How Does Peer Editing Improve Students’ Quality of Writing

(Koh Teck Siew)

Abstract
“Writing is a highly complex, goal-directed, recursive activity. It develops over time as writers move
from the production of egocentric, writer-based texts to reader-based texts”.
Flower & Hayes (2001) College Composition and Communication

Effective written communication is recognized as a fundamental ingredient for success both

academically and in the workplace. With the English Language being the main medium of
communication in Singapore and the medium of instruction in schools, it is inevitable that teachers and
students spend a significant amount of curriculum time teaching and learning the language.

In recognition of the importance of written communication and its spill over effects beyond the
boundary of language itself, an action research project was conducted by a group of five Singaporean
Education Officers; a Principal, two Heads of Departments (English and Science) and a Level Head
(English) from four different secondary schools, as well as a Head of Department (Maths) from a
primary school. The aim of this project was to assess if the time and effort spent on a certain well-used
pedagogical practice in the teaching of the English Language warranted the attention and effort given
to it.

The research focused on assessing the effectiveness and meaningfulness of cooperative learning in the
process of “Peer Editing in Improving Students’ Quality of Writing”. The presentation takes the
audience from the process of action research to the findings. In addition to affirming the usefulness of
“Peer Editing”, it also offered other insights such as suggestions on how the process can be fine-tuned
to garner richer rewards and also go beyond the teaching of English Language.

Review of Related Literature

To structure lessons that develop students’ writing skills through the process of peer editing, it is useful
to draw upon the theories of social constructivism and multiple intelligences - to view intelligence from
a multi-dimensional perspective.

Social constructivism highlights the importance of the social environment in cognitive development.
Vygotsky, as reported by Seng et al. (2003), wrote:

Every function in the child’s cultural development environment appears twice: first, on the social level, and later
on the individual level, first between people (interpsychological), and then inside the child (intrapsychological).

Vygotsky (1978) believed that intelligence starts in the social environment and directs itself inward.
Other writers on constructivism elaborated on this theme:

? Students must have interaction with others and materials in order to learn. The traditional models
of teaching through lecture and recitation do not work efficiently. (Hillocks, 2002)

? Teachers must provide a learning environment where students search for meaning, appreciate
uncertainty, and inquire responsibly. (Brooks, 1993)

? Creativity and confidence is stifled when schools “subordinate the formation of concepts and
building of ideas to high stakes games of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ which produce winners and losers”.
(Brooks, 1993)

Gardner (1993), in his work on multiple intelligences (MI), stressed the importance of accurately
“understanding the profile of intelligences of the individual learner” allowing “a more enlightened
search for remedies for difficulties”. Edward (2004) explained that the “problems students experience
in school are due to the fact that they possess different kinds of minds and therefore learn, remember,
perform, and understand in different ways”. He elaborated that “learning communities can be greatly
enhanced by promoting the various learning inclinations of its members”. Gardner identified 8 distinct
intelligences, two of which are linguistics and interpersonal intelligences. Armstrong (1994)
emphasised the need to provide learning experiences that cater to these 8 intelligences through a “wide
range of multi-spectrum experience(s)”. He added that this necessitated “a fundamental restructuring
of the way in which educators assess their students’ learning progress”

A short survey of theories thus affirms that peer editing has the potential to improve students’ quality
of writing. Peer editing involves student interaction that promotes the development of interpersonal
intelligence (one of 8 intelligences as identified by Gardner) and interpsychological processing (as
described by Vygotsky). In addition, it de-emphasises competition and encourages cooperation among
students. Furthermore, the one-to-one context may encourage students to ask questions that they might
be reluctant to ask in a large class. Jacob, et al. (2002), in their book on cooperative learning, described
the opportunity for simultaneous interaction – lacking in a teacher-centred lesson – that the one-to-one
context provides.

Writing, however, is a highly complex task. Dr Mel Levine, in his video entitled Developing Minds
describes writing as a “complex activity composed of many sub-skills, such as letter formation,
spelling, mechanics, grammar, and the ability to generate ideas and shape them into high-quality
written language”. In fact, research indicates, “there is not another academic skill that demands that a
child bring together as many different neurodevelopment functions as are required for writing”
(Developing Minds). To help students write better, therefore, teachers need to know how best to
facilitate the learning process.

