Peer Review

An Exercise in Learning from Each Other

Molly Mosher

You may have some ideas already about peer review — it’s OK, I guess; it’s confusing; it’s painful and scary; it’s useless. Even I, peer review enthusiast that I am, break into a cold sweat thinking of another person reading my first drafts, which are often meandering attempts to figure out what I am actually trying to say.

Contrary to what many students believe, peer review is not a weapon brandished by sadistic writing instructors set on embarrassing you; rather, it’s an incredible learning opportunity that not only improves the work of those around you but also helps you strengthen your skills as a writer, reader, and thinker.

That you stand to gain so much may seem counterintuitive, but you will achieve this by way of the new perspective you’ll have on your own work. You see how another writer has responded to the same prompt, and you get a front-row seat to their thought process. In identifying the areas where their work triumphs and where it needs strengthening, you better understand the strengths and limitations of your work. We are all — for better or for worse — trained to make comparisons, after all.

Now that you’re (hopefully) on board, you may be curious about the most effective ways to do peer review. At CUNY, generally, and Baruch, specifically, first-year writers tend to compose three kinds of essays: a narrative, an analysis, and an argument. How should you effectively review and offer comments on each of these distinctly different projects?

First, you will approach each essay as, simply, a reader. This means that you are taking in the work as a standalone piece. In other words, you’re reading as if you knew nothing about the author, their background, or the essay prompt. You are reading the essay for the sake of reading and, along the way, identifying enjoyable passages and places where the writing leaves you with questions.

Second, you will want to approach the essay as a class collaborator whose aim is to help out your fellow student by addressing whether or not (and to what extent) the writer met the unique goals of each project. In this role, your peer review process will start with a re-reading of the essay prompt and a re-review of the rubric, if one is given. This will solidify your understanding of the assignment requirements (and sorting this out for your peer will often help you to clarify the assignment for yourself!). Only then can the real reading and review process begin.

While each instructor may have specific instructions for peer review, the following are some basic guidelines, tailored to each of the three major projects.

Narrative

A narrative is a story in which the writer informs and engages the audience by sharing and exploring a personal anecdote, and the goal of a personal narrative is to illustrate a moment of importance in the writer’s life. Some narratives may be tied to a universal lesson or truth; however, offering a moral lesson is not the primary aim of a narrative. Good narratives are, at their core, well-told stories that hold their readers' attention and offer vivid detail throughout. Amy Tan’s “Mother Tongue” is a good example of a narrative with a moral. Tan’s personal essay is a strong argument against language discrimination underlying a touching account of a mother-daughter relationship. The lesson enhances, rather than detracts from, the central story.

Because these narratives often tell incredibly personal stories, when doing peer review, you should read with compassion. While you are reading, you are empathizing with the writer and viewing the situation through their perspective, but because you did not live through this experience, you see it from the outside, and your perspective allows you to shine a light through any holes in the narrative. And that’s what you’re looking for: blanks in the story, missing information, and places that leave you with questions.

While reading, make margin notes — this could be encouraging, like a “haha” or “wow!”, a ★ where the wording is especially nice, or a ♥︎ at a tender moment; they could also be a︖ if anything is unclear. These quick marks will create a map of your initial reactions. Don’t overthink these.

You may add longer comments at shining moments in the text, places where the writer draws a laugh, a tear, or any other strong reaction: “Your grandmother seems like a caring lady!” “I can see this happening!” “I felt like I was there, and I broke into a cold sweat!” “I got chills thinking about how he changed his attitude.”

You may also offer calls for development: “I can’t picture this, can you offer more detail about what was happening?” “It seems like you’re saying he was a good friend. Is that what you meant?” “Who said this? It’s unclear.” “Do you mean ‘x’? I thought this came across as ‘y’.” “Dialogue would help here.”

At the end of your reading, you’ll want to add overall feedback. The following questions can help you highlight the best parts of the essay and offer helpful suggestions for revising the work. While there’s no specific word limit, a 50- to 100-word response to each is usually sufficient. Be sure to provide examples by pointing to or including specific quotes from the text.

• What are the essay’s strengths? What writing strategies (descriptive imagery, dialogue, etc.) worked well?

• Where does the narrative provide detailed scenes that give the reader insight into the writer’s experiences, feelings, and reflections? Note any moments that were most vivid, memorable, and/or effective.

• Does the narrative connect personal experiences to a larger social significance? How well does the narrative connect national trends and the writer’s life, family, generation, gender, race, culture, linguistic background, and/or geographic location?

• What do you have questions about? How might the author further improve this essay?

Analysis

The analysis can be a challenge to write, especially because you and most of your classmates are new to this genre; so, the writer and reader can learn a lot from each other.

Analysis, specifically a rhetorical analysis, revolves around the following questions: What is the author’s purpose for writing the source text? What effect is the author intending to have on the audience? In other words, what is the author trying to get the audience to think, feel, or do? What appeals and strategies (ethos, pathos, logos, anecdotes, jokes, facts, figures, statistics) does the author use to move the audience to think, feel, or do that? In an analysis essay, you are looking for the writer’s ability to identify these and other rhetorical strategies employed by the author of a specific text (what we will call here the source text).

In your peer review, you are still looking for clarity and brilliant moments, and marking questionable wording, as you did with the narrative. You are looking for insights in your classmate’s essay that help you understand a text on a deeper-than-surface level.

