










































Georgia Journal of Literacy 
2023, Vol. 45(2), pp. 73–80 
https://doi.org/10.56887/galiteracy.124 
ISSN: 2833-7611 

Teaching Tips 

 
 

 

CONTACT Dr. Ebony T. Lee, Acting Chief of Communications, Public Relations, and Marketing Division, Clayton 
County Public Schools, Jonesboro, GA; email ebony.lee@clayton.k12.ga.us. 
 

Moving Writing Forward Through Peer-Critique 
Partners 
 
Ebony T. Lee 
Clayton County Public Schools, Jonesboro, GA 
 

ABSTRACT 

The author describes a simple yet impactful cycle for cultivating greater engagement 
and agency among students during the writing process. Specifically, the article 
explains how the implementation of peer-critique partners who provide one another 
with criterion-based feedback repositions students from mere “passengers” to active 
“drivers” on the journey to better writing. Feedback is found to “increase [students’] 
effort, motivation, and engagement and reduce the discrepancy between the current 
status and the goal” (Hattie & Clarke, 2019, p. 3). The key is having clearly defined 
writing criteria that inform students of the goals or expectations for writing. These 
expectations should frame the feedback (e.g., comments, critiques, suggestions, 
and questions) provided from one peer to the next and move students beyond mere 
editing to true revision. Traditional commentary such as “excellent,” “good job,” or 
“more work is needed,” or over-concentration on mechanical errors is insufficient to 
move writing forward, closer to the desired outcome. Moreover, the article highlights 
four steps for effectively establishing peer-critique feedback partners. These steps 
are powerful drivers for helping students move their writing forward by implementing 
a true revision process. The article opens and concludes by emphasizing that writing 
is the evidence of thinking. For students to become more thoughtful in their written 
expression, they must have clarity, support, accountability, and some choice in the 
process. 

KEYWORDS 

writing 
engagement; 
peer-critique 
partners; writing 
support 

 
 

riting is the evidence of thinking. It helps make that which is inward outward for others 
to enjoy, learn, or be inspired (Lee, 2021). If writing adds this much value to an 
experience, why aren’t more students writing—and specifically—why aren’t more 
students writing well? One can instantly witness the shift in the classroom when the 

teacher steps forward and announces, “Okay, scholars, great discussion! Now, take out a piece of 
paper (or computer device) and write an essay that reflects the ideas you discussed in your groups.”  

A cacophony of sighs ensues. “Aww, man, why do we have to write it? How long does it 
have to be? I don’t have any paper. My computer just died!” Along with these responses is the 
obvious reluctance displayed by students’ body language—legs extended, bodies slumped, an 
elbow on the desk with chin in hand, or pencils tapping on the desk.  

As a former English teacher, I experienced these types of responses from my students early 
on; however, I eventually started observing more encouraging dispositions to writing when my 
students began seeing the value in the writing opportunity. Writing was no longer solely about the 
product—but the process—and what occurred throughout the writing process. My role versus my 
students’ roles began to shift in more meaningful ways. In this article, I describe the peer-to-peer 

W 

https://doi.org/10.56887/galiteracy.124
mailto:ebony.lee@clayton.k12.ga.us


74 Georgia Journal of Literacy 45(2)  
 

feedback cycle that was paramount to my later success in increasing students’ engagement and 
agency in the writing process.   

It is important to note that the peer-to-peer feedback process that I implemented helped my 
students understand important distinctions between editing and revising. These practices are often 
used interchangeably; however, editing focuses on addressing word or sentence-level errors, 
typically involving punctuation, spelling, or grammar mistakes. Conversely, revision requires a 
holistic examination of the writing. This may involve mechanical improvements, but revision also 
includes enhancing broader aspects of the paper, such as strengthening the voice or the argument 
in a paper, ensuring a better organizational structure, or establishing greater clarity. Having a peer 
provide feedback during the revision process enables a comprehensive and neutral review of the 
writing. To the writer, his or her argument may be clear and substantial; however, a reader may 
find the argument limited or unsubstantiated. This article focuses on how to help students use a 
peer-to-peer feedback cycle to navigate the revision process.   

