I would like us to keep a running commentary on your Writing Fellows experiences via this blog. I expect you to show up on time for the classes, and then post an account of the successes and difficulties of your workshop within five days. I'm thinking your posts should be around 400 words.
How did you organize the group? How did the students respond? Whose lightbulb went off? Who refused to engage? What insights did the group leave with? Were you too directive? Too nondirective? I want you to go beyond mere reporting and try to account for why your intervention did or did not work.
We want to use this blog to share our successes -- the things we did that worked well -- with each other. We also want to share things that did not work well, so that we can troubleshoot the problem situations. I will raise some of the issues you post in class discussion as well.
This is very important -- when mentioning writers your worked with, use pseudonyms.
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
So, I hope I am doing this correctly...
ReplyDeleteI did my first writing fellows this morning with four students in the 1102 class. Their assignment was to write a paper over a poem of their choice. Once my group got together and situated, we went around and introduced ourselves and our majors. I had three girls in my group and one boy. Everyone was hesitant at first, and though some became a little more comfortable talking as the session went on, I still felt that the students weren't really opening up completely - which is to be expected I suppose. I had the students write a summary of their paper on the back of their drafts, and we went around in the circle reading each draft out loud after explaining our summaries. At the end of each draft, each person in the group gave one thing the writer did well, and one thing the writer could improve upon. After we had completed this for each student, we worked on revision plans and I answered questions for them.
My biggest problem I encountered was that the students did not and could not (for the most part) give constructive criticism to their peers. This did improve somewhat as the session continued, but I felt that this problem was because the students did not know what to look for in the papers, and therefore, could not give advice. I took some time at the end to explain some guidelines of what to look for in the drafts, including their own drafts (such as a strong thesis, support from the poem, the flow of the paper, avoiding summary, etc.)
My biggest success was with one student who brought a draft that did not even have a thesis - in fact, he was so insecure in his writing that he asked if he could be excused from reading it aloud. I took some time at the end of our session (as the other students were working on their papers on the computer) to help him form a strong thesis. It was then that he realized the importance of a thesis,and how a thesis will provide focus to the paper. Instead of just rambling and summarizing, he now has a "mission" for his paper - to prove his thesis.
At the end of the session each student had something to work on in his/her draft, and they seemed to have gleamed something from the session. For the next session, I would like to have the students exchange papers and read to themselves instead of reading aloud. However, for this first time, I felt it necessary to have them read aloud because I had a feeling they would not know how to constructively respond to their peers' papers.
My fellowship experience was incredible. It was as if the stars had aligned in my favor. All of the students in my group shared the same major (theater education), as well as a loose acquaintance. This is obviously a great boon for me, as one of the most difficult aspects of peer reviewing is giving and receiving criticism to and from strangers. These students were not afraid to voice their opinions, nor were they offended by each other's critiques.
ReplyDeleteI began by asking them whether or not they could explain the difference between editing and revising. One student, who I'll call "Tom", provided an accurate comparison. From there I detailed the higher order concerns and how they applied to their current assignment. I then had each student read the first paragraph of their draft aloud. The first reactions to hearing each other's paragraphs were the typical "Sounds pretty good to me". So I began asking them questions, like "Did you hear a clear thesis statement?", "Did it make sense to you?" et cetera. This worked very well, as they quickly discovered specific problems. It also became clear that they were all having trouble forming a concise thesis. I sympathized with them; their assignment is very far-reaching and encompasses numerous literary elements. I suggested that since they all were having trouble that they may want to approach their professor for guidance. However, I also suggested they continually consult the outline of the assignment.
After reading aloud, I had them swap papers and read them to themselves. I intended to go over each draft after everyone had finished reading, but they were naturally inclined to bring things up as they saw them. Their criticism was constructive and thoughtful. Though, had the students not been so agreeable or previously acquainted, it may have been a little harsh. On the other hand, under different circumstances they may not have been as forthright.
I gently prodded them by asking if the drafts they read answered the questions and confronted the topics in the assignment outline. They quickly caught on. I also asked them about the good qualities of the drafts, as they naturally tended to bring up the negative aspects. I did this partly to illuminate the concept that peer reviews can improve one's own writing by seeing how others deal with certain issues which they themselves have trouble. This was precisely the case with one of the students, Gatsby, who had trouble integrating quotes from his poem into the draft. Reading Tom's draft, he saw how it could be done.
Since we had plenty of time, I had them swap papers again. For this round little input was required on my part. They remained focused on higher order concerns and didn't lapse into editing.
As for my performance for the first fellowship session, I feel that I may have concentrated too much on the paper, instead of applying the revision concept more broadly. I also generally feel that I cannot take credit for the success of the session. I had a spectacular group of smart, eager students. Nevertheless, it was a great experience and I do feel that I did indeed help them effectively review each other's drafts.
On a broader note, I was struck by the eagerness the class possessed as a whole. Usually peer reviews are a sort of free-for-all. But it seemed to me as if every group was focused. Having fellows there MUST have contributed to this.
We got off to a slow start because two of the girls didn’t have hard copies and we had to wait for them to print. While they were working on getting that done, I went ahead with a generic icebreaker that a few groups probably used. Jarred gave me the idea. I asked what their least favorite and favorite parts of writing were. The general consensus was that their favorite part was having a finished product, but the worst part differed.
