Dear colleagues,

I strongly believe that encouraging students to exchange peer feedback contributes to the development of better writing skills. I have been conducting empirical studies to reveal the most convenient method of implementing peer feedback in writing classes for several years. As you already know, the most problematic two issues in practice are low quality peer feedback coming from low-level students and students' reluctance to criticise their friends. To prevent these problems, I developed 'Anonymous multi-mediated writing model' and enabled a balanced distribution of asymmetrical and symmetrical feedback in an anonymous way. To implement this model, I subcategorize my students in accordance with their writing proficiency as ‘good’, ‘moderate’ and ‘weak’ and match each student's submission with a paper from each subcategory. So, each student receives feedback from three peers and revise his/her paper by considering all feedback. This encourages the development of better metacognitive skills as the there might be contradictory feedback coming from peers. Indeed, this is what may happen when we submit a manuscript to be considered for publication. What do you think about this model? And do you have any other suggestions for better peer feedback exchange? Any suggestion would be most welcome.

Dear Gill Rowell, unfortunately I cannot match my students as I wish anymore. I was allowed to this at Step 2 (distribution) of PeerMark Settings, however, the module disabled this option. Maybe you can contact some technical people at Turnitin and make this option available again. Thanks in advance...