Peer Review Instruction

If I was in charge of a peer review course, it would focus on the development of different review techniques. For each written assignment that students were given, they would be expected to have it reviewed by two different students on two different days. On the first review day, the writer of the paper, would first have to read through the paper and make any adjustments that they see and write and messages or questions to the reviewer. Next, the two students would swap papers and critically review the other’s paper, checking the thesis, grammar and any specific qualifications that may address the prompt. In the beginning of the class there would be an accompanying worksheet to help guide the review, but as time progressed students would be expected to review on their own. Once, the reviews are completed, the last fifteen minutes or so would be used in order for the two reviewers to have a personal conference on what it is they feel would improve the paper and explain any questions the author may have about their review.
After their first review then, students would be expected to revise their paper with their own findings and the suggestions of the first reviewer for the next class. Then at the next class, the process would occur again. This would act as a form of filter, sifting out as many errors as possible to create the best paper. However, it would differ the second time around, because the second reviewer would be asked to compare the first revised paper to the second paper and focus on the strengths and weakness that occur between the two drafts. This way, if the author became confused by a revision in the first paper, the second reviser could suggest other ways of correcting the paper in a less confusing or destructive manner. In addition, during the second review, reviewers would be asked to go through a grading rubric and give the paper a temporary grade to allow the author to know where their paper is.
Overall, the class would not only focus on review techniques but also communication. Students would be expected to give constructive criticism, not just through writing but also in person to explain what it is that they mean and why they feel it is an important characteristic. It would be used to enhance not only the way students respond to criticism, but also how they deliver it in a friendly, helpful manner. This would be important because sometimes in life, criticism comes off as hurtful or as insignificant, depending on how it is delivered. If students were to be forced to work on how the deliver and receive it, it would overall help them in the professional world where this is a crucial part to success. In addition, by forcing students to have their paper reviewed four times (twice by themselves and then by two different reviewers), their ability to find error in their own work would improve, as well as their ability to understand what various prompts are asking for. Furthermore, the review class would then improve their ability to improve themselves and help others in their everyday and professional lives.