A spectrum of how to respond to writing
 
Open-ended Focused
 
Read Aloud 
(no responses)	Reply	Sayback	Highlights & holes	Voice	Strong & weak	Outline & describe	Criteria-based	
 
Descriptive Evaluative
 
Drawn from Elbow & Belanoff, A Community of Writers (2/e); Bean, Engaging Ideas; Meyer and Smith, The Practical Tutor; Elbow, Writing Without Teachers
 
•	Read Aloud: The purpose here is just to get the writer used to sharing his/her writing. The writer reads aloud, perhaps to the group as a whole, perhaps to small groups, perhaps to a single peer. The listener is instructed not to respond at all, but to listen courteously.
•	Reply: 
This form of response just asks the reader/listener to reply to the text—hence it’s a very open-ended response. The reader can choose exactly how she/he will answer the piece, but the intent here is to get readers to engage the topic and content of the piece, not to judge or evaluate the writing. Writers can and probably should participate freely in this open discussion. 
•	Sayback:
I lump both "summarizing" and "active listening" together here for brevity’s sake. In the sayback strategy, readers give a one-sentence, one-phrase, or one-word summary of what the writer wrote (either verbally or on paper), and/or the readers ask the writer if this is what he/she meant? (the sayback technique). Writers should participate as they see fit. 
Open-ended Focused
 
Read Aloud 
(no responses)	Reply	Sayback	Highlights & holes	Voice	Strong & weak	Outline & describe	Criteria-based	
 
Descriptive Evaluative
•	Highlights & holes:
This response strategy asks the reader to identify the highlights of a paper—what stood out to her/him—and to pinpoint those places where he/she wanted more—more explanation, more supporting material, more argument. This could be done strictly verbally, but it would probably enhance the effectiveness of the session if the instructor specified that each reader write down 3 highlights and 3 holes. 
•	Voice: 
In asking peer readers to describe the voice of a text, you’re really cleverly asking them to evaluate two different dimensions: the general style of the piece, and the picture of the writer that emerges (the two are, of course, inextricably linked). Practically, this might take the form of asking two questions: 1. Find one adjective to describe the writer’s tone or voice (chatty, strident, angry, etc.) and isolate a passage to illustrate that voice; 2. Write one sentence which describe what sort of person the writer is (in this piece) and locate a passage where she/he really appears most vividly to you. 
•	Strong & weak: 
One of the most tired-and-true techniques, this strategy simply asks the reader to list (2 or 3) strong points about the paper, and (2 or 3) weak points about the paper. You may want to restrict this further, depending on which where the class is in the writing process: e.g., list 2 well-stated, well-supported claims in the argument and 2 weak links in the argument. 
•	Outline & describe: 
When outlining as a response, the reader lists (in any particular order) the main idea, the main points or topics, supporting material for those points, assumptions, and suggestions for altering the organization. A descriptive outline (following Kenneth Bruffee) asks the reader to describe, for each paragraph of the text, what that paragraph says and does (summary and function). 
Tips for successful peer review sessions
A.	Setting the stage (things you might do before breaking into review groups)
•	Decide if you prefer, as a teacher, descriptive or evaluative peer responses, or something in between
•	Decide on the size of the peer review group: whole class, small group (3-5), one-on-one
•	Decide on delivery method: 1. Read aloud; 2. Photocopy for each member; 3. Pass around hard copy; 4. Send through email; 5. Post on newsgroup or Web forum
•	Decide on timing: read and respond in class? Read before class, respond in class? Read and respond outside of class time? 
•	Discuss the objectives, rationale, and procedure with the class beforehand
•	Do a "dry run" demonstration with a student paper (preferably a colleague’s student) 
•	For out-of-class reviews, or for more focused reviews, prepare questions or other stimuli on a handout.
•	Hand out and discuss some rules for group protocol
A.	During the peer review sessions
•	Allow adequate time for review sessions
•	Make sure there are adequate, legible copies of the paper or that the paper is read slowly and clearly
•	Circulate often
•	Encourage students to stay on track and to engage papers on the level of ideas.
•	Don’t expect students to give each other good stylistic advice
•	Encourage students to support their observations with examples from the draft
•	Break the routine: try different response strategies, have groups select papers to be shared with the class as a whole, have students become "experts" on grammar or usage problems, have "guest" readers
A.	After the peer review sessions
•	Have writers respond in writing to written comments from their peers
•	Discuss the peer review process with the class as a whole, and let them revise the process as needed
•	Have peer readers write on the experience of peer review