During my second semester of writing, the professor commented that I provided strong feedback. That single comment changed my opinion on writing from an activity I took for granted to one that I wanted to share. It also changed my idea of English class from one where I was forced to read and write about English and American authors to one where I was the author that the class discussed. Writing became its own art form. I wanted to help others become better writers. Almost two decades later, I have achieved my goal.
Because peer review had such an impact on my life, many of my teaching practices are influenced by the same people who informed my writing practices, which emphasize the communal nature of writing. To explain my love of writing as an art to my students, I share my favorite writers discussing writing. Students learn that writing is supposed to be recursive and that good writers do not sit down and crank out a novel in one day. Lamott (1995) shows them they need to take their assignments “bird by bird,” and that rough drafts are supposed to be “shitty.” To create a stress-free writing environment, we write our “shitty” drafts in class. Students are encouraged to bring their brainstorms, critical engagement worksheets, and headphones for a low-stakes writing period. We discuss what we accomplished, its state of “shitty”-ness, and our plan of attack for the next draft.
To emphasize idea development over perfection, Elbow (1985) encourages writers to just write without worrying about what others think. Students need to be encouraged to take risks, and as they do, I adapt my expectations of their writing to be supportive (Shaughnessy, 1976). Audience becomes a topic of conversation during conferences when I ask students to whom they are writing. Often the answer is “you.” To lead them away from “writing to the teacher” and eliminate stress of finding the audience and whether their audience is “right,” Ong (1975) explains that the audience is a creation of our minds. Once students have found their purpose and create their audience, Flower (1999) shows them how to tailor their writing to satisfy the audience’s needs.
Another result of focusing more on the recursive nature of writing, students are more likely to actively and repeatedly read assignments. We discuss Adler’s (1941) connection between reading, writing, and thinking, which aligns with Elbow’s (1983) explanations of the two types of thinking and writing. Drafting in class reinforces the social nature of writing and allows students to ask questions as they occur rather than waiting until the next day or relying on email. Class conversations during the initial process demonstrate the different styles of drafting and encourage peer-to-peer instruction. As students see writing as a collaborative effort (Nystrand 1984), they see me in a new light—more of a co-conspirator and less of a grader.
One of the hardest concepts to teach is peer review. Students do not know what to do so they focus on correcting errors instead. I see this as an imitation of what previous teachers have written on their work. They revert to being writing mechanics (Shaughnessy, 1976) that are expected to fix local errors rather than support global revision. This is an unfortunate result of many students’ prior experience sees writing as nothing more than a 5-paragraph activity that is rarely reviewed and often forgotten. To illustrate the difference between feed back during the drafting process and the comments teachers often leave of “final” drafts in non-portfolio courses, students are assigned Straub (1999) before the first peer review; this allows students to discuss how their own methods have been far off Straub’s (1999) advice. They like his question and answer format and say it is an easy read. The day before the first peer review, students create contracts of what they expect from the author and responder; I collect these and put them on the overheard before peer review.
Because receiving feedback from peer review is such an important part of my own writing process, I structure the peer review to encourage real discussion. The class works in groups of 4 and teams of 2. Team 1 reads and discusses the Team 2’s essays and vice versa. First they read with empty hands as recommended by Straub (1999) and Adler (1941). Then they read again to comment. Comments, written in complete sentences along the margins model my own feedback on their drafts. When it is time to discuss the essays, the teams discuss their essay, providing holistic feedback. Then the teams share their criticisms and suggestions with each author.
This re-focus on content shows during conferences as well. As a result, conference drafts are more strongly written. Students have less of a “tell me what to write” attitude and come with specific questions about their work to guide the conversation. This control of the conversation is empowering and they see themselves as writers rather than students. They are excited to take more risks in their writing.
References
Adler, M. (1941). How to mark a book. Saturday Review of Literature. Retrieved from http://chuma.cas.usf.edu/~pinsky/mark_a_book.htm
Elbow, P. (1985). Closing my eyes as I Speak: An argument for ignoring audience. College English49(1), 50–69. doi: 10.2307/377789
Elbow, P. (1983). Teaching thinking by teaching writing. Change15(6), 37 – 40. doi: 10.1080/00091383.1983.10570005
Flower, L. (2000). Writing for an audience. In P. Eschholz, A. Rosa, & V. Clark (Eds.), Language awareness: Readings for college writers (8th ed.) (pp. 139 – 141). Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin’s.
Lamott, A. (1995). Bird by bird: Some instructions on writing and life. New York, NY: Anchor Books.
Nystrand, M. (1984). Learning to write by talking about writing: A summary of research on intensive peer review in expository writing instruction at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. National Institute of Education (ED Publication No. ED 255 914). Washington, DC: U.S.-Government Printing Office. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED255914.pdf
Ong, W. J. (1975). The writer's audience is always a fiction. PMLA, 90(1), 9–21. doi: 10.2307/461344
Shaughnessy, M. (1976, October). Diving in: An introduction to basic writing. College Composition and Communication 27(3), 234-39. Retrieved from gato-docs.its.txstate.edu/the-education.../Diving-In/Diving%20In.pdf
Straub, R. (1999). Responding—really responding—to other students’ writing. In Wendy Bishop’s The subject is writing: Essays by teachers and students. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Publishers