Although I firmly believe that writing essays is a superior way to learn (vs multiple-choice tests), I think having peers review each other's work is almost worthless. For one thing, it is like "the blind leading the blind". In order to access another person's essay, you have to know more about the topic than was is featured in the lectures. This being the case, you have to specify where and how the student is going off the track. Peers can't do that. For example, several times I thought a student was wrong about some comment, but, I was not sure. Perhaps they knew more about the topic that I did, thus, rendering my impression mistaken. But I wasn't sure. So, I gave them the benefit of doubt. But, if I was right and they were wrong, then they kept their misapprehension. Not exactly, good education.
And, then sometimes, I, myself, was unsure of a point in my essay. The chances of a peer correcting it was pretty nil. Lots of peers do not have the time for lengthy commentary (their comments tend to be too brief to be of much help) and they often don't feel qualified to make negative (but tactful) corrections.
One last thing: sometimes students don't really write anything. They just input random letters or numbers. One student inputted the assignment directions instead of composing an essay. In these cases, I gave them a 0. I felt bad about that, but aren't these examples of cheating?
On a positive note; I thoroughly enjoyed the readings and the lectures. I also liked the fact that I can access a transcript (although a garbled one) and I LOVE the variable speed dial on the lectures. But, most of all, I LOVE that I can audit these courses and am very grateful to all of you who have made this possible. You have made my retirement more enjoyable. I plan on taking the second part of this course. Thank you allsoooo much.