Peer Review Skills

Overview

This lesson introduces clear, supportive peer-review strategies so students can improve their drafts collaboratively. It builds on students’ recent writing planning and drafting in Adventures with Varjak Paw by focusing on evaluation and editing, specifically how to give effective feedback.

Learning intentions

• Students will learn how to give constructive peer feedback on a partner’s writing draft.
• Students will practise using a simple checklist to assess whether writing meets the purpose and audience.
• Students will improve their own editing by responding to peer comments.
• Students will use layout devices and cohesive linking ideas to make drafts clearer (where relevant to the draft focus).

Success criteria

• I can give feedback that is kind, specific, and helpful (not just “good” or “needs work”).
• I can identify at least one strength and one improvement using evidence from the text.
• I can suggest an actionable next step (what to change and where).
• I can revise my draft after peer feedback to make it clearer or more effective.

Curriculum links

• Vocabulary, grammar and punctuation (Year 6): linking ideas across paragraphs using cohesive devices, repetition of words/phrases, grammatical connections, and ellipsis.
• Vocabulary, grammar and punctuation (Year 6): evaluate and use structures appropriate for formal writing.
• Writing (composition): plan their writing by identifying audience and purpose and using models; evaluate and edit by assessing the effectiveness of their own and others’ writing.
• Writing (composition): use layout devices to structure text clearly (headings, sub-headings, columns, bullets or tables).

Lesson structure (60 minutes)

1. 0–5 min · Warm-up: feedback language. Teacher shows sentence frames on the board (e.g., “A strength is… because…”, “I wonder if…”, “Can you try…?”). Students quickly sort example phrases into “helpful” vs “not helpful”.

2. 5–12 min · Model peer review. Teacher displays a short anonymised extract from a student draft (or teacher-created example), then “thinks aloud” using the checklist: identify a strength, locate evidence, and make one specific improvement suggestion. Students underline the evidence the teacher used.

3. 12–20 min · Prepare for reviewing. Teacher explains the review process and expectations: feedback must be actionable and referenced to a specific sentence or section. Students receive peer checklist + a highlighter set (green for strengths, orange for improvements). They reread their partner’s draft once for overall understanding.

4. 20–35 min · Peer review in pairs (Round 1). Teacher circulates to prompt depth: “Where is that in the text?” and “What exactly would you change?” Students complete checklist comments with at least: 1 strength, 1 improvement, 1 link to a “next step”.

5. 35–42 min · Quick review share (whole class). Pairs briefly share one high-quality feedback comment they wrote. Teacher reinforces features of strong feedback (specific, evidence-based, respectful, clear action).

6. 42–52 min · Apply feedback to revise (individual). Students use peer feedback to revise their own draft. They must choose at least one improvement to make, or explain in a margin note why they kept their original wording. Teacher gives a “revision target” option box (e.g., add a clearer linking phrase, reorganise a paragraph, tighten a sentence, improve layout with a heading/subheading).

7. 52–60 min · Editing check + exit ticket. Students do a final quick self-check using a mini version of the checklist (strength, improvement, change made). Exit ticket: “One peer comment that helped me was… I changed… because…”

Resources

• Peer-review checklist (printed or on a device) with sentence-starter prompts
• Draft copies for partner review (anonymised if needed)
• Highlighters/colour pens (green for strength, orange for improvement)
• Revision target prompt cards (cohesion, clarity, structure/layout, grammar/punctuation)
• Teacher model extract (projected)
• Self-review mini checklist for the final 8 minutes

Assessment

• Teacher listens during peer review using a simple observation note: evidence-based comments, clarity of next steps, appropriate tone.
• Collection of checklists: look for at least one strength and one actionable improvement grounded in text.
• Exit ticket to confirm students applied feedback and can justify revisions.

Differentiation

• Support: Provide sentence starters, a reduced checklist (fewer items with clearer prompts), and a worked example tailored to the current draft focus (e.g., “link ideas between paragraphs”).
• Support: Offer a “marking guide” for students: they highlight evidence first, then write the comment referencing that highlight.
• Targeted teacher conferencing: identify 2–3 pairs needing help to move from vague feedback to specific evidence-based advice.
• Extension (advanced learners): Require an additional “why” comment and a second revision attempt—students must add one cohesive device (repetition/ellipsis/adverbial connection) and explain how it improves the reader’s understanding; then verify by rereading the revised paragraph for clarity and flow.

Extension (optional)

• Students who finish early revise one more section and write a 2–3 sentence “editor’s note” describing the improvements made and the impact on the reader.