[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-599174-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":81,"doc-detail-599174-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":74,"head_meta":76,"extra_data":78,"updated_unix":80},105,"en","politeness-profiles-in-the-first-year-composition-classroom-study-on-linguistic-politeness-and-reluctant-peer-review","Politeness Profiles in the First-Year Composition Classroom - Study on Linguistic Politeness and Reluctant Peer Review","","Examines how linguistic politeness influences first-year composition students during peer review. The discussion explains why learners often resist offering critical feedback to classmates’ writing, especially when peer relationships make critiques feel socially risky. Building on research about peer review’s complexity and pedagogical value, the study analyzes peer review letters through politeness theory to reveal one explanation for reluctant critical engagement and the conditions under which feedback becomes more substantive.",{"@graph":14,"@context":73},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/","Research & Report",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/politeness-profiles-in-the-first-year-composition-classroom-study-on-linguistic-politeness-and-reluctant-peer-review/599174/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/politeness-profiles-in-the-first-year-composition-classroom-study-on-linguistic-politeness-and-reluctant-peer-review/599174.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"kopisore","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-11-05","2026-10-15",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",6,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"Why do first-year composition students often hesitate to respond critically during peer review?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"Students frequently default to gentle critiques, especially when they know the peers whose writing they must review. The study uses linguistic politeness theory to explain this reluctance as a socially mediated concern about being critical.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"What benefits does the peer review process provide in composition classrooms?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"Peer review can reduce instructor workload, improve writing outcomes, increase community-oriented participation, and help students evaluate others while reflecting on their own writing tendencies and improvement areas.",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"How does peer review affect audience awareness and students’ writing choices?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"Because students know peers will read and comment, they begin writing more carefully and imagine how others will view their work. This shift moves novice writers toward writing for a real audience rather than an undefined one.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":75,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":77,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":79,"site_id":7},599174,1792634544,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":83},"success",[84,88,92,96,101,105,110,114,119,122,126],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":85,"show_sort_weight":86,"slug":87},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":89,"show_sort_weight":90,"slug":91},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":93,"show_sort_weight":94,"slug":95},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":97,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":98,"show_sort_weight":99,"slug":100},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":55,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":102,"show_sort_weight":103,"slug":104},"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":106,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":107,"show_sort_weight":108,"slug":109},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":111,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":112,"slug":113},8,30,"research-report",{"id":115,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":116,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":118},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":117,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":120,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":121},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":123,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":124,"show_sort_weight":123,"slug":125},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":127,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":128,"show_sort_weight":97,"slug":129},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":131},{"doc_id":79,"user_id":132,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":111,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":139,"language":140,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":144,"read_time":145},962090880963,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_6f874abed73319feea01a86fa6f0fab8","Politeness Profiles in the First-Year  \nComposition Classroom  \nPennie L. Gray  \nDuring peer review, students often exhibit resistance when asked to respond critically to their peers’ writing. Most students tend to offer gentle critiques, especially when they personally know the peers whose writing they are reading. This tendency to be overly kind can be frustrating for instructors, yet there may be logical reasons for students’ hesitancy to engage in critical peer review. This study explores students’ peer review letters through the lens of linguistic politeness theory and illuminates one possible explanation for the reluctant peer review.  \nBenefits of the Peer Review Process  \nThe peer review process, a mainstay of many composition classrooms in the United States, requires students to read one another’s writing and offer—or attempt to offer—substantive critical feedback. However, the peer review process is somewhat complex and nuanced. For instance, as Donna Johnson and A. W. Roen note, the peer review process necessitates students’ negotiation of the liminal space between helping their classmates improve their writing and simultaneously meeting the expectations of the instructor who assigned the peer review (34) . Other factors also influence the peer review process: the age and experience of the students; the format of the peer review, whether electronic, face-to-face, or written; the social relationship of the peer reviewers, and more.  \nNonetheless, many instructors turn to peer review as one way to give students more feedback than they are capable of generating themselves and as an avenue for involving students in the response process. As Ruiling Lu and Linda Bol found, using peer review in the composition classroom has its benefits: It lessens the instructor’s workload and leads to better writing outcomes (101) . Korey Lawson Ching points out that an additional benefit of the peer review process is that it minimizes the “binary distinction between teacher authority and student autonomy . . . and reconfigures the participation of students and teachers” in the composition classroom (314) . By asking students to participate in the feedback process, the classroom environment can become more community oriented, a kind of “apprenticeship in which students participate alongside teachers” (314) . Furthermore, peer review allows students to “take  \nComposition Studies 48.1 (2020): 71–87  \nan active role in evaluating the work of other students” rather than remaining passive recipients of teacher commentary (314) . Even more, by encouraging students to review one another’s work, the peer review process can serve instructional purposes. As students compare their own work to that of their peers, they become more aware of their own writing tendencies and habits. This process thus gives them a window into areas of improvement in their own writing (Stellmack et al., 236) .  \nRecent research by Kristi Lundstrom and Wendy Baker highlights the benefits of peer review not for the student being reviewed, but rather for the student doing the peer review. While the peer review process is intended primarily to help the student whose composition is being reviewed, there are additional learning benefits for the student who is serving as the peer reviewer (Nicol et al., 104) . For one, the peer reviewer learns to make evaluative and reflective comments on another’s work (Cho and Cho, 630). This type of critical thinking about another’s work could transfer into thinking critically about the reviewer’s own writing as well. In this way, students may engage in critical thinking as they “learn by explaining what makes peer texts good or bad, by identifying problems that exist in those peer texts, and then in devising ways in which those problems can be solved”(630) .  \nIncreased audience awareness is another benefit of the peer review process. Often, students write to an undefined audience; it can be difficult to move novice writers into the realm ","cbCaidZDiBqNgN9A","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaidZDiBqNgN9A","pdf",123063,17,"English","# Benefits of the Peer Review Process\n## Peer review as feedback, community, and learning\n## Audience awareness and critical thinking transfer\n# Research Findings and Emerging Tensions\n## Confidence, engagement, and anonymity","[{\"question\":\"Why do first-year composition students often hesitate to respond critically during peer review?\",\"answer\":\"Students frequently default to gentle critiques, especially when they know the peers whose writing they must review. The study uses linguistic politeness theory to explain this reluctance as a socially mediated concern about being critical.\"},{\"question\":\"What benefits does the peer review process provide in composition classrooms?\",\"answer\":\"Peer review can reduce instructor workload, improve writing outcomes, increase community-oriented participation, and help students evaluate others while reflecting on their own writing tendencies and improvement areas.\"},{\"question\":\"How does peer review affect audience awareness and students’ writing choices?\",\"answer\":\"Because students know peers will read and comment, they begin writing more carefully and imagine how others will view their work. This shift moves novice writers toward writing for a real audience rather than an undefined one.\"}]","Politeness Profiles in the First-Year Composition Classroom - Study on Linguistic Politeness and Reluctant Peer Review | PDF",1792088285,43]