To know in greater detail how a facilitator can help, we turn to the Mediated Learning Experience
(MLE) of Reuven Feuerstein, as elaborated by Skuy (1996) and Seng (2003). Skuy (1996) wrote:
“Feuerstein has identified 10 criteria or types of interaction that are fundamental to mediation”.
Feuerstein believes that the first 3 criteria – intentionality and reciprocity, meaning and transcendence –
are necessary and sufficient for an interaction to be considered mediation.

To elaborate the work of Skuy (1996), mediation of intentionality and reciprocity concerns the
facilitator “selecting and framing an activity”. Mediation of meaning is about “charging an activity
with value and energy, which makes it relevant to the learner” whereby the facilitator gets the students
excited about the activity and helps them understand its significance. Finally, the mediation of
transcendence occurs when the mediator “links a specific issue or activity with others”. It involves the
mediator “enlarging the need system of learner to include the need for understanding, reflective
thinking, and forming relationships among things”.

To summarise the discussion thus far, we recognise the potential of peer editing in improving the
quality of students’ writing since the peer editing process involves students interacting with each other
– a process that nurtures interpersonal intelligence and facilitates interpsychological processing (as
described by Vygotsky). However, to ensure that the editing process is successful, we need to be
certain that the process is facilitated (or mediated) according to at least 3 criteria (as identified by
Feuerstein). We categorise these under the headings of “teacher preparation” and “student readiness”:

? “Teacher preparation” involves the teacher selecting a topic or writing skill to focus on and
framing its significance in relation to the writing process (mediation of intentionality and
reciprocity). It also calls upon the teacher to enthuse students at the cognitive level, by
stressing the usefulness of the topic, and affective level, for instance, using relevant examples
or engaging stories (mediation of meaning). In addition, the teacher will look for opportunities
to highlight underlying rules or principles in the writing process, for example, the need for
writers to be always aware of the reader’s perspective (mediation of transcendence).

? “Student Readiness” involves the teacher preparing students for the peer editing process by
guiding them in skills such as the giving of accurate feedback and other group processing
skills (mediation of intentionality and reciprocity). It also requires the teacher to provide the
necessary cognitive scaffolding – for example, guiding them to the types of errors to look out
for when editing - to ease students through the editing process (mediation of intentionality and
reciprocity).

We believe, therefore, that paying attention to teacher’s preparation and students’ readiness for the
editing process will lead to improvements in the quality of editing. While this paper does not review in
detail the literature on peer editing, there is some parallel to be drawn between the recommendations
here and the issue of written teacher feedback in the correction of students’ writing assignments. Brazil
(2001), wrote:

“Research around L2 (English as 2nd Language) feedback appears to be moving more and
more toward a trend in ‘dialogue’ between students and teachers – in other words,
collaboration and communication during the writing and revision process…feedback in
response to successive multiple drafts better empowers students to improve in their writing.”
Brazil also quoted Cohen and Cavalcanti, both of whom suggest, in their article Feedback on
compositions: teacher and student reports, in the 1990 journal Second Language Writing: Research
Insights for the Classroom, “clear student-teacher agreements on feedback procedures and student
training in handling feedback.” Other work by researchers who investigated the use of peer editing
reported success when elements such as teacher preparation and student readiness are taken into
account. Sutthinee (2004), in his work on using peer revisions and audio feedback to teach writing to
non-native speakers of English, reported that students who were given training in (peer) revision
strategies, especially those who record feedback into audio tapes, showed “a significant increase in
writing for other readers and were aware of the contents, form, style, organization, as well as
grammar”. In addition, Tang (2004), who investigated the use of cooperative learning strategies to
teaching reading and writing, reported the need to take note of group size and effective groupings, an
aspect of teacher preparation, in particular grouping by ability, so as to “bring about the best in group
work”.

Conceptual Framework
For the purpose of this study, major factors and variables such as “Teacher preparation” and “Student
Readiness” - and the presumed relationships among them – were categorically put in intellectual ‘bins’
(Figure 1). These bins were selected based not only on theories but also on the collective experience of
the researchers. As a guiding principle, the team considered the teacher, his students and the
environment in which they interact with one another.

Figure 1
Conceptual Framework for the research on Peer Editing in Cooperative Learning
2
1

Trs’ Prep
Quality of
?activity Editing
PEER
EDITING
•authenticity ?Competency Motivation
to revise Outcome
Improved
Writing
Academic
Results
?setting (verbal/written) Skills
?developmt ?Motivation of
editor
?feedback ? Added
?reflection Benefits
?modelling Perception of
editing each other
3 ?competency
?motive ?Editor
Students’
Readiness
?Partner
?rationale ?Teacher
?what to look-out ?
for
?