ReplyDeleteThere were two long papers and two short papers in the group. First I went with Rachel’s idea and had them write on the backs of their papers what they were trying to prove (or show) in their papers. Then I had them switch papers and read them. So each student read one other paper, then we talked about it.
Of course, at first, they didn’t have much to say to each other, so I just used some leading questions, such as, “Well what did you like about the paper?” or “Did you understand what she was trying to do in the paper?” There were many other questions I asked. After one or two, though, the girls opened up and even admitted that in some places they weren’t quite sure what someone was trying to say. I even tried to get them to give ideas of how to improve, but those still mostly came from me.
The biggest problem in my group (that my fellow writing fellows seemed to have trouble with too) was the lack of a concrete thesis statement. All the girls had ideas of what they wanted to show in their papers, like what the poem is trying to say. They even used poetic devices, such as diction and mood, in their papers. But the how was missing from all thesis statements. They didn’t tell what specific elements of the poem supported what they thought it was about. So that’s what I focused on helping them with. Next time, once the thesis statements are down, I’ll work on making sure their evidence ties back to the thesis, because one of the students had an interesting observation in her last paragraph, but it had nothing to do with her thesis.
And one of the girls didn’t seem to like what I had to say about adding the how to the thesis, because she didn’t want to say, “The speaker uses diction (or whatever) to support blah blah blah.” So she asked the teacher when she came over, and Ms. Williams said you shouldn’t say it like that – very generic. But I made sure they knew (and Ms. Williams agreed) that they had to have the how – what specifically is used, like an image. So it doesn’t have to be generic, but it has to be there.
Well I soon realized what my first problem was. My group was three boys and one girl, and one of the boys was slower at revising than the others. So immediately i ran into a time-filler problem. i needed him to switch papers with another student, so i could not have the all three of them move onto something else. there was not much downtime, but i would like some suggestions on how to balance them out more when it comes to revising papers.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, despite the inevitable minor problems, my session went very well I think. they were very quiet and reserved, so i had to prompt them to talk, but they did talk. and that was fabulous, because i would have been completely lost if they had said nothing. we started off talking about our favorite restaurants, then we moved into their paper topics. i had not read the short story they were writing on, but in hearing them talk about their papers, i felt like i had a handle on its basic plot. then i got them to write their argument on the back of their papers--what they are trying to say in the paper. then they switched papers twice. then we talked about their thesis statements. the same boy who took longer to revise also had a question about his conclusion papragraph, but i could not give him a lot of help because the class was over. however, i did tell them several times that they need to talk to their professor and to go to the writing center. and professor flournoy told them to go to the writing center as well, and i thought that was cool.
they seemed to appreciate and understand what i told them. we talked about looking for big things when revising. i told them to at what's written on the back of the paper...does the paper follow this argument? does the writer get you to believe his argument? also i told them to look for support and analysis. then we got into thesis statements. they all were on the right track, they just needed to narrow them down a bit.
overall, i felt like i was very directive, but then they were also still getting used to me. however, i hope i was directive in a way that allows them to do some of this on their own next time. they listened really well. they seemed to absorb it all, and they all wrote on their own papers and on the papers they revised. i did not write on their papers at all. honestly, i did not even hold them. i let them do their own thing. so it was bumpy but good. i liked it.
I must say that my first writing fellowship experience was amazing! I was very nervous at first. I did not know whether anyone would engage or not. I decided to use the Rachel plan. I started out by having the group (all girls) write the topic of their essays on the back of their papers. I then had each girl read her paper aloud. After she was finished reading, the other girls had to comment on whether her topic actually matched the paper or not. At first it seemed like no one wanted to comment, but one girl, who happened to be an English major, began to comment on the first girl’s paper. The English major seemed to be a natural-born consultant. She asked great leading questions and offered helpful suggestion to almost everyone on how to revise their papers. I was excited to see the girls actually writing revision ideas on their papers.
ReplyDeleteI am happy to note that I did not have to do as much talking as I thought I would have. I did have to talk at times though just to get the group thinking. I also had to comment on the English major’s paper because no one really had any constructive criticism to offer her. Her paper was really good, but she used lots of summary from the story to make her point. I suggested that maybe she should use her quotes from the story to better evaluate her thesis instead of simply giving summary. I kind of felt bad saying this to her, though. I did not whether I was being too directive or not.
I also asked each student to locate her thesis and read it aloud. Two of the theses were really good, and the other two were pretty much nonexistent. I did find one disadvantage to reading the papers aloud. I erroneously told one student that her thesis was good. After listening to her read it a second time, I found that what I was responding to was her introductory paragraph and not her thesis. I suggested that she take some of the good ideas from her introductory paragraph and state them clearly in her thesis. Another student was concerned because she had not really formulated a thesis yet. She said that she had fears about having her thesis be either too broad or too narrow. I told her that if she enough information to support a narrow thesis, then the narrower it is the better. The English major told this student exactly what to write down for her thesis. I thought that this was too direct, but because it was their peer review group and not mine, I did not say anything.
After each girl had read her paper and received feedback on it, I gave them some time to actually make some cursory revisions and changes. After having a few minutes to revise, I asked them to go around and tell the group what they planned to revise and how. After we finished the entire process, the girls began to comment on how much this peer review session had helped them. They said that they had come away with good ideas of how to make their papers better and not just how to edit them. I was pleasantly surprised to see that the girls were beginning to make major revisions to the papers and not simply fixing grammar mistakes.
