Peer Response Protocols and Procedures

Giving students a protocol—an established set of rules or guidelines to follow—during peer response workshop sessions can keep pairs or groups focused and on task. For information about how and why to incorporate peer response activities, see Benefits of Peer Response.

Why a protocol?

Many instructors have had success with using brief protocols such as the think-pair-share protocol and the use of exit slips at the end of a lecture. Similarly, peer response activities also benefit from protocols that offer clear guidelines and a structure that supports good and productive interaction between students. There are many kinds of protocols that can be used for peer response. Here are four that can be used, adapted, and combined to fit most writing contexts, whether you’re teaching a large- or small-enrollment course, and working in an onsite, online, or hybrid environment.

Protocol #1: Ask Questions

This approach can be used effectively when time is short and the instructor wants students to focus on just a few key, big-picture features in the writing and to resist making correction-oriented comments.

Sample: Either in the margins or end of the draft, ask three questions that would strengthen the paper if answered. You might, for example, ask for more clarity on a specific point, request additional evidence that may strengthen an argument or point, or question choices made about organization or formatting, etc.

Protocol #2: Guided Response

This approach asks students to read each other’s papers, lab reports, technical memos, etc. with specific criteria in mind. Often these criteria will be articulated in rubrics and/or communicated on the assignment sheet.

Sample: Use the following questions to guide your feedback.

Consider the thesis:

  • What do you think the thesis of the paper is? In your own words, write out what you think the writer is trying to assert and prove.
  • Does the thesis statement meet our criteria: debatable and of aligned scope for a 4-to-6-page paper?  

Consider the reasoning:

  • Are there any arguments that you feel are brushed aside too quickly? If so, which ones and why?
  • Can you think of any arguments or counter-arguments the paper should consider, but hasn’t? Try to think of a couple and write them down or insert a comment in the margins of the document.

Consider the style:

  • Which words did you as a reader find yourself wondering about? Which sentences or phrases were a little tricky for you to understand, or caused you to pause?" 

Protocol #3: Descriptive Response

This approach encourages students to focus on their experience as readers. Because it avoids closed-ended questions and judgmental prompts, descriptive response often elicits more time on task and yields more feedback.

Sample (from Peter Elbow’s “Questions for Non Evaluative or Non Critical Responding”):

  • Which words or sections do you like or remember?
  • What do you want to hear more about?
  • As a reader, what are your thoughts on the topic? Where do you agree or disagree?
  • Give “movies of your mind” as you are reading: if you are reading alongside the writer, tell the story of the actual thoughts, feelings, and reactions that go through your mind as you are reading. If you are reading the paper by yourself, then periodically interrupt your reading and write down on paper or insert a comment on a word document that reflects what has been going on in your mind as you read. 

Protocol #4: Group Response

When conducted in groups, peer response affords multiple perspectives for each writer, often demonstrating the need for writers to make informed and deliberative choices when revising. Because the process of exchange and circulation of drafts is more elaborate, group response benefits not just from protocols but also from clear procedural directions for giving and getting feedback and for the rotating roles of various members of the group. Also, because it can be difficult for peers to provide focused and constructive commentary on a draft minutes after they’ve read a draft or partial draft, initial commenting can take place before the class meets. Whatever procedure an instructor chooses for group response, it is important to indicate for students what they need to do in advance of a group meeting, whether it is held in class or synchronously online. Here are three examples of group-based response procedures for synchronous (onsite or online) meetings. These procedures can be adapted to fit class contexts and the time allotted for group response.

Peer Workshop Procedure #1:

  1. Appoint a timekeeper who then divides time evenly among members.
  2. Writer talks: identify concerns, questions, revisions (no apologies).
  3. Group members discuss the work based on their pre-class reading, talking from drafts & guidelines. Stay focused on the big picture (this means not commenting on surface issues like typos or grammar).
  4. Writer remains silent and takes notes on the discussion, and refrains from answering or asking questions at this stage.
  5. Writer recaps/summarizes & asks questions
  6. If time remains, the writer talks through what they plan to prioritize as they continue revising
  7. After all drafts have been discussed, members hand over marked drafts (make sure names of peer readers are noted).
  8. Each member of the peer group devises a revision action plan (to be turned in w/2nd draft).

Peer Workshop Procedure #2:

  1. Appoint a timekeeper who then divides time evenly among members.
  2. Writer distributes draft and identifies concerns, questions, revisions (no apologies).
  3. Writer reads their own work aloud, or asks a peer group member to do so. Group members make notes on their drafts during the read-aloud.
  4. Group members discuss the work with the writer: talk from drafts & guidelines. Stay large-picture (that means no comments on surface issues like typos, grammar).
  5. Writer recaps.
  6. Next writer distributes drafts.

