ◦ ideas influence words we use, and words shape our ideas Meaning is not what you start out with but what you end up with. (Elbow, 1998)

5. Conceptual framing 2: writing to learn Writing to learn vs learning to write Both valid, but bringing former into view opens up possibility for writing to be used as a vehicle for learning and developing understanding within a subject area Writing can foster engagement in ‘intellectual struggle’ (Bean, 2001)

6. Conceptual framing 3: importance of talk about writing Enables students to become aware of how language shapes meaning (Lillis, 2006) ‘The writing sandwich’ – writing, talking, more writing – builds feedback and revision into writing process (Murray, 2005) Students talking about writing encourages active learning and provides practice in analytic skills (Lunsford, 1991)

7. Why peer review? Common practice sees feedback as correction Little or no guidance on how to give feedback, so readers look for ‘mistakes’ Author in role of passive recipient, especially when feedback is written only However, there is another perspective...

8. Feedback as co-production of knowledge Author as a participant (not a recipient) Feedback as motivating (not threatening) The dialogic co-construction of knowledge is a particularly pertinent, though sometimes underrated element in academic knowledge production. (Dysthe, 2003)

9. Why is dialogue helpful? Gives author insight into reader’s understanding of what has been communicated in writing May reveal issues not picked up in one’s own reading Author solves problems by talking about them ◦ Insights can then be applied to one’s writing strategy

10. Feedback from peers When done well, peer feedback enables Dialogue rather than monologue Open-ended questions that reveal discrepancies in thought Solving problems and clarifying ideas Discussion and feedback across disciplines And it can motivate and inspire! When students find (peer) feedback unhelpful, it is because They feel misunderstood...or attacked The comments are too detailed...or hard to respond to

11. Structured peer review Guiding questions help with... Focussed and active reading Offering constructive feedback Thinking about your own writing in discussion with someone else Writing with purpose, clarity and an awareness of your reader

12. Guiding questions What is the author’s research question or writing topic? What is the author arguing or claiming? On what basis does the author make this argument? What evidence is offered and how convincing is it (valid, reliable, balanced, clearly expressed)? What are the implications of the argument being made? How does it relate to other theories/research? Are there areas where the writing seems inconsistent, confusing or off topic? What do you feel might be missing or could be considered?

13. Format In pairs, read each others’ texts (10 mins) Keep guiding questions in mind as you read First dialogue and feedback session, prompted by questions (15 mins) Second dialogue and feedback session, prompted by questions (15 mins) The aim is to engage in open-ended dialogue (rather than correct the text), prompted by the ‘peer reader’ and with the ‘author’ doing most of the speaking

14. References Bean, J. C. (2001) Engaging Ideas: the professor’s guide to integrating writing, critical thinking and active learning in the classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Dysthe, O. & Westrheim, K. (2003) The power of the group in graduate student supervision: An empirical study of group based supervision combined with student groups and individual supervision. Paper presented at EARLI conference, Padova, Italy, 26-30 August. Available at www.uib.no/filearchive/earli_writing_symposium_dysthe-1-.pdf www.uib.no/filearchive/earli_writing_symposium_dysthe-1-.pdf Elbow, P. (1998) Writing Without Teachers, 2 nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press. Lea, M. & Street, B. (1998) Student writing in higher education: an academic literacies approach, Studies in Higher Education, 23(2): 157-172. Lillis, T. (2006) Moving towards an academic literacies pedagogy: dialogues of participation’, in Ganobscik-Williams, L. (ed.) Teaching Writing in UK Higher Education, London: Palgrave Macmillan. Lunsford, A. (1991) Collaboration, Control, and the Idea of a Writing Center, The Writing Lab Newsletter, 16(4): 1-6. Murray, R. (2005) Writing for Academic Journals. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

15. Kathy Harrington k.harrington@londonmet.ac.ukk.harrington@londonmet.ac.uk Centre for the Enhancement of Learning and Teaching London Metropolitan University