the importance of the peer evaluation

We've spent a lot of time talking about writing in terms that we ourselves can't always define, such as "voice" and "flow." We also talked about process versus product, and the importance of each of those. I was beginning to feel like we were making circular arguments that wouldn't really go anywhere, because maybe there is no right answer. So, when I read the essay by Flower and Hayes on "defining a rhetorical problem" I started to see a light at the end of the tunnel. Finally, something concrete to say "this is what makes a good writer." The essay doesn't address every single problem, of course, but I was happy when I read it anyway. It states, very clearly that one of the problems unskilled writers have is choosing the right questions to answer when they write. It also says that "the ability to explore a rhetorical problem is eminently teachable." Lo and behold, writers can become better after all! It's a skill that can be taught and refined.
This is where, I believe, peer editing and workshopping are so important. In the essay by Perl, we learn about what kind of editing works and what kind doesn't. When Tony, the student being studied, edited his essay according to his process, he still managed to miss many errors and had "unresolved stylistic and syntactic problems." This shows that a person can have all the knowlege of grammar in the world, but still simply not write well. To truly improve, all the evidence seems to suggest that having outside eyes look at the writer's work is the way to go. Until way too recently, I had a strangely stubborn pride that kept me from sharing my drafts with anyone unless it was required as part of the grade. I insisted on doing it all myself, even when those mandatory peer review sessions and meetings with professors proved to be effective. Sometimes teachers are viewed as scary and jugemental. This causes them to miss out on good, constructive criticism.
The last of the articles, by Sommers, was by far the most eye-opening for me. I realized, this is what we need to be teaching. Students need to learn how to see their writing as something more than just words and sentences. A revision doesn't just mean finding a "better" word. Sometimes an entire idea needs to be reworked. This is one of my problems with my writing, actually, and so I am wondering how exactly one would go about "fixing" a paper by rewriting entire passages. Even the idea that "something bigger" is "off" is rather subjective. I suppose this is where peer reviewing comes in again. The way the experienced writers were describing their process shows the importance of beginning writing weeks before the deadline. Writing something and then leaving it alone for a day or two seems like an effective way to get some good perspective on the piece. It also seems that a writer shouldn't "fall in love with" the first way something has been said. As someone who has fallen into a lot of the traps described in this essay, I feel especially close to the topic and hope to hear everyone's thoughts on the proper way to revise a paper.