Peer Response Groups in the Writing Classroom: Theoretic Foundations and New Directions

Abstract

The peer response group in which students respond to one another's writing is commonly used in the writing classroom, from kindergarten through college. Al though enthusiastically advocated by practitioners and supported by current theories of the teaching and learning of writing, response groups are difficult to organize effectively. This review examines the pedagogical literature on response groups, places that literature in the context of current theories of the teaching and learning of writing, and then examines the small number of studies of peer response groups. Key issues include (a) the degree of teacher control over the groups and the effects of control structures, and (b) the kinds of social interactions within groups, with attention to how those interactions relate to the larger instructional context and toteaching and learning in the groups. Suggestions are made for reconceptualizing peer response to writing, with an emphasis on moving away from the teacherinitiated and controlled response group toward encouraging spontaneous peer talk during the writing process.The past 20 years have been for writing teachers a time of intense fermentation, reflection, and innovation. The reasons are many, resting partly in social and demographic change and partly in a professional paradigm shift generated by research into how writers write (Hairston, 1982). Practice has suggested research and research has suggested practice, but not always has there been a perfect synergy between the two. Peer response groups, warmly advocated by a number of theorists and teachers (a complete catalog of the work on peer response groups), present an interesting case in point. Although practitioner endorsements commonly share the assumption that the writing process is somehow supported by having students gather together for the purposes of providing one another with feedback on writing, response groups have been seldom studied to illuminate just what processes are thereby supported, or how. Thus, although writing groups have assumed an important place in educational practice,The project presented or reported herein was performed pursuant to a grant from the Office

Telecommunication in the Classroom: Rhetoric versus Reality

“…If the overall goal of collaborative-based telecommuni cation projects is still to encourage traditional concepts of better writing (in stead of collaboration or critical thinking, for example), it should be noted that a number of researchers have argued that socially constructed writing exchanges and peer response approaches may not by themselves guarantee language learn ing (Dipardo & Freedman, 1988;Forman, 1994;Lensmire, 1994). Some educa tors have further questioned whether all students can benefit from co-constructed learning and socially-based interactive learning environments (e.g., Delpit, 1995;Walkerdine, 1998).…”

“…Just as speakers communicate by co-con structing meaning in interaction with interlocutors, so students may learn to write effectively through real-time, contingent conversation with readers" (p. 67). 4 With the notion that peer talk improves writing, a number of advocates of telecommunication exchanges believe that students participating in e-mail-based projects are ideally able to write, self-reflect, and evaluate each other's commu nication much in the way peer response dyads work in classrooms (see Dipardo & Freedman, 1988, Hartman et al, 1991Reiss, 1995). "Learning is not just an intra-individual affair, but at least as much an inter-individual one," Solomon (1998) writes.…”

A case study in principled assessment design: Designing assessments to measure and support the development of argumentative reading and writing skills

“…Lack of development of other aspects of argument skill, such as reasons and evidence, will complicate instruction focused on organizing and presenting arguments. All writing instruction must provide students appropriate criteria for evaluation (Bracewell, Scardamalia, & Bereiter, 1978;Flower, Hayes, Carey, Schriver, & Stratman, 1986) and requires wellstructured protocols for peer interaction (DiPardo & Freedman, 1988;Kinsler, 1990), but in the context of argumentation, the dialogic nature of argument raises the stakes.…”

“I Don't Need Your Help!” Peer Status, Race, and Gender during Peer Writing Interactions

“…One cooperative peer practice is response groups, or small groups of peers who comment on one another's texts (DiPardo & Freedman, 1988). Research on response groups shows that when children respond to one another's papers, they engage in longer, more meaningful, and more reciprocal interactions (Freedman, 1987;Gere & Stevens, 1985).…”