I finally took the time to peer edit

And here’s what happened…

We’re going on a trip, kids! You get to plan it and pitch it to the class. Your classmates will vote on their favorite.

Letting 16-year-olds plan a class trip trip? No, I’m not crazy. That was the hypothetical situation I set up for my juniors during our nature and environment unit in Spanish 4. They conducted research on a Spanish-speaking country and planned an itinerary for the group. To be completely transparent, I’ve never really loved this project. Maybe because I got tired of reading about the same monotonous descriptions, which lacked description and vivid imagery.

Thanks to my time with the GMWP, I participated in a Teacher Workshop where I investigated different types of peer editing techniques and practices to hopefully improve my writing instruction. I had never asked students to peer edit this project before. Maybe putting more emphasis on the revision step of the writing process would liven up their writing to something I’d actually enjoy reading.

Peer Editing is best when everyone is doing it

I know that sounds obvious, but it’s something I’d overlooked in the past. My students used to do an editing protocol as an after-thought or a time-filler if they finished early. It was sort of treated as optional. I was always sure to give them a step-by-step guide on how to peer edit, but I rarely dedicated class time specifically to peer editing. Well, no wonder I was always disappointed in the outcome! This time I conducted a class-wide activity which caused a heightened sense of accountability and structure. Students completed the task and took it very seriously. Not only did the actually do it, they took the time to give meaningful feedback to their partners.

Double-Read for the win!

I used a protocol where students were to read their partners’ drafts twice, each time with a different focus. The first read students focused on the ideas and content. During the second read, students targeted language control. This technique proved effective because it put the primary focus on ideas and the secondary focus on grammatical structure — which reinforces my philosophy that general communication is more important than obsessing over grammar. As a result of this communicative approach (both in this activity and my classroom in general), students’ writing was very well-researched, culturally detailed, and descriptive.

Additionally, putting secondary focus on grammar allowed students to narrow-in on the grammatical structure I was targeting (the future tense). Being very tactful and specific with my focus for the activity caused them to grasp a better understanding of the grammatical structure while expanding their ideas and elaborating in a way that wasn’t painful and boring to evaluate.

Are we being graded on this?

Ah, the dreaded question. I certainly don’t believe in grading every solitary thing they do, but I always fear that telling them, “No, this isn’t for a grade,” will cause them to blow it off. Fortunately, there was enough accountability built in with the checklist I asked them to fill out, and the fact that they have a genuine compassion for their family members (my students often work in groups, affectionately called familias). Furthermore, I was sure to circulate while students worked, which I’ve come to learn also helps keep them engaged in the task at hand.

Small Problems

Of course, like anything new we try, there are always some kinks to iron out. The biggest issue I faced was students who were not done with a draft (or, in one case, anything more than a single sentence) who didn’t get to participate. Work completion, while I have noticed improvement lately, is something I seem to perpetually struggle with. I’ll take suggestions. No, seriously, please leave comments. How do you get kids to do their work?

Secondly, time constraints were an issue. I am happy I was able to squeeze in the activity at all, but it left me for very little time to do any modeling. Giving meaningful peer feedback takes practice and training. I did a quick overview before we started, but not quite as much as I would have liked. Surprisingly, I witnessed very productive and meaningful student conversations, but I wished I had spent more time training them. It wold have encouraged depth of thought and critical reading for an even better outcome and more meaningful conversations about their writing.

All in all, I was very happy with the results. Not only was I impressed with my students’ attitudes toward this activity and how much effort they put into it, I was extremely impressed with their final products. Of course, after reading their detailed descriptions and vivid imagery, all I wanted to do was ditch my students and hop on a plane to South America. But I suppose that was the goal, right?