Students’ Profile
?ability levels
?group dynamics

The conceptual framework shows that Teacher’s preparation greatly impacts many events and
behaviours in the other bins. Whether or not the students are ready to edit their peers’ writing and to
learn cooperatively depends on whether the teacher has equipped them with the necessary sets of skills
to write and edit and provided them with the scaffolding to carry out the tasks at hand. Students’
Readiness in turn may affect the Quality of Editing. The relationship between these bins however are
by no means unilateral as we find for example that the design of activities (Teacher’s Preparation) in
turn depends much on his assessment of the Students’ Readiness and the Students’ Profile.

To heighten the awareness of its own biasness, the research team articulated some of its own
assumptions:
? Students have the basic language skills
? Students would be objective in editing their peers’ work and have no hidden personal agenda.
? All students would have the intrinsic motivation to do as well as they could in all given tasks.
? Improvements shown in the final draft is a result attributed directly to the process of peer
editing.

Research Design

The class was made up of 32 Secondary 3 Special/Express stream students of Anglican High, a SAP
school. They were all taking Higher Chinese as their other ‘first language’ and were mostly of middle
ability in terms of proficiency in the English language. There was a handful of them who were of high
ability but there were also a few who were considered to be of lower ability in the language.

The module was conducted in 8 periods of English lessons spread over 4 days and it was about
teaching the personal recount text type. It was the second time in the term that the students were
engaged in peer-editing a composition. The learning goals included students being able to establish a
focus, demonstrating an ability to give text unity with appropriate tone and register and writing a
recount. (see Annex A for overview of lesson structure)

Key Questions

The action researchers were looking for answers to several key questions.
? What do students (both writers and editors) really learn from the process of cooperative
learning which took the form of peer-editing?
? How does a teacher’s preparation help in making the process more effective?
? Does the student’s writing really improve from the process? How do we know?

Data Collection

Qualitative data collection techniques were used as the primary research method for this study. The
traditional ethnographic technique of participant observer was also used when the teacher-observer
interviewed the students at the end of the lesson. To triangulate the findings several sources of data had
to be verified based on the quality of editing, teacher’s preparation and student’s readiness.

Data Sources
Surveys – Students filled out surveys to reflect their experiences in the class and its application to the
classroom environment.

Interviews – Following the surveys, selected students were invited to meet with the researchers to
discuss their experiences. The interviews allowed the researchers to inquire and follow up on
comments individual students had made in response to survey items.

Observations - The 8 lessons were video-taped over the 4 days.

Reflection – The teacher who conducted the lesson did a self-assessment of the effectiveness of the
lessons.
Artefacts – Students submitted the first draft of their own writing, the peer-editor’s assessment,
revisions made and the final product.
Data Analysis and Interpretation

Expected Findings

It was believed that the research on peer-editing would yield the following results. Firstly, there would
be a development in “the processes used to read and write” which would translate into the development
of critical thinking skills. We expected this since peer editing promotes the development of linguistics
intelligence (Gardner’s MI theory). Secondly, drawing from the work of Vygotsky and Feuerstein that
was discussed earlier, a well-structured lesson with a clear focus, and one that provided cognitive
scaffolding, would help students gain confidence in their ability to learn from one another and for
themselves. Thirdly, the probing and collaborative manner of giving feedback through oral discussion
would promote self-discovery and examination, where students make links to other topics/disciplines
through the discovery of underlying principles in the writing process – something that Feuerstein
considered as one of the key components in the facilitation of learning, the “mediation of
transcendence”. Lastly, even if students found it hard to make useful comments on each other’s papers,
it would still be a good exercise for the development of their own reading and writing skills.

Actual Findings
Themes
After triangulation, the following themes emerged. Firstly, writers were able to organize their thoughts
with more clarity after the feedback received from their peers. Secondly, reading of the work of their
peers and the discussion that followed allowed many students to pick up vocabulary, language use and
writing styles. Thirdly, there was an increase in consciousness on the necessity to write for an audience
and the need to consider the reader’s perspective. Lastly, the opportunities for discussion and
clarification encouraged a more fluid exchange of ideas and better reception of feedback and
comments.

Details of Findings
The reference to percentages here are to the students’ survey that was conducted. From the findings,
the majority of students agreed that peer-editing was a useful process to help them improve in their
writing. They felt they benefited mostly through sharing of their thinking/ perspectives with their peers.
They found peer-editing interactive and interesting.

