Implementing student peer review to improve students’ writing process

BY CHARLOTTE GERONIMI, ITS LECTURER IN FOOD & BEVERAGE AND EVENTS MANAGEMENT

THE TRANSITION CHALLENGE: WRITING SKILLS

For the last four years, I have been lecturing at the Institute of Tourism Studies (ITS) – one of six post-secondary institutions students can opt to attend after secondary school. Established in 1987 and acting as Malta’s main Tourism and Hospitality educational institution, ITS covers the necessities of the Tourism and Hospitality Industry by offering a vast selection of programmes thus ensuring students have the opportunity of specialising in areas best suited to their abilities and interests (ITS n.d.).

During this time at ITS I have come to realise that academic writing at post-secondary can be important and challenging for both students and lecturers. In fact, lecturing at various levels has enhanced my awareness of the commonalities and differences in academic writing expectations at each level. I was able to witness the gap in students’ writing skills between secondary and post-secondary more explicitly when I was appointed External Verifier for VET Hospitality in secondary schools.

Here I noticed that although secondary students were being taught to analyse and combine ideas, post-secondary students are expected to produce deeper, more complex interpretations by contributing new, own perspectives. This made me realise that academic writing appeared to be one of the most important, yet challenging, academic skills for post-secondary students to learn. Given that it encourages students to think critically and promotes the use of powerful word expressions and great vocabulary, writing plays an essential part in educational activities (Ismail 2011), hence I felt it was essential for me to help students with this transition challenge.

Consequently, I analysed various strategies to ensure I made research-informed decisions that will help my students overcome the transition. I have come across several interesting ways to improve students’ writing, including the introduction of a communication module (Silin & Chan 2015), writing process training, parent involvement, use of writing strategies (Kapka & Oberman 2001), use of Google tools to enhance student writing (Ebener, 2017) and the implementation of peer review (Dickson, Harvey & Blackwood 2019).

Peer Review Strategies

Since students are not exposed to examples, they often find it difficult to determine what writing skills are expected of them and what constitutes a good quality written assignment. Peer review allows them to compare assignments, thus making it easier for them to identify strengths and weaknesses both in their own work and that of their peers’ (Reinholz 2015).

Moreover, Li, Liu and Steckelberg (2010) state that engaging in peer review facilitates individualised learning through the generation of collaborative knowledge and that external judgement of creative writing provides an environment in which two minds may assume adversarial roles, thus facilitating critical thinking (Furedy & Furedy 1979). Similarly, to help improve students’ writing, Baker (2016) focuses on peer review timing, structured feedback forms, writers’ revisions after engaging in peer review, formative feedback to their peers and the revision of drafts before submitting the final paper.

Additionally, Webb and McEnerney (1997) identified twelve steps for planning and implementing a peer review process and Topping (1998) further highlighted seventeen different factors that contribute to the success of peer review in postsecondary institutions. Gielen, Dochy and Onchena (2011) built on this framework to group these variables in five clusters to provide educators with a checklist of important peer review decisions.

Evidently, multiple factors appear to contribute to the efficacy of peer review in the context of writing instruction. In fact, there are various strategies and methods that can support educators in the integration of peer review in their learning environments. Regardless of the implementation process – in pairs, small groups or asking students to discuss short texts in class, peer review is a great way to help students improve their writing skills (Arbor n.d.).

The Approach

Gonca and Eksi (2012) noted that students see their educator as an expert and decline revisions; Sims (1989) associated peer review with polished writing skills, Farrah (2012) asserted that peer review has a substantial impact on students’ learning and Al-Ghamdi (2017) stated that students take the role of active learners that helps them build their writing skills through concerted interpersonal engagements. Given the above, I feel that implementing peer review in my practice would not only allow me to enhance my teaching objectives, but it will help post-secondary students improve their writing skills through a collaborative approach.

Whilst reading through different publications on peer review (Furedy & Furedy 1979; Webb & McEnerney 1997; Topping 1998; Baker 2016) I came to realise that although they all refer to the same terminology, they have diverse working methods. However, Gielen, Dochy and Onchena (2011) appear to group variables previously identified by Topping (1998) into five clusters, thus providing a checklist covering important peer review decisions for educators.

The first cluster focuses on the decisions concerning the use of peer assessment, particularly, information on the ‘goal’ and ‘function’ of peer assessment. The second cluster concentrates on the link between peer assessment and other elements in the learning environment by looking at if and how a peer review application truly ‘fits’ into its learning environment rather than being an artificial add-on. The third cluster refers to the interaction between peers which may be a pass/fail message, a grade or mark, a diagnosis of strengths and weaknesses, a suggestion for remedial actions, a personal interpretation, or an interactive dialogue between learners. The fourth cluster looks at the composition of assessment groups and the final cluster deals with the way peers assess, provide feedback, or perform other aspects of the assessment process.

I feel that this approach provides a clear purpose that focuses on managing the quality of the peer reviews to ensure that are improving students’ writing skills and to safeguard fair marking. During the peer review training stage, I plan on implementing hands-on activities such as reviewing writing samples that will allow students the opportunity to learn about peer review hands-on. In agreement with McGarr and Clifford (2013), this stage is essential because peer review is not self-directed and so, students need to be prepared for their role if this process is to be successful.

2005; Liu & Carless 2006; Sun et al. 2015; Costa & Kallick 2008) and that (b) the degree to which students are critical during peer review is a possible mechanism for this improvement (Selman, n.d.; Lundstrom & Baker 2009; Ober & Flores 2020).