WAC article- "Can you Hear Us Now?"

"Can You Hear Us Now?" by Julie Reynolds and Vicki Russell from Duke University (WAC Journal vol 19, Aug 2008) considers whether the quality of student peer reviews vary depending upon the form in which they are delivered. In 2004, Duke University began giving each student an IPOD to support academic learning. These professors used the IPOD to review student work, creating podcasts which they would either post on blackboard or email to students. The professors felt that the audio reviews were more time effective, and resulted in feedback that stressed higher order concerns (HOC; organization, argument, etc.) and specific rather than generic comments.

Reynolds and Russell designed a study to determine whether audio peer review would improve the quality of feedback over traditional written peer reviews. They also investigated which format (audio or written) reviewers and authors preferred. The study involved 3 Duke freshman Academic Writing classes in spring, 2007. Each student received an audio and written evaluation of his work. Each peer reviewer "wrote" an equal number of reviews in both formats. At the end of the semester, 75% of the reviews were scored for quality, and 91% of students answered an attitudinal survey.

Results found:

• Audio reviews contained significantly more HOC (comments on argument, organization, etc.) than LOC (punctuation, word choice, etc.)
• Audio reviews contained more specific comments; written reviews tended to have more generic comments.
• 73% of student responders preferred to receive written peer reviews, many citing they valued LOC comments and having a hard copy. Listening to the audio and taking notes took them more time than just getting a written review.
• 72% of student responders preferred responding to another student's work in written form, siting that it was easier for them to organize their thoughts in written form.

I found it interesting that IPODs could be used for this purpose and was surprised that students preferred to write and receive peer reviews in the written format. It could be that they are just used to responding in writing, and will prefer the audio method as they become accustomed to using it. However, the technology itself couldn't be a barrier, as students are facile with IPODS. It could be that the writing process itself, putting the words on paper, forces the composer to organize and clarify his/her thoughts. On the other hand, the quality of the peer reviews was higher when audio recorded. This makes sense, as people tend to be more descriptive and expansive when they speak.

I chose this article because one of the challenges for students with a language disability is written peer conferencing and journaling. Last year, a 9th grade English teacher tried having a pair of students with learning disabilities journal about their outside reading book using tape recordings. (IPODs would have been way cooler!) The students were reluctant at first, commenting that it seemed unnatural to talk into a machine rather than write. By the end of the book, though, both felt that removing the writing piece encouraged them to be more expansive in their entries. They also found it less time consuming. My student made brief notes before taping.

The peer reviews in Renold and Russell's study were far more extensive than any we use in non-college, non-AP high school classes at JD. The audio responses ranged from 2-30 minutes (mean=10; SD=6); written peer reviews ranged from 213 to 705 words (mean=496; SD=146). The authors append instructions they gave their reviewers and authors which provide comprehensive criteria and standards that I will consider when designing peer review sheets. In our high school classes, the peer reviews tend to be more superficial and generally focus on LOC. From what I have observed, peer reviews do not tend to be truly helpful in the composing process. These are often superficial, viewed as one more step that needs to be turned in "for full credit." Authors often don't understand the cryptic comments of the reviewers--- due to poor handwriting, lack of specific detail, or both. The study suggests that using an audio format fosters more HOC feedback. Students might enjoy recording a pod cast, uploading, and downloading. Usually the more technology, the higher the interest in the task; the higher the interest in the task, the more invested the student. Using an audio format might make the peer review process more meaningful. I know our school won't be providing IPODS (!), but I think the use of audio peer reviews should be considered as an alternative and/or modification in high school classes.

If you want to read the article, I'll try to provide a link to the article. Nothing venured, nothing gained!

Barb