Teacher Preparation
Students felt that the teacher had adequately prepared them for the editing process and that they
understood what needed to be done during the peer-editing process with positive responses exceeding
94%. In addition, 75% felt that their peers took the editing process seriously. They were able to follow
the set of instructions given to them throughout the peer editing process. Some students felt that peer-
editing could be applied in other aspects of English like comprehension, summary writing, other text-
types in composition writing, oral and grammar.

The teacher selected an authentic topic (recount a National Day celebration) that his students could
relate to. He felt that the lesson was a success and attributed his success in meeting the lesson
objectives to the preparation put in for the lesson. He conceded that his planning and preparation this
time was more rigorous than usual. The teacher felt that the students could do the tasks because he had
provided scaffoldings – teacher modelled peer-editing process and guided students on how to give
accurate feedback through worksheets and verbal instructions. Active participation was achieved as a
result of detailed preparation of the teacher. The detailed preparation also made it easy for students to
understand what they were supposed to do. Teacher felt he had provided a non-threatening
environment for peer editing by building rapport with his students.

Students’ Readiness
It was found that students worked towards the goal of achieving unity of text, recognising their
dependence on each other’s input. Most said they made revisions to their compositions based on the
feedback given on the 3 areas in personal recounts. 90.6% made revisions to the focus statements of
their compositions based on their peer’s feedback. Also, 96.9% made revisions on the text organization
based on their peer’s feedback. Meanwhile 93.8% made revisions to the unity of each paragraph, again
based on their peer’s feedback. Other revisions they made were changing the text to fit the focus
statement better, changing the expressions, sentence structure, grammar and vocabulary used, including
relevant points and details from the suggestions given by their peers. They felt that they had made the
recount focused.

Students participated equally in that everyone had to write their reflections as editors even though some
said they were not comfortable with giving oral feedback. However, in the survey conducted, 93.8%
felt comfortable about showing their paper to their peer. It was observed that students were more
comfortable in doing peer editing now as compared to their first attempt at peer editing a few months
back. 96.8% agreed that peer-editing was useful based on previous experiences. The class teacher
observed that on overall, the class attitude was very good. They all participated actively and appeared
engaged. However it was observed that groups of 4 did go astray at times, especially in the presence of
a dominating member who did not stick to the task at hand. Again, in presence of a dominating
member intent on influencing flow of discussion, group discussions were superficial at times (e.g.
labelling of ideas as ‘sadistic’ without elaboration). Students, however, requested that the size of
groups be increased to 3 or 4.

Students negotiated in reaching agreements about the appropriateness of certain information/

paragraphs vis-a vis their focus statements. They asked the teacher to help resolve disagreements/
different points of view as a last resort. Generally students did not need close guidance and only
approached the teacher for confirmation of their judgment, for example, on whether a peer’s comment
is irrelevant.

In terms of peer feedback, students found peer-peer oral feedback more useful than peer-peer written
feedback. 90.6% found peer-peer oral feedback beneficial. 87.5% found peer-peer written feedback
beneficial. 90.7% found teacher-student oral feedback beneficial while 96.9% found teacher-student
written feedback beneficial.

More students said that they received accurate feedback compared to the feedback they gave. 78.2%
said they gave accurate feedback about their peer’s strengths and weaknesses in peer-editing. 90.5%
said they received accurate feedback about their strengths and weaknesses in peer-editing. 82.1% felt
that the feedback given was accurate. 81.3% appreciated the feedback from their peers. Peers reacted
positively to feedback given, but it is difficult to be sure of what they think.

Students felt that the comments by their peers were very helpful. This is supported by the class
teacher’s observations that some editors gave constructive feedback and suitable suggestions for
improvement and the findings by teacher-markers who felt that the feedback was fair. The editors’
feedback was a mix of both specific and general. The outcome of this was that in 70% of the scripts
writers showed attempts to make changes to the second draft based on the feedback given by the editor.
However, while the writers made attempts to incorporate their peer’s feedback, they appeared to be
discerning and adapted only what seemed meaningful and accurate to them.

From the lesson observation, the class teacher commented that students seemed to take the feedback
given by their peers seriously and positively. During the interview, students shared that the process of
peer editing had allowed for a good exchange of ideas between them. They said they gained new ideas
from editing their peer’s work; ideas that they felt could be used in their own writing. They also said
that they enjoyed reading their friend’s writing as it allowed them to pick up the vocabulary, language
used and style of writing from their peers. This sentiment is supported by the findings in their work in
which it was noticed that 87.5% of the writing showed an improvement in the second draft compared
with the first draft. The improvement in performance ranged from 1 to 10 marks out of 30. The mean
improvement was 3.4 out of 30 marks.

