Turning Peer Review into a Teachable Skill

Case Study

In my First-Year Writing courses at San Francisco State University, students consistently struggled with peer review—not from lack of effort, but from lack of skills-based training. To address this gap, I designed and delivered targeted instruction using Eli Review’s Describe–Evaluate–Suggest (D–E–S) model, helping students move beyond vague praise or criticism toward constructive, actionable feedback.

By scaffolding the peer review process into clear steps, integrating training modules, and reinforcing performance with structured activities, I improved the quality of student feedback, strengthened revision practices, and built transferable workplace skills.

Client

San Francisco State University — Writing Program

Focus

Peer Review Training & Writing Pedagogy

Role

Instructional Designer & Instructor

Scope

Skills Training, Curriculum Design, Classroom Facilitation, Assessment & Feedback Design

The Challenge

Students entered the course with little guidance on how to give helpful feedback. Most were accustomed to directions like “swap papers and give feedback,” which resulted in:

  • Surface-level praise or vague criticism

  • Lack of actionable guidance for revision

  • Minimal improvement in student writing after peer review

The program needed a structured, research-based approach to peer review that would:

  • Provide students with a clear framework for giving feedback

  • Improve revision quality and depth

  • Increase student confidence in both giving and receiving feedback

The Opportunity

I introduced Eli Review, a peer review platform built around best practices, and designed training to help students master the D–E–S method. The goal was not just to complete peer reviews, but to transform them into meaningful, skill-building experiences that supported long-term writing growth.

My Approach

My aim wasn’t simply to use a new platform—it was to make peer review teachable by breaking it into visible, repeatable moves.

Key Steps:

  • Initial Training: Combined Eli’s self-guided D–E–S modules with classroom activities that reinforced the framework.

  • Confidence-Building: Used real feedback samples and a one-to-five rating activity to create early wins and peer modeling moments.

  • Scaffolding: Provided sentence stems and prompts early in the term, gradually reducing supports as fluency increased.

  • Ongoing Feedback: Used helpfulness ratings from both peers and myself to track progress and reinforce accountability.

  • Rising Standards: Tied credit to D–E–S proficiency, raising thresholds from 50% alignment early to 90% by term’s end.

The Results

The training produced measurable improvements in both feedback quality and revision habits.

Key Outcomes:

  • More Specific Feedback: Student comments became clearer, more detailed, and actionable.

  • Improved Revision: By the end of the term, 90% of students attempted meaningful revision, not just surface edits.

  • Better Writing: Final essays showed gains in clarity, complexity, and rhetorical awareness.

  • Positive Student Feedback: Students reported that D–E–S “made peer review make sense” and even transferred the method to workplace contexts.

A Force Multiplier for Teaching & Student Success

By scaffolding peer review into concrete steps, I helped students see feedback as a skill, not busywork. The result was a lasting improvement in writing confidence and revision practices—benefits that extended beyond the classroom and into professional contexts.