Review1

Developing Authority in Student Writing through Written Peer in the Disciplines is an article made by Barbara Schneuder an Jo-Anne Andre where they provide a theorical framework about developing authority in students through peer critique.The authors say that when students como to university the academic writing is an unknown practice for them. And there is not one-style-fits-all. Each discipline has its own particular features. Students have to start to know the different particularities of their discipline.

For this purpose the authors propose use written peer critique (the practice of having students reas and comment the work of their classmates).

This method helps students to improve their writing skills. Although it  is common to do an oral critique about the work of other students, a lot of researchers have advocated for a writing response.

In the theoretical framework the authors expose how students begin to write conventions shaped by their teachers, but this is not enough to develop authority.Clark and Ivanic (1997) are quoted in the article and they identify the representations of self in written texts, the autobiographical self, the discoursal self and the authorial self. The first one exposing its own experiences, the second one represents itself trough writing practices, and the third one represents itself as someone who has something to say.Also Walvoord and McCarthy's (1990) paper is used to illuminate the concept of authority in students' writing. Three roles are identified. The layperson role that neglects the knowledge and methodology taught in the course. The text-processor role who focuses rather on the form. And the professional-in-training role in which students approach the assigned issues and problems with authority.

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. 

Positioning Students for Effective Writing Peer Critique. To hear an authorial voice in students writing we must ensure that students write their critiques from a strong knowledge base. This should generally include knowledge of disciplinary content and genre conventions. To write effective critique in an authoritative voice students have to understand the materials that forms the subject matter for their peers writing, although they cannot know all the course material, but they can know aspects of it very well before they undertake critique tasks.

In other to critique others' work effectively, students must also have an understanding of the relevant genre conventions. They must receive 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.

What Barbara Schneider and Jo-Anne Andre state in their text helpful for teacher to apply with their students. Nevertheless, I see the problem of how to prepare teacher to develop this process having student really involve in it. Additionally I think that in term of time it is difficult to handle a very sincere peer' critique because at least in our educational context classes are always shrunk.

In terms of methodology the study was conducted in Barbara Schneider's Communication Course.  At the beginning of the course a difficult essay ("Culture is Ordinary" by Raymond Williams) was read.  Then, the students were given a assignment:  write a one page review that covers the main points of the text for a hypothetical classmate that missed class and develop three questions for discussion in the classroom.  As preparation,  the students identified characteristics that are present in an effective summary.  Later,  the students were divided in groups to discuss a specific section of the summary (including the questions they had developed) and present their ideas to the rest of the class.  With this background and a discussion on what constitutes useful and effective critique students were randomly assigned another classmate's review to comment upon, it is important to notice that nobody knew whose essay they were reading because they were identified only with a number.

After looking at all the critiques, 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 through knowledge of the subject and by critiquing a review of which you don't know the author they tried to preserve "objectivity " 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

Through out an exercise Barbara made with some students we see how they adopt an authoritative stance and critical position about Raymond Williams article, she stressed how having a strong knowledge base, help them to gain a good understanding of the essay and give them confidence not just for summarizing but to think critically about it, increasing the value of their critiques and their position as writers.

 

Athorial presence in students' comments on their peers' handling of the summary genre

Barbara's students write their comments on their peers' handling of summary genre, using authority in their comments. She tells us how they show their prior knowledge of the subject to correct and give their point of view. The examples and comments shown on the article give you a hands first view of their experience in critiquing and commenting.

Peer critique allows students to write comments with a voice of authority. Through this exercise, both reader and writer become confident when commenting and accepting critiques. The authors show that through a list of student's comments in Barbara's class. When students get into the world of literate practices they need to have into account their autobiographical selves and the subject positions offered by academic discourse. Peer critique gives importance to student's comments in their experience as readers. For students in the role of readers it is not enough with their own knowledge to criticize peer's texts, instead, they believe they don't have that authority.

Students temper the authorial voice in the peer critiques by using their personal voice and also politeness hedges. In this way, student’s comments are not seen as instructors’ comments allowing giving a suggestion in a very natural way as equals instead than as authorities. At first, this characteristic of student’s may be seen as perplexing because of the rarity of this kind of sensitivity in instructor’s comments.  Even though students seem to avoid authority by hedging marks, qualifications and polete constructions, they show in their writings the opposite that is to say the meaning of a developement of an authoritative voice and critical perspective. Those strategies are in some level a way of resistance to tue comments usually given by teacher, which are made in an authorial way that limits dialogues or competing interpretations.

At the end of the article, we find the epistemological foundations of the study and the pedagogical implications of promoting peer review in processes of student writing. The definitions the authors propose can be summarized as follows: (1) writing is a social activity. (2) It’s part of the role of a university teacher: to socialize newcomers into the ways of thinking and knowing of the community they (are supposed to) want 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.

Reviewed by: S. Cream In Letters