• If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • You already know Dokkio is an AI-powered assistant to organize & manage your digital files & messages. Very soon, Dokkio will support Outlook as well as One Drive. Check it out today!



Page history last edited by Priscilla Patten 5 years, 2 months ago

Jesnek, L. M. (2011). Peer editing in the 21st century college classroom: Do beginning

            composition students truly reap the benefits? Journal of College Teaching and Learning,

            8(5), 17-24. Retrieved from http://proxy-iup.klnpa.org/login?url=https://search-proquest-


Article Summary

In this article, Jesnek indicated that peer editing does not make better college writers, especially among those students in lower level composition courses due to the varied writing proficiencies of these college writers. Jesnek conceded that although peer editing is utilized and positively regarded as a useful tool by most composition professors, these professors should listen to the input from students regarding the strengths and weaknesses of peer editing and be willing to accommodate students’ concerns with items such as the peer-editing rubric. The author argued that there are issues with the facilitation of peer editing, and there are no clear-cut ways to fix it.

Article Assessment

Jesnek has effectively made the case that peer-editing collaboration has oftentimes been a failure in the classroom as it relates to lower-level English composition students. Jesnek argued that  teachers and other professionals in the field need to communicate with students about the effectiveness of peer editing. Jesnek cited a study by Brammer and Reese from 2007. Jesnek’s strengths in this article include her sharing several pieces of feedback from her students regarding their dissatisfaction with the peer editing process. Her students’ dissatisfaction had to do with the quality and type of peer feedback they received. Weaknesses in this article include that Jesnek has conceded to more benefits than failures of employing peer-editing collaborative techniques in the classroom overall for students, but for students in first-year English composition classrooms and those who are lower level, Jesnek has argued that peer editing can be harmful. Jesnek did not share considerable examples of how “harmful” peer editing can be for these particular students, nor did this author discuss types of peer editing workshops and techniques that are employed.

Key Article Quotation 

Subject: Peer Editing Effectiveness

Jesnek (2011) argued, “Since peer editing is inherently designed to directly benefit students and not, although perhaps it does indirectly, cater to the goals of our colleagues, our administrators, and our universities, we, as composition teachers, should consult the students about its effectiveness—not ourselves” (p. 23).

Annotated by Priscilla Patten (2018)

Comments (0)

You don't have permission to comment on this page.