Even though this was a good session, I am still left wondering whether I did my job correctly. At times I felt like I was being too directive, and then there were other times when I felt like I was doing nothing. The girls spent a good bit of time writing, and I felt like a bump on a log. All in all, though, I really liked my session, and I think that it was an immensely productive session. I think that I will implement some of the aforementioned techniques in my own personal peer review groups in the future.
I don't know how to reply to a comment on this blog, but I just wanted to say that I am glad that someone else did not touch their group's papers. I did not touch my group's papers either, and I thought that I had done something wrong.
ReplyDeleteTo begin with I was in a group of four with three girls and one guy, plus myself of course. I started off by asking everyone to sit close together and introduce themselves to build some basic trust. The first problem I saw was that each person hadn’t brought any copies to be shared. It wasn’t required of them, but it certainly would have helped when I had them read their papers out loud. The more I think about it the more I realize I followed the Virginia Plan.
ReplyDeleteI started off with Mit, the only guy, and as he read his paper out loud I stopped him at his thesis. I repeated his thesis out loud right back toward him, and than asked the rest of the group to keep in mind what his thesis was before we continued. We read his first paragraph and I asked for group input, receiving none I individually asked Mit for his own opinion as to why he wrote it. We moved on and when we got to the last body paragraph I realized this was a five paragraph essay. Not only that, but the transition went from Civil War to Samurai Swords. At last a breakthrough was starting to show itself as I began to ask “Now why add Samurai Swords?” He began to state his thought process, and than I asked the group for their own opinions and HCHS entered into the conversation with her own take. She suggested that Mit should incorporate the idea of Samurai’s spirit throughout the paper linking it to pride in the past. In other words he ended up restating his thesis, and changing the three point essay into something a little less formal. I said “Bravo” and gave them a golf clap.
We moved on to Stripes paper afterwards and the unfortunately she only brought notes. Nevertheless, I stuck with the plan and had her read it aloud. This is when I noticed how nervous everyone was in reading there papers. I gave them a brief lesson in Public Speaking actually telling them to pace themselves and take a deep breath if need be. Overall her rough draft/notes were good. She used quotes, explained the quotes, and even explained the explanations. Rather than having the group offer her suggestions she seemed to voice them before anyone else could even say anything.
We immediately went to Scarf’s paper and upon hearing her first body paragraph I decided to try and summarize it the wrong way. Immediately she bit my head off…I kid of course, but she restated it quite clearly and I was impressed. I told her that her quotes were strong thus giving her some positive feedback, but than I also mentioned how she had too many. I could tell, and she even admitted it was to fill up space for the time being. I told her and the group to go back to her thesis and tell me what else seemed off about the body paragraph besides the excessive quotes. This was when the group could not answer and I started feeling too direct. I restated her thesis at her which was based around a comparison of the two stories, and that the first paragraph, and later the other paragraphs focused excessively on just one story failing to use the other.
With HCHS it was the opposite as she had zero quotes and focused on the other story. With her I used what I said to Scarf to allow everyone to answer and ask for me. I basically stated this is somewhat the opposite of Scarf’s paper and they knew what to say and do after that.
I then decided to split us into two groups since we had only ten minutes left. Scarf and Stripes would work together because they needed the least help, and I would try and work with HCHS and Mit. I had them read each others papers aloud this time, and though Mit had the worst paper in my mind he was also the one who benefited the most from this session. Out of all the others he recognized the most mistakes in his paper without me having to do little more than read it aloud or ask a simple question about the topic. Then I began questioning HCHS’s paragraphs more in depth taking the time to read it aloud myself. I immediately noticed two paragraphs that did not coincide with her thesis and carefully directed her attention toward them. I gave it back to her and told her to reread these two paragraphs aloud. Immediately she put a big X over them saying it didn’t make any sense. I concurred and gave her praise. After that we ran out of time.
Overall the session went half-in-half, but I was surprisingly at ease. Now what I mean by half-in-half is that the Virginia plan I feel really helped HCHS and Mit, but the other two it helped less and I had to try and rethink the way I asked. The main problem I found with myself was not prompting the students to ask questions themselves. Still I feel that they got a lot of feedback and learned to better revise their own papers.
First of all, I was very nervous about this experience to begin with. I didn’t really know what to expect, but it turned out to not be so bad in the end. My group only consisted of myself and two other girls. The girls in my group are “typical” English 1102 students: they don’t really like to write and they are only taking this class because they have to.
ReplyDeleteAt the beginning of our time together, I had both girls read their papers aloud. This method was very effective because it allowed them to begin to critique their own papers; similar to poetry, they couldn’t fully understand their papers until they read them aloud. Before they read their papers, however; I had them write down what they thought their thesis statements were. Sally and Betty both did not have thesis statements, so that was a challenge. I tried, in the best way that I know how, to help them form thesis statements without plainly telling them what it needed to be. They were “fishing” for my approval in their statements, but it turned out pleasantly.
My group was very appreciative of the help that I gave them and it was a positive experience overall. Next time, I would like to make them do more of the talking and try and force them to figure out their own problems by simply discussing them aloud.
I was extremely nervous and unsure of what to say to the group of four: Corbin, Jacques, Nanette and Piera. My greeting was the same to each person, “Hi. I’m Monika. What’s your name?” Immediately, Nanette attempted to give me her paper, thinking my purpose was to correct their papers. After telling her no, I gave them an explanation of what a peer review session should be.
