Peer Review Skills

Overview

In this lesson, students use a checklist to give and receive constructive peer feedback on their literary analysis drafts. They focus on clarity of claims, evidence use, organisation, and writerly choices, linked to the unit theme: exploring cultural voices in literature.

Learning intentions

Students will be able to:

• Apply a peer review checklist to identify strengths and areas to improve in a literary analysis draft
• Give specific, respectful feedback that helps a writer make purposeful revisions
• Use feedback to set 1–2 clear revision goals for their next draft
• Reflect on how feedback supports communication of cultural perspectives in literature

Success criteria

I can…

• Use the checklist to comment on claim, evidence, explanation, and structure
• Write feedback that is specific (not general), respectful, and actionable
• Identify at least two high-impact improvements to apply to my own draft
• Justify one revision decision using my writing intent (including cultural voice)

Curriculum links

• Literary analysis: planning, drafting and editing to improve meaning and structure
• Using evidence effectively to support interpretations of texts
• Comprehending and responding to texts, including cultural perspectives
• Editing for cohesion, clarity, and language choices that strengthen audience impact

Lesson structure (70 minutes)

1. 0–5 min | WALT focus + outcomes Teacher explains WALT: peer review techniques. Students review the lesson success criteria and the goal of helping each other strengthen literary analysis of cultural voices.

2. 5–12 min | Model peer feedback (teacher or exemplar) Teacher displays a short excerpt from a student-style analysis paragraph (anonymous) and demonstrates how to use the checklist to give feedback. Students practise turning vague comments into actionable ones (e.g., “Add evidence” → “Use one quotation and explain how it shows… and connect to your claim.”).

3. 12–20 min | Checklist walkthrough + roles Students receive peer review checklist sheets. In pairs, assign roles: Writer and Feedback Provider. Roles swap once or after the first round of comments. Teacher highlights what to include: one strength, one improvement, and a suggested next step.

4. 20–35 min | Round 1 peer review: claims and evidence Feedback Provider reads the draft silently, then writes checklist-aligned comments. They aim for 3–5 targeted notes: claim clarity, evidence choice, and explanation. Teacher circulates, prompting students to make feedback specific to the text.

5. 35–45 min | Writer reflection: ask + clarify Writer reads the feedback and chooses one comment to discuss. They may ask one clarification question: “What evidence could I use?” or “Which sentence is unclear and why?” Teacher uses brief conferences to ensure feedback is respectful and useful.

6. 45–58 min | Round 2 peer review: structure and language Pairs continue using the checklist to comment on organisation (topic sentences, paragraph flow), coherence (linking ideas), and language choices (precision, tone, terminology). Students add suggested edits at the sentence level where appropriate (e.g., recommend a stronger link phrase or more explicit explanation).

7. 58–70 min | Revision goals + quick submission Each student completes a “Next Steps” section: choose 1 strength to keep and 1–2 improvements to make. Students submit their revision goals (and optionally one small edited paragraph) for teacher review. Teacher reminds them that revision targets must improve communication of cultural voice.

Resources

• Peer review checklist (claims, evidence, explanation, structure, language, audience clarity)
• Draft paragraphs or full drafts from Lesson 18
• “Next Steps” revision template (1 keep + 1–2 revise goals)
• Highlighters or sticky notes for marking evidence and unclear areas
• Pens/pencils and scrap paper for suggested wording
• Teacher exemplar paragraph and model feedback sheet
• Pairing cards: Writer / Feedback Provider

Assessment

• Formative: teacher monitors peer feedback quality using a quick observation focus (specificity, evidence-based comments, respectful tone)
• Formative: students submit revision goals indicating clear, checklist-aligned next steps
• Diagnostic: teacher spot-checks whether feedback addresses claim/evidence/explanation and cultural voice interpretation

Differentiation

• Support: provide a partially completed checklist sentence starter bank (e.g., “Your claim is strong because…”, “Add evidence by…”, “Explain how this shows…”)
• Support (dyslexia-friendly reading): offer audio-recorded checklist instructions and allow students to read excerpts aloud to their partner
• Extension: require an additional higher-order comment (e.g., suggest a counter-interpretation the writer could address, or improve integration of cultural perspective with textual evidence)
• SEN/EAL: allow code-switching for planning feedback; students then translate into clear standard English for the final comment. Offer a smaller feedback target (e.g., focus on two checklist categories only) for students who need reduced cognitive load