Peer Workshop Procedure #3:

  1. In pairs or groups, writers rotate drafts.
  2. Peers read, making comments and handing the draft on.
  3. Once all drafts have been read, start peer workshop procedure #1 or #2.

A Few More Protocols

Technology in Peer Response

In-Person, Online, and Hybrid Peer Response Activities

In recent years, many courses have shifted online, and even some faculty teaching in-person courses have chosen to shift peer response from in-class practice to online platforms. Research comparing peer review in both modes suggests that both can be effective in improving students’ writing over a semester.

Both in-person and asynchronous modes have their own affordances and constraints. In-class interactions can strengthen students’ empathy and engagement as they must engage in rich interaction with peer reviewers, actively negotiating meaning, and students may attend more to interpersonal dimensions of feedback such as tone when their peers are physically present and reacting to their feedback. It can also be easier to discourage GenAI use in an in-person format, if that is a goal in your course.

On the other hand, asynchronous online platforms can provide students with more time to read and process their peers’ work before responding, and students receive a static copy of their peers’ responses, which can be helpful to many students. (For instance, Awada & Diab (2021) highlight particular benefits for non-native English speakers.) Online peer review may also offer greater psychological safety and/or accessibility for some students. By making a few thoughtful adaptations and leveraging tools like Google Docs, the Canvas Discussion forum or Canvas-integrated peer response tools like FeedbackFruits, the protocols outlined above can easily be implemented in online formats.

Here is an example of a Canvas-based peer response protocol:

Peer Response: Workshopping Research Questions

  1. Create a discussion post sharing 2-3 research questions that you are interested in pursuing for your project. These may be new versions of questions you generated in your previous assignment, or, they may be new questions you've come up with since you started brainstorming. Post your questions by DATE.
  2. After everyone has shared their discussion questions by DATE, return to this discussion board to read your group members' questions and post a reply to them offering feedback on those questions. In each reply, you can, of course, offer words of encouragement—why you see their chosen topic and questions as compelling, important, relevant, etc. But your peers would also appreciate some constructive feedback, too. For instance, you could:
    • Suggest alternative phrasings for the questions to keep them open-ended and help the writer avoid confirmation bias. 
    • Make "You might want to look into ____" type comments to share related sources, terms/keywords, related concepts or disciplines, etc. that the writer might find helpful as they continue their research.
    • If the scope of the question(s) seems too broad, point out ways that the writer might narrow/refine, either now or after further research. Are there specific terms or phrases within the question that seem particularly broad? If so, point those out.
  3. Respond to each of your group mates by DATE.

You can also develop hybrid activities that incorporate some of the best of both worlds, for instance by giving students time to read and process others’ texts outside of class before participating in face-to-face group discussions. Regardless of the mode you choose, structured protocols that help students engage as fellow readers rather than fixating on correction will enhance students’ peer review experience.

GenAI and Peer Review

With GenAI tools readily available, some instructors and students might be inclined to forgo peer response activities. Why spend the time when GenAI can offer simultaneous feedback, 24/7? However, just as peer and instructor feedback are not interchangeable, participating in peer response activities offers unique benefits to students that can’t be matched by AI feedback. The process of peer response fosters genuine interaction among peers who share the same course context, shared experiences, and learning materials. The protocols above emphasize the role of the human, at times, idiosyncratic reader. They are designed to provide the writer with an authentic reader response, not corrections or fixes. Writers retain agency over and engagement with their work as they negotiate the interpretations of multiple readers. Writers also benefit from reading and responding to others’ texts. To explore further, see Can AI Feedback Replace Peer Response? on the Benefits of Peer Response page and Is Peer Response Still Relevant in the Era of Generative AI Feedback?

Some faculty may choose to allow students to use GenAI to augment their work in responding to peers, while others may opt to ban GenAI in peer review entirely. Regardless of your expectations, it’s important that you communicate clear guidelines with students as you share your peer response protocol. Some limits on GenAI use are important to share in any course—for instance, it’s important to highlight that students should not input peers’ work into a GenAI tool without consent and shouldn’t use tools that are not approved by the University. Beyond that, if you allow GenAI in peer reviews, build protocol(s) that make sense for your peer review structure and course rather than allowing a free-for-all. Research shows that different approaches to prompting AI for feedback produce very different responses, resulting in different levels of student engagement. Helping students identify appropriate strategies for prompting will enhance not only their peers’ feedback experience, but their GenAI literacy.