Writing Activity: Peer-editing

For my writing activity I worked with 12th grade students at Upper Dublin High School. The focus of my lesson was peer-editing. Students in this particular class were at the point of development in an artifact essay where they had finished their first draft. My activity focused on spending most of the time doing independent editing, but also used scaffolding as a way enabling the students to look for particular elements of craft in the writing of their peers.  

“The relationship [of a editor] is a special one, supportive, helpful, nonthreatening, probing, and sometimes challenging…we prefer to teach them how to be editors for each other in Writers’ Groups.” Kirby & Crovitz

As a warm-up, I had the students start drawing a picture on a piece of paper. After one minute they would pass the drawing to their left, and continue passing it until it made its way around the table and back to the original artist. Students responded to this by relating the experience to peer-editing. This meta-cognitive experience made them think of peer-editing as a way for their creations to change, be made better, be made different, all through the involvement of their peers.

I asked the students what their initial thoughts were concerning good writing. The next few minutes were spent in a lecture format on the elements of good writing found in Kirby & Crovitz (2013) and a handout containing seven tips for writing an effective artifact essay. After getting a baseline for the elements that we wanted, as a class, to look for in the artifact essays, I handed out an excerpt of my own writing that we read and edited. I showed them my own criticism of the excerpt, and they shared what they had discovered about the piece. We looked at the common elements in the criticism and discussed what appropriate and useful feedback actually looks like. The following 20 minutes of class was spent reading and editing each other’s artifact essays. They used the elements of writing discussed previously in the class as a tool for knowing what to look for.

This lesson plan has all of the elements of a gradual release model, so I thought that it was going to very beneficial to the students by giving them some practical tools that they needed to give meaningful feedback. I really wanted to guide them just far enough along where they would be able to offer concrete opinions and advice that would make their essays significantly better. I modeled the peer-editing process, then walked through it with them. I believed it would make them better editors.

The lesson went well, but it wasn’t as effective as I hoped it would be. The warm-up was successful in drawing in their attention. I thought that it helped them to see peer-editing in a new way. When I spent the few minutes talking to them about elements of good writing it had the immediate effect of sucking the energy out of the room. Their minds seemed to shut off at that point, or at least slow down, and it was hard to move them back towards a more collaborative environment.

I thought that my overall plan was thoroughly thought through and had strong elements of scaffolding. The overall structure allowed students to move from teacher-led work to independent work. The lesson struggled with the transitions. It was missing was more examples of positive feedback, examples that go beyond simply showing the elements of good writing. I think that I should have reduced the lecture time and spent more time working together with the students on models of what substantive feedback is and is not. 


Public Practitioner Experience: Upper Dublin

I recently attended a teacher-led meeting at Upper Dublin High School and I’ve got to say, I was surprised. We sat on couches and comfortable chairs in the shape of a circle, someone brought two bags of popcorn (UD teachers REALLY Like popcorn), and because of the laid-back atmosphere, I felt more relaxed and comfortable than I thought I would. 

The rules of the game go like this:

1) Teachers write questions on note-cards and put them into a large jar.

2) The Note-cards are drawn, one at a time, and asked to the group.

3) Each question gets an initial time period (say 2 minutes), which can be extended by someone saying “extension” and another saying “yes.”

4) A person volunteers to start by offering an answer to the question

5) It goes around the circle, each person answering or say “pass”

6) Answers should be concise, and there are no “objections” at that time. 

7) It’s a “safe” place where no idea is too silly, stupid, or unwanted.

8) There is also a general topic that is discussed after the round-the-room talk.


During the meeting that I attended we talked about these three questions:

1) How can I make them stop talking? They are great kids – How can I focus them between tasks?

2) What are important components to put on a rubric for a speech of a personal and deep nature?

3) How do we assess “high quality” writing, as opposed to “good quality” writing?

After we went around answering these three questions to our satisfaction, and the end of our allotted time, we moved on to the large topic of the day (audits). This was more of a discussion format than the round-table answering session. 


These meetings are a great way to bring current classroom issues to the discussion table, and get feedback from experienced (and inexperienced) teachers and to get immediate advice to problems that need addressing. The value of this can’t be overstated. I had a question that needed answering and I brought it to the meeting and got several ideas on how to solve the problem, how to get better at being a teacher, how to improve my craft. 

Another benefit to attending teacher-led meetings like this is that it is an excellent way of modeling the collaboration that we ask of our students. This collaboration also builds rapport among teachers, which creates a environment that is conducive to teacher learning and growth. Ideas can be passed around, tested, and made better. 


Student/Classroom Spotlight: Becoming a “Recursive” writer

I’ve been spending my time at the Upper Dublin high school in an AP Language and Composition classroom. The students in this class are motivated to do well, and to do whatever it takes to get an A. The biggest challenge facing this class isn’t motivating them to write. It’s not getting them to behave. It’s not many things, but it might be to challenge them with writing, to take what they know about writing and make them better at it. 

I had no idea what to expect as I walked in to class the morning I wanted to interview one of the students. The student I interviewed, let’s call her Emily Dickinson, was an honor student. Emily is an EMT, a former firefighter jr going into nursing and she loves to write. She always has. She’s a poet and a fiction writer. She loves it because is allows her an escape, a place to vent, a level of freedom that she can’t get many other places. Even though school has generally been helpful to her writing, there have been times of clashing. Five paragraph essays. Remember those? Well, just as they were the bane of my existence, so too they really negatively affected Emily. She still remembers the acronym RACE. Restate Quote, Analyze, Cite Quote, Explain. These traditional methods of composition made it difficult for the student to adjust to her tenth grade English teacher who told her to “write what you want,” giving her the freedom to be creative and to generate ideas. Her high school writing experience varied from one teacher to the next, some were more focused on writing while others were not, some giving more leeway than others. Currently, she says, “so far this year I have questioned my assumptions about writing because now I have learned that the first draft isn’t the final draft.”

The first draft isn’t the final draft. Kirby and Crovitz, in their book Inside Out, say this about writing, “Not all writing goes well…Any first draft may be halting, awkward, or a bit chaotic. The novice writer needs to know that this feeling of hesitancy and chaos is natural, that even the best writers experience it.” (22) Emily is learning what I’m learning at the graduate level because she’s in a classroom focused on writing. The strategies that this class have been working with are being proven effective. “Walking the walk” in terms of not only saying editing is important but also going though draft after draft has made students comfortable with this idea of writing as recursive and as process.

I asked Emily what she thought about being in a class that writes as a method of learning and what were some things that she thought were unique about it. These are what she mentioned:

  • Warm-ups are great because they prepare her for class, but she doesn’t experience them often in other classes.
  • Going without a syllabus has kept her on her toes, which make her more able to be creative and spontaneous.
  • Much of her best writing actually comes from the warm-ups, which she then uses to create a larger piece.

Fun Facts about Emily:

  • Emily likes writing with metaphors because “they make the reader have to re-read her writing and because it also leaves a little more to the imagination.”
  • Emily’s non-fiction work is primarily biographical in nature. 

If you’re a writer that’s what you are, there’s no other avenue to take.  -Emily 

Just for fun

Check out National Novel Writing Month and begin your 50,000 word novel TODAY!