Peer-Review Methods
Whether you are writing a manuscript, writing computer code or developing a product, you can use peer-review methods to improve your work quality and to discover problem areas. Methods of peer review can vary; no one way is better than another. As a teacher, have your students focus on conducting peer reviews. Each peer review must contain constructive criticism; the goal is to improve your project--not belittle it.
Choosing a Peer Review Method
Two common peer review methods are the inspection method and the walk-through method. According to processimpact.com, in an inspection method, the work is heavily scrutinized by your peers according to a "well-defined multistage process." Inspection methods work best to uncover defects because they are heavily structured; the entire process of review must be set forth prior to the peer review.
Less formal that complete inspections is the walk-through method. In a walk-through, the author of the work takes the leading role and guides the conversation. The author's colleagues then provide the author with comments designed to improve the work quality. Typically, walk-throughs do not have a defined procedure or specific criteria; it is more of a conversation designed to elicit constructive criticism.
When implementing a peer-review method, fit the method to your students' needs. For instance, software should probably be rigorously reviewed in an inspection-method format; software review is easy to structure and design and specific criteria can be set forth. Works of art, such as manuscripts and screenplays, might work better under a walk-through method. This is due to the more subjective nature of the work and the difficulty at prescribing specific criteria.
Using "I Heard, I Noticed, I Wondered"
Whichever method you choose, remember that the focus is to keep the process cordial, so it elicits constructive criticism and provides the person under review with useful feedback. According to Ted Nellen, an adjunct education professor at Fordham Univesity, one way to do this is through the "I head, I noticed, I wondered" model.
According to Ted Nellen, during the peer review, keep your criticism focused on what you "heard," "noticed," and "wondered." During the first step (the "I heard" phase), describe what you though the work was about. Explain what you anticipated, what you think the focus is, and what you thought the person was trying to accomplish. Next, describe what you noticed about the work. Explain what you thought worked the best and what seemed to click for you as you reviewed the work. Finally, during the "I wondered" phase, ask the person under review what questions or concerns you had while you were reviewing the work. If something was unsettling, explain the unsettling feeling. If you think something could have been worked out differently, describe that.
Using a Peer-Review Form
Consider using a peer-review form. Forms work especially well with an inspection type of peer review. The University of Washington's writing center provides you with a sample peer review form designed for a paper. You can implement forms for any type of work product. The key is to clearly denote what needs to happen during the process. Using the form, peer reviewers can follow along and provide their own answers to the specific questions on the form. Design forms to fit whatever product you are reviewing. Forms keep the conversation focused and keep the review process aimed at getting to the root of what works and what does not.
