I’ve been working on finding new ways to incorporate peer editing in my classes, and this term, I tried two new things. First, I tried a highly prescriptive format that drew on the readings from the textbook (Writing First) and gave students very explicit directions about what to read for, what to comment on, and how and when to respond to their peers. This was called a “Round Robin” peer editing approach because groups of three or four students read each others’ papers and provided different types of feedback to each other. For instance, in a group with students A, B, C, and D:
Student A reads B for development question, C for mechanical issues, and D for organization and unity.
B reads C for development, D for mechanics, and A for organization.
C reads D for development, A for mechanics, and B for organization.
D reads A for development, B for mechanics, and C for organization.
This approach worked well in some respects. Everyone was able to get feedback, and most everyone had at least one review that they found constructive/helpful. Everyone was also challenged to look specifically at another person’s paper with some of my grading criteria in mind, and this seems to have made students improve their own writing in these categories, too.
The area in which this didn’t work well was, of course, that some students simply didn’t engage with the assignment very thoroughly. Some completely ignored the mechanics review, and others tried to answer open-ended development questions with just “yes” or “no.” What did work nearly every time was engaging students to write each other letters. They seemed to take this more seriously and really get into discussing points with each other and, wonder of wonders, the students actually responded to each other online about the letters. That discussion was exactly what I’m looking for.
In the coming term, I’ll be working on incorporating more online peer editing. I’ve created (and posted) a Guide to Respectful Feedback that my classes will be reading during the first week to get things kicked off.
The 40-Hour Adjunct 
I like the way the different goals of editing were transparent in the structure you were using. My experience is that students need practice working with individual strands of the editing process, and that by making them aware of the strands you are helping them break down the monumental and overwhelming task of writing to manageable proportions.
It’s also intriguing that the students wrote letters with more gusto, although I wasn’t sure what the review format was that they gave less attention to. I’ve been finding that the less students make things for me and the more they make them for other students the higher the quality – is that consistent with what you are seeing?