In the classroom, I established expectations and strategies that moved my students from 
mere “passengers” to active “drivers” on the journey to better writing. By implementing what I 
term, peer-critique partners, my students received timelier and in-the-moment feedback to support 
the revision process. I define feedback as comments, critiques, suggestions, or posed questions 
that aim to close the gap between the current product and the desired product.  By establishing 
peer-critique partners, my students were able to receive this guidance with greater efficiency.  

What are peer-critique partners? This practice involves pairing two students to evaluate 
each other’s writing using specified criteria. During this session, they offer commendations 
(glows) and recommendations (grows) for improving their written responses. The criteria answer 
the question, “What are the goals or expectations for the writing?” These expectations are 
identified by the teacher or selected in collaboration with students, and they are influenced by the 
learning standards for the subject matter. Additionally, criteria should require students to move 
beyond mere editing at the sentence level to revising important aspects of the writing, such as 
clarity, coherence, and development.   

The writing or language standards may be most influential in language arts. Peer-critique 
partners may be required to evaluate the introductions for their essays to determine the 
effectiveness of the opening in establishing the context and purpose of the writing. Establishing 
and communicating clear writing criteria upfront ensures the feedback fundamentally helps move 
the writing forward, closer to the desired outcome.  

Of course, I would love to say this meaningful practice grew out of my thirsty pursuit of 
evidence-based research that highlights those promising practices that increase student motivation 
and writing achievement. While feedback is found to “increase [students’] effort, motivation, and 
engagement and reduce the discrepancy between the current status and the goal” (Hattie & Clarke, 
2019, p. 3), I instituted this practice due to being exhausted from grading 86 to 90 essays each 
week. Also, I felt my students were not as cognitively or emotionally engaged in the process as 
they needed to be to make meaningful enhancements to their writing. 

I knew it was important to give my students feedback, but I was the one overly consumed 
and committed in the process—and to some degree—learning more and more about improving 
writing. My students were passive recipients—like backseat “passengers” in the process. As a 
result, I redesigned my writing experiences to ensure students took a more prominent role in the 
feedback cycle. In Figure 1 below, I describe the process that I employed with my students and, 
eventually, with teachers in writing workshops as a literacy coach, K–12 language arts coordinator, 
and soon after, an assistant superintendent of curriculum and instruction. Using the technique as 



Lee 75 
 

described in this article is most appropriate for grades three and above. The process is simple, yet 
it requires a lot of patience, modeling by the teacher, and student practice to ensure their feedback 
is effective in moving writing to the next level. 

 
Figure 1: Peer-Critique Feedback Process  

     

Figure 1 summarizes each step in the process of cycling peer-critique partners through their review 
session. The following section elaborates on each step and provides specific examples of 
implementing the practice. 
 
Step 1: Ensure students have clarity of the writing criteria. 
It is challenging to hit a moving target and even more challenging to hit an unknown one. The 
teacher and students must clearly define what constitutes effective writing based on the selected 
criteria. Here, I describe how instructors can determine their criteria or the expectations for writing.  
To start, teachers should Keep it Standards-based and Simple (K.I.S.S.) to ensure feedback is 
focused and feasible. Teachers can use their state’s writing standards (e.g. Georgia Standards of 
Excellence) to prioritize the focus for the peer-critique session. The questions below provide 
further guidance on how to use the standards. 

 What is the standard of focus for the current lesson? Use the language from the standard. 
If the standard is too “meaty,” determine what knowledge and/or skill is a requisite for the 
remaining portion of the standard. For instance, this sixth-grade language arts writing 
standard (ELAGSE6W1) states: Write arguments to support claims with clear reasons and 
relevant evidence. Element a. Introduce claim(s) and clearly organize the reasons and 
evidence. From this standard, the teacher may determine that first, he or she wants to assess 
if students can introduce a claim for an argumentative paper. Therefore, as students are 
critiquing one another, they may focus on evaluating how clearly and effectively the claim 
is introduced in the writing. 

 
 

 
Step 1:                                              

Ensure students have clarity of the 
writing criteria.   

 

Step 2:                                                
Ensure students have a                      

peer-critique partner in the process 
and a method to capture the 

feedback.  

 
Step 3:                                                 

Ensure students’ feedback is 
focused on the criteria and 

includes “glows” and “grows.” 

 
Step 4:                                       

Ensure students have an 
opportunity to revise their written 
response based on the feedback.  



