English 1550 (Thursday, Sept. 22)

Tuesday's English 1550 class began with an in-class writing assignment that asked students to describe either their best or worst writing experience (thus allowing them to vent about their first major assignment, if needed). Karen gave students around 15 minutes to write the required two or so paragraphs but also gave them the option of finishing and submitting the minor assignment out of class. I thought that this was a good option since I've always found writing in class (and trying to formulate some coherent and perhaps interesting thoughts) while my classmates were noisily trying to do the same thing terribly distracting. Karen also made effective use of the lab time by requiring in-class writing. While her students worked on this task, Karen again wrote the day's agenda and some upcoming project deadlines on the board, keeping both herself and her students focused.

Students spent the rest of class doing peer reviews. Although Karen explained the task (printing out three copies of the rough draft and author's note) in class and also sent an email detailing the same information and instructions, several students still seemed unclear on the instructions. Some students hadn't written their papers yet, and even the students who had their papers weren't sure about the peer reviewing process (like how they should exchange their papers). Despite this confusion, I particularly liked the way that Karen approached peer reviewing. On a practical note, she made her students number their paragraphs so that their classmates could more easily refer to specific sentences or details. She also emphasized that students should think of themselves as "alert readers," not as editors. She told students to not simply make corrections on peers' papers but that circling what they suspect are errors is acceptable and that focus should be on content. Students were also directed to underline any well-done passages and put squiggly lines under any awkward or unclear passages. This feedback is subsequently more reader-based than criterion-based. Karen also provided students with a peer review checklist, directing them to look for whether the draft had good development, unity, etc. Making the task so guided was helpful to students. Additionally, Karen wanted each student to leave class with two or three sets of comments, and I think the methodical way of evaluating was beneficial in that regard. By the end of class, though, I became slightly concerned when students notes seemed to emphasize mechanical errors (like grammar or spelling) instead of content.

Finally, I heard one student (a student who has thus far been slightly overwhelmed with the class and assignments) say that, thanks to my presentation, he had attempted to use semicolons in his paper. He said that the presentation was clear and made semicolons seem a lot less scary. I think that even quick reviews of such concepts can definitely be helpful; a lot of times, students have a general, vague idea about these concepts but just need some clarification.