ReplyDeleteTo be honest, I did not do an icebreaker. They were all acquainted with each other after being in the same class for a month. Nanette and Piera were already friends and Corbin sat next to them in class. This helped with the comfort level between them and allowed them to be more talkative. I asked if everyone wanted to read their papers aloud. They all agreed to.
It was interesting that Nanette and Piera analyzed one poem and Corbin and Jacques wrote about another poem. Actually, Jacques admitted to writing about both poems, saying he really enjoyed the assignment and writing about something that interested him. I was very impressed until he said he did not have either of the papers with him. It was unfortunate not being able to see his work, but Jacques was the most active in the discussion, even more than me. Once, he apologized, thinking he was doing my job. I told him my role was to guide the group, allowing them to confer amongst themselves and to speak when necessary. The goal of having a writing fellow in the beginning is ultimately to not need one.
Nanette read her paper first, then Piera since they wrote about the same poem. I realize now that it was not the best approach. The group began to compare and contrast the papers. Piera’s paper was more developed and formal than Nanette’s paper. However, I attempted to give some encouragement. Nanette cited the poem throughout her analysis and I told her it was good to use the poem to her advantage, but to interpret the poem instead of merely quoting lines. Since Jacques did not have a copy of either paper, Corbin was last to read. He admitted before reading he only had a paragraph. Within his paragraph was his entire paper, he needed to take each sentence and elaborate. He understood and said all he needed now was to sit and write for an hour or two.
I was concerned about content during the time, allowing them to talk about their papers, giving their opinions and ideas. Near the end, I wanted them to find their thesis statement after realizing no one had a clear statement in their papers. We worked on developing a thesis statement, until the end of the class. Corbin was still unsure of where he wanted to focus and it seemed he was waiting for me to give him an answer. I did my best to ask him what thesis his evidence would support and I also advised him to go to the writing center for additional help.
After the class ended, I was still unsure of how much help I provided. I realized that I am a visual person and I really wished that everyone had copies of the papers for the entire group. For a first experience, I want to say it went well, but it left me wanting to do more, wanting to know more to better help the students.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOverall, I thought my tutoring session on Tuesday went extremely well. I was in charge of a group of three women: Ms. S, Ms. M, and Ms. T. When I approached them, they were very welcoming and anxious to discuss their papers. Based on their politeness and willingness to follow my lead, I believe they already respected my authority, but also viewed me as a peer instead of a teacher. Therefore, in order to nurture the trust between my self and the group, I began with a short icebreaker activity. I asked to state their name then their favorite word. The activity was successfully completed with much enthusiasm. I then asked the group members to tell me a little about their papers (maybe stating a few keynotes in their paper) in order to warm them up to actually discussing their papers in front of their peers. It turned out that Ms. S and Ms. M had chosen the same poem to explicate. I found this to be a good thing, because then Ms. S and Ms. M were able to share ideas and/or were more vocal with insightful criticism. Before any large discussion about the papers took place, I asked each member of the group to write two main questions or concerns she had about her paper on the back of the draft. I did this in order to narrow my tutoring objectives. It gave me a direction to guide the session in. Instead of me asking the group if they preferred to read their papers aloud or pass their papers to their neighbor, the group already had a consensus to read their drafts aloud. Ms. T went first. Her paper was fairly short, but concise. Ms. M. and Ms. S both made the statement that Ms. T’s paper was well written. They hinted to the fact that Ms. T could elaborate her general idea and to clarify her thesis. Ms. T welcomed their criticism. She took notes on what each member said. Ms. T asked if the development of her idea was good, and I allowed for the group to answer. Ms. M said the development was good, but there should be more evidence. There was a concern form Ms. T that maybe she had not read deep enough into the poem in order to find more “evidence”. That is when I became more directive and taught each member a method of how to read poetry. The proverbial light bulb went on in each of the members head! Ms. M then read her paper. She claimed she was concerned for her conclusion. The group said she had a few pieces of evidence in her conclusion which she could really incorporate into earlier segments of her paper. Ms. S was really helpful since she had the same topic. She gave a few thematic ideas. Ms. S then read her paper. The discussion that followed was much of the same as Ms. M’s. However, Ms. S really had trouble finding a thesis statement in her paper. Ms. T suggested that she had one, but it was not clearly defined. Ms. M found that Ms. S’s very first sentence could be a great thesis statement. I agreed. The session then came to an end. Before I left, I asked each member to look on the back of her draft and check if each of their questions were answered. It turns out that they all had been answered. I felt that my tutoring session was a job well done. I was not too directive, and I also kept the session revolving around high order concerns. The editing portion, surprisingly, was administered by the group members. They would edit each others papers while one group member would read her paper aloud. I was pleased by this. I can only hope that me next session will flow just as easily.
