Elaborate on the elaboration, please...

I’d like to sum up, what I think, is really important from this week’s readings.

Mirtz: I suppose “off-topic” discussion is similar to underlife (or perhaps an instance of underlife). To go back to Brooke, he argues that underlife behaviors “seek to provide identities that go beyond the roles offered by the normal...student-as-passive-learner educational system” (p. 141). Brooke also posits that writing “involves bring able to challenge one’s assigned roles long enough that one can think originally; it involves living in conflict with accepted (expected) thought and action” (p. 141). Likewise, students perform “writerly” acts, as Mirtz argues, “when they don’t seem to be talking about their papers - exploring audience” (p. 104). As an act of underlife, seemingly off-topic discussion is actually a relationship-building activity that allows students to solidify their identities within the group while assessing audience.

Again, exceptions are always possible, but I do think that by explicitly placing the responsibility on the students for constructive indirect discussion may actually result in constructive peer response. By at least mentioning the possibilities involved in indirect talk, students may begin to see this type of talk as something different, and perhaps learn something from it (i.e. about audience). Mirtz also provides a helpful guide for promoting constructive indirect talk and peer response:
1) Give students specific instructions and information on indirect talk. There is a difference between ineffective and indirect talk.
2) Instructions for peer response are more specific than those in #1, but are also fewer in number.
3) Help students to interpret their indirect talk. Become part of their conversation!
4) Have students report on their peer response activities. This also places responsibility for monitoring indirect talk on the students rather than the teacher. (pp. 114-115)
5) Mirtz also suggest having students complete reflective journals in response to their group sessions. She lists goals for these responses on pages 117-118.

Woods: In addition to Mirtz, Woods provides a great activity (which we all encountered on Monday) that will be particularly productive for students with little or no experience in critical and effective peer response. Woods’ emphasis on the writing and not the person is also an important part of peer response. It is difficult, as many of the texts we’ve read argue, to step away from “being nice” and engage in critical yet respectful peer response. This is a skill, not only in reading, writing, and critique, but also socially. By learning ways of being a respectful respondent, students may learn to receive such critique less personally (i.e. understand that respectful critique of one’s writing is not a reflection on oneself).

Johnson: The use of anonymous response seems to be an effective way to counteract “nice” but ineffective peer responses. By requiring the in-class draft response to be published on the course web site, (as Johnson points out) students are discouraged from providing ineffective and partial responses. Also, as we know, not everyone is as organized as an Ikea showroom, therefore the online response remains available even when a lost paper response would not.

With the addition of Freeland’s essay (which I discussed in my response to Ben’s post), I think the common thread throughout these four texts is this: writing is a social process, and this includes peer response (conferences are response too), and thus we need to be aware of the relationships and identities among our students. With this awareness, our students will benefit from assignments, class workshops, and class relationships that foster learning and invention. In order to teach writing, we need to recognize the activities involved in writing, and that those activities are not always individual and independent of the social realm.