1. Improving peer review through hybridization Todd Ruecker FYC workshop on teaching hybrids The University of Texas at El Paso

2. Need to improve peer review In a survey of L2 writers, Mangelsdorf (1992) found that only 55% of surveyed students held positive attitudes regarding peer review. L2 writing scholars like Leki (2002) and Silva (2002) have stopped using peer review in their ESL classes due to its ineffectiveness. Brammer and Rees (2007) and many others have pointed out that L1 students often complain about receiving minimal or unhelpful feedback from peers.

3. Reasons for problems… Lack of experience in giving feedback—same skill level. Afraid to give constructive criticism. Not enough time to complete peer review. Complex process that involves reading, formulating feedback, and responding Some readers are faster than others.

4. Old way In-class writing workshop—looked at and gave feedback on essay together In-class peer review—put students in pairs or groups of three, gave them question sheets, had them read and discuss.

5. PTPR-Post thesis peer review Discussions on Lockhart and Ng’s (1995) stances. Group conferences for first peer review—my main role is to help students play writer and reader roles, getting them to ask questions, elicit feedback Hybridized—usually on WebCT Group sign up in class Create groups on WebCT discussion board Post detailed instructions and response questions Real penalties for not participating Followed up by F2F discussion.

8. More time but need F2F “I liked conducting the peer review online. It lets you do it on your own time and also it lets you take your time to read and really pay attention to details. Some limitations is that the writer can't ask questions or see why the peer felt that.” “I think benefits of this online review are that we can do them when we have time. There was a deadline, but we had plenty of time to read the articles and give detailed reviews without having to rush at all…I think the next day when we sat down with our groups I helped my partner a lot more. I had some questions on his paper when I read it, and I brought them with me, and asked him about his paper. ”

9. Increased honesty “…when doing peer review online it may be easer to point out things they did wrong and tell them. This is so that it doesn't sound as harsh if you were to tell them in person.” “…I feel that I can say a lot more about the person's paper since there is not the feeling of being pressured or embarrassed about exactly what i want to say. This method allows a person to feel more comfortable in the aspect of speaking the truth and what you really mean, at times in person peer review i feel that i stumble on words and hold back a little on pointing out the bad points of the paper just so the author of the paper won't feel bad.”

10. References Brammer, C. & Rees, M. (2007). Peer review from the students’ perspective: Invaluable or invalid? Composition Studies, 35.2, 71-85 Leki, I. (2002). Not the End of History.In L. Blanton & B. Kroll (Eds.), ESL Composition Tales: Reflections on Teaching (pp 49-62). Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press. Lockhart, C., & Ng, P. (1995). Analyzing talk in peer response groups: Stances, functions, and content. Language Learning, 45, 605-655. Mangelsdorf, K. (1992). Peer reviews in the ESL composition classroom: What do the students think? ELT Journal, 46, 274-284. Silva, T. (2002). From the Working Class to the Writing Class: A Second-Generation American Teaches Second Language Composition.In L. Blanton & B. Kroll (Eds.), ESL Composition Tales: Reflections on Teaching (pp 63-82). Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press