Professor Mia Zamora
September 26, 2016
Peer Response and The Revision Process
I enjoyed reading “One Approach to Guiding Peer Response” by Kim Jaxon the most. It was very concise and straight to the point. During the reading, in the back of my mind I found myself disagreeing with some of the methods that were suggested. I had to remember that this was only “one approach.” The article “On Reflection” by Kathleen Yancey was a total disappointment to me. I expected a more in depth perspective of how students write reflections and what kind of reflections students write. Instead, the article became highly theoretical and really confusing for me to process the information. There was an abundance of historical information and many people of literary authority quoted within the article. I originally expected to enjoy reading this piece page by page. In reality, once I started reading I was looking forward to reaching the end of the article. I will say that the article gave a lot of good points about what reflection is and what it is not.
Kim Jaxon has found that the revision is the most important thing in her writing classes. She uses her student’s feedback to remodel how she conducts peer responding in the classroom. She lets students engage in with purposes attach. She wants them to gain additional knowledge, get constructive feedback, and allows them to reflect on their own writing processes.
Her suggestion of taking home papers to respond to them seemed out of the ordinary to me. In college, I was never given the opportunity to take someone’s assignment home with me. It was necessary to give them feedback as soon as possible. Time is of the essence when you have another person’s piece of writing. I agreed that time to read the draft essay was necessary in peer response. Often in the classroom, the class would run out of time to respond to individual’s writing pieces. I’ve never considered creating guiding questions for papers. Normally, the main goal is to create a better paper and consider what the professor wants. Hardly, would a student actually give guiding questions for a peer. A common response would be “I don’t know, just tell me what needs work or tell me what you think about what I wrote.” I think guiding questions are a better thing to have in peer response. I’ve always been accustomed to trying to comment on grammar. I can’t stand seeing grammatical problems in people’s papers. This is something that I would need to get used to avoiding. In my college experience, peers have been able to give more than just 2-3 helpful suggestions. They often bring up things that I wonder how did I ever miss that. My questions regarding the article:
1. What kind of benefits have students gotten from the peer responses they got?
2. What are her other approaches to guiding peer responses? This seems pretty simple to me.
3. Has she used technology such as Google Docs for peer responses?
Reflection is an accumulation of experiences, inner thoughts and accomplishments. This was a part of an experiment to figure out how students learn to write which we briefly touched in last class. The research was primarily done during 1970’s and 1980’s. Teachers wanted to move away from traditional viewpoints of how students learn to write. Students perspectives became centrally important.
When I reflect upon ideas, I have to dig into my personal experiences otherwise I have nothing to compare them with. I like the idea of students being seen as “authoritative informants.” (5) During class reflections, students get to spread around their knowledge to others and new knowledge in return.
1. Are students with mental disorders at a disadvantage in reflections?
2. How do you reflect on something you aren’t interested in?
3. How do control reflections that are controversial and become very lengthy?