Quality of Editing
About 30.4% of the scripts were deemed by a team of teacher-markers to have had good comments by
the editors while the rest ranged from fair to poor.

Many students, however, said they learnt from their peer’s strengths and saw different points of view.
During the interview, the students said that the process had made them more conscious of the readers’
perspective. Could this be what happened when in one script, the writer’s work had shown
improvement even though the editor was not able to give constructive feedback? Students said they
felt comfortable about giving each other comments as they were peers. Students felt they did not have
to be guarded in giving their peers feedback, with only 25% feeling they had to. Peer-editing made
them realise their mistakes without the teacher having to go through the whole composition.

Students were clear in what they needed to do with the set of rubrics. However, students were not
strong in using the rubrics. Only about 60% of the students made attempts to use the rubrics, and even
then the use was minimal. Based on his observation during the lesson, the class teacher felt that the
weakest area was the uncertainty some students showed in deciding if a statement was an irrelevant one
or one that needed re-wording. Students were not confident of editing for mechanics.

The teacher allowed students to choose their own partners and 71.9% of students felt that selection of
pairs in this way would be more useful. The teacher observed that the pairs generally worked well
together. Students were divided on whether other forms of selection would be better: 59.4% (random
selection better) and 56.3% (ability levels).

Drawbacks
Peer-editing did come with its share of challenges. Students had limited exposure to peer editing. This
was only their second attempt after a gap of a few months. Only 50% of the students regularly used
peer-editing in their composition lessons.

The students felt that peer-editing could be improved in several ways. Firstly peer-editors should not
only point out mistakes but must also highlight good words and phrases. Secondly students wanted to
do self-editing before peer-editing. Thirdly, they suggested changing pairs for each peer-editing
session. Some felt they could be paired according to ability levels. 78.2% said they would like to have
more than one peer-editor in peer-editing but 18.8% disagreed.

53.2% felt they had no frustrations with peer-editing but 43.8% had some frustration. Frustrations
included not understanding what the feedback meant and disagreement about their peer’s points of
view. Sometimes students would use their own style of writing to judge other’s work. Some did not
know how to edit or learn from the feedback given.

Many students (78%) said they needed more time for peer-editing but the teacher felt that the pacing of
the lesson was just right. The teacher felt that checking regularly if students were keeping up with the
lesson had helped him to maintain a pace that was appropriate for the class.

Other Findings

Other findings showed both the strengths and weaknesses of the peer-editing process. On a positive
note, students showed improvements in their overall writing. Generally, peers were able to achieve the
goals and tasks assigned. Students were able to give and receive feedback from their peers positively
because they felt comfortable with each other. More perceived that they received accurate feedback as
compared to the feedback they gave. There were also requests that the size of groups be increased to 3
or 4 members.

Reflection on Key Questions

The findings shed light on the key questions that were earlier raised. Firstly, pertaining to what students
(both writers and editors) really learn from the process of peer-editing, the following were established:
it was found that students picked up vocabulary, language use and style of writing from their peers;
they learnt more about writing a good composition, giving useful feedback, and understanding more
about their mistakes and common mistakes made by others; they honed their editing skills which they
could apply to their own work and gained a heightened awareness of the readers’ perspective.

Secondly, the question of how a teacher’s preparation helps in making the peer-editing process more
effective saw the following results: students understood the peer-editing process better when the
teacher went through the lesson step-step-step; scaffolding, modelling, using checklists and rubrics
helped students to be more focused in achieving the lesson objectives; allowing ample opportunities for
students to seek clarification and exchange ideas made the learning richer; giving students autonomy to
choose their own partners enabled them to work better in their groups.
Thirdly, the question of whether students’ writing really improved from the process and how this was
reflected yielded the following results: 87.5% of students showed an improvement in the second draft
compared to the first. The improvements in performance ranged from 1-10 marks (out of 30 marks).
The mean improvement is 4.16marks. Improvements were generally across the marking criteria rather
than on one specific criterion.

Research Question Answered

The whole journey through the findings thus answered the research question as to how peer-editing
improved student’s quality of writing. The process provided opportunities for the students to pick up
good vocabulary, language use and style of writing from their peers. Students learn through an
exchange of ideas during the discussions. Writers become more conscious/aware of the reader’s
perspective. Students learn about their own mistakes as well that of their peers.

