11.7 The student will self- and peer-edit writing for correct grammar, capitalization, punctuation, spelling, sentence structure, and paragraphing.
a) Use a style manual, such as that of the Modern Language Association (MLA) or the American Psychological Association (APA), to apply rules for punctuation and formatting of direct quotations.
d) Differentiate between in-text citations and works cited on the bibliography page.
e) Adjust sentence and paragraph structures for a variety of purposes and audiences.
f) Proofread and edit writing for intended audience and purpose.
Objective: Students will work in pairs and use a Peer Editing Guide.docx to make observations and suggestions about a classmate’s draft of the persuasive research paper.
This week, students have library laptops in our classroom to finish researching and typing drafts of their papers using electronic note cards and PersuasiveEssayOutline.docx . This morning, students switched papers with an assigned partner and completed the activities on the Peer Editing Guide. I waited until everyone was sitting with their partners before passing out the Peer Editing Guide and then I explained every task on the handout. I used "Thumbs Up/Down" to poll (Himmele 47):
- How many of you already have 500 words typed for your drafts? 800 words?
- How many feel that you can describe the features of a good research paper?
- Turn to your partner and share your opinion about the qualities of a good research paper.
- How is peer editing helpful to writing?
How did it effect student learning and meeting of learning objectives?
The Thumbs Up/Down polled students on how many words they’d written, which helped to reinforce my expectation that the students work toward writing 800-1000 words. More than a few students bashfully refused to participate in the poll, which I took to mean that they were embarrassed that they didn’t have at least 500 words typed yet. When students looked around the room, they could see from their classmates’ thumbs (and faces!) who was close to that goal. Some students may have used this nonverbal feedback from their peers to adjust their own goals for word-count (hopefully!). Reinforcing my expectation for student learning in this way, evidences elements of Danielson’s component 3.a (Danielson 55). The second question of the Thumbs Up/Down poll asked students to consider how much they understood about the features a successful research paper. I thought that this question would enable me to informally assess students’ general understanding of unit content and I could “read” from their faces that many weren’t sure how to describe the qualities of a good research paper.
Next, students shared their ideas about the features a successful research paper with a partner in a Think-Pair-Share. This was the first time that students were invited to speak with their partners and the room immediately warmed with the buzz of voices as they got acquainted and shared their ideas. Some students who seemed apprehensive when I’d asked the question to the whole class, now seemed to have an answer to share with their partner, which I think may be because the delay between when I initially asked the question and when they had a chance to share their ideas gave them ample time to think about it. This activity helped students to start talking with their partners and activate thinking about the lesson content. When selected students shared their answers with the whole class, apprehensive learners had a chance to hear others' ideas about what makes a strong paper. This helped students to reflect on the strengths and weaknesses of their own paper and to understand the significance of every step on the Peer Editing Guide. Questioning and discussion techniques, such as in this divergent Think-Pair-Share activity, are integral to deepening student understanding while monitoring student progress, and they evidence components of Danielson’s third domain, Instruction (59).
Lastly, students engaged in a Quick-Write in response to the question “How is peer editing helpful to writing?” which functioned to solidify the purpose of the lesson. I think that recognizing the purpose of the lesson helped to increase motivation and engagement in the activity of peer editing.
Danielson, C. (2014). The Framework for Teaching: Evaluation Instrument. The Danielson Group.
VERSION 1.2 • 8/25 /14
Himmele, P., & Himmele, W. (2011). Total Participation Techniques: Making Every Student an Active Learner. ASCD.