This week, our text covered peer editing. To me, this is the biggest waste of time since Facebook. The comments are often just as meaningful, and I often find myself wondering what's for dinner, rather than focusing on making my paper better.
I think the biggest reason I don't like peer editing is because of the risk involved, both for the person who is critiquing the paper, and for the person who is being critiqued. Since the idea is typically for the two people to trade their papers, if one of them do not take the assignment seriously, he could either be seen as a slacker by the other person, or the other person could be seen as an overachiever for completing the assignment. I know it sounds silly, but sometimes, completing the assigned task, especially in a 100 level class can be seen as overly studious, and if you're working with a really cute girl and she thinks the assignment's dumb, odds are, you might agree with her.
The biggest problem with peer editing is that both parties have to be fully committed. And often, this is not the case. I've been on both sides, sometimes forgetting to do the assignment and other times being the overachiever. According to our textbook, there are three aspects to peer conferencing. First, there is praise. This makes sense, because nobody will listen to you if you start by telling them their paper was as tantalizing to read as a Jane Austen novel.
Second, you need to ask the writer whatever questions you might have about their piece. This will help them (the writer) understand what points they could have explained better, since you don't know what they're trying to say, and can only judge by the words on the page.
Step three is more of the same (critique), but only this time, the reader is permitted to make pointed comments. These are called suggestions and if done correctly, will not permanently scar the writer's psyche (or will cause them to become a math major).
I understand why conferencing can be powerful, because if both parties are invested in the work, they will do a good job reading each others' work, and spend more time on it than the teacher would (since the teacher has so many students' papers to read).
I guess my question this week is how can teachers use conferencing effectively? By this I mean to ask, how can a teacher make sure their students are as committed to conferencing as they are? How can they make sure their students are on task and reaping the full benefits of what peer conferencing has to offer? How can peer conferencing be a can't miss success?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
well, I see you read the wrong article for this week, but your question is nonetheless worthy of some kind of response.
ReplyDeleteYes, your critique of peer workshop is well taken.
How to get both sides committed?
I'd say keep it simple, especially with younger students. Ask them to do just one thing--the one thing that you just focused on. For example, if the assignment is asking for good examples to support an argument, have peer reviewers identity and list all the examples--or put check marks by them. Something like that.
No praise, no critique necessary. Just show me that YOU as the reviewer understand the concept. If you don't, your grade for the workshop suffers.
Another alternative to the traditional workshop: do online workshops in wikispaces. That's what I do in 323. Students have more time to respond thoughtfully, and they see what others say. Then, when I go through and comment afterwards, all members of the group can benefit from watching my model.
Overtime, students do get better at it. It's an extremely important skill to know--but it does have to be taught... and with great patience.
Minimally, it's important to have students interacting with each other, even if their advice is "wrong." The writer still has to make the call.
cool, Thanks!
ReplyDelete