Implications to Educational Practice

Peer editing definitely has a place and value in the local context, beyond the confines of the study of
English Language. For the process to be effective, teachers need to prepare the lesson well. Students
can achieve the lesson objectives when the teacher provides various guides (scaffolding, models,
checklists, rubrics and developmental worksheets). The teacher should provide plenty of opportunities
for students to engage in discussions and seek clarifications.
Bibliography

1. Armstrong, M., (1980) Closely Observed Children: The Diary of a Primary Classroom,
Writers and Printers.
2. Armstrong, T., (1994) Multiple Intelligences in the Classroom; Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
3. Beachy, C. J., (1992) Enhancing Writing through cooperative peer editing; In N. Davidson &
T. Worsham (Eds.), Enhancing thinking through cooperative learning (pp 209 –220). New
York: Teachers College Press.
4. Brazil (2001) The Realm of The Red Pen: The Impact of Written Teacher Feedback on L2
Writing in REACT Vol. 20, No. 2.
5. Brooks, M., G., (1993) The Case For Constructivist Classrooms; Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
6. Edward, C. H., (2004) Classroom Discipline and Management; New York: John Wiley &
Sons Inc.
7. Gardner, H. (1993) Multiple Intelligences: The Theory in Practice; New York: Basic Books.
8. Hillocks, G. Jr, (2002) The Testing Trap; New York and London: Teachers College Press.
9. Jacobs, G. M.; Power, M., A; and Loh, W. I., (2002) The Teacher’s Sourcebook for
Cooperative Learning; California: Corwin Press.
10. Kagan, S., (1998) Cooperative Learning; (2nd ed.) San Juan Capistrano, California: Resources
for Teachers.
11. Magone, K., (1996) Peer editing benefits you and your students; University of Montana,
School of Law.
12. Maxwell, J., (1996) Qualitative Research Design, California: SAGE Publications, Inc.
13. Miles, M., B., and Huberman, M., A., (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis California: SAGE
Publications, Inc.
14. Mills, G., E., (2003) Action Research: A Guide for the Teacher Researcher, New Jersey:
Pearson Education.
15. Seng, A., Pou, L., Tan O.S., (2003) Mediated Learning Experience with Children –
Applications Across Contexts; Singapore: McGraw-Hill Education (Asia).
16. Skuy, M., Mentis M., (1996) Mediated Learning In and Out if the Classroom; Arlington
Heights: IRI/Skylight.
17. Sutthinee, T., (2004) in paper presented at 39th SEAMCO RELC International Seminar,
entitled Teaching Writing Using Peer Revisions and Audio Feedback.
18. Tang, S., M., (2004) in paper presented at 39th SEAMCO RELC International Seminar,
entitled Read to Write! – Using Innovative Approaches to Teach Reading and Writing.
19. Topping, K. J., (1998) Peer Assessment between Students in College & University. Review of
Educational Research, 68(3); 249-276.
20. Van den Berg, I., Admiraal W., & Ivlos, A.P., (2003) Peer assessment in university teaching:
An exploration of useful designs; [Paper presented at the European Conference on
Educational Research, University of Hamburg]
21. Vygotsky, L. S. (Ed.). (1978). Mind in Society: the development of higher psychological
processes; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
22. Wiggins, G., and McTighe, J., (1998) Understanding by Design, New Jersey: Merrill Prentice
Hall.

Web Sites

1. Julia Gousseva, Literacy Development Through Peer Reviews in a Freshman Composition

Classroom; http://iteslj.org/articles/gousseva-literacy.html
2. Ann McNeal, Peer-editing students’ papers – a guide for students and for faculty;
http://helios.hampshire.edu/~ampNS/design/resources/peer_ed.html
3. Data Analysis and Interpretation
http://ouray.cudenver.edu/~maferril/portfolio/actreslinks/dataana.htm

Others
1. Developing Minds: Getting Thoughts on Paper; Video by Dr Mel Levine
Annex A

OVERVIEW OF LESSON STRUCTURE

Day 1 Definition of focus statement

Definition of unity of text
Sample (-ve) recount on lost wallet
Activation of schema
Word Splash

Day 2 Construction of focus statement

Peer feedback
First draft

Day 3 Joint construction in taking apart a poor recount

Peer-editing draft 1
Review & clarification

Day 4 Analysis of unity in a model recount

Final draft