Gallagher on the revision process:

"I tell my students that when they revise, their papers must 'move somewhere.' The 'stuff' of the paper must get better. When held side by side, the second draft must be better than the first draft. This does not mean that the commas need to be put in the correct places, which will occur later in the editing stage. This means that the substance of the paper - the writing itself - must first get better" (p. 204).

Graff on moving students beyond simply "correcting the text":

"If students are to respond to each other's drafts as they would to published texts, they need to practice responding to published texts as they would each other's drafts" (p. 81).

Graff on moving from peer feedback to revision:

"For students to make the best use of the feedback they receive from think-alouds (or any peer review), they need to see models of writers using the feedback to revise (p. 84).

Graff on benefits of read-alouds to student writing:

"Hearing their writing read in the same way they have heard published writing read can reinforce students' sense of authorship, that they are writing to communicate and must consider how their decisions affect readers" (p. 86).

Olio on the "Critical Friends" conversations:

"It really enables the writer to hear their work in another way" (Olio, as cited in Teaching Channel, 2014).

"This is really the crux to critical friends. It forces a student into an understanding that their text is indeed a text. And what they have are words. They must choose them carefully and wisely because those word choices have impact" (Olio, as cited in Teaching Channel, 2014).

"Because writing is revising, it's essential to have a strategy that compels students to apply the process of revision. And 'Critical Friends' is a strategy that accomplishes that" (Olio, as cited in Teaching Channel, 2014).

Notes:

-Helpful resource for implementing and structuring student writing groups for peer response to writing

Notes:

- Benefits of peer review for academic work

- Role of peer review in all academia

- Potential resource to motivate students to engage in constructive peer review?

-Resource to show students examples of quality constructive feedback?

Notes:

- A Creative Writing teacher forced to resign her position when parents objected to the use of peer review in the high school classroom, citing issues with idea of forcing students to read others' work.

- Ideas about importance of allowing students to opt out of peer review

Notes:

-Methods for implementing peer review described

Notes:

- Ideas about why students provide vague responses during peer review and why students ignore peer feedback

- Strategies to structure and teach effective peer review

- Thoughts about getting students to invest in peer review

Notes:

- How to plan to implement peer review in class

Notes:

- A college professor's work (for an English 101 course) detailing methods for peer review and rationale for peer review

- Multiple strategies provided

- "I purposely never use the same peer review twice in a semester for a few reasons...while one peer review activity may work for some, it leaves others confused and dissatisfied with the peer review process" (Cady, 2013, p.1).

Notes:

- Ideas on how to motivate students to invest in peer review (and why they might not)

- Ideas about how to assess peer review sessions

use one type of peer review since the

implementation timeframe is only 4 weeks.

data will be collected before you

use your chosen intervention and then

you will continue to collect data to see

how effective your intervention is.

the difference in revising and editing

is noted.

Notes:

- ideas about why students might resist peer review and assessment and/or view it negatively

Notes:

- Ideas about how formative assessment, including peer assessment, during the writing process affects students' writing