The CEA Forum - Summer/Fall 2006 - A Story of Promises and Pitfalls in Whole-Class Peer Review

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by SANS

“A Story of Promises and Pitfalls in Whole-Class Peer Review” argues that whole-class peer review can make freshman writers more self-sufficient by reducing reliance on instructor feedback. Susanna Kelly Engbers describes a “publishing day” model where students read essays beforehand and a lead-critic pair directs a 20–30 minute session for group critique. The strategy balances lively discussion, affective “gut” responses, and manageable organization while noting how mismanagement can lead to superficial exchanges instead of actionable revision guidance.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages5

Reading Time13 min

AccessFree to download

The CEA Forum Summer/Fall 2006

Peer review as a path to critical skill

The publishing day activity

Organization, energy, and management

Encouraging affective and redundant responses

The CEA Forum Summer/Fall 2006: 35.2 A STORY OF PROMISES AND PITFALLS IN WHOLE-CLASS PEER REVIEW Susanna Kelly Engbers In Straight Man, a satirical novel featuring a small-town college English professor, Richard Russo presents the following scene from a creative writing class: The protagonist informs his class that the workshop on aclassmate's short story is beginning; the class members immediately fall silent until finally: “I like the clouds,” somebody offers.“They're, like, a metaphor.” …“They are a metaphor,” I point out. “If they were like a metaphor, they'd be, like, a simile.”“I liked the clouds too,” somebody else offers.“Good writing.” “Are metaphors good?” I ask. “Sure. Yeah.” General agreement on this point.“You said so yourself.” (350) Undoubtedly, many of us have had a similar experience. I certainly have. In my freshman composition classroom, I value peer feedback, largely because it helps students to develop confidence and ability in analyzing various texts, including, of course, their own. Like most instructors who use peer review, I recognize that although I'm capable of, and quite comfortable with, offering students detailed feedback at the global and local levels, that is not the best means by which to develop students' abilities in writing. Better—and far more difficult—is to build into the course ways through which students may develop their skills as critics. Better—and far more difficult—for me to stand out of the way. I offer here a teaching strategy that I use to help my students become more self-sufficient and less reliant on my feedback. It's a form of peer-review, in which one essay from each student receives criticism from the whole class at one particular session during the semester. I call it a “publishing day,” a term I borrowed from Donald Murray's A Writer Teaches Writing. The strategy has been more commonly used in creative writing classes, like the one Russo describes, but I'm surprised that more teachers of freshman composition don't make it part of their courses. I share it not as a model of a strategy fully realized but one in process, in hopes that readers might find something to try, something to avoid, something to adapt. I've been experimenting with this activity, in one form or another, for about eight years now. To detail my experiments with the basic process would take more space than I have here and probably more patience than any reader has. In brief, my current process is as follows: each student has a 20-30-minute session in which his or her essay is discussed by classmates, who have read the essay at home beforehand. Two other classmates, whom I call “lead critics,” share the responsibility for directing the publishing day session. I should say, if this activity sounds like it requires a lot of organization, time, and energy (on everyone's parts), it does. And during some semesters, deciding the whole publishing day process wasn't worth it, I've tossed the idea out wholesale and gone back to more easily manageable, more predictable, lower stakes forms of small group peer review. But I keep coming back to this kind of whole-class peer review, convinced—despite my frustrations with the process at times—of the ultimate benefits of such a practice. I need not list in great detail the potential benefits of such an activity, as I'm sure they're readily apparent. Not only do students get feedback phrased in student- , rather than teacher-speak, but when students write for a real audience, with real and differing opinions, they understand—for real—how the rhetorical situation works. I had a student about to publish say to me once,“When I wrote this I didn't really think people would be reading it. I thought it would just be you.” Well, as he himself assured me, this student knew about the publishing day activity, knew he was writing a draft to be shared with “real people,” knew that the specified audience for the essay was the class members, but didn't re

FAQs

What is the purpose of “publishing day” in freshman composition?

It is designed to help students become more self-sufficient and less reliant on the instructor’s feedback by having the whole class critique one student’s essay in a dedicated session.

How does a typical publishing day session work?

Each student’s essay is discussed for about 20–30 minutes after classmates read it at home. Two classmates called “lead critics” direct the session.

What pitfalls does the article warn about for whole-class peer review?

If the activity is not well managed, discussion can become shallow or resemble the satirical vignette rather than producing useful, revision-ready suggestions.

Why does the author encourage affective comments like “I liked the clouds”?

Low-level gut responses help warm students up and set the stage for more substantive comments, and repeated reactions can also have value during publishing day.

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by SANS