The Language Teacher
December 2001
The Five Cs Checklist: A Key to Successful Peer Reviewing
Takada Tomoko
Gakushuin Girls Junior & Senior High School
QUICK GUIDE
Key Words: Writing, peer review
Learner English Level: Lower intermediate to advanced
Learner Maturity Level: College and up
Preparation Time: 20 minutes to read each essay and organize a review session
Activity Time: 30 minutes to introduce the five Cs, 10-30 minutes to review each essay
Peer reviewing has become a common activity in the ESL/EFL writing classroom since the process approach was introduced from L1 composition pedagogy to the L2 setting in the 1980s. By interacting with a real audience during the writing process, learners develop awareness of the needs and expectations of their readers (Mangelsdorf, 1992). However, some learners are not comfortable with this beneficial technique. Asian students, in particular, who are learning English in a teacher-centered, accuracy-oriented classroom, do not seem able to take the full advantage of its benefits (Sengupta, 1998). Another obstacle is an underdeveloped level of critical and logical thinking skills even in their L1. Japanese students generally do not receive systematic L1 writing instruction in secondary schools (Ochi & Davies, 1999). Under such circumstances, it is unrealistic to expect them to serve as critical readers for their classmates in L2. Knight (2000) reports that some Japanese students need a while to grasp that good, clear English is written in clear paragraphs with clear topics.
The five Cs checklist, a guideline for good writing, is a blessing for EFL teachers who need to impart what good writing entails. The five Cs represent five criteria required of good writing: complete, clear, correct, concise, and considerate (Lederer & Dowis, 1995). This checklist provides five specific perspectives from which students should read their fellow writers products critically. This has originally been designed for L1 writers, but I apply it to the EFL setting by prioritizing the five items according to the nature of EFL learners weaknesses. I introduce this device by having my students read a chapter from Lederer and Dowis (1995) for homework and discussing it in class. Then I model peer reviewing using their first drafts.
1. Complete
I start with checking if the writing is complete. Students often fail to write all the information they need to provide to convey their message. Take a two-page essay titled My Favorite Novel for example. The student writes that she likes the novel very much, that she cries whenever she reads it, and that she wishes she could write such a wonderful story. But she fails to describe why the novel moves her. This is where I introduce the concept of a topic sentence and its supporting sentences. Students learn that without enough support their writing is not complete.
2. Clear
A sentence that is not clear often involves inappropriate word choice, which may interfere with communication. I put clarity ahead of correctness because semantically unclear sentences are more likely to be unintelligible than grammatically incorrect sentences (Khalil, 1985). In one essay the writer says, In his story, there are usually dead people. That people are kind and always help the hero, which apparently strikes readers as strange. I ask the writer what her original intention was, and help her rewrite the passage. It may end up like this: The characters in his novel often communicate with the spirits of deceased friends or family members, who love, care, and support them. As this example shows, correction of semantic errors can generate a byproduct -- correction of grammatical errors.
3. Correct
Although grammatical accuracy tends to take a back seat to fluency in the current trend of communicative teaching, an acceptable level of accuracy should be expected of an essay that is addressed to an academic community. Besides, incorrect sentences can endanger clarity. Assuring students that they should not be afraid of making mistakes in casual talking, I make it clear that formal writing requires higher standards since we have time to monitor ourselves. After my lecture about completeness and clarity, I ask my students to volunteer to correct any errors they have detected since grammar correction is a somewhat familiar activity for Japanese students.
4. Concise
Circumlocution is a common occurrence in students writing because of their limited English proficiency. Also, it often results from their desperate efforts to meet the length requirement. I cross out redundant words and phrases to replace them with more succinct expressions.
5. Considerate
The fifth criterion is for double-checking that the revision is completed. When the draft becomes complete, clear, correct, and concise, it meets the last criterion: it is considerate towards readers. Thus I finalize my peer review modeling by reminding my students of the importance of the audiences perspective.
The prerequisite for this technique is a non-threatening, carefree classroom. I wait a few months for the students to get to know each other before I model peer review. I increase the amount of interactions with my students as I model peer reviewing, speaking less and having them speak more. Thus, peer review modeling gradually turns into class review. I print essays of all my 30 students for class review so that no student may feel her essay has been picked out for criticism. When I give them writing assignments, I tell them that everyone is lucky to have an opportunity to get feedback from classmates.
Every session is rigidly structured, starting with the question: Is the writing complete? Then I go on to clear, correct, concise, and considerate. I repeat these five C words like a mantra. Because of this fixed format, the students soon become familiar with these concepts, and consequently we spend less time reviewing one essay. The required time is reduced from 30 minutes to 10-15 minutes by the time we finish reading all 30 essays.
It is challenging to help students develop readers perspectives in writing, but the five Cs checklist makes this endeavor fruitful. I begin to see concrete, accurate, and straight-to-the-point feedback in my students comments in place of vague, general, impressionistic statements. At this point students are ready for independent peer review sessions in pairs.
References
Khalil, A. (1985). Communicative error evaluation: Native speakers evaluation and interpretation of writer errors of oral EFL learners. TESOL Quarterly, 19(2), 335-351.
Knight, T. (2000). Meeting a new class in writing. The Language Teacher, 24(9), 38-39.
Lederer, R. & Dowis, R. (1995). The Write Way. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Mangelsdorf, K. (1992). Peer reviews in the ESL composition classroom: What do the students think? ELT Journal, 46(3), 274-284.
Ochi, K. & Davies, R. J. (1999). L1 writing instruction and practice in Japanese secondary schools. Bulletin of Ehime University, 17, 27-43.
Sengupta, S. (1998). Peer evaluation: I am not the teacher. ELT Journal, 52(1), 19-28.
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank TLTs Peer Support Group for reading the original text and providing me with helpful suggestions. Special thanks are due to Jill Robbins and Wilma Luth.
All materials on this site are copyright © by JALT and their respective authors.
For more information on JALT, visit the JALT National Website