Oh, peer response groups. We’ve all been there, exchanging papers and getting them back with the single comment “nice job” or “this looks good.” What I liked about the Ruth Mirtz article and the Peggy Woods article was that they both addressed the problems within peer response groups and gave suggestions on how to make peer groups really a worthwhile exercise for students. The most interesting suggestion made by Mirtz was creating designated, ongoing peer groups. In many classes I have had in the past where you break out into groups and have others read your paper there has been no designated group. For one peer group you may be with different classmates than you were for the previous peer response session. At first I didn’t like this idea of having designated groups throughout the semester. I saw it as only getting three or four opinions throughout the course as opposed to ten or twelve different views on your writing. What I got after reading Mirtz’s article was the relationships that were formed within designated semester long groups. These students who started out as strangers grew together in their writing and as they got to know each other through their indirect talk they became more comfortable with genuinely expressing their opinions on one another’s writing.
The indirect talk Mirtz addresses was always why I had a resistance to using peer groups in my classroom. I saw the students talking about their weekends and their favorite bands as wasted time, but now I view this indirect talk in a very different way. I really do see how it builds relationships and opens up the responses students give each other on their writing. As Mitz says, sharing allows the students to understand their differences and differences so when a paper is returned with remarks from someone in the group, most likely the student will understand why they received those comments, or at the very least know from getting to know each other that the comments are being made by someone who now understands them and their writing better than someone outside of their peer group.
I also liked that Mirtz walked around her class and engaged in the conversations going on within the peer groups. By showing that she wasn’t going to discipline the students for not necessarily discussing the papers she opened herself up to be more approachable, so when the peer groups did have questions they were not afraid to ask because Mirtz had become a part of their conversation. She even didn’t care in the beginning how much actual response was being established as long as everyone was involved in the indirect talk together to help build the group’s relationship as a whole. Both Woods and Mitz discussed the views students had of other students reading their work saying that many see the feedback as criticism or, on the opposite end, as Woods determines, many give little to no feedback because they do not want to offend another student, especially one they do not know very well. I think Mirtz’s approach really counteracts these two obstacles of peer response and peer groups. I think if students establish a relationship within a set peer group they will work themselves away from being afraid they will hurt someone’s feelings or will learn to not take the feedback they receive as criticism.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Jenn,
I've felt much the same way about indirect talk in peer groups, and have felt hesitant about what I would do about it once I started teaching. In my own experience as a student, I've always felt a little ripped off both by "this is good" responses and by the tendencies in the group toward indirect talk, because I was always afraid we'd "get caught" and somehow it would negatively affect our grades or how the teacher viewed our group.
I'm sure the latter response is natural, and probably inculcated by teachers I've had who have demonstrated that attitude, whether tacitly or directly. However, I agree with you that the way I view indirect talk and peer response in general has changed since readings the pieces for Monday.
I think, also, that students remaining in the same peer group for the whole semester is probably beneficial. Sharing writing with anyone you don't know well is somewhat daunting, and I think that it is for the best if students get to know each other and the nature of their responses to small talk and just how they feel about things in general is helpful for students to build their own idea of audience. I've talked a million times on here about the importance of audience, and I will reiterate yet again....it's so very important to know and tailor your work to you audience. I'm consciously aware of this as a writer, and I think it's of paramount importance for inexperienced writers, and I think being in assigned peer response groups for the duration of the semester is a great way to get students thinking about audience.
So (as with many things this semester) my mind has been changed yet again. I almost feel relieved that indirect talk is beneficial to peer response, and I feel that I will not have to worry at all about what I will "do about it." There's nothing to be done unless the group is excluding members from their indirect talk, or never making it back to the topic of papers, which seems unlikely.
Initially, I thought Mirtz missed the boat when she listed the reasons why students engage in indirect talk, which she lists as the following on pg 114:
1.) They are uncomfortable with the instructions for response.
2.) They disagree about the task of the response group.
3.) They have more interesting conversations on off-topics.
4.) They don't trust each other yet, so they talk around their papers.
It seemed to me that the biggest reason students talk off topic is due to a "while the cats away, the mice will play" syndrome prevalent in most hierarchical pedagogical relationships. Students talk off topic because they can and it is perceived infinitely cooler than discussing "school work." Worse, when a student or students (maybe even all but one) recognize the need to return to the topic, rarely will someone speak up for fear of being the "dork" in the group and spoiling the fun freetime in class.
Mirtz rescues this omission, however, by acknowledging indirect talk as a normal part of a peer response study. On page 113, she discusses how she shares her expectation that some off-topic chatter will occur during a productive peer response exercise. By unmasking and allowing what might seem as unproductive conversation, the allure is somewhat dissapated, and likely reduced. Students have been "caught" before they even start.
Post a Comment