This week's readings addressed what had become my primary concern about writing instruction, and that is: editing instruction. I feel great - great, I tell you - about coaching students individually and as a class. But when I am removed from that equation and I am left with peers helping peers, well, what am I to do? Can I assume they will be able to help each other? These readings spoke to these concerns and ameliorated them to a certain degree.
First, I am quite sure that if I let them adrift into the Caspian Sea of writing without so much as a paddle, they will have no direction, become distracted and eventually start playing cribbage (provided they know how to play, happen to carry a travel-sized board on board and don't capsize in what can be a very rough sea). So, I know I have got to give them paddles, checklists, helpers, something to keep the editing process going. I liked VanDeWeghe's chart of peer response types, because I could show it to students and guide them toward the "reader's needs" and "writer's strategies" edits. I could also model such commentary individually and as a class. Additionally, I think it will be important to employ peer editing sheets to keep the process guided and on task, because chaos can really soak a great editing day.
That speaks to Atwell's list of "Questions That Can Help," which would make a wonderful poster in my classroom. I love the idea of giving students some sample questions off that list to use in peer conferences, gradually pulling away the sheets as they internalize the process. I also like that she suggests conferencing at a student's desk rather than the teacher's; the latter could be intimidating while the former invites the teacher into the student's world (a bit).
I also was encouraged by Dornan's focus on responses rather than grading. A firm believer in rubrics, I am all about grading, but I would rather devote my early morning hours to sleeping. Also, if I can get students to buy into the idea that writing is a process, and that I will reserve a significant portion of their grade to just doing the writing and doing it on time, I bet they would be more willing to accept repeated conferences and editing sessions. This does sound easier said than done, of course. But, if I can empower students with editing and revision tools - hopefully added to on some sort of skill wall - I think I can sell it.
External Resource:
http://english.mnsu.edu/vwp/facultyresources/responding/index.htm
Rick may already know of this Minnesota State-Mankato site, or he may have had a hand in its construction. In any case, I found it and it is full of useful ideas on how to respond to student writing and how to organize peer editing days. This page in particular (you can navigate to the others on the page's left sidebar) lists a few other websites that were intriguing, especially the one on "reading personae." I like the idea of giving each peer group member a specific editing lens, such as the "naive reader" or "the devil's advocate." It could help soften the blow of harsher criticism.
Great response, Dan. So, in the end, are you for or against peer revision? I honestly can't tell. I don't know if this solves your problem, but I suggest you revise a student's draft before you have him or her peer revise. Maybe peer revisers can read what you have to say and add or offer different suggestions. Then, when it comes time to read their final drafts, you can check to see that students have met your concerns instead of you having to re-revise their final work and give them a grade. I mean, if you have already read over the paper and offered points of revision, you really only have to re-read those edited points so long as a major revision of the paper hasn't occurred and you still understand the focus of what the author is trying to say. That isn't how I would go about the revision process in my own classroom, but it is a way or marrying your hand and the student's hand in the revision process. I hope that made sense...sort of.
ReplyDelete-Jack