More information please...
Because there were so many presentations and workshops taking place throughout the three day workshop, we were unable to attend all of the workshops we were interested in. While we chose presentations that suited our scholarly and instructional pursuits, there were other sections that peaked our interest simply because of their interesting topics or their seemingly impossible implementation.
posted by Emalsam | 7:20 AM
4 Comments:
Emily, can you explain the round robin peer editing technique as you’ve used it?
Hi Deborah! Here's a brief overview:
I'd first like to say that while I've used this lesson for many years, it was not until a conference presenter from Chaffey College reminded me how great this activity is that I revised it for my ENG 50 course:
The first session I attended was a workshop on reducing workload by providing feedback in alternative ways. While I didn’t find these alternatives to be of much use, one of the women presenting reminded me of a round table that I used to do with students a few years back. In this peer review, students must all bring a copy of their paper. They are arranged in a circle and then, instead of providing peer review to one or two papers throughout the course of an hour, students pass their papers around a circle every five minutes or so. Here’s the concept:
Students pass their papers to the left (I usually say “Pass your papers three to the left” or something like that to get students to let go of the fact that their peer review person is sitting right next to them. Eventually, they forget where their papers are and therefore, if students make funny noises, faces, or smirk, giggle, etc. in response to a paper, no one knows whose paper it is in front of them.)
Starting with the paper in front of them, we start with one question such as “Find the introduction and label it as one of the four types of introductions we’ve discussed in class. Provide 2-3 sentences of commentary on the quality of the introduction and possibilities for revising it.”
After they’ve done this, students initial their comments and flip over the papers in front of them. Once the majority of students are finished, we pass the papers to the left again. Then, we look at the next question. We do this until we have only a few minutes left of our class time. Then, we reflect on the comments from students and prepare notes for what we’ll revise for the following day. (I typically do this peer review two days in a row, but it can be done only one day).
I have power points and handouts if anyone would like them.
One session that I attended, but still need a little more information was on decreasing work load. Here are a few of my comments:
I was very surprised to hear that faculty from CA were employing readers in order to decrease their work load. This practice seems a little disconnected and pedagogically shaky. Reading my students papers really helps me to digest how well my lessons “sunk in” and whether or not I’ll need to cover material again in the future. While other strategies were presented as well, I can’t quite get on board for taping responses or meeting with students for 30 second conferences. Conferences are a standard practice for me, and students are regularly dropping in and out of my office for help on thesis statements, topic sentences, etc. However, a 30 second overview of what the student needed to do in order to “pass” the paper would be extremely exhausting for me, as well as a little disjointed. I was happy to connect with fellow faculty regarding the simple trivialities that seem to plague our lives as English teachers, and it was nice to know that the ol’ “every man/woman is an island” cliché doesn’t apply in this profession. This feeling was resonated in the time spent with colleagues at dinner, in the car, and in-flight.
An description of the panel called: "Research: Collaborative, Engaging, and Significant"
Georgia Pierce Williams of CSU Fresno has developed an interesting research assignment for her Freshman Composition class. I will summarize it as best I can relying on the handout and my memory.
The project is based on the following two premises:
*Pierce Williams writes: “We learn more when we engage in collaborative activities.”
*and “As members of the vast discourse communities we call the United States, we have a civic duty to explore problems and work toward solving them.”
After spending several weeks reading and discussing a book that she refers to as an ethnobiography, I begin My Life All Over, and writing their own ethnobiographies, the class starts in on their research project. Their first task is to “identify a problem that exists within a discourse community of which you are a member...You may select issues raised in either Composing a Civic Life or I begin My Life All Over. The problem you identify could, therefore, be related to gangs, to immigrants, to issues between generations of immigrants, to the relationship between family and society, to the relationship between higher education and other communities, and more” (Pierce Williams).
The class then organizes into groups around the five problems that they’ve identified as a class. Each group must write a 15-20 page paper including three parts: presentation of the problem, academic discourse on the problem, other perspectives (outside academia) on the problem.”
One element of her assignment that people in the audience found especially interesting addresses the concern that many of us and our students have about group assignments: what if one person does all the work? The assignment is graded on a 500 point scale and each group has five members. She has the groups develop Group Rules including how the points will be distributed, and she shared these with us. The groups took a variety of approaches and I think a few quotes from their Group Rules will illustrate their philosophies: Group one wrote, “Everyone does their equal share of work.” Group two wrote: “In the event that one of us does not show up for the meetings, we shall deduct a respectable amount of points from that individual.” Group 4 writes: “If it comes to a member’s attention that another group member is not completing their work, the other member must inform them of the inconvenience they are causing the group.” Group #5 is more specific with their requirements: “Each person in group is expected to come up with a minimum of two academic articles relating to the issue from at least two different perspectives or aspects of our issue…Each person will also pick one area of expertise in the issue, medical, law enforcement, legislative, and educational areas, and provide two articles of information each about the issue.”
Post a Comment
<< Home