I liked Johnson's essay about anonymous critique. It seemed to make a lot of sense that students would be more honest and critical of a work if they didn't have to worry about hurting the author's feelings in a face-to-face conversation. Even at the graduate level, I sometimes have a hard time commenting on another's student's work in a peer review session. I don't want the student to "dislike" me, so I try very hard to couch all my comments. (I beat around the bush, so to speak... haha). Plus, anonymous response forces the critic to focus only on the piece of writing. All of their opinions must be based on what they read, not on what they think of the author. (That is key to good response, I think.) On the other hand though, I think that face-to-face spontaneous response is good too. I think students may be more likely to take things said in face-to-face conversations more seriously. Plus, they can ask the person to clarify what the mean, right away. Also, as was said in a previous article, face-to-face peer review can help people understand the dynamics of audience better. I'm not sure the same thing is accomplished in anonymous review.
That being said, I really like the idea of a "practice" session on peer review. I think it is something I might incorporate into my own class. Teachers simply assume that students know the correct and incorrect way to comment on another person's writing. But, I don't think we really do. It isn't easy to understand the explicit reasons for why a piece of writing works, or doesn't work. Figuring that out, however, helps you to become a better writer, I think. We need to give students the proper tools to peer review. We need to go over with them what works and doesn't work. Otherwise, we are going to keep getting the results we do not want. We are going to keep reading comments like, "It's good. It sucks." We need to show students that they must take peer review sessions seriously, and that they are not just days for the teacher to sit back and do nothing. (I sometimes thought of peer review sessions as "wasted" or "easy" days.) Students just don't see much value in the practice, and why should they? They rarely get good comments.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I read the Paul Johnson chapter, but I’m still a bit unsure how I feel about online, anonymous draft workshops.
I understand that most people may feel more liberated critiquing under a pseudonym. Early in my college career, I found myself trying to frame negative comments as questions or suggestions or blending in the “bad” news with the “good” during my peer groups. But eventually, being a helpful, direct, and still sensitive reader and critic gets easier.
Don’t we just—well—have to get over the compulsion to “be nice,” make friends, and avoid offending people? Not that there’s anything wrong with niceties; everyone needs encouragement, and students should certainly complement one another’s efforts and accomplishments.
For some reason, I believe I prefer in-person workshops; however, I do think the online, public forum would make students more accountable, due to the audience factor. Plus, the act of replying in writing to other drafts would also help students practice articulating arguments and opinions in writing. Perhaps this online approach might help first-time writing students learn how to participate and contribute to draft workshops. As one of the writers mentioned, draft workshops/conferences are probably new concept to writing students.
I’m not completely convinced about this approach, but—not to make it sound like a science experiment—I think it could be something to try out.
As for Kate Feeland’s piece, I wonder if teacher-student draft conferences might be too intimidating for students. Maybe I read it wrong, but I got the impression that these were one-on-one meetings with students. I think there might be certain occasions for these, but I wonder if draft workshops work better if they are held with a small group of other students as well as the teacher.
I do like Freeland’s use of reflective writing both before and after draft conferences. As a student, I think my most productive draft workshops have involved going to the session with a written reflection on my writing, as well as a written critique of my peers’ drafts. As a student, it always felt like a lot of writing and effort, but my compositions always improved, and I felt like I contributed more suggestions to my peers during the actual draft meetings. Emphasizing writing and preparation does make the draft workshops/conferences seem more serious and involved. As I guess they should be!
Like Becca, I can see how online anonymous draft workshops help students to critique without getting personal, but I'm not sure if that is something I would implement in my own class.
On the one hand, I think written responses are great, because the critic has a chance to fully think through what they want to say about the piece, and offer feedback that the writer can take home and look at and really use in their revisions.
On the other hand, doing this only online and always anonymous might take away from the experience of peer groups. I know that some of my best experiences in workshops involved being in a group that gave me a lot of feedback, and talking together in the group gave me a sense of community--we became attatched to each other's writing, and looked forward to our peers' comments. I understand that often there is anxiety about what to say, what not to say, how to not hurt someone's feelings, etc., but, as I mentioned in a previous blog post, I think there's a tactful way to say everything. Students need to be taught upfront about HOW to critique, and ways to make suggestions. We, as teachers, have to give our students feedback, and I know that I want to give as much constructive criticism as possible. I want to tell my students everything they can do to improve their writing, but that doesn't mean I have to lower their self esteem doing it. In fact, they should feel good about getting feedback, even if they know they have a lot of work to do.
Also, the experience of peer review allows for the group members to build on one another's comments in the discussion of the piece of writing. One group member may point out to another something he or she didn't notice before, and together the group can decide what works and what doesn't.
One particular workshop that I have now involves having peer review in class, in which the author reads their work (in this case, poetry) aloud, followed by a discussion amongst the other group members. We also write one-page critiques after the in-class discussion, which we give to the writer the following week. This allows for the group to have the best of both worlds. We are able to feed off of each other's responses, and then take home our thoughts and reflect on paper. It's really helpful getting those different forms of feedback. Now, this could be taken to the next level, in which those written responses are online, maybe even anonymous, but I don't think it is necessary. Sometimes, I think anonymous responses also allow for students to be a little harsh or cynical, and I wouldn't want a student to do that. They can be perfectly clear and make every suggestion they wish to make without attacking the writing.
