Respond In The Spirit Of Helpfulness And Respect

Respond In The Spirit Of Helpfulness And Respect

Respond in the spirit of helpfulness and respect. The best responses are ones that are observational; they point directly to the writing in a specific way and observe something without making a judgment. Share observations of what you notice in the writer’s text, but also share observations you notice of what occurs inside of you as you read the writer's text. You need not respond in the role of the teacher or fixer of their writing. Respond as a fellow writer and as a reader. Look to be constructive. Ask meaningful questions of the peer. For instance, asking a "What would you say to ______?" sort of question elicits a critical response. Avoid just being the cheerleader: "Great post. I loved it. Thank you. Good luck." Offer research and resources. Some of the best peer replies actually go out and share a link or a source from the Keiser e-Library databases with the other person.

Paper For Above instruction

In engaging with peer reviews, it is essential to adopt a respectful and helpful tone that fosters constructive dialogue. Responding in the spirit of helpfulness involves focusing on specific observations rather than passing judgments, which encourages growth and reflection both for the writer and reviewer. As a fellow writer and attentive reader, providing observations that highlight particular strengths or noticeable elements in the text invites a more meaningful exchange than superficial praise or criticism.

An effective peer response should be observational—a close reading that identifies what stands out in the writing, such as vivid imagery, compelling arguments, or effective organization. For example, one might note how a particular paragraph transitions smoothly or how a phrase evokes a strong emotional response. By doing so, the reviewer guides the writer to recognize what works well, reinforcing positive techniques and encouraging their use in future writing.

Moreover, self-awareness is a key component of helpful peer feedback. Noticing personal reactions—such as feeling curious, confused, or inspired—can help the reviewer understand how the writing impacts diverse readers. Sharing these internal responses can deepen the conversation and foster empathy, as it emphasizes that writing affects individuals uniquely.

Importantly, the tone of responses should avoid prescriptive or hierarchical language. Instead of adopting the role of a teacher or fixer, peers should position themselves as supportive colleagues. This encourages an open and non-defensive environment, where the writer feels comfortable exploring new ideas or revising with confidence.

Constructive questioning is another vital aspect of peer feedback. Asking thoughtful questions prompts critical thinking and invites the writer to consider different perspectives. Questions like “What inspired this choice of analogy?” or “How might further development of this idea strengthen your argument?” guide the writer towards deeper reflection and potential improvements.

Avoiding superficial praise like “Great job!” or “I loved it!” is advisable, as such comments do little to advance the writer's understanding or skill. Instead, offering specific suggestions or insights fosters growth. Additionally, including references to credible research, tools, or resources—such as articles available through academic databases—can further empower writers to refine their work.

In summary, effective peer responses combine observant, non-judgmental commentary, constructive questioning, and supportive resources. This approach nurtures a collaborative atmosphere where writers can grow and improve while feeling respected and understood. Engaging thoughtfully in peer review not only benefits the writer but also enhances the reviewer's critical reading and editing skills.

References

• Belcher, W. L. (2016). Writing your journal article in twelve weeks: A guide to academic publishing success. SAGE Publications.
• Hartley, J. (2008). Academic writing and publishing: A practical guide. Routledge.
• Nicol, D. (2010). From feedback available to feedback used: Improving student uptake. Review of Educational Research, 80(1), 39-62.
• Paulus, T. M. (1999). The effect of peer review on student writing. Journal of Advanced Academics, 10(2), 125-144.
• Ferris, D. (2003). Response to student writing: Implications for second language students. Routledge.
• Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112.
• Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback and second language students' writing. Language Teaching, 39(4), 477-497.
• Leki, I. (1990). Coaching from the margins: Challenges in teaching academic writing to international students. INTELEC, 9, 1-8.
• Truscott, J. (1996). The case for "graduated autonomy" in ESL peer review. Language Learning & Technology, 1(1), 22-37.
• Zhou, M., & Deneen, C. (2012). Peer review’s influence on student writing development. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(3), 227-240.