76 Georgia Journal of Literacy 45(2)  
 

 What standards have I already taught? In the prior section, the focus was on the current 
lesson. Here, the focus is on previously taught standards that students should continue to 
implement in their writing. Consider what standards [e.g. writing standards, language 
standards] or writing traits have already been taught that should be present in students’ 
writing. This practice holds students accountable for retaining the skills from previous 
instruction. For example, if students have learned about the importance of establishing an 
appropriate voice [e.g., overall style, word choice] in their writing, this may be a part of 
the writing criteria, along with the current standard, introducing clear and effective claims 
in the writing.  

 How can students have a voice and choice? Have students determine an area in which they 
know they need to improve and want to continue practicing during future writing tasks. In 
this instance, students may choose to focus on revising their writing by developing their 
main ideas using relevant examples and textual evidence. This option is student-determined 
and student-driven and fosters student agency in the writing process. 

Once the writing criteria have been determined, ensure students know what constitutes effective 
vs. ineffective versions of the criteria by using one or more of the following suggestions. Students 
benefit from seeing ineffective versions, too; this enables them to self-assess where their writing 
aligns more closely and make revisions accordingly. 

 Use writing exemplars. Teachers can create examples or use mentor texts that reflect 
effective examples of the writing practice teachers desire to cultivate in their students’ 
writing. For instance, through an analysis of a text that skillfully uses figurative language 
to bring ideas to life, students learn the impact that figurative language can have on 
meaning and engagement. The non-exemplars show students the outcomes of not using the 
desired writing technique. 

 Use a writer’s checklist. This tool outlines what specific standards or traits should be 
present in the writing, and it may include a section to indicate to what extent the writer 
achieves each criterion. Figure 2 provides an example of a writing checklist. 

Figure 2: Sample Writing Checklist for an Argumentative Essay 

Criteria Yes Partially No 
1. Effectively introduces claim(s)    

2. Uses an organizational strategy to present reasons and 
relevant evidence logically 

   

3. Supports claim(s) with clear reasons and relevant evidence 
using specific, well-chosen facts, details, or other information 
from credible sources and demonstrates a good understanding 
of the topic or texts 

   

4. Acknowledges and counters opposing claim(s), as appropriate    

 Use an analytical rubric. This rubric describes what standards or traits should be present in 
the writing using a continuum from ineffective (1) to extremely effective (4). The specific 
language of the levels may vary. Table 4 provides an example of an analytical rubric.  



Lee 77 
 

Students can see in advance the expectations for proficient writing, and during the peer-
critique process, peers can use the language from the rubric to provide specific feedback 
that will aid the writing piece in moving toward the desired outcome. 

Figure 4: Georgia Milestones Assessments – Opinion Rubric (Grade 3) 

Trait 1: Idea 
Development, 
Organization, 
and Coherence 
This trait 
examines the 
writer’s ability to 
effectively 
establish a point 
of view and to 
support the 
opinion with 
reasons from the 
text(s) read. The 
writer must form 
an opinion from 
the text(s) in 
his/her own 
words and 
organize reasons 
for opinion (from 
text that they 
have read) in 
order to create 
cohesion for an 
opinion essay. 

4 3 2 1 
 The student’s 

response is a 
well-
developed 
opinion piece 
that effectively 
examines a 
topic and 
supports a 
point of view, 
with reasons 
clearly based 
on text as a 
stimulus.  

 
 Effectively 

introduces a 
topic and 
clearly states 
an opinion 

 
 Creates an 

effective 
organizational 
structure to 
group reasons 

 

 The student’s 
response is a 
complete 
opinion piece 
that examines 
a topic and 
supports a 
point of view 
based on text. 

 
 Introduces a 

topic and 
states an 
opinion 

 
 Provides some 

organizational 
structure to 
group reasons 

 
 Provides 

reasons to 
support the 
opinion 

 

 The student’s 
response is an 
incomplete or 
oversimplified 
opinion piece 
that examines 
a topic and 
partially 
supports a 
point of view 
based on text.  

 
 Attempts to 

introduce a 
topic and state 
an opinion 

 
 Attempts to 

provide some 
organization, 
but structure 
sometimes 
impedes the 
reader 

 The student’s 
response is a 
weak attempt 
to write an 
opinion piece 
that examines 
a topic and 
does not 
support a text-
based point of 
view. 