ReplyDeleteAfter quick introductions of each group member, we moved right into the paper. I asked them to turn over their paper and write a summary of their paper. I wanted them to include their thesis and evidence they would use to support their thesis, but I did not want them to look at their paper while doing this. Then each person told us what his or her paper was about. The first item I noticed was that many of the group members were just summarizing the poem and not really writing an explication. I explained the difference between the two, and the reaction I got from most people was “Oh, I didn’t know what that meant.” Then I told them that you have to take your audience into consideration, and in these types of essays you can assume your audience has already read the poem so you don’t need to tell them what it’s about. That was a neat moment. So many light bulbs clicked, even though I was only helping them understand the actual assignment. After we briefly discussed the papers and what we were trying to accomplish in them, I had them switch papers with two different people and read and make revisions. When I asked if they knew what you should look for when revising a paper, I got the typical answer of grammar. Then I went into the spill about the difference between revising and editing. In edition to their revision marks in the paper, I told them I wanted them to make comments on the paper on the end. They were instructed to write one thing the author did well and one thing that needs improvement. Each person read over the papers several times, which surprised me. They were taking this very seriously and being careful to make helpful suggestions and comments. Next, we talked about the comment on everyone’s papers. To my surprise, I found that I only had one person in my group who actually had a thesis in their paper. Of course, this led to a mini lesson on the importance of a thesis and how to develop one. It was helpful that I had them write down what they wanted to argue in the beginning of the session because this often became the thesis they needed for their paper. Another common occurrence was paragraphs that didn’t relate to the thesis. Whenever this would happen, I would ask the author to remind me of their thesis, and after they did I would ask them how that point fit in with their paper. Just from this question they would figure it out. The main thing I realized was that these students know how to revise, they just don’t know the questions to ask. My goal by the end of this is for each group member to know which questions to ask in order to revise so eventually they won't need me. I explained this to them as well and I think they found that thought appealing. My group talked a lot, and although I did a lot of talking, I didn’t do most of it. This made me happy since I wasn’t sure I could ask enough open ended questions to keep the conversation going. As we were leaving the session, I gave my group a goal. I wanted them to work on developing a clear thesis and focus for their next draft, and of course, I gave a little plug for the writing center.
ReplyDeleteI was very nervous about my first group session, but I must say that it was a lot better than I thought it would be. We didn’t spend too much time on introductions because the group members already knew each other. In fact, two of the boys in the group live together. There was one other girl, and she knew them as well. I asked them if they would like to read out loud, and they immediately said no. So I asked them to write down their thesis and main ideas on the back of their paper. They exchanged papers and read them silently, and I told them to see if the writer was actually expressing the ideas that they wrote on the back. Then we all had a discussion about each student’s strengths and weaknesses.
ReplyDeleteStudent A was very helpful with many comments about the paper she read. She made suggestions about the thesis and how he may need to clarify his opening paragraph. She also started making grammatical changes, so I told them the difference between the HOC’s and LOC’s. I wanted them to know that we were focusing on higher order concerns, but I didn’t want to directly point out Student A. Student B and student C live together, and I could tell that they were good friends. Student B read his friend’s paper and he had both positive comments and constructive criticism. I could tell that student C felt as if he was the weaker writer. When it was his turn to talk, he hardly said anything unless I asked him specific questions. I think that our biggest concern was also thesis statements. None of them were actually clear and concise, but I think they all left the session with an idea of how to make their statements clear. I did not read the papers unless there was something specific that I needed to see. However, I did ask them to show me their poems so that I could have an idea of what they were discussing.
The session ended after I asked each of them what they planned to work on for the second draft. They all said thesis, organization, making things more clear, etc. I believe that I was nondirective by asking leading questions to try to get them to talk. My group was not as engaged as some of the others that I’ve heard about, but maybe they will open up next time. Next time I may get them to read aloud because that method seemed to work for other groups.
The thing that surprised me most was the fact that all the students in my group seemed genuinely glad I was there to help them with their papers. The second-most surprising thing was that the experience was fun, and not nearly as scary as I thought it would be.
ReplyDeleteOne student brought only some scribblings on a piece of notebook paper. The others had more complete drafts. Two students seemed to be at a higher level than the other two. I didn't think it would be fair to the more advanced students to leave them totally to the critique of the others, so I tried to help even out the discrepancy. (Also, one of the more advanced writers, “Sharyn,” really couldn't do much with the semi-coherent notebook scribble.)
Here's how I conducted the session:
I began by introducing myself and asking the students to do so as well, and to briefly explain in a few sentences what their papers were about (the main point they wanted to make in their essays). There was a lot of noise in the room, and the others didn't really listen to these statements, apparently assuming that I only wanted them to tell me. The students doing the telling likewise addressed themselves only to me. Looking back on the session, I wish I had been more forceful and made sure the beginning of it was a conversation in which everyone participated. As things were, I suppose I was a bit nervous at the beginning, and just went with it. By listening to these “opening statements,” I was able to identify where each writer was in the writing process, and determined that not all of them were in positions from which they were likely to be able to give in-depth criticism. I incorporated the Rachel plan by having each student write the main point he or she wanted to make in the essay on the back of their printed draft (thankfully, my group all had theirs), then pass the paper to the person on the left. I asked them to read the paper they had received and determine whether they felt the writer had successfully made his or her intended point. I got three “yes” responses and one “no” (regarding the notebook scribble).
