1. Class:
* I briefly explained peer review directions (pair up with a classmate, read drafts of argumentative essays/author’s notes to each other, offer suggestions and comments on handout with questions). Students spent the majority of class peer reviewing.
* Before leaving, students wrote down a two-step plan for their draft of the argumentative essay. Based on their peer review feedback (and anything else they noticed during the workshop), they figured out the next two steps for this assignment.
2. Class analysis:
This peer review workshop differed slightly from the Project 1 rough draft workshop at the beginning of the semester. For instance, instead of having students give feedback on two or three of their peers’ rough drafts, students devoted the entire time to just one draft each. I hope that the feedback was subsequently more thorough and more thoughtful. Additionally, like I’ve done this semester in both Teaching of Writing and Teaching Practicum, students were required to read their rough drafts to their partners—a scary prospect. Even though I initially resisted doing so, the benefits far outweighed any hesitation. First, hearing your writing is much different from silently reading it. Second, reading your work aloud to an audience (even if it’s just one other person) makes you own that writing. I think that’s important, particularly when it’s tempting to hide behind it and almost refuse to take rightful ownership of your work.
3. Class implementation:
While students shared drafts during the peer review workshop, Karen and I reviewed the comments that I’d made on students’ “A&P” essays (Minor Writing Assignment 6). Each minor writing is worth a possible 15 points—so I was surprised that I received only 11 student essays (a bit more than half the class). However, Karen said that’s normal, particularly for the minor writing assignments. I might rethink the point values for these assignments in my 1550 course (especially because mine are valued at just 10 points).
No comments:
Post a Comment