Sammi Salter & Elyse Broder

Peer Review Strategies:

Agree/Disagree Game (10-15 Minutes)
● “I’ve never found peer review useless, but there have certainly been voices that I found
more useful than others.” (Discussion Board)
● “Widespread cuts in university budgets along with increasing enrollments have prompted
faculty and faculty developers to devise and use more time-efficient teaching and
assessment methods, especially in writing-intensive courses… (Nilson, 34)” A main
reason for the use of peer review is to cut down on teacher work.
● “As a UTA, I realized that peer-review is an annoyance to students, and they seem to not
put in enough effort to benefit the other students. If they are putting in enough effort, then
the feedback is focused on grammatical errors and the paper looks like it has been
completely torn apart.” (Discussion Board)
● “I think that it is helpful for peer-review to be taught in order to understand the steps of
the process to provide the best possible feedback.” (Discussion Board)
● Teachers should provide a rubric or list of questions for the students to follow during a
peer review session.
Thoughts from the Discussion Board:
Pair up and discuss 2-3 of these questions (10 minutes) we will discuss as a class for (20
minutes)
● The identified problem in the text is that the student may give feedback that is “uncritical,
superficial, unengaged, focused on structure/style”, and “unnecessarily harsh” (Nilson,
35). This point stood out to me as a student because I tend to put in a great amount of
work into peer reviews wanting to give as much feedback in order to revise if necessary.
○ Do you feel as though you can give more to other students during peer review
than others can give to you?
● “After reading this article, I think that it is helpful for peer-review to be taught in order to
understand the steps of the process to provide the best possible feedback.”
○ Do you think that teaching a lesson on how to peer review effectively could
increase the degree to which peer review is effective?
 ● “I fear for those students who are not able to swap papers with a capable student and
receive the wrong feedback on their paper.”
○ How do we control the feedback that students get and make sure it is credible?
Should the teacher be responsible for checking the peer review? Is peer review
simply used to make the teacher's workload lighter?
● “Going off of the question ‘What qualities do you look for in a peer reviewer’ I would
say my number one attribute is honesty.”’
○ “I agree with your statement that honesty is very important during peer review,
but I know I struggle with this because I do not want my peer or friend to think I
am overstepping or being rude about their paper, so at times I hold back
comments and simply say ‘Oh, yes you did a good job’”
○ Have you ever struggled with being honest during a peer review session in fear
that you are overstepping or saying too much about the paper?
● “I personally think peer review is very useful, but more so when it comes from students
with the same writing background.”
○ Is peer review only beneficial during certain times and situations?
○ How do we even the playing field of peer review so that regardless of who you
may be paired with, feedback will be effective?
○ How do we make peer review more effective?
○ Should peer review even be used in classes anymore? What are some
alternatives to peer review sessions?
● “I also want someone who seems willing to read the paper and take the time to think
about it and discuss it with me. I look for someone who seems like they would care about
my papers' development.”
○ How do we get students to genuinely care about each other’s writing and take
the time to thoroughly challenge and analyze it?

Sample summary to peer review:

(15-20 Minutes)
○ See how everyone might peer review differently
○ Do their peer reviews align with what the professor believes?
 In her essay “How to Tame a Wild Tongue,” published in 1987 in Borderlands/La

Frontera: The New Mestiza, Gloria Anzaldúa argues that the oppression of Chicanos coincides

with their lingual identity crisis. To make her point, Anzaldúa discusses what growing up as a

Chicano minority in the United States was like and how difficult it was to establish herself as a

valued citizen. The diversity of the Chicano language linguistically and regionally created a

heightened pressure to fit in with multiple types of speakers and cultures. Anzaldúa has been

yelled at for speaking Spanish with an English/American accent and been accused by other

Latinos for speaking the “oppressor's language” and “ruining the Spanish language” when

speaking English (407). The constant contradiction and battle over which tongue is appropriate

to use has made it difficult for Anzaldúa and other Chicanos “to identify… as a distinct people”

(408).

Throughout Anzaldúa’s essay, she inserts Spanish text mixed into her use of English text.

Her use of switching between languages displays how intertwined each language is in her life.

These languages contribute to Anzaldúa’s individuality and how she establishes her own voice.

Her implementation of scholarly quotes enforces her claim that language and identity go hand in

hand. Additionally, Anzaldúa includes an anecdote of her tongue taming experience at the

dentist’s office to provide her audience with an idea of what having a repressed tongue feels like.

As a Chicano, Anzaldúa must constantly switch her tongue to fit in with those around her.

Chicanos have had their freedom of expressions altered by the inordinate expectations of which

language they should use. Ultimately Anzaldúa expresses that her “ethnic identity is twin skin to

linguistic identity” (410). She has to fight to keep her Chicano people and their language alive;

never allowing her tongue to be tamed.

Reflection:
 I really enjoyed this project for a number of reasons, one being how it coordinated really

well with the lesson plans we gave in our English 101 lectures and how I was able to take my

experience from my first two lesson plans and implement them into this lesson for our English

388v lecture. Elyse and I worked really well together, and I am really happy we were paired with

one another. Already having experience working together as Sabrina’s TA, I think we mesh

really well and have similar views on how we approach the work needed to be accomplished.

Elyse and I first were able to discuss the project in class when we were allotted some

time to meet up and understand more what was being asked of us. Both of us chose one required

reading that we thought met the needs of our topic and then found a third together, finally

crafting a required reading list and discussion board. We then met outside of class in the library

for some time to come up with and strategize a well-thought-out plan to give to the class.

I really believed we should structure our discussion questions around the main topic of

peer review, but specifically aim the questions at the effectiveness of peer review to really gather

our classmates’ views on the topic and uncover the controversies surrounding the class activity.

A lot of our peers had a much more positive stance towards peer reviewing than I anticipated. I

think it is because of my own negative experiences with peer reviewing that I assumed others

would have a less positive view on the reviewing technique. However, even with my negative

stance on peer reviewing, I tried to keep my opinion out of the in-class discussion until I received

thoughts from all of my classmates so that I, the instructor, would not influence others’ opinions.

I thoroughly enjoyed reading through the discussion posts because they were of a different

opinion of my own, and I felt it was really helpful to prompt in-class discussion with posts from

the discussion board.

 Overall, I believe Elyse and I worked really well together and proposed some new ideas

to the classroom. I really appreciate all of my opportunities to stand in front of the classroom,

whether it be in 101 or 388v, and learn what it is like to be on the other side as a teacher. I

believe the strategies, techniques, and experiences I learned from this will be useful to me in all

aspects of my student life here at UMD. Additionally, I believe that our lesson regarding peer

reviewing helped reach the goal of “Demonstrate an ability to collaborate in order to bring about

a successful outcome in a composition course” and I believe that both Elyse and I worked

together in a positive effective manner to obtain that goal.