-Lee Ann Carroll
Rehearsing New Roles: How College Students Develop as Writers
For those of you who have been
following along this semester, welcome to the third classic cut
from the Word Works vault. This time around the focus is on
peer response-students responding to
other students' texts. Though long known as a valuable means of
prompting revision, peer response is not always embraced in
courses, often understandably. As Rick Leahy points out in
the article below, structuring effective responses takes time and
effort. Yet the rewards can be well worth it, and Rick details some
ways to overcome certain hurdles to the process. Even though it is late in
the semester, many courses still have papers due, and now can be
an excellent time to consider allowing students some time to read
and comment on one another's work.
Before jumping to the article,
and before closing out this stretch of WW, I want to let you
know that the classic cuts we've presented are but a bit of the
store we have in the vault. There are several excellent articles
stashed down in our metaphorical basement (our literal filing-cabinet drawer). And, we want to make those available to you.
Toward that goal, our consultants are putting the finishing touches
on an annotated bibliography of early WW articles. We'll have that
bibliography online next semester so that you can browse through
it. If and when you find something that looks interesting and you'd
like a copy, just let us know and we'll send one to you. In short,
you'll now have access to our basement, and to all the copies of
Word Works.
Also, we have some changes in
store for the Writing Center next term, to make us more accessible
to more writers. We'll be opening up an online consultation
service, and providing writers the opportunity to schedule an
appointment through the internet as well as by phone and in person.
We'll detail all the changes for you next year.
Until then, enjoy this classic
cut from December 1991. As usual, none of the
material in Word Works is copyrighted, so if you find
something you would like to use, feel free to print or download, or
to create a link to us.
mm
Word Works #48:
December 1991
“Peer Responses
to Drafts”
Rick Leahy
One way to get
better quality in student papers is to have students share their
drafts in peer groups before they hand in their final copies for
grades. In these groups, they read their drafts to each other, give
feedback, and offer suggestions for revision. This strategy is
common in writing courses, where peer critiques fit in naturally.
But it is also catching on across the curriculum. Students in many
kinds of courses--history, geology, anthropology, music--benefit
from the chance to try out their drafts on an audience of their
peers.
Benefits
Teachers who have used peer-group responses have found that
good things can happen.
-
The writer puts
more of an investment into the writing, knowing that a draft will
be examined by two or three fellow students.
-
Students see what
others are doing with the same assignment. This helps them get a
clearer perspective on their own work.
-
Class members gain
an increased spirit of cooperation and mutual support.
-
Peer feedback on a
draft can improve the finished product As a result, responding to
papers become less time-consuming and stressful for the instructor.
Making peer
responses productive
To reap the
benefits, though, takes a certain amount of planning and effort;
groups don't automatically work well if set loose without clear
procedures and rules.
The most important
strategy is to ask students to give each other specific,
descriptive responses. Nothing kills a group's response to a paper
quicker than the vague noise of approval students are wont to give
each other's drafts: "That was good!" "Wow, that's a lot better
than my draft." "That really flowed." After such remarks, the group
feels there's nothing more to say. The one person who does have a
reservation or question may decide to keep quiet in the face of
such overwhelming approval. Or, if a draft is so weak that no one
can fail to notice, the group may make no response at all, because
no one wants to hurt the writer's feelings.
So the first thing
to insist on is that groups avoid making evaluative comments of any
kind until late in the discussion. The initial responses to a draft
should be descriptive. A powerful all-purpose format for
descriptive response has been developed by Peter Elbow and Pat
Belanoff in their textbook, A Community of Writers. They use
a set of four responses, to be given in the following order:
1. Pointing.
Which words, phrases, or features of the writing do you find most
striking or memorable (or what do you like the best)? This
response tells the writer what the audience is most likely to
remember from the draft.
2. Summarizing.
What do you hear the piece saying? What's the main meaning or
message? This response tells the writer whether the audience
can understand what the draft is trying to say.
3. What's
almost said or implied. What do you think the writer is going to
say but doesn't? What ideas seem to hover around the edges? What do
you end up wanting to hear more about? This powerful response
tells the writer if the draft is "tugging" in a different direction
from the one the writer intends. In revising, the writer may try to correct
the "tug" or go with it, refocusing the paper in a new direction.
4. Center of
gravity. What do you sense as the generative center or source of
energy? (The center of gravity might not be the main point.
Sometimes an image, phrase, detail, or digression seems a point of
special life or weight in the piece. The center of gravity might be
something minor that is "trying" to be major.) This is another
way of getting at things that might be "tugging" the draft in a
different direction. Unlike response #3, which identifies hints,
this response identifies things in the draft that may be
causing interference.
Notice that none
of these four responses is evaluative, yet together they give the
writer a great deal of specific information on how the draft has
affected its audience. The group may go on to give some evaluative
responses--but now the responses won't be vague and unhelpful,
because they'll be informed by the descriptive responses already
given.
Elbow and
Belanoff's descriptive response form is only one possibility. You
can make up your own response format to fit each assignment. For an
argumentative paper, for example, you might have the group think up
opposing arguments the writer should anticipate and deal with. If
possible, avoid questions calling for yes-no answers, because they
tend to close down discussion rather than open it up.
It's wise not to
ask students to respond to too many questions. Five is about
maximum. More than that will overwhelm the group and prompt them to
run down the list in a perfunctory manner rather than engage in a
real discussion of each one. And, once the groups catch on to the
procedure, don't get upset if they don't follow the format exactly.
