Peer review is an established strategy for improving the quality of students’ writing. This study moves beyond the focus on outcomes to assess the peer-review process. In particular, this study focuses on the timing of the peer review, a highly structured feedback form, and student writers’ revisions after engaging in peer review. This study draws from a peer-review assignment conducted over 3 years in upper-division, discipline-specific courses. The data reveal these strategies force students to begin writing earlier in the semester, help the students offer formative feedback to their peers, and encourage students to substantially revise their drafts before submitting the final paper. This study reveals the importance of assessing the peer-review process.

This article explores the demographic factors, background characteristics, and workplace perceptions that predict secondary trauma among probation/parole and residential officers. Our results indicate that probation/parole officers were more likely to report secondary trauma than residential officers. Additionally, we found that officers who reported better health, better job training, and fewer contact hours with offenders were also less likely to report secondary trauma. These results fill a muchneeded gap in the literature, as well as provide information that may be utilized by the department of corrections to minimize symptoms of secondary trauma among community corrections staff.

The purpose of this article was to explore the association between demographic and background characteristics, as well as workplace perceptions that may predict burnout among two connected groups of community corrections officers. Using the Maslach Burnout Inventory, we assessed whether burnout differed between probation/parole and residential officers and analyzed whether predictors of burnout varied across these two groups. Our results indicated that while probation/parole officers were more likely to report Emotional Exhaustion, they were not any more or less likely to experience Depersonalization or Personal Accomplishment. In addition, educational training had a stronger impact for residential officers, while schedule fit was more important for probation/parole officers, when predicting Personal Accomplishment. These results not only extended the existing research on burnout but also helped inform key correctional stakeholders about what policies and practices were working well, as well as indicated potential areas of change to help minimize burnout among staff.

This article presents a case study of decision making in a drug court located the southwestern United States. This study seeks to fill a gap in research on decision making by attending to the ways that drug court officials navigate the demands of a court that is dedicated to both therapy and criminal justice. This analysis differs from previous research by viewing the drug court as a "hybrid organization" and asking how the staff members interact in the decision-making process. Additionally, this research provides an opportunity to investigate the concerns over collaborative decision making raised by critics. The data from this case study reveal that as a hybrid organization, the drug court staff often divides along institutional lines by allowing the counseling staff to manage treatment and the judge to manage punishment. When tensions arise, they are resolved by the structure of the court, which is hierarchical rather than collaborative.

Social psychologist Erving Goffman, in his classic work The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, provides a framework that explains why jurors may turn their attention at the courthouse to information not formally presented from the witness stand. We dub this "offstage observation," a type of juror behavior that has not been systematically examined empirically. Analyzing a unique data source of 50 actual jury deliberations in civil trials, we find that jurors do look to the offstage in evaluating the claims of the parties. However, in contrast to predictions, these observations played a surprisingly minor role in the jury deliberation process.