Barrett, The Honors College at Arizona State University is committed to developing capable, ethical, and engaged scholars. As one of ASU’s signature honors programs, Barrett offers an enriched educational experience by providing mentorship and opportunities for hands-on learning. At the core of Barrett is a community of bright, motivated students and dedicated faculty who push each other to achieve academic excellence.
One aspect of the Barrett experience that cultivates scholarly growth is the peer essay review process. As part of Barrett’s required honors seminars, students write several analytical essays each semester on interdisciplinary topics. To improve their writing skills and gain insight from peers, students participate in a structured review of their draft essays before submitting final versions to instructors.
The peer review process begins after students complete a first draft of their essay assignment. Students share their draft electronically with two to three of their peers in the same seminar using secure file sharing within the Barrett online learning system. Reviewers are given clear guidelines on providing constructive feedback and are asked to focus comments in specific areas such as thesis formulation, argument development, organization, analysis of source material, clarity of writing, mechanics, and formatting.
Reviewers carefully read and analyze their peers’ essays, taking notes on strengths and places for improvement. They are instructed to approach reviews with an empathic, solutions-oriented mindset to help writers strengthen their work. Within 2-3 days, reviewers post their comments directly onto the draft essays using comment and suggest features in Microsoft Word. This embedded feedback allows writers to easily see exactly which parts of their writing the comments reference.
Reviewers are also asked to complete a rubric rating multiple elements of the paper’s overall effectiveness. The rubric scores provide a high-level snapshot of an essay’s strengths and weaknesses according to Barrett’s Honors-level writing standards. At the same time, written comments give nuanced, paragraph-level guidance. Together, embedded comments and rubric ratings create a comprehensive peer assessment.
After receiving peer reviews, writers have time to read, reflect, and decide how to incorporate the feedback into their revised drafts. Students commonly strengthen thesis statements, deepen analyses, tighten organizational structure, improve stylistic elements, correct mechanical errors, add or cut content based on peer recommendations. This iterative drafting process, guided by multiple perspectives, helps elevate the quality of final submissions.
To facilitate useful peer reviews, Barrett offers training modules to instruct students on how to provide thoughtful written feedback and use rubrics to assess writing holistically. Reviewers learn to identify essay components clearly, give actionable suggestions for improvement, and avoid unconstructive criticism. Through practice reviews with sample papers, students calibrate their skills in the Barrett annotation style.
Additionally, some seminars may allocate class time for informal peer workshops where small groups discuss drafts verbally. Face-to-face interaction allows for clarifying questions and live feedback exchanges that written reviews alone cannot provide. Workshops foster community and enable further refinement before essays’ due dates.
Overall, Barrett’s structured peer review system develops essential writerly and reviewer competencies. Rather than only receiving feedback from instructors, students gain experience critically reading their peers’ work and thoughtfully advising revisions – skills directly transferable to critiquing others’ writing in future courses and careers. At the same time, learning to incorporate peer input strengthens student authors’ collaborative mindsets and abilities to evaluate multiple viewpoints on their own scholarship.
Some potential benefits of Barrett’s peer review approach include:
Improved essay quality. Writers benefit from obtaining detailed formative feedback from multiple sources to advance their drafts. This iterative process, guided by comments on several drafts over time, enhances final submitted papers.
Writing skill development. Students hone their abilities to thoughtfully analyze writing elements like thesis statements, argument structure, evidence use, flow, and mechanics – all crucial to advancing as scholarly authors.
Critical thinking growth. Reviewing peers’ work necessitates close reading, identifying strengths/weaknesses logically, and advising revision strategies – higher-level thinking that Barrett’s approach cultivates.
Collaborative learning. Students learn from each other’s varying perspectives through sharing drafts and exchanging suggestions. This fosters community engagement and cooperative learning models emphasized in Barrett.
Self-reflection. Reading peer reviews prompts student authors to evaluate their own writing metacognitively and strategize self-revisions.
Reduced grading burdens. With peers providing layered feedback, instructors can focus grading on final submissions rather than formative draft comments.
Barrett’s peer review system also presents some potential drawbacks:
Inconsistency. Different students may approach reviews with varying levels of insight, care, or analytical skill compared to instructor assessments.
Bias risks. Close peer relationships could influence reviews, for better or worse. Students may go easier on friends’ papers than impartial instructors.
Calibration challenges. It takes experience for students and instructors alike to reliably assess writing through rubrics and gauge proficiency expectations.
Workload increase. Adding the review component requires more time commitment from all involved to complete quality reviews along with their own drafting.
Barrett mitigates these downsides through extensive student training, calibration activities, clear review guidelines emphasizing objectivity, and instructor oversight of the process. With applied best practices and guidance by faculty experts, peer review fosters growth for both student authors and reviewers. It serves as a hallmark of Barrett’s emphasis on mentorship and collaborative scholarship central to honors education.
Barrett’s structured peer review system is an impactful component of the honors experience. By positioning students as active teaching and learning participants reviewing each other’s work, it enhances key writing and critical thinking skills. The iterative process of drafting, gaining layered feedback, and revising cultivates stronger final papers meeting Barrett’s high standards. Peer review prepares Barrett graduates to be thoughtful collaborators and authors throughout their academic and professional careers. Its benefits help fulfill Barrett’s mission of empowering scholars prepared to positively influence their communities.
Andrew Stroud