As we went around the table (which was difficult, as it was rectangular and covered with computers we weren't using), I also asked each reader if they could find the thesis clearly stated in the the first paragraph. I took this moment to highlight the the fact that often writers think they have said something that is in their head, but not actually in the paper, and that they as readers should help the writers by providing honest feedback on what is and isn't clear. I wanted to at least start with higher-order concerns, and so asked each reader if they could find the writer's thesis clearly stated in the first paragraph. “Sean,” the notebook scribbler, couldn't find “Charlie's” thesis there. I asked to see the paper, and he was right. The first paragraph was filled with generalities and made no mention of the poem he was analyzing, but I did see a sentence that looked like a thesis in the second paragraph. I pointed this out to Charlie, and tried to explain the importance of specificity (especially in the first paragraph) when writing this type of essay. Perhaps I should have told him not to include the generalities – they added nothing to his paper – but I was already afraid I was being too directive. Instead, I advised him to be specific in the the first paragraph, and, if he chose to keep the the general stuff somewhere else in the essay, to try to combine it with more poem-specific statements. I noticed he highlighted the sentence I identified as a possible thesis without being prompted to do so.
Sharyn couldn't make sense of Sean's notebook scribble or the “main point” he wrote on the back. I asked to see it, then told him that I thought what he had here was prewriting (he agreed), but that it did seem that he was moving toward an articulation of his thesis. His problem seemed to be that he did not understand the poem, but I was unsure how to deal with such a gaping problem, especially in a way that would not hurt his feelings. He seemed apologetic for not having written more (he said he'd been working a lot lately), but he was also attentive and seemed genuinely appreciative of what he could learn from the session (or, to be honest, from me; the other students really didn't seem to know how to help him). He defied my preconception that extremely basic-level writers would not be interested in putting forth the effort to improve; I learned something from him.
“John,” the other more advanced writer, read Sharyn's paper, and he was able to give her a more meaningful critique. He asked if it was OK to write in the margins. I told him it was, but he seemed to be making comments infrequently and at the paragraph-level, so I think that was acceptable. He told her she seemed to repeat herself frequently, and she agreed, but both had difficulty knowing how to remedy the problem. Her draft was not long enough to meet the requirement (which she pointed out to me as a concern at the beginning), and she was unsure where to go with it in order to make it longer. Her vague plan involved trying to go into more detail about the things already in the paper. I asked to read it, and noticed that her essay was organized around the poem, and she commented on things from it “in order of appearance.” Her repetition stemmed from the fact that her paragraphs were based on stanzas not ideas, and therefore each contained several ideas which also appear in other stanzas/paragraphs. She seemed really enthused when I explained this and told her she didn't need to feel bound to the structure of the poem for creating the structure of her essay. She immediately saw how this change could improve her essay, and she seemed glad to have found a way of fixing the repetition that sounded awkward even to her. She appeared to be a conscientious student who was bothered by the imperfections in her work, and she lit up when I helped free her from the artificial format constraint that was hindering her. She is the best “success story” from my session, and I am very eager to see/hear what she does with her next draft.
I asked each student whether there was anything in their paper about which they wanted feedback or had any questions (that was how I got into the discussion with Sharyn), and if they did, I read and commented.
John wanted feedback, but was more general in his questions. I asked to read his paper and noticed many summary/descriptive statements, though he also has some commentary/interpretive statements. I tried to explain the difference between the two, encouraging him to use more interpretive sentences throughout his essay. Sharyn was still listening (I think those two were already friends), but I made sure to discuss this point with the other two as I went around to them.
I am very concerned about Sean. Near the end of the session, he told me he has decided to switch poems because he couldn't explain the first one to Charlie when he tried. (This was the conversation that was taking place while I was engaged with Sharyn and John; I saw a literature book involved, so I let it continue, hoping it was on-topic). He said he had a couple of poems in mind for his new choice. The class period ended then, so I didn't have much time to deal with this new development. I feel sure that he gave up on the first poem because he found it hard to write about, and I have severe misgivings about his decision to switch, as I doubt he will have a substantially easier time understanding another poem (he did choose the first one, after all).
I feel like what I did during this session was more like “teaching” than anything else, and I hope I wasn't too directive. I tried to compensate for the fact that I was unquestionably the one in charge of our session by sticking to higher-order advice that would apply to college writing in general. Next time, I think I will try incorporating reading aloud as a way of encouraging conversation between all the writers. This should be easier in a room without computers. One thing I noticed in all the papers was a trend toward explaining what the writer thinks the poem “means” or “is about” instead of saying “the poet does x to accomplish z.” I didn't bring it up during the session because I was afraid of confusing the students, deeming it more important to get them to the point where they can write good theses and supporting evidence bodies. Now, I am regretting that I didn't mention it. Perhaps I can next time.
For me, walking into the class what the most nervous part to the whole experience. Its hard to assimilate into a class that has already bonded for a month. However, once we were introduced there was a sort of calm that came over me because the instructor was very supportive of us being in her classroom.
ReplyDeleteWhen were divided into groups I was in a group with four males. Usually I am not one to bring sexism into an education issue but for me it was harder to get an all male group to talk verses a mixed group or all females. They almost had this air of “I’m too cool for this” or “I would rather be doing anything but this.”
I began by introducing myself and then handing it over to the group by asking for their name and their thesis statement for their own paper. Was that too forward? One of my group members told me, “This is an essay about poetry, we don’t need a thesis statement.” I was shocked!!!!!!!!! I literally had to stop and figure out a response to answer his statement. Also, I made clear that my job was to teach peer review, not to give them an A paper. This was a hard concept to vocalize, but by the end of the session they figured out what I was trying to achieve.
