A Question of Priorities
In designing my lesson plan for last week, I got to thinking about what really matters in peer review. If I could only get one thing out of peer review, what would it be?
I don't actually think the goal of peer review should be better papers. If all we want is better papers, we can send students to the writing lab, or spend more time commenting on their drafts, or have them read writing manuals, etc -- all of which, I think would be a more effective way of getting them to write better papers than peer review.
I think an attainable, realistic goal of peer review is to create better reviewers, critics, analysts, and commentators. The learning part of the peer review is in the reviewing, not the supposed helpfulness of the comments, which is why my lesson plan was more focused in the act of reviewing, rather than on the outcome of the review.
I liked Roen's idea of peer reviewing ideas (the "Day 1") rather than entire papers. In the writing lab, I always prefer tutorials where the student has less written and needs help, rather than a more finished product, because I feel like I can actually do something about the problems in the paper, "nip it in the bud" so to speak. This is why I am somewhat opposed to the idea that students must bring in "polished first submissions" and not "rough drafts." If you want me to do something in peer review, give me something that needs a alot of work, and something that the author will be more open to changing because it's less realized.
I don't actually think the goal of peer review should be better papers. If all we want is better papers, we can send students to the writing lab, or spend more time commenting on their drafts, or have them read writing manuals, etc -- all of which, I think would be a more effective way of getting them to write better papers than peer review.
I think an attainable, realistic goal of peer review is to create better reviewers, critics, analysts, and commentators. The learning part of the peer review is in the reviewing, not the supposed helpfulness of the comments, which is why my lesson plan was more focused in the act of reviewing, rather than on the outcome of the review.
I liked Roen's idea of peer reviewing ideas (the "Day 1") rather than entire papers. In the writing lab, I always prefer tutorials where the student has less written and needs help, rather than a more finished product, because I feel like I can actually do something about the problems in the paper, "nip it in the bud" so to speak. This is why I am somewhat opposed to the idea that students must bring in "polished first submissions" and not "rough drafts." If you want me to do something in peer review, give me something that needs a alot of work, and something that the author will be more open to changing because it's less realized.
posted by Faith | 3:07 PM
2 Comments:
Faith,
I agree with what you say that a realistic goal of peer review is to create better readers more than better papers. I think that is where my report for the class is going, and it helps me to think in those terms. I also agree that sometimes it is easier to talk with peers when the writing is still in the idea stage because students may feel more free to share and move things around. I am interested in maybe having a peer group that stays consistent throughout one complete paper, and by meeting several times maybe they can get a better sense of the writing cycle by seeing it in their peers and not just in themselves.
Central to peer conferencing is the acceptance of messy first drafts that are filled with tons of ideas. These drafts aren't ready for an audience. They are read by the writer and lots of questions can be asked.
Peer conferences are the best thing that I can teach students in my class. They learn how to talk to each other--they have an audience that is genuine. They learn to care about each other's writing. They write better. Real thinking is going on. I love the writing center, but great peer conferences in a classroom community are so much better.
Post a Comment
<< Home