“Developing
Authority in Student Writing through Written Peer Critique in the
Disciplines” is an article written by Barbara Schneider an Jo-Anne
Andre in which they provide a theorical framework about developing
authority in students through peer critique.The authors say that when
students come to university, academic writing is an unknown practice
for them and there is no one-style-fits-all. Each discipline has its
own particular features. Students need to start identifiying the
different particularities of their discipline. For
this purpose, the authors propose the use of written peer critique
(i.e. the practice of having students read and comment the work of
their classmates).
This
practice helps students improve their writing skills. Although it is
common to critique the work of other students orally, a lot of
researchers have advocated for a written response. In the theoretical
framework, the authors present how students begin to write using the
conventions given by their teachers, but this is not enough to
develop authority. Additionally, they identify the representations of
self in written texts: the autobiographical self, the discoursal self
and the authorial self. Three roles are recognized in the processes
of student writing: The layperson role, the text-processor role and
the professional-in-training role. Peer critique is proposed as a way
to give students the opportunity to develop themselves as
"professionals-in-training" and develop an "authorial
self" in their texts.
In
order to hear an authorial voice in students writing, teachers must
ensure that students write their critiques from a strong background
knowledge of disciplinary content and genre conventions. Consequently, students need explicit teaching of academic genres. Although factors
such as class, ethnicity, sexuality, genre, age, and educational
attainment may play a role in inhibiting students development of an
authoritative voice, a deeper barrier may lie in students'
epistemological assumptions.
As
for the setting, this study was conducted in Barbara Schneider's
Communication Course. At the beginning of the course an essay
was read. Then, the students were given an assignment: to
write a one page review that covered the main points of the text.
After looking at all the reviews, the authors found evidence of three
forms of authorial voice:
- Comments related to disciplinary content
- Comments related to the handling of the summary genre
- Comments related to the commentator's experience as a reader
When
you look at the methodology it is clear that the researchers made an
effort to give students authority. They tried to preserve
"objectivity" through knowledge of the subject and blind
peer review but one could argue that the variety in the types of
comments show that maybe students felt they had the authority to
adress some aspects of their peer's reviews but not others.
Throughout
this exercise it is clear that students adopt an authoritative stance
and a critical position. The authors stressed how having a strong
knowledge base helps them gain a good understanding of the essay and
gives them confidence not just for summarizing but for critical
thinking, thus increasing the value of their critiques and their
position as writers. Both reader and writer become confident when
commenting and accepting critiques. When students enter the world of
literate practices they need to take into account their
autobiographical selves and the subject positions offered by academic
discourse. Peer critique gives importance to students' comments in
their experience as readers.
Another
characteristic of students' peer critique is that students temper the
authorial voice by using their personal voice and politeness hedges.
Students react differently to their classmates` comments because they
are equals' feedback rather than instructor's criticism. At first,
this feature may seem perplexing because of the rarity of this kind
of sensitivity in instructors` comments. Even though students seem
to avoid authority, they show the opposite in their writings: there
is evidence of the development of an authoritative voice and a
critical perspective. Tempering the authorial voice is, at some
level, a way of resistance to the comments usually given by teachers,
which are made in a way that limits dialogues or competing
interpretations.
At
the end of the article, the authors present the epistemological
foundations of the study and the pedagogical implications of
promoting peer review in processes of student writing. The
definitions they propose can be summarized as follows: (1) writing is
a social activity. (2) It’s part of the role of university teachers
to socialize newcomers into the ways of thinking and knowing of the
community they are expected to belong to. In this scenario, since
responding to each other in writing requires them to take the time to
construct a considered response, peer critique can be a valuable tool
to help students construct an identity as authors.
What
Barbara Schneider and Jo-Anne Andre propose in their text could be
helpful for teachers to apply with their students. However, there is
the issue of how to prepare teachers to develop this process in a way
that students get really involved in it. Additionally, in terms of
time it is difficult to handle a very sincere peer' critique because
at least in our educational context classes are always shrunk.
Reviewed
by: S. Cream In Letters
No comments:
Post a Comment