Implementation
Because there was such a variety of presentations and we, as teachers, are a very diverse group, we continued to discuss the possibilities for implementation of presentation materials and theories as we left the conference and throughout our trip home. Several sessions stood out as having instructional value, including material on peer analysis essays and peer review techniques.
posted by Emalsam | 7:26 AM
5 Comments:
As I mentioned earlier, I came home from the conference and revised my last English 50 essay assignment as a result of having attended a session on "The Peer Analysis Essay." But I attended another session in which I learned some things that I will gradually incorporate into my teaching--a little bit this semester, and a lot more next semester. That session was on "Text Based Analysis," and it provided a simple step-by-step approach to teaching the specific skills of text-based analysis. I think the most valuable thing I took from this session was the demonstration of how to build scaffolding into any lesson.
Adrienne, I like the sound of the Peer Analysis Essay. I have a few more questions. Does the writer eventually see the reviewer's comments? What directions do you provide to the reviewer? I forgot to ask also...do you have a handout outlining the scaffolding discussed in the panel on text-based analysis. I would love to get a copy of that.
Like Adrienne, I was impressed with the idea of the peer analysis essay, but I won’t be incorporating it until next semester, perhaps as the second paper of the term. What I did introduce immediately, though, was the round-robin peer editing, in which students take on different roles, like comma cop, and read and mark their peers’ papers for only five minutes at a time, focusing on their assigned area of local issues before they pass on the paper to the person who is playing another role. By the end of the class, each paper has been scrutinized by a broader range of talent than if they had been traded once or twice. So far, too, the majority of my students enjoy the activity more than more standard approaches.
Deb, the writer sees the reviewer's comments in essay form (the reviewer turns in one copy for a grade and gives one copy to the writer). However, the writer never sees the inital comments the reviewer makes on the writer's paper. There were actually two presenters in this session, and each presented a variation on the assignment. One was a letter to the writer, and the other was very similar, except that it had to stay in 3rd person. I much prefer the 3rd person version for a variety of reasons, but most importantly because I think the 3rd person requirement forces the writer into more formal academic language, and because it implies a wider audience than just the writer for whom it is primarily written.
Here are the instructions given by one of the presenters:
"Use the evaluation criteria sheet to evaluate each area of the paper (Focus, Organization, etc.). Locate areas in which the paper is strong and areas in which the paper needs improvement. Be thorough. Once again, the writer of the pepr will not see this, but it will be helpful for you to have this visual once you begin to brainstorm what your peer evaluation will address."
Once the reviewer has finished that, he or she is to "narrow to three specific issues that the writer needs to work on." The instructions explain that "Because [the reviewer] cannot address every aspect of a paper," [the reviewer] must select those [he or she thinks] will most benefit the writer and improve the overall quality of the writing." The instructions go on to define "global areas" and "specific issues" (a copy of the evaluation criteria is also included).
I have not yet written the instructions for my own assignment, but they will be somewhat similar.
Deb, I have notes and handouts about the scaffolding discussed in the presentation on text-based analysis, and I'd be more than happy to share them with you.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home