PRAISE—QUESTION—SUGGEST

Peer Revision in Small Groups and Partnerships

In addition to helping students revise individually, students need to learn how to have revising conversations with

their peer responders. By providing a sequence of steps for all students to follow, teachers help students engage in

focused, natural, and constructive revising conversations. Given the specific revision task and strategy, teachers

should determine how much time students need to discuss and revise. The time keeper in each small group or

partnership can ensure that each person has the opportunity to receive and give feedback. Working in partnerships or

in small groups of three or four, students learn to focus their attention as writers and readers.

Here is a procedure that works with partnerships and small groups:

Writer shares the writing task, purpose, audience, and genre with peer responders.

Writer identifies the revision questions he/she would like to receive feedback on. (See Appendix.)

Writer reads paper aloud slowly and clearly to peer responders. Peer responders listen carefully.

Writer invites peers to offer feedback, based on the revision questions. l Peer responders offer feedback using

PQS protocol. l Writer takes notes on own paper regarding feedback.

At the end, writer thanks peer responders. The procedure begins again with another writer.

A variation of the above procedure has the peer responder read aloud the writer's paper to the writer.

Writer shares the writing task, purpose, audience, and genre with peer responders.

Writer identifies the revision questions he/she would like to receive feedback on. (See Appendix.)

Peer responder reads aloud slowly and clearly the writer's paper. Writer and other peer responders in small

group listen carefully.

Writer invites peers to offer feedback, based on the revision questions. l Peer responders offer feedback using

PQS protocol. l Writer takes notes on own paper regarding feedback.

At the end, writer thanks peer responders. The procedure begins again with another writer.

After one or more revisions, students may wish to have more peers read their writing. Organizing the class into

groups of five to six students, the teacher collects all student papers. (Some teachers have students bring copies of

their revisions without their names, but with random, individual codes. The use of codes allows peer responders to

read the paper without knowing who the writer is.)

Each group of students receives papers from another group. Each person in the group reads a paper silently and

writes comments on a recording form. The recording form should be tailored to the revision task. For example, if the

revision task focuses on word choice, the recording form may ask students to identify the most powerful words in the

writing (Praise), to ask questions about connotations of specific words (Question), or to make suggestions about

replacing vague words (Suggest). If the revision task encompasses several traits, the recording form should identify

these traits with appropriate response prompts for the peer responders.

After the student has read a paper and written his/her responses on the recording form, the responder signs his/her

name, folds the recording form, and paper clips it to the back of the paper. The paper with the folded recording form

is passed to another student in the small group. This new responder uses a new recording form to another group.

Each person in the group reads a paper silently and writes comments on a recording form. The recording form should

be tailored to the revision task. For example, if write his/her feedback. Responders may not open and read other

responders' feedback during this process.

When all students in the small group have read and completed individual response forms, the teacher collects all

papers with the folded, paper-clipped response forms and places them in a central location in the class. The individual

writers then retrieve their own papers and open the attached response forms. As students read their peers' feedback

for revision, they notice similarities and differences in the written feedback. Since the feedback is signed, writers can

talk with their peers to clarify and continue the revision process. They can also thank their peers for their care and

attention to their writing.

APPENDIX: Model Revision Questions

1. QUESTIONS TO GUIDE THE FOCUS OF THE WRITING TASK

What is the main idea of your paper?

Who is your audience?

What is your writing purpose (to persuade, to explain, to convey experience—real or imagined)?

What are the characteristics of the genre of writing (an essay, a lab report, a story, a memo, etc.) you

have chosen?

2. QUESTIONS TO GUIDE REVISION OF IDEAS

What facts, examples, or details contribute to the development of the main idea?

What facts, examples, or details detract from the main idea?

What facts, examples, or details might be re-framed or extended to better support the main idea?

What facts, examples, or details might be added to strengthen the development of the main idea?

Does the paper contain sufficient and appropriate support of ideas to accomplish the writing purpose

for the audience?

Do the writer's main ideas and supporting ideas address the reader's questions about the topic and

purpose of the writing task?

3. QUESTIONS TO GUIDE REVISION OF ORGANIZATION

How does the introduction engage the reader?

What other types of leads might be effective for this writing?

To what extent does the thesis statement allow the reader to predict the organization of the paper?

What is the organization of the paper, (e.g., compare/contrast, chronology, cause/effect, spatial,

order of importance, problem-solution, etc.)?

Does the organizational pattern fit the purpose and genre of the writing task?

To what extent do the topic sentences and transitional devices enable the reader to follow the

organizational pattern of the paper?

How or where might the writer re-arrange the paragraphs to improve the organization?

Does the closing paragraph balance the introduction?

How effectively do the opening and closing paragraphs frame the entire paper?

4. QUESTIONS TO GUIDE REVISION OF SENTENCE FLUENCY

Does the writer use a variety of sentence beginnings?

Does the writer use a variety of sentence lengths?

Does the writer use a variety of sentence constructions?

Where might the writer use sentence-combining, sentence expansion, or sentence reduction to

enhance sentence fluency?

How effectively does the sentence fluency enhance the reader's ease and enjoyment of the paper?

5. QUESTIONS TO GUIDE REVISION OF WORD CHOICE

Are the word choices effective for the intended audience?

Are the word choices at the appropriate level of formality/informality for the purpose, topic, and

audience?

Do the word choices convey the appropriate connotation—negative or positive—for the purpose, topic,

and audience?

Where might the writer substitute more precise, powerful, and/or descriptive words for the purpose,

topic, and audience?

6. QUESTIONS TO GUIDE REVISION OF VOICE

What is the voice of the writer and is it appropriate for the purpose, audience, and context of the

writing task?

Does the voice convey the personality of the writer?

Does the voice communicate respectfully to the intended audience?

Does the voice reveal a writer who is informed and interested in the topic and audience?

Does the writer use "I" or "we" or "you" or "they" consistently and effectively?

Does the writer use alliteration, imagery, or repetition effectively for the purpose, audience and

genre?

7. QUESTIONS TO GUIDE REFLECTION ON THE REVISING PROCESS

What are the strengths of your writing?

What changes have you made from your first draft to this revised draft?

How have these changes improved your writing?

What might you continue to revise if/when you have more time?

What are you learning about your own writing and revising processes?

How do you feel about the feedback you received from your peers?

How do you feel about giving feedback to your peers?

How effectively did you and your classmates work in the revision workshop?

What did you and your partners do to make this revision workshop productive and positive?

To what extent did you and your classmates use the class norms and protocols in the revision

process?

What might you and your classmates do to improve future revising workshops?