I've always struggled with having peer review in my class and then having students meaningfully revise their work. With peer review, they would tell each other "good job" and correct (or sometimes make worse) spelling. I would do minilesson after minilesson on giving constructive feedback. That resulted in "Good job on your writing, but be careful of your spelling". Not really what I was looking for.
Revision simply means to them that they copy the work over neatly (and correct some spelling). Even when I suggest changes, they don't show up in the next draft.
In our weekly planning meeting, the other ELA teacher in my school and I were talking about this problem. We came up with a system that we are going to try out to hopefully help students with this peer review - revision conundrum.
The cycle of lessons is going to start off with a minilesson on a writing topic we feel they need to work on. This week, I'm doing adding details to your writing. We are going to look at why authors use details in writing and what they do for us as readers - they add interesting language, clarify/specify statements, give information, and/or give examples. The next lesson is going to have students exchange drafts of their papers - they will underline where the writer has used good details and star those places they want to have more details and explain why they (the readers) want more details. The writer will get his paper back and use the reader's comments to come up with details to add to the paper.
As I write this, I guess it is not that revolutionary. It kind of is to me, though. I think I've been trying to model the peer reviews - revision process in my classroom after fiction writing workshops I've taken. In those situations, the students have a lot more leeway in what they comment on. Giving that kind of leeway to my students is a nightmare. Even when I asked more pointed questions, it didn't always translate.
Revision is one of the hardest things to teach. Students often approach writing as if they have written something in stone. It was so much work for them that they can't fathom having to go back and change it. Or, you have those students who, for whatever reason, say "My paper is perfect. I don't want to change anything."
Perhaps this method of very specific reviews and revisions will help students get over the hump with these very important skills.
So... maybe peer review doesn't work.
Maybe we ought to go back to the old model of having teachers review children's writing and use lots of red ink.
I get very frustrated with the level of writing instruction at my children's elementary school, which models its Writers Workshops on the middle and high school writing instruction. Which must be modeled on fiction writing workshops for interested adults.
I'm frustrated because although our teachers teach the 6+1 traits, the only comments my children get from teachers or peers is "good job" and spelling corrections.
All that time in the classroom teaching ideas, organization, voice, fluency, word choice, and conventions... and no other reviewer besides me, their dear old mother, can muster the time or energy to say "insufficient ideas", "lousy organization", "no voice", "awkward sentence", "boring adjectives". Let alone "what about idea X" or "move idea Z to the beginning and end with Y". The only writing trait that reviewers will confidently challenge at our school is a child's spelling, capitalization, and punctuation. Exactly those traits that have been played down for so long.
What gives?
I have beside me the Handbook for Parents of Six-Trait Writing (tm) Students. I paid eight bucks for it. I'm an expert.
Posted by: Becky | October 02, 2006 at 05:38 PM