 
 May not 

introduce a 
topic or state 
an opinion 

 
 May not have 

any 
organizational 
structure 
evident 

 
 
 

 
Step 2: Ensure students have a peer-critique partner and a method to capture the feedback.  
It is highly beneficial to have students involved in peer-to-peer feedback sessions. These sessions 
deepen their knowledge and command of the content (Almarode et al., 2022) and their needs to 
determine the most appropriate peer-to-peer pairing or to determine when students can freely 
choose their peer-critique partner. Ensure pairing is beneficial for both students so that reciprocal 
exchange of ideas and feedback can occur.  

Peer-critique partners should have access to the checklist, rubric, or examples shared 
previously to ensure clarity of the writing expectations, which will guide students’ feedback to one 
another. Partners should know how feedback will be captured and shared with one other. For 
example: 

 If the feedback process is occurring electronically, partners can use the Add Comment 
feature in the writing for most applications. In some applications, partners may be able to 
add a voice recording.  

 If the writing is not electronic, partners can use sticky notes and place the notes in the 
margin.  

https://us.corwin.com/author/john-taylor-almarode


78 Georgia Journal of Literacy 45(2)  
 

 Partners can use color coding, where each color represents a different criterion and 
indicates if the writing feature (e.g. detail, word choice) is a glow or a grow.  

 Partners can write feedback on the actual rubric or writing checklist.  

 Partners can verbally share their feedback, and each student is responsible for capturing 
the comments in writing. 

Teachers are encouraged to model how to work with a partner and use the various methods to 
provide feedback to a partner. Teachers may consider providing students with a choice of which 
method(s) they want to use to capture and share the glows and grows in the writing they are 
critiquing. 
 
Step 3: Ensure students’ feedback is focused on the criteria and includes “glows” 
[commendations] and “grows” [recommendations].   
Many students will not know how to give standards-based feedback that reflects a combination of 
glows and grows. Students may be more accustomed to saying, “Good job,” “I like it,” or “I don’t 
like this.”  The instructor will have to teach students how to reference specific criteria when they 
provide feedback, such as stating, “Good job of using relevant details to elaborate on your first 
main point.” Teachers will have to model this process and give feedback to their students as they 
gradually release them to work independently. Peer-critique partners should remember the 
following during feedback sessions: 

 Be respectful and focus on the writing, not the writer. 

 Be clear and specific. 

 Start with glows. [Share what was most enjoyable or effective about the writing in general 
if students are not yet exhibiting the writing traits of focus.] 

 Share the grows. [Here, feedback should be specific to the criteria.] 

 Allow the receiving partner to provide an explanation or ask any clarifying questions based 
on the feedback provided.  

 Peer-critique partners are encouraged to provide examples to complement their feedback.    

 As a courtesy, peers can thank each other for the opportunity to read and review the paper. 

To reiterate, the teacher must model this process, perhaps modeling what it should and should not 
resemble. During feedback sessions, teachers should monitor, notice, and listen to gauge how well 
partners are implementing the process, how aligned the feedback is to the specified writing criteria, 
and what are the trends and patterns in writing that may need to be revisited with the whole class 
or with smaller groups of students. 
  



Lee 79 
 

Table 3: Example of Glows and Grows Peer-Critique Chart 

Writing Criteria:  
 Introduce claims clearly and effectively [current standard]. 
 Vary sentence types for reader interest [previously taught standard]. 

The Writer: Student 1 The Peer-Critique Partner: Student 2 
Glows: I like that in your writing . . . Grows: In the future, remember . . . 
 Your claim clearly explains your position on 

students having homework. 
 Your claim would be more effective if it 

aligned with the main ideas in the remaining 
portion of your paper. 

 Most of your sentences are correctly written 
and not run-ons or fragments. 

 Select conjunctions to combine simple and 
choppy sentences in order to vary your 
sentence type. 

Additional Comments: 
 
 
 

 
Table 3 shows an example of one peer providing feedback to another using specific writing criteria, 
which involve evaluating claim statements and sentence types. Notice that one criterion is based 
on the current lesson, and another criterion is from a previously taught lesson.  
 
