Peer Review: Collegial Feedback on Written Drafts

Frequently UVEI/UVGSE programs require peer review of written drafts of materials.

Peer review can contribute to candidate learning in several ways:

• First and foremost, peer review provides candidates insights into colleagues thinking, strengths, problems of practice, and settings; expanding candidates' exposure to a range of practices;
• Reading how someone else organizes their thinking can help a candidate clarify their own thinking (and the organization of their own thinking);
• Peer review strengthens the evidence submitted through the revision process;
• Peer review surves to reinforce the skill of writing to writing for a broader audience, as opposed to writing primarily for themselves or for an instructor – a key skill for educators who need to communicate to colleagues, families, the community, and students.
• Practice formulating and communicating constructive feedback on a peer’s work, a skilled needed for effective collaboration, coaching, and supervision;
• Learn how to respond to feedback non-defensively and in the spirit of continuous improvement.

Effective feedback on writing typically meets the following criteria:

• Big Ideas:
  • Peer reviewer remembers the core purpose of peer feedback: To help the author improve how they convey their thinking in writing through a clear and coherent set of claims about their practice supported by literature, experience, and evidence from practice; all grounded in the purpose and expectations of the standards.
  • Feedback focuses chiefly on the holistic concerns and the big ideas (Does the piece respond to the central prompts? Is the authors thinking clear? Are there clear claims/arguments/evidence? Is the piece effectively organized?).
  • Feedback emphasizes and clearly highlights the main strengths of the piece (assets to keep or build on) and suggested next steps for improvement.
  • Feedback is prioritized so that the most important and actionable next steps are emphasized (even if that means some other elements are not addressed)
  • Before returning the piece, the review asks themselves: "Are my questions and suggestions for improvement clear and actionable? Will they help my colleague clarify, deepen, or better explain their thinking?" If the answer is no, revise your feedback.
• Tips:
  • Feedback is timely
  • Feedback is intended to be understood and used by the author
  • Feedback engages with the thinking, ideas, and arguments (rather than surface features)
  • Feedback identifies ways to improve and deepen thinking, analysis, persuasion, organization, clarity, power, and/or precision
  • Feedback signals genuine interest and respect
  • Feedback references and is grounded in the quality criteria (rubric)
  • Feedback is linked to the knowledge base (references readings, the prompt, seminar topics, etc.)
  • Feedback avoids praise ("I like this" "Nice job") and instead focuses on specific strengths ("This argument clearly addresses the criteria") or areas for improvement ("This argument does not seem consistent with X concept from the reading")

It is common for candidates to feel uncomfortable with peer review for several reasons: