Manuscript Number:  09-421    Return by:  April 30
Manuscript Evaluation
Category:    Instructional Note
Title: Peer-Response in Digitally-Enhanced First-Year Writing Courses

Please score the article from 1 to 4 (1 is low, 4 is high)

Contributes to the Field:    (To what extent does the article add something to our understanding of the subject?)

	1	2	3	4x	

Comments: 

See all of my comments below.

Appropriate to Audience:    (To what extent does the article address the audience of teachers who teach English during the first two years of college?)

	1	2	3	4x	

Comments: 

Quality of Presentation :  (To what extent does the presentation of the article contribute to its success?)

	1	2	3x	4	
		
Comments:

Quality and Currency of Scholarship: (To what extent is the article informed by current and relevant scholarship?) 

	1	2	3	4x	

Comments:

Quality of Classroom Application: (To what extent is the article grounded in reflective teaching practice?)

	1	2	3	4x	

Comments:   

PUBLICATION DECISION
___Accept (with minor revisions if indicated above or on enclosed manuscript)
__x_Revise and resubmit (suggestions indicated above and/or in the letter to the author)
___Do not accept - reasons indicated above.
Reviewer's Name:  Louise Bown
Email: 	Louise.Bown@slcc.edu
Please address the author directly on the attached sheet. You might wish to put your comments in the form of a friendly letter, indicating strengths of the submission and suggesting constructive and concrete revisions.
PLEASE BE SURE TO RETURN ALL FORMS BY THE REQUESTED DATE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND YOUR PROFESSIONALISM.

Manuscript Evaluation

Manuscript Number: 09-421
Manuscript title: Peer-Response in Digitally-Enhanced First-Year Writing Courses
REVIEWER COMMENTS TO AUTHOR	

Dear Writer of Peer-Response in Digitally-Enhanced First-Year Writing Courses,

I enjoyed your article very much and think it can add to the knowledge of the field.  I am an avid peer review instructor and would like to know more about the process you have set up.  Therefore, I encourage you to revise.  I would like to see your article in the journal.  Here are my suggestions. 

Your first two paragraphs are great.  They introduce us to not only the issue but also to you as an instructor who has been interested in peer review for a long time. You also cite several well knows theorists on the issue and, thereby, gain the confidence of readers.

In your next paragraph under the heading of “What are the foundational elements about the process?” you mention that your students call peer review “spotlighting,” so we become familiar with your definition of the term.  However, how spotlighting is different from traditional peer review is not clear to me.  For instance, you say “Dividing students into groups based upon assignment generates intensity and focus, as the most eager students can volunteer their work first; while students requiring more time to plan can wait for a turn later in the term.”  Is this meant to be a discussion of what you do for a spotlighting session or a reiteration of what typically happens in a traditional classroom peer review session?  I’m not sure and, therefore, am confused early in your article about how you actually set up your spotlighting and how what you do differs from traditional peer review in most classes.

Here are some further questions I have after reading your article that may help you revise.  Even though you discuss them to some extent, for me they could be discussed in further detail.
Why do you think it’s important for each student to have a turn “in the spotlight.”  
Why do you find peer review of this kind superior to typical group peer review?
Why must all draft work for “spotlight” comments be digitally encoded?

Your discussion of “SWoRD (scaffolded writing and rewriting in the discipline) research at the University of Pittsburgh, where peer-responses emerge as part of the evaluation process as part of the grading process” is enlightening.  I suggest you develop this concept further.  What value do you personally see in students not only evaluating each other’s drafts but in also evaluating each other’s comments?  

I also suggest you discuss further how you set up spotlighting.  Under “What are the pedagogical steps?” you list several steps in the process.  I understand the basic structure you set up, but I had the following questions after reading through your steps:  How many students are spotlighted for each assignment?  Does every student in the class respond to all of the spotlighted drafts?  Is each student spotlighted once during the semester?  If so, do you find spotlighting once during the semester superior to students receiving peer comments on every draft by a couple of students?

What are the challenges you face in setting up this system in an online environment?  Is your class fully online or do students meet occasionally in the classroom?

Visual images can often explain more than words.  But if those images are confusing for any reason, they can detract.  I find the images on pg. 2 confusing as #1, #2, and #4 don’t seem to be necessary for what you are talking about.  Also, I had to read and reread what is there for #2 several times to understand what is there.  I’m still not sure what the image is adding to what you already have said.  As someone who has taught online for years and uses Vista on a daily basis, I find the visual not necessary.  But your audience may be those who are new to Vista or any other management system and, therefore, some type of visual is necessary.  In that case, you want to be sure that the visual is clear, does not contain any extraneous information, and adds to what you are saying in words. 

On the image on pg. 3 there are letters on the right hand side of the screen.  What they are and if they are important is not clear.  Is the purpose of this image to show how the responses are threaded to the initial post?  If so, I suggest you indicate that.  Is “not a secret anymore” the title of a student draft?

The image on pg. 4 works well as it clearly shows how ratings have stars to indicate their usefulness.

The comments you include from students support the spotlighting process.  I suggest you leave them in.  Student perspective is always important.

Again, I am intrigued by your spotlighting of student drafts and would like to know more.  I hope you take the time to revise and resubmit your article to the journal.

Sincerely,

 Fellow journal reader