[Return to ERIC Digest Search Page]
Teachers have turned their classrooms into communities of learners, as the focus of writing pedagogy shifts from written products to writing as a process, and as ways of making knowledge--including writing--are viewed from a collaborative or social perspective (Bruffee, 1983; Faigley, 1985). Writing instruction in our classrooms reflects a growing appreciation for the value of talk. By implementing peer writing groups, teachers encourage students to give, seek, and react to oral feedback among themselves as they write, in addition to reacting to the teacher's traditional comments on finished papers. This trend raises the interesting question of what effect peer feedback has on students' revision practices.
Respected teachers and writing theorists have fostered peer groups in high school and college classrooms as a way to encourage students to write and revise. Elbow (1973) promoted the use of "teacherless writing groups"; Murray (1982) recommended that teachers train students to respond constructively to writing in process; Macrorie (1984) discussed the value of creating a "Helping Circle"; Moffett (1983) suggested that teachers teach students to teach each other; and Bruffee (1983) maintained that getting students "to talk through" the task of writing is a form of collaborative learning that is essential. Using peer response groups, with even young writers, brings positive benefits, according to the descriptive classroom studies conducted by Graves (1983; 1984) and Calkins (1982; 1983).
Research indicates that students writing without reactions from a writing group often do not anticipate an audience. A comparative study of freshman writers and professional journalists (Wootten, 1981) revealed that the journalists thought of their audience and readers more than the students did. The study concluded that students need audiences in addition to the teacher/grader. Cooperative writing workshops help students discover audience, according to one study of college freshmen (Glassner, 1983).
Some reports support the use of writing groups for encouraging revision. An ethnographic study concerned with talk in a high school classroom community examined whether writers' intuitions and revision strategies, among other things, could be "strengthened within a supportive classroom environment." (Kantor, 1984, p. 75). The study concluded that the development of a peer community fostered growth from egocentrism to audience awareness and that knowing the audience helped students become more aware of possible strategies for revising the written message.
Ziv (1983) found a pattern in the way the interaction in peer writing groups develops. Early in the semester, students' comments were primarily positive, but included some criticisms of content and form. The writers, however, did not always revise accordingly to the reactions of their peers, and sometimes resented the criticisms. Later in the semester, however, advice from peers was more likely to be heeded because rather than more general criticisms, the students offered each other concrete suggestions for revision.
A case study of four children with low, average, and high abilities in writing (Russell, 1985) examined the relationship between peer conferencing and revision. The results indicated that in revising, poor writers were dependent on the questions of other students, whereas average and good writers tended to become their own audience and revise on their own.
Another case study conducted with freshmen (Berkenkotter, 1983, 1984) sought to find out how students interact in their writing groups and whether writers improve their texts as a result of the interactions. The research revealed that the students' attitudes toward assistance from their peers varied considerably, as did the writers' approaches toward revision. One student, Stan, was too immature to heed his audience. Because of her sensitivity to audience, another student, Joann, became vulnerable to unwarranted criticism. Although a third student, Pat, felt responsible to his audience, he felt a greater obligation to his emerging text and revised independently of peer suggestions. The study concluded that students writing for an audience of peers as well as their teacher do not necessarily benefit from their peers'suggestions.
An experimental study (Rijlaarsdam, 1987) looked at peer feedback among 11 classes of eighth-grade students in eight Dutch schools. The control group received teacher feedback; the experimental group received peer feedback. Although the study had hypothesized that there would be more frequent evaluation and revision in the experimental group, the results showed no differences between the two.
In a classroom of first and second grade children, the computer created a whole new social organization that affected the way the children interacted (Dickinson, 1986). An ethnographic study that described a high school classroom (Herrmann 1985b, 1986) found a similar result. A variety of types of peer collaborations developed, having various kinds of influence on writing and revision; but not all students learned to collaborate successfully. The success the students had in revising their work appeared to depend, in part, on their ability to form effective collaborative relationships.
The literature suggests that the effects of peer comments on revision is not a simple cause and effect matter, but rather a complex one, dependent upon the interrelationship of multiple factors within the evolving social environment. While some of the students studied appeared to benefit from the comments of their peers, not all students in all classrooms did. Some students were unable, unwilling, or even ill-advised to follow peer reactions in revising what they had written. While there may be no one-to-one relationship between peer comments and revision, these studies, particularly the qualitative ones, suggest a range of real and potential benefits for students participating in an effective community of responsive peers.
REFERENCES
Berkenkotter, Carol. "Student writers and their audiences: Case
studies of the revising decisions of three college freshmen."
Paper presented at the 16th Annual Meeting of the Canadian Council
of Teachers of English, 1983. 14 pp. [ED 236 618] Berkenkotter, Carol. "Student writers and their sense of
authority over texts," College Composition and Communication, 35, (3)
1984, pp. 312-319. Bruffee, Kenneth A. "Writing and reading as collaborative or social
acts." In The Writer's Mind: Writing as a Mode of Thinking, pp.