The essay writer should go beyond summarizing or offering a general outline of the source text. They are, essentially, lifting the hood of the vehicle and checking out the engine. In other words, the author identifies the elements of the source text that power its purpose and give it meaning. Your job as a reviewer is to determine whether the writer popped the hood at all or if they are simply describing the exterior contours of the machine (that is, only summarizing).

Like with the narrative, you’ll want to make margin notes. You might make a note of key terms — ethos, pathos, or logos; analogy, metaphor, simile; anecdote; statistics — to create a map of the paper writer’s analysis.

The following may be helpful questions to answer during and after reading:

• Does the writer introduce the source text and author? Does the writer briefly explain the rhetorical situation — exigence, text, publication, audience?

• What is the source author trying to get the audience to think, feel, or do, according to the paper writer? What is the primary appeal used (ethos, pathos, logos)?

• Does the introduction state this in a purpose statement or thesis? Share it.

• Does the author use evidence from the text (a paraphrase or a quote that shows what a text is “saying”) and then explain how that quote affects the audience (shows what the text is “doing”)?

• How might the author further develop their analysis? What do you have questions about?

Argument

The argument essay builds on the narrative and analysis by adding credible sources to support a stance. The writer, ultimately, aims to prove a point about a topic they’re interested in.

Yet again, as a reader, you are noting excellence in the writing and marking where the logic or wording is questionable, but you’re also checking whether the writer has done an adequate job as an academic — namely, whether they’ve used credible sources to uphold the claim they’re making.

As you’re reading, you’re checking to see if the argument essay is clearly divided into introduction, body paragraphs, and conclusion. All three are essential to the argument and each section has its own goals.

The introduction is the writer’s way of acquainting the lay-reader with the topic at hand. In your peer review, you’ll want to note whether the introduction piques your interest as a reader, gives enough background information for you to understand the topic, and states the writer’s claim (their thesis).

The body paragraphs are where the bulk of the research will reside. Here, you may want to note whether the author offers a smooth transition between paragraphs and introduces their sources — both the authors and the texts from which they’re quoting. You will also want to note whether the author quotes interesting text, analyzes each quote, and connects source material back to the main claim or thesis. Notice whether the thesis feels like a through-line tying the paper together; that is, does each body paragraph support the central claim, or are the body paragraphs disconnected from the paper’s main argument?

Finally, note whether the essay has a conclusion and whether it feels substantial and satisfying. This final paragraph will ideally lead you as the reader out of the piece by restating the claim and main points of the paper. The best conclusions also offer a takeaway or a call to action — something to think about when you’re finished reading.

The argument is a complex piece of writing, and it can be helpful to approach the markup in a visually dynamic way. This makes it easy for the reader, writer, and instructor to note whether the components of an effective research paper are present in the writer’s essay. This is most easily handled using Google Docs, but Word and PDF marking tools also work, or, if you go the offline route, with colored highlighters.

While reading, you may mark the following in the introduction: hook/lede/attention grabber in blue, background info/context in green, and thesis statement in yellow. In the body paragraphs, you may mark topic sentences in blue, author/editor introductions in pink, source use (quotes) in green, and the subsequent paraphrase, interpretation, and tie back to thesis in yellow. In the conclusion, you may mark the restatement of the issue and connection back to the thesis in blue and a bridge to a greater significance or a call to action in yellow.

You may wish to consider the following questions alongside your review. Some are simple yes/no checks, but don’t skimp on the specific feedback and commentary.

Introduction:

• Is the first sentence attention-grabbing and relevant to the topic?
• Is the background information/context sufficient for your understanding of the topic? Do you need more information to understand the topic?
• Can you identify a thesis statement?
• What are the strengths of the introduction? What areas could be strengthened?

Body Paragraphs:

• Do the body paragraphs have a topic sentence that relates to the thesis statement?
• Do the body paragraphs include a mix of sources and the author’s own thoughts? You can see this in the balance of green (source) and yellow (analysis) elements. Ideally, there should be more yellow than green.
• Are there any quotes that are too long? As a general rule, quotes should be no longer than ~50 words. If they are more than 50 words, these should be block quotes.
• Does each paragraph make a new point from what has already been covered, or does it simply reword what’s been stated in other paragraphs?
• Does each paragraph add to the overall support of the thesis? Is it explicitly tied back to the thesis?
• Does the author synthesize any sources?
• Does the author include transition words to guide the reader between the body paragraphs?
• What are the strengths of the body paragraphs? What areas could be strengthened?
• Conclusion:
• Does the paper summarize the essay’s main points and re-state the thesis (in new words)?
• Does the author include a call to action?
• What are the strengths of the conclusion? What areas could be strengthened?

Source use:

• Does the author include the required number and type of sources?
• Does the author properly cite the sources parenthetically or as footnotes? Is the proper in-text and reference format used (MLA, APA, Chicago)?
• Does the author include a Works Cited page?
• Overall:
• What are the paper’s strengths?
• What are the areas that need strengthening?
• What questions do you have for the author?

Peer review is a simple yet effective exercise that offers a unique vantage point to both the reader and the writer. In the end, there are few activities more effective for improving writing than feedbacking the texts of those learning alongside you. This not only helps your colleagues develop their writing skills, but in seeking to understand the writing of others, you improve your own. Win-win.