So I guess I see how this can be beneficial, but I don't necessarily think I would want to practice it.
I agree that i like the idea of anonyminity because it does allow the more shy students and those who are more prone to being nice to be able to state what might really help the writer. I wish that in my freshman years more teachers would have done this for me, because (as we know) i have some major issues with peer response and the pressure to provide a "good" (i had to use that word) response. So i think if i had been able to respond without anyone knowing it was me, then it really would have helped me learn how to do it. I also agree with Becca and Jillian here because i think it is good to learn how to respond in an actual face-to-face setting..but we are graduate students, i guess we are supposed to be able to do that. I think it would be a good idea to maybe have the first half of the semester be anonymous and then move into a way of responding that deals in the actual classroom. I think the students would not be as lost about how to go about responding and they would be more confident in their response skills.
Yes, maybe an anonymous, online draft workshop would be something for the first half of the semester, as Melanie suggested, or maybe even for just the first and second workshop. This strategy might help students practice contributing to peer groups and understand what is expected of them in a draft workshop. Perhaps then they would feel less awkward when participating in in-person workshops later on.
sorry i'm jumping in on this late.
anonymous workshops can work wonders. i've only ever participated in one, and i really loved it. something was lifted from me as a writer, though i have to say that something did clamp down its place. because of the anonymity, the class was much more flippant in their/our critiques. everyone had something to say, so much so that, even with no names attached, there was somehow more at stake. perhaps this is what i liked about it. somehow the workshop was de-publicized, yet remained very public.
i should note that this experience was in a creative writing workshop, so there was more emotion tied up in my work than in, perhaps, a typical English class assignment. still, i think the young authors we teach might approach their 11011/21011 papers similarly. as many of y'all have said, using the anonymous workshop early in the semester could result in an open bunch of skilled revisionists by the semester's end. who knows--maybe by the second or third paper, they may no longer need the crutch of anonymity, or feel the need to self-censor. that'd be my preference: to use johnson's suggestion only to ease them into "normal" revision--ie, all names attached.
I too see value in anonymous critiques, but I also see where problems could arise with these. Having taken part if many workshops, from my experience as an undergrad and now in an MFA program, I realize that many students are uncomfortable in both giving and receiving criticism, even while it is constructive.
As an undergrad, especially towards the beginning of my academic career, students seemed especially uncomfortable reviewing the work of other students. This was true for any class in which review and criticisms would seem to be critical components. I think not only of creative writing classes, or rhetoric and composition classes, but also in other disciplines, like theatre.
During my junior year as an undergrad, I took an acting class, which culminated in a final acting scene with a partner. Along the way, we performed shorter scenes with partners, for preparation, in addition to regular classroom activity and excercises. During these preliminary projects, the entire class would discuss what went well and what did not.
From the beginning of my class, my instructor jokingly informed the class to avoid the general comment, "It was good. I liked it." Even while this comment seems like it would at least be positive, it really was not. For one thing, it did not address any specific issue in regards to the scene. While the word "good" is used, It is so vague that an actor would not no where to be especially proud of his or her work, and obviously, since any negative judgements were left out, where more work is needed.
This is very similar to writing. Students, hoping not to offend, might give a simple positive criticism of a piece of work, leaving out any commentary of substance, and in the end leaving a writer with little help for where to go next.
Hoping not to offend another writer, students may inadvertantly diminish the whole concept of critiques. In the end, no one is helped. However, this is not to say that negative criticism is always a good thing.
While I hope that writers, just the like the actors in my class, will honestly critique the work in question, I also am reluctant to completely accept negative criticism as genuine. Many times, in a workshop setting, students may come in thinking they automatically have to find what's wrong. I have to admit that this spell has come over me in the past.
In workshops, especially those where I am not as familiar with either the genre of writing or the material that the writing addresses, I have often been impressed with a piece of writing to the point that I have little to criticize. As a result, I look for something, problems that might need addressed.
When I am left empty-handed, I think that I have done something wrong, rather than the writer having done something right. So, in the end, I might offer "constructive criticism" on a component of the paper that, in my view, didn't really need any to begin with.
This brings me back to the earlier point of anonymity in workshops. I see value here in that students would have an opportunity to fully address all issues, even those that make them uncomfortable, in a piece of writing. Now the students can be sincere, honest, forthcoming, truthful, genuine, unliar-like, and so forth regarding the work. They do not have to take ownership of their comments. But, this might have drawbacks as well.
The ability to articulate one's thoughts and ideas, even if they may be unwelcome by others, but necessary still, is a great skill for students to develop and maintain. As long as the criticism is sincere, I have found that few writers in workshops actually take these comments personally.
Separating oneself from his or her work, and looking at it objectively with a group of other writers is a necessary academic and even life skill. Allowing students to mask themselves and their commentary prevents them from the ability to critique fully, and prevents the writer from the ability to accept both positive and negative criticism.
Post a Comment