As noted on the last page, a big part of the Writing Groups will be giving feedback to each other on your writing.
My guidelines for effective peer response can be found here (can also be found on Blackboard>Course Documents). Take a moment to review those guidelines.
The reading for this week is also full of great information for peer response, so I want you to review your notes on that reading as you are thinking about ways to respond effectively to other people’s writing.
Task
Review any annotations from the Straub reading, skim back through the reading, and list 3 important things about peer feedback that you got from that reading in a comment below.
After commenting below, click the button to continue:
1. Definitely give constructive criticism instead of just telling the writer that everything is good and perfect.
2. When commenting, instead of just criticizing, you can provide positive reinforcement and suggestions.
3. When reading other’s work, present yourself as a colleague and try to understand the writing of the author. This way you can help them improve instead of judging their writing.
1. Don’t be vague in your comments, cite specific ways in which the writers words may have been vague or confusing etc.
2. Play back your understanding of the paper in order to make sure the writer is getting their point across effectively
3. Always be aware of the writer behind the writing
1. Don’t seek and destroy all errors and problems of the writing.
2. Try to focus your comments on a couple areas of writing.
3. Ask questions, especially real questions.
– Be specific and add detail as a writer.
– Alway’s be ready to praise and expect more from the writer.
– Ask question’s in your writing,
1. Don’t be too broad in your feedback. Try to dial in on something specific that you think you can help with
2. Skim through the work quickly at first in order to give yourself an idea of what you will be helping with. (Grammar, structure, flow…)
3. Don’t try to be a teacher, be a friend
-be constructive not destructive
-know how to understand to then fix
-step into the writers shoes
1) There is never enough when it comes to writing. So always expect more from the writer because the writer can always improve on what they wrote.
2) The purpose is to read and review the writing, not edit, and set out to determine every error and problem one’s writing may have because you are not the writer. Only the writer should edit and make perspectives on their paper to convey their overall message.
3) Do not tell a writer what to do in their writing, but make suggestions to what the writer can do to revise and edit.
– Be specific with the errors, and give helpful suggestions
– Ask questions
– Be a good classmate and understand the writing
1. Be aware of the stage of writing
2. Be specific about the criticism
3. Be critical but don’t be harsh, give feedback as suggestions instead of as “shoulds”
– Look through the paper to identify their points before going into the smaller details.
– Be very specific with your criticism
– Realize that you are reading someone else’s paper, so only make suggestions, don’t mess with what they’ve written
1. Make sure you always ask questions about your writing.
2. Try to understand why the writer wrote what they wrote from their perspective.
3. Make sure you are really clear with what you say.
1. To first consider how the writing expressed itself to you before even considering anything positive or negative about it.
2. Be very specific about what you are critiquing in the writing
3. Emphasize the missed potential in a mistake rather than staying too focused on the mistake itself
1. You should be a be able to tell the writer of ways they can fix their writing in a constructive way.
2. Before you read, you should get the context/ attitude the writer is going for.
3. Mentally prepare yourself as a reader not anything else.
Posted for Sofy: Something important I got from the reading was the part where he makes it clear that you are not the writer. Your purpose is to tell the writer what you got from the reading, what you experienced. They do with that information what they please. The second thing I found interesting was that it is important what stage of drafting the writer is in. I never really paid attention to that part of it. I always just read the paper, did my comments and moved on. Here, it tells me to only pick out the big things if it is a first draft, if it is a final draft, pick even at punctuation. The third thing I found interesting was the part about criticizing and praising. I actually do this in my life, when I want to complain about something, or argue with someone. I make sure to praise first, make the person comfy, then come down with what is bothering me. I think I might do this in peer review already, without even noticing.
Give honest criticism
Understand the writing
Give suggestions on how to fix