We did not read the papers out loud because this was a free write of their essays, not a rough draft of the final essay. So they traded papers twice each time writing their impressions on the back of the essay and then we talked about the different HOC issues that were present in each essay. Through each others papers they were able to see what was wrong and write to do. I tried to stay out of the conversation as much as possible and they all worked equally in contributing to the conversation. The only thing that I was really direct in was the actual terms used in writing: imagery, voice, structure, etc. It was like a light bulb turned on for many of them. They were required to analyze their poem through a well thought-out and well written paper.
The non directive concept allowed the students to become comfortable with each other and not put us in a hierarchical positioning. I worried about one of the writers because he became real chatty about himself and I was directive in getting the group back on track. Is that okay? I am not quite sure there is another choice.
So at the end of the session (leaving 15 minutes) we talked about the main idea of their papers. This eluded to a thesis statement and each student was able to write their own thesis by the end of the session. The term "thesis statement" was more frightening than the actual idea. The very last advice I gave them came in three parts:
If you have a question about the paper review the prompts and handout.
If you still have questions about the paper talk to your teacher.
If you want help come to the writing center!
I felt sort of scared leaving because I was not really an major influence in the conversations. They were on topic, but it was hard to let go without feeling like a free fall. I second guessed myself while walking to my car. Did they really get it? Do they care about their paper? Are they going to use their resources to benefit themselves and their paper? I am so glad to know that we will be working on the same paper in our next meeting. I feel like now I would rather have them read the paper out loud because now they should have a centered essay. We shall see!
This is Kevin, by the way!
ReplyDeleteAlrighty, this is in reference to my first session. I'm the kind of person who does well in public speaking situations when I come in without any formal notes or anything. I knew what I wanted to do, but I didn't want to prepare for it and psych myself out. So I camein feeling very pretty comfortable, not counting the butterflies that naturally come with public stuff.
My first curve ball came when I realized I was with the big group of writing fellows and I would be getting only 3 students to work with. My plan was to have the students pass their papers to the person next to them. Each person would read an essay that wasn't there and they would essentially become the "expert" of that paper and would be fielding questions asked by everyone else but the author. With only 3 male students, that left only one student asking questions, which in turn would probably have me asking all the questions. But I live and die by my improv method, so I went with it.
I either had some good luck or I just happened to have a natural rapport because I immediately connected with the guys. When I got there, we all shook hands, two of the guys already knew each other and we chatted about "guy" stuff for a while. We had to wait for their papers to print and while we waited, I asked one if he played football, he asked if I played basketball. One of the other students have very similar movie tastes and we all talked about one of our favorite directors. After the papers were printed, we seamlessly slipped into the session. I didn't even need to do a cheesy "what's your favorite color" icebreaker.
Maybe luck really did play a part in this session because I had a great time. First of all, I got three eager guys who were genuinely interested in improving their papers, even if it was only because they "wanted to get an A in the class", as one put it. At this point, I'll take it! Each of them had very strong points, but even more importantly, each one had something that could have been improved. One had great research, not much focus and poor organization. One had great research and great organization, but lots of sentence repetition and a weak conclusion. The other had great analysis, but no direction. What made me feel so great about the method and the day in general was the fact that even though I was asking all the questions, the "expert" was doing all of the thinking, which in turn made the author jump in when he felt necessary and explain his intentions. I decided that this method would be a good idea because I felt like I would get a better and quicker response from the students if I had someone else show them what their essay was sounding like. It allows them to see what the teacher is going to be seeing and they are given a chance to make changes. Not only were the "experts" answering my questions thoughtfully and reflectively, there were also giving the auther VALID advice. There were very few times that I interjected. In fact, all I really did was ask the questions.
I worried that if the student who essentially should be asking all of the questions ISN'T asking them, if the whole process would be compromised. In essence, I worried that I was being too directive. But when I thought about it, I decided that I would rather have them answer my questions. I also never got a chance to talk about revisions. I mean, I made sure each person had a plan, but I didn't get a chance to make sure they knew the whole revision/editing spiel, so I just had to hope.
I didn't know if my method would be an effective one, so I just had to wait until the next session to see. But I left with a good feeling and a lot of faith.
Kevin again!
ReplyDeleteOkay, so I was eager to see what the group had for me. Again, no formal plan. I think that rigid plans lead to people feeling uptight and formal. Students will look at me like I'm the teacher and I will be liable to freak out if we deviate from my plan, so I like to freestyle, so to speak, you know, keep things easy and light.
Well first curveball. We picked up and extra student, someone who I assume was absent last time. PLUS, his laptop wouldn't let him access his paper. So, I explained the process to him and what we were doing and I secretly hoped he would get into it and join in.
Well, we went to a private area and chatted (a little longer than I liked) and when we get started, I was ECSTATIC when I discovered that everyone had worked hard on their essays and had really advanced their work. The one with the poor organization and wild thoughts had reorganized his paragraphs and focused on one major element of analysis. The one with the near complete paper, but dry writing had "replaced the boring verbs with active ones" according to the "expert". And the one with poor direction and a frankly short paper, had doubled his pages, honed in his focuz and made some surprisingly astute interpretations. AND BEST OF ALL--the experts were pointing this out to me! Which told me that they were recognizing this and able to point all of these intelligent observations to me. It wasn't the author telling me what he was intending; the writers were able to see for themselves that the things they were attempting in their papers were successful. It made me proud to see them proud of their papers.
Also, I told them that we didn't have time to go over revision/editing, but they were able to explain to me the difference easily.
My group was chatty and I had to jump in and pull them on task a couple of times, but to me, that's a good sign.
