sqr2

Peer Response: Teaching Specific Revision Suggestions
In “Peer Response: Teaching Specific Revision Suggestions” by Sally J. McNelis (The English Journal, vol. 79, No. 5 (Sept. 1990)) stated that many teachers and students “grieved over” the use of peer response because it rarely transform into useful comments on how to improve their writings. She also stated that for several years she had been using an organizing technique with peer-response groups called PQP, which stands for praise-question-polish. In this process students are asked to answer questions regarding the writing they had read; for praise they are asked, “What is good bout the writing? What should not be changed? Why is it goo? For the question part of the PQP they are asked “As a reader, what did you not understand?” For the polish part of the PQP the students are asked to provide specific suggestions for the author to improve his or her paper. She said that by using these techniques generally students focus more on the task that they had and kept a good attitude during the critique process. She put these techniques into action with a group of six graders and noticed that by using this process repeatedly students where coming up with better comments on the writings, comments that actually help the author revise his or her paper.



Why is “peer response” so important in the process of revision? How does looking at a text from a different point of view help in revision?
I believe that peer response is a really important part of the revision process because when some one else reads your paper they can almost always find something that needs to be changed or that need to be rearrange in order to make the text easier to read or just so that it makes more sense. Although peer response is a vital part of the revision process many teachers and student dislike the idea of using it because it rarely gives back any usable feedback. They feel that it’s a waste of time because if the peers are not trying to be impartial to the texts they would be of little or no help because they are worried about hurting their friend’s feelings. Good feed back or peer response can only come from some one that is only telling the truth,; from some one that is not afraid of saying what in his/her mind because of how the author might react or feel. They only worry of how they can help make that paper better. For me I don’t really care if the authors feel offended by my comments all I’m trying to do is help them write a better paper. Maybe they will use the comments I give them maybe not, if they do great and if not it’s alright because I know that I gave them advice that I thought was going to help them become a better writer. Looking at a text from a different point of view always helps find key points that need polishing. Looking at a text from a different perspective helps identify ideas that the author might have wanted to incorporate to his/her text but left out.