Step 4: Ensure students have an opportunity to revise their written responses based on 
the feedback.  
This is perhaps where the magic happens! It is great to know the criteria, it is wonderful to have a 
partner in the process, and it is remarkable to receive feedback. However, none of these steps adds 
a level of value as when students are required to revise to move the writing forward. According to 
research, “...most comments, unless they required a student response, were often ignored by 
students if the feedback comments were given out with no time allocated for students to read the 
comments, no chance to use them to improve, or where they were illegible or hard to understand” 
(Hattie & Clarke, 2019, p. 3). Of course, students can have a voice in what they choose to 
incorporate or not incorporate from the feedback session, but there must be an expectation for 
revising and editing because this is where the learning crystallizes in students’ minds. 

Revising requires students to think about their thinking and become cognitively engaged 
in the process—moving from passenger to driver. If writing is the evidence of thinking, the writer 
and the teacher must see that students really got it! And this is not verified by students merely 
stating what they will do next time. Seeing is believing! Furthermore, revising increases students’ 
self-efficacy, motivation, and confidence in writing.  One way to incorporate the revision process 
is via a strategy known as the ticket out of the door. Toward the end of the lesson, students are 
asked to revise a portion of their writing based on their peer’s feedback. The teacher has a way to 
check or review each student’s efforts before leaving the classroom. 

In conclusion, the four steps described in this article and summarized below are powerful 
drivers for helping students move their writing forward. In order for students to become more 
thoughtful in their written expression, they must have clarity, support, accountability, and some 
choice in the process. 

✔ Step 1 – Ensure students have clarity of the writing criteria. 

✔ Step 2 – Ensure students have a peer-critique partner and a method to capture the feedback. 



80 Georgia Journal of Literacy 45(2)  
 

✔ Step 3 – Ensure students’ feedback is focused on the criteria and includes “glows” and 
“grows.” 

✔ Step 4 – Ensure students have an opportunity to revise their written responses based on the 
feedback. 

The process discussed in this article will hopefully provide meaningful guidance on how 
students can take a more active role in the writing process. The implementation of the Peer-Critique 
Feedback Process allows both the teacher and students to have greater clarity on how to implement 
feedback in an impactful manner. Continue to make writing an instrumental part of your instruction 
and ensure feedback is provided in real-time; this will take students’ writing to the next level on 
their journey to writing with confidence and competence. Here’s to activating your students’ 
WriteVoice! To receive more practical strategies for teaching writing, purchase the WriteVoice 
Toolkit. Also, visit writevoicellc.com to sign up to receive writing strategies electronically.  
 
References 
Almarode, J., Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2022). How feedback works. Corwin. 

Georgia Department of Education. (2023). Georgia milestones assessment guide, grade 3. 
https://www.gadoe.org/Curriculum-Instruction-and-Assessment/Assessment/Documents/
Milestones/Assessment%20Guides/EGA125_GR03_ ELMA_AG_0001_20200925.pdf 

Hattie, J., & Clarke, S. (2019). Visible learning feedback. Routledge.  

Lee, E. (2021). Writevoice toolkit. Blue Cafe Books. 

 
Received: July 8, 2023 | Accepted: September 11, 2023 | Published: November 13, 2023 

https://www.amazon.com/WriteVoice-Toolkit-Dr-Ebony-Lee/dp/0578975475
https://www.amazon.com/WriteVoice-Toolkit-Dr-Ebony-Lee/dp/0578975475
http://www.writevoicellc.com/
https://www.gadoe.org/Curriculum-Instruction-and-Assessment/Assessment/Documents/Milestones/Rubrics/Grade_3_Rubrics.pdf
https://www.gadoe.org/Curriculum-Instruction-and-Assessment/Assessment/Documents/Milestones/Rubrics/Grade_3_Rubrics.pdf

	Figure 1: Peer-Critique Feedback Process
	Step 1: Ensure students have clarity of the writing criteria.
	Figure 2: Sample Writing Checklist for an Argumentative Essay
	Figure 4: Georgia Milestones Assessments – Opinion Rubric (Grade 3)

	Step 2: Ensure students have a peer-critique partner and a method to capture the feedback.
	Step 3: Ensure students’ feedback is focused on the criteria and includes “glows” [commendations] and “grows” [recommendations].
	Table 3: Example of Glows and Grows Peer-Critique Chart

	Step 4: Ensure students have an opportunity to revise their written responses based on the feedback.
	References

