Peer Response for Privateers: Elbow and Belanoff’s Sharing and

Responding

Jeff Paschke-JohannesID 601 – TPrep

October 25, 2007

My Sorry Attempts at Peer-Response

“It’s a problem of motivation…”• Early attempts effectively focused on editing, not revising

• Provided vague, short prompts to get students started

• Maybe I did it because it was expected and filled a class session

• “Blind leading the blind”

• Desired more substantial peer-response from students, but how to get there?

• Even after developing thorough critique sheets for students to follow, leading them to comments on higher order concerns, uncritical comments, lack of participation, and advice that could actually be detrimental to student writing persisted.

My Sorry Attempts at Peer-Response

Doing “Peer Review” not “Peer Response”

A Problem of Philosophy

• Considered peers’ role to give advice and evaluation, such as the teacher might give; students get suggestions that they can implement in changing their drafts

• Administered peer-response groups late in composition process, when students have “finished” product that will be submitted in a day or two for a grade

Sharing and RespondingBy Peter Elbow and Patricia Belanoff in A Communityof Writers: A Workshop Course in Writing. NY: McGraw-Hill, 1989, 1995. SR-1-SR-60.• Students need an audience, not evaluators or advice givers (SR-5), to feel “presence of interested readers” (SR-6)• “What we need most as writers is not evaluation of the quality of our writing or advice about how to fix it, but an accurate account of what goes on inside readers’ heads as they read our words” (SR-31).

Because…

• “We speak because we are trying to communicate.” Likewise, we write for, “a reply, not an evaluation” (SR-18).• Evaluation and Judgment can be hard to receive before we know how well our readers understand our composition, before we know what to expect of our readers• “We benefit most from feedback on early drafts, but it doesn’t make sense to evaluate an early draft” (SR-20).• Varied forms of response help clarify whether the writer’s point is coming across and helps peers develop a clear understanding of the composition, which is vital if useful suggestions about the composition are going to be offered.

11 Peer Responses

• Written to students

• Focuses on ways peers can effectively respond to each other as good readers, giving fellow writers a vision of what their readers might expect and ideas on how to revise and develop based on that perspective.

• Responses are scaffolded, some working better for early stages in writing and some for later stages of writing, recognizing that different kinds of responses are needed depending on the development of the composition.

• Likewise, responses allow for scaffolding for peer readers as well, acknowledging that they may not yet be ready to respond in more refined and technical ways.

Sharing and Responding

(2)

(3)

(1)

(4)

(11)

(10)

(9)

(9)

(8)

(7)

(6)

(5)

(1) Sharing: No Response

(2) Pointing & Center of Gravity

(3) Summary & Sayback

(4) The Almost Said

(5) Reply

(6) Voice

(7) The Readers Mind (A Movie)

(8) Metaphorical Descriptions

(9) Believing & Doubting

(10) Skeleton & Descriptive Outline

(11) Criterion-Based Feedback

Sharing and Responding1) Sharing: No Response • Student reads work out loud

to peers• Peers do not respond but only

listen attentively• Student gains from actually

having to think of her work as communicating to others

• Useful in early & late stages of writing

2) Pointing & Center of Gravity

• Pointing – ident- ify striking words or phrases• Center of Gravity – identify

particularly powerful moments in the text

• Allows writer to see areas of development to enhance readers’ experience or to see new directions in which the composition could go.

• Useful in early & late stages of writing

Map

Sharing and Responding

3) Summary & Sayback• Summary – Peers summarize

what the text says• Sayback – Peers describe they

think the writer is getting at• Helps writer see whether

main idea is coming across or helps writer establish what he or she is really trying to say

• Useful in early & late stages. Sayback particularly useful in early stages when writers ideas may still be vague

4) The Almost Said• Writer asks peers questions about what is implied but not stated and what peers would like to hear more about• Helps writer with development of composition by finding details that may be missing or determining whether subtle details are working as intended• Useful in middle to late stages

Map

Sharing and Responding5) Reply• Readers respond with

their thoughts about the topic and/or the writer’s view (discussion of content, not composition)

• Discussion can generate problems with topic/view, reveal counterarguments that need to be made, or provide ideas that writer hadn’t considered

• Useful in early to middle stages

6) Voice• Peers help assess tone and language of the work – feelings and attitudes expressed, trustworthiness, vividness, uniqueness and individuality• Thinking in terms of voice allows peers to describe writing with less need for technical language• Useful in early or late stages, depending on what aspect of voice is examined

Map

Sharing and Responding8) Metaphorical Description• Peers build metaphors for the writer’s composition• Such indirect description can help writer see composition in new ways ● Useful at any stage, but may be more useful in later stages when writer needs new vision

7) The Reader’s Mind (A Movie)• Peers describe what they

are thinking while they listen to or read the composition,

their progression as a reader.• Writer might stop peers in the middle of the text or ask for “I”

statements about readers feelings

• Useful in later stages, when writer is fairly confident about composition and is

looking for effect on the reader

Map

Sharing and Responding

9) Believing & Doubting• Believing – Writer asks peers to pose as though they believe everything in the composition and to provide additional ideas/development that will enhance and improve arguments• Doubting – Writer asks peers to pose as though they doubt everything in the composition and to propose what problems exist in the argument and what opposing views must be responded to or counterargued.• Helps writer get opposing feedback from readers about the persuasiveness or argumentation in the composition• Useful in middle to late stages, when arguments need to be fine tuned.

Map

Sharing and Responding11) Criterion-Based Feedback• Peers respond to specific criteria or standards for the paper, whether generated by the writer or by outside demands (i.e. grading – thesis/focus, organization, development, etc.)• Calls for specifics from peers, references to passages & words• Useful in later stages, esp. when preparing for grade.

10) Skeketon & Descriptive Outline• Skeleton Feedback – Peers identify how the composition is outlined – main points, subpoints,

evidence, assumptions, etc.• Descriptive Outline – Peers break

up the composition into “says” and “does” statements: “says” statements summarize sections of the composition; “does” statements describes each sections purpose for the whole composition (rhetorical effect, function for the rest of the piece, etc)

• Useful in later stagesMap

Sharing and RespondingImplementing Peer Response• Model the peer-response process• Use it throughout the writing process• Allow students to make decisions about what kind of questions to ask

and response to ask for• Consider students’ development as readers as well as writers and adjust

peer response activity accordingly• Apply all techniques of any small group work – consider group dynamics

and construction; give clear instructions before students disperse into groups; establish a clear and demonstrable outcome; limit time allowed so that students must stay on task to finish; circulate, ask questions, check progress, and make suggestions

• Make yourself a resource that students can use during peer response

Elbow, Peter and Patricia Belanoff. Sharing and Responding. A Community of Writers: A Workshop Course in Writing. 2nd ed. NY: McGraw-Hill, 1995. SR-1-SR-60.

Elbow, Peter and Patricia Belanoff. Sharing and Responding. A Community of Writers: A Workshop Course in Writing. 2nd ed. NY: McGraw-Hill, 1995. SR-1-SR-60.

Grimm, Nancy. “Improving Students’ Responses to their Peers’ Essays.” College Composition and Communication. 37.1 (Feb. 1986): 91-94.

Graner, Michael H. “Revision Workshops: An Alternative to Peer Editing Groups.” The English Journal. 76.3 (Mar. 1987): 40-45.

Hansen, Jette G. and Jun Liu. “Guiding Principles for Effective Peer Response.” ELT Journal. 59.1 (Jan. 2005): 31-38.

A Bibliography