Peer Editing

A few of you have posted your opinions on peer editing, so I thought I’d join the discussion (a little late, I admit).

Anyway, I think there are certainly benefits to peer editing, as Ana Jeanne mentioned, and I am all for it in the writing center where the peers doing the editing are trained, experienced writers who are genuinely interested in helping others, but I am not sure how I feel about it in general.

I’ve been more aware of what takes place in peer editing sessions in my other classes this semester, and I have come to the unfortunate realization that some students have managed to get through English 101 with virtually no understanding of academic essays. Some students think the thesis is always the first sentence of the essay; some think paragraphs that take half of a double-spaced page are always too long. I am not sure how these misconceptions started or survived within a writing-intensive curriculum, but I have come across students with them more than I would like to admit. When I have had peer editing sessions in my other classes, I have often found that the advice given to me is tainted based on these misconceptions, and if I were to adjust my paper accordingly, it would be for the worst. Fortunately, I am familiar enough with academic writing standards to avoid the potential pitfalls of these peer editing sessions, but I know that some other students have a less thorough understanding that may make them accept advice that could harm their papers.

Although I don’t think peer editing sessions should be altogether eliminated from the classroom, I do think these problems need to be addressed. Perhaps we need more thorough explanations of the structure of whatever type of writing is involved in the class itself, rather than expecting a certain level of acquired knowledge in this area already. These explanations would be especially applicable to classes that directly follow English 101 (English 180, for example), and any writing-intensive non-English course with its own standards. The classes need not spend a great deal of time on these general instructions, but even a fifteen minute workshop or a handout might help. On a more fundamental level, I think these sorts of classes could simply avoid assuming that all students know and fully understand terms like ‘thesis,’ ‘topic sentence,’ ‘counter-argument,’ and ‘rebuttal,’ as well as more general aspects such as the extent of evidence needed to support a claim. These terms and composition strategies don't need to be re-taught in every class, but the assignment handouts could easily work in a clear definition of what is required instead of having vague statements such as “Your paper should have a clear thesis.”

All in all, I really support the idea of peer editing, but at this point, I cannot fully support it in action. There is a pervasive lack of thorough understanding among students when it comes to academic writing techniques, and it has an alarmingly powerful ability to spread within peer editing sessions. If these sessions continue as they always have, many students will leave them feeling confused, and professors may see weaker writing from students who were on the right track to begin with. However, if these issues are somehow addressed, the quality of writing among all students could greatly improve.