159-169. Janice N. Hays, et al. (Eds.) Urbana, Illinois: National
Council of Teachers of English, 1983. 261 pp. [ED 233 366] Calkins, Lucy McCormick. "A study of children's rewriting." Final
Report for NCTE Research Foundation project No. 80:11, 1982. 405
pp. [ED 229 750] Calkins, Lucy McCormick. Lessons from a Child: On the Teaching
and Learning of Writing. Portsmouth, New Hampshire: Heinemann,
1983. [ED 263 614; not available from EDRS] Daiute, Colette. "Do 1 and 1 make 2? Patterns of influence by
collaborative authors," Written Communication, 3, (3) 1986,
pp. 382-408. Dickinson, David K. "Cooperation, collaboration, and a computer:
Integrating a computer into a first-second grade writing
program," Research in the Teaching of English, 20, (4) 1986, pp.
357-378. Elbow, Peter. Writing without Teachers. New York: Oxford, 1973. Faigley, Lester. "Nonacademic writing: The social perspective." In
Writing in Nonacademic Settings, pp. 231-340. Less Odell and
Dixie Goswami (Eds.) New York: Guilford Press, 1985. Gere, Anne Ruggles, and Stevens, Ralph S. "The language of writing
groups: How oral response shapes revision." In The Acquisition of
Written Language: Response and Revision, Sara Warshauer Freedman
(Ed.), pp. 85-105. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex, 1985. [Ed 265 553;
not available from EDRS] Glassner, Benjamin M. "Discovering audience/inventing purpose: A
case study of revision in a cooperative writing workshop." Paper
presented at the 34th Annual Meeting of the Conference on College
Composition and Communication, 1983. 9 pp. [ED 227 513] Graves, Donald H. Writing: Teachers and Children at Work. Exeter,
New Hampshire: Heinemann, 1983. Graves, Donald H. A Researcher Learns to Write: Selected
Articles and Monographs. Exeter, New Hampshire: Heinemann, 1984. Herrmann, Andrea W. "Collaboration in a high school computers
and writing class: An ethnographic study." Paper presented at the
36th Annual Meeting of the College Composition and Communication
Conference, 1985a. 19 pp. [ED 258 256] Herrmann, Andrea W. "Using the computer as a writing tool:
Ethnography of a high school writing class," Dissertation,
Teachers College, Columbia University, 1985b. [Ann Arbor:
University Microfilms, 1986, No. 86-02, 051] Herrmann, Andrea W. "An ethnographic study of a high school writing
class using computers: Marginal, technically proficient, and
productive learners." In Writing at Century's End: Essays on
Computer-Assisted Composition, pp. 79-91. Lisa Gerrard (Ed.) New
York: Random House, 1986. Hocking, Joan, and Visniesky, Cheryl. "Incorporating the
microcomputer into the traditional English classroom." Paper
presented at the 18th Annual Meeting of the Northeast Regional
Conference on English in the Two-Year College, 1983. 14 pp. [ED 240
612] Kantor, Kenneth J. "Classroom contexts and the development of
writing intuitions: An ethnographic case study." In New Directions
in Composition Research, pp. 72-94. New York: Guilford, 1984. [ED
250 682] Legge, Anne L. "Small groups in college writing classes: Why and
how," 1980. [ED 204 803] Macrorie, Ken. Writing to be Read. Upper Monclair, New Jersey:
Boynton/Cook, 1984. Moffett, James. Teaching the Universe of Discourse. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin, 1983. Murray, Donald. Learning by Teaching: Selected Articles on Writing
and Teaching. Upper Montclair, New Jersey: Boynton/Cook, 1982.
[ED 230 962; not available from EDRS] Reid, Louann. "Talking: The neglected part of the writing
process." Paper presented at the 2nd Annual Meeting of the
Conference, 1983. 10 pp. [ED 229 762] Rijlaarsdam, G. "Effects of peer evaluation on writing performance,
writing processes, and psychological variables." Paper presented at
the 38th Annual Meeting of the Conference on College Composition and
Communication, 1987. 39 pp. [ED 284 288] Russell, Connie. "Peer conferencing and writing revision: A study
of the relationship." Service Bulletin No. 48, Wisconsin Council
of Teachers of English, 1985. 25 pp. [ED 260 392] Selfe, Cynthia L., and Wahlstrom, Billie J. "An emerging
rhetoric of collaboration: Computers and the composing process."
Paper presented at the 73rd Annual Meeting of the Conference on
College Composition and Communication, 1985. 19 pp. [ED 261 384] Sudol, Ronald A. "Applied word processing: Notes on authority,
responsibility, and revision in a workshop model," College
Composition and Communication, 36, (3) 1985, pp. 331-335. Wauters, Joan K. "Non-confrontational critiquing pairs: An
alternative to verbal peer response groups," Writing Instructor,
7, (3-4) 1988, pp. 156-165. Wootten, Judith A. "Audience-based composition: The freshman writer
and the professional journalist." Paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the Conference on College Composition and
Communication, 1981. [ED 199 706] Ziv, Nina D. "Peer groups in the composition classroom: A case
study." Paper presented at the 34th Annual Meeting of the
Conference on College Composition and Communication," 1983. 11
pp. [ED 229 799] ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills Indiana University Smith Research Center 2805 East Tenth Street, Suite 150 Bloomington, IN 47405 (812) 855-5847
This publication was prepared with funding from the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education, under contract no. RI88062001. Contractors undertaking such projects under government sponsorship are encouraged to express freely their judgment in professional and technical matters. Points of view or opinions, however, do not necessarily represent the official view or opinions of the Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
###