It's not unusual for the more productive groups to develop their
own response styles that, for them, work better than the prescribed
format.
If you've given a
very specific or detailed assignment, you might require each group
to have a copy of the assignment in front of them, so that they can
make sure each draft actually follows the written directions.
Five frequently
asked questions about how to make groups work
How should I
make up the groups? Most teachers favor heterogeneous
grouping--mixing ability levels and demographics. Early in the
semester, of course, you don't know your students' abilities and so
can't mix them up that way. But as least you can mix men and women,
younger and older students, ESL and native English speakers.
In a heterogeneous
group, the stronger writers can help the weaker ones; the students
with more academic and life experience can help those with less.
You might think that the better writers and more "seasoned"
students would resent being slowed down, but usually they don't.
Indeed, they often benefit, because they are forced to explain
things clearly to other members of the group. They also learn to
see more in their own writing from working with others who have
trouble seeing their writing clearly.
If I use
groups frequently, is it better to keep them the same groups all
semester or switch them around? There's no easy answer. The
advantage of keeping the same groups is that, once people get
comfortable with each other, their responses become more honest and
useful. The groups also develop a sense of mutual loyalty and
support, and they might resent being broken up. The advantage of
switching groups, on the other hand, is that writers get the
benefit of different kinds of responses each time.
Most teachers seem
to feel that the advantages of keeping the same groups outweigh
those of shuffling groups. But if, by mid-semester, some groups are
clearly not working productively together, it's definitely time to
shuffle them.
Should
students bring copies of their drafts for the whole group to see?
If papers are fairly short (up to about 6 pages), the
group can get by without copies. In that case, it's extremely
helpful to require the writer to read the paper twice.
The first time through, the group can catch what the draft is
saying; they need to listen a second time to discern how the draft
is written. The double reading does, of course, take extra time,
but the time is well spent.
You can save time
by having everyone bring an extra copy or two, so that groups can
follow along with the oral reading. This way there need only be one
reading. You must be careful, though, to insist that the writer (or
better yet, someone else in the group) read the draft aloud. Some
groups are inclined, if you don't watch them, to read each other's
drafts silently. The reading aloud is essential, so that
everyone's attention is focused on the same words at the same time.
How large
should the groups be? Any group should have at least three
members, so that each writer can get two different responses. If
the groups do a good job of responding, they take 15-20 minutes for
each four- or five-page paper. For a 50-minute period, then, groups
of three is about maximum. For a 75-minute class, four is max. It
is better for a group to finish early than to rush their responses
to the last draft. Don't add latecomers to groups that are already
full. If the number of students doesn't work out right, the
"leftover" people can be paired up rather than put with full
groups.
Should I
collect the drafts and comment on them? You don't have to,
especially if your time is short. Collecting drafts, on the other
hand, will help you head off potentially serious problems, ones
that the groups may not catch. If you do collect the drafts to read
yourself, try having everyone write memos telling you their own
thoughts on their drafts and summarizing the group's responses (see
Word Works #44 on the author's memo).
As an alternative,
you could leave the choice up to the students: they may give you
their drafts for feedback if they want to. Those that take
advantage of your offer will almost invariably hand in better
finished papers, if they pay attention to the feedback you give
them.
Whether students
are required to hand in the drafts or not, you can still make the
drafts mandatory for full credit on an assignment. On draft-reading
day, take roll of drafts as well as of students.
Some problems
with groups, and some possible solutions
Despite the
benefits, some teachers are reluctant to try groups--or, because of
a bad experience with them once, are reluctant to try again.
Peer-response groups don't automatically work well, it's true.
Students need time to get used to them, and they need guidance for
getting the most out of them.
Certain tendencies
can keep groups from working well.
The descriptive response format, described above, prevents this
problem for most students, but some are slow to catch on. It
usually helps to tell writers, "When your draft is before the
group, you are president. You call the shots. You can insist that
the group keep working until they give you substantial responses.
This is a symptom of dualistic thinking on the part of some
students (see Word Works #42). One way to combat this
attitude is to explain, "Sure, some of the things your group tells
you may be wrong. I can be just as wrong when I read your paper.
They are giving you as honest a picture as they can of what your
writing did to them. Their responses are worth listening to."
True, sometimes it doesn't--usually more out of laziness, though,
than the inability to interpret peer responses. Part of the
solution is to allow time for careful revision before the
paper is due, and to explain--insist--that effective revision is a
re-thinking of the paper, not just a cosmetic job.
This is reality. Different readers do respond in different ways. How
many of us have submitted articles to journals and been baffled by
conflicting reviewers' comments? For student writers, it's an
opportunity to consider what their writing does to real audiences.
They must learn that, in the end, they have to make their own tough
decisions about their writing.
Indeed, for each
assignment you have to give up a whole class period to peer
critiques, and the demands of your course content might make the
sacrifice impossible. On the other hand, when groups are discussing
drafts, real learning often takes place. In the process of
discussing their writing, students will almost inevitably discuss
quite a lot of content, too.
There is, of
course, no way to completely overcome the problems. As with any
"system," when human beings try to carry it out nothing goes
precisely as planned. But careful training of the class helps. If
time allows, you might devote an hour of class time to the
discussion of one or two sample drafts, pointing out the important
features of an effective response to the assignment. This helps
students know what to look for in each other's drafts.