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

1. Peer Response for Privateers: Elbow and Belanoff’s Sharing and Responding Jeff Paschke-Johannes ID 601 – TPrep October 25, 2007

2. 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.

3. 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

4. Sharing and Responding • By Peter Elbow and Patricia Belanoff in A Community • of 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.

5. Sharing and Responding • 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.

6. 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 (9) (4) (1) (2) (3) (5) (7) (8) (6) (9) (11) (10)

7. Sharing and Responding • 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 • 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 Map

8. Sharing and Responding • 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 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 Map

9. Sharing and Responding • 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 5) 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 Map

10. Sharing and Responding 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 • 8) 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 Map

11. 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

12. Sharing and Responding 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 stages • 11) 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. Map

13. Sharing and Responding Implementing 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

14. A Bibliography 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.