RECENT RESEARCH WOULD SEEM TO IMPLY THAT THE RESULT OF INTENSIVE TEACHER-CORRECTION OF STUDENT COMPOSITION DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE EFFORT. IF TEACHER-CORRECTION DOES NOT PRODUCE THE IMPROVEMENT OF STUDENT COMPOSITION, PERHAPS PEER-CORRECTION WOULD BE MORE EFFECTIVE. A REVIEW OF THE FEW PERTINENT STUDIES INDICATES THAT PEER-CORRECTION IS AT LEAST AS EFFECTIVE AS TEACHER-CORRECTION. ALTHOUGH THE RESULTS OF A 7-MONTH STUDY CONDUCTED IN SYOSSET, NEW YORK, TO COMPARE THE WRITING GROWTH OF NINTH-GRADERS TAUGHT BY EITHER THE TEACHER- OR PEER-METHOD OF CORRECTION WERE SOMEWHAT INCONCLUSIVE, THEY DEMONSTRATED THAT USING THE TEACHER-METHOD REQUIRED 8 TIMES AS MANY HOURS AFTER SCHOOL AS DID THE PEER-METHOD. THUS, THE PEER-METHOD APPEARED TO BE MORE EFFICIENT, IF NOT MORE EFFECTIVE. ITS USE IMPLIES THE FOLLOWING STEPS--(1) PRELIMINARY TRAINING OF STUDENTS IN EDITING, (2) THE TEACHING OF A SHORT UNIT ON COMPOSITION BEFORE EACH NEW PROJECT--INCLUDING INITIATORY ACTIVITIES, WRITING, CORRECTING, AND REVISION, AND (3) THE PRODUCTION OF CHECK LISTS OR GUIDE SHEETS TO SHOW STUDENTS WHAT TO SEEK AND TO SAY IN CORRECTING THE COMPOSITIONS OF THEIR PEERS (THIS SPEECH WAS DELIVERED AT THE 1967 NCTE ANNUAL CONVENTION.) (MM)