OH YEAH! The extra guy who was in limbo even added a bunch of very valid comments! He listened to one of the authors explaining some of his observations in his research and was explaining that he needed his paper a little longer, but didn't know what to do. The other guy just popped in and made a REALLY good suggestion. I think he knew one of the other guys, so there was already rapport there, so he just kinda blended in with us.
Finally, I asked everyone if they had any extra questions. Two of them said not really, which I was expecting. The one I thought would have questions said he did, but wanted me to look over his paper. And then the limbo guy said he wanted the same! So I told them to come to the Writing Center on Thursday and I would be glad to have a consultation with them, which I hope was the right thing to do.
All in all, it was a great experience, one that I hope they enjoyed and took something from.
I had a great experience! I got to work with four students, three girls and one guy. Everyone in my group was writing on the same story but from a different perspective. They had about ten prompts to go on, and each of the students had chosen something different so we were all able to talk about the essay from different vantage points which they said proved helpful to their writing process. That is, they enjoyed hearing everyone else’s thoughts even though that person was looking at the story in a totally different light than they were.
ReplyDeleteI started by asking each student to write down the points that they were trying to make on the back of their paper, and then let another student read their paper and answer their points to see if they covered them well or at all. This avenue worked very well considering I had an even amount of students to work with. After each student was done with this, I allowed each student to talk to the other student about his/her paper. This way the first student could give the second student feedback on their paper as to whether those points had been clearly covered. I felt that each student enjoyed having advice from one of their peers and then all of us to chime in as well. After all of the students had given their feedback to each other, I talked to each one of them individually about their papers. I talked to them about their thesis statements, and whether they felt like their paper was staying on track as to where they wanted to go with it, or if it tended to go off track to a broader subject than they wanted or intended. Everyone needed help in this area, some more than others, for them I suggested that they go to the writing center. One student even said that they received extra points if they went to the writing center. For those that needed direction on how to start their thesis, or even the direction they wanted to go in the paper, I asked them to give me a brief overview of the story and which prompt they were doing. In doing this I felt like it allowed them to talk about the part of the story they were most passionate about, and in doing so gave them the ideas they needed to start writing. I had everyone participate in this exercise just to make sure that everyone knew where they wanted to go with their paper, and hopefully to help them stay focused on the topic they wanted to write about. At the end of the class my group said this session helped them. I hope so! I really enjoyed being able to help them.
I felt that at times I had to be directive, but for the most part they did all of the work. I told them that by looking at other people’s papers and helping them out, it was helping them to become better writers also. Seeing writing from different perspectives always helps, especially when everyone is writing about the same story.
The main question I had, which I already brought up in class, was how to help someone who has no idea where to start. I felt so bad for this person. These types of people are the ones that you desperately want to help. Help them find direction, and to truly know how to write well so that when the next assignment comes up they can start it with absolute confidence of knowing how to accomplish it well and correctly.
I will never forget how exceedingly blonde I felt when I walked into Ms. Flournoy's class for the first time.
ReplyDeleteIt was a Tuesday, and I remember walking into a class full of half-asleep 1102 students. I was expecting to see a few of my classmates there waiting to be assigned to groups, and was a little uneasy whenever class commenced and no one was present. I realized quickly that the writing fellows assignment for me was supposed to be on Thursday. These are the times where one feels like an enormous "DUH" spreads across one's forehead and is seared in for the rest of the day. I was slightly uncomfortable for about ten seconds and then realized that it would be a good opportunity to sit and observe the class. Ms. Flournoy seemed very comfortable in her surroundings, and knew how to get a few chuckles out of her somewhat less than enthusiastic group of students, but she knew how to get her points across in a professional manner. I noticed that she went into great detail with the class about thesis statements, and what was acceptable. She differentiated between a thesis statement and topic sentence, and she encouraged the students to stray away from the "five-paragraph essay."
When Thursday finally came, I felt a bit more comfortable about the assignment because I had stayed on Tuesday to observe the class. I felt thankful that I was able to snatch a positive experience out of a serious blonde moment. I was assigned to a group of four girls, and they were easy to get along with, but I was a bit concerned that they had the "It's morning; let's get this over with," kind of mindset. After learning a little bit about my group members, I asked them how they preferred do things as far as reading the papers. They all agreed to pass the papers around and comment separately. I told them that revision was the main goal of the day, and editing would come later. (As far as editing goes, I did explain the importance of using "one" and "his/her" instead of "one" and "their.") I was very happy that none of them asked me anything like "Will you edit this?" I didn't have any problems as far as the difference between editing and revision. I focused on trying to help with thesis statements and body paragraph organization, and I tried to let them do most of the talking. One girl in my group had nice organization, but was repetitive with ideas. Another girl had a problem with not mentioning the main idea of one of the body paragraphs in the first sentence. I will admit that I was slightly surprised when I saw that one girl was writing in first person for this particular essay, so I explained the wonders of writing in third person. The last girl's paper was very nice, and flowed so nicely. There was one word for that paper: butter. I figured out that she had gone to the writing center, so I did applaud her for that.
All in all, I will admit that it was an interesting experience, and positive, but I will most definitely do things differently next session. Instead of having each person read another's paper, I will have them read aloud and comment. This time I didn't feel as connected with them as I felt I could have been, but it was my first time dealing with a peer review group, and one only learns from experience. If one thing is certain, I walked away learning something new, and I believe my group members did as well.