On Thursday, I started class by drawing your attention to the new calendar - (revcalendar posted to the right) which now includes the assignmenets for the poetry unit.
Peer review.
Pretty much the rest of class was devoted to your peer review workshop. We began by working out the roles and protocols for peer review.
Roles:
Facilitator, is the "emcee" for the group, makes sureall the points in the protocol are covered for each participant, fields questions, keeps the group on task.
Timekeeper: makes sure the time for discussion of each piece is allocated in a way that ensures that everyone gets equal attention
Protocol:
Facilitator and participants decide on the order.
Authors then present in the decided upon order.
Protocol for feedback for an individual author:
1. Author introduces piece by stating what s/he wants feedback on.
2. Author reads his/her essay.
Readers then:
1. Comment on strengths
2. Say back the main point (thesis/focus) + name the supporting points(ask questions if necessary)
3. talk through the focus, organization + development for the essay
4. answer, attend to the author's request for feedback.
Facilitator then asks if there are any further issues to talk about for the author, if not, move to the next speaker.
We suggested that participants take notes as they are listening to the author read, with particular attention to any issues the author requested feedback on.
Discussion
From the post-peer review wrap up talk it sounds like you did some good work in your groups - and that you got some constructive ideas for re-working your essays. You said that you followed the protocol, more or less, and that you are good with keeping these same groups for the rest of the term. Unless I hear differently (by email) that's what we will do.
What to include in your peer review feedback:
Purpose: The purpose of this write up is to provide the author (and me) with a written version of what you communicated during class. This writing is important because: there was a lot of talking all at once and the author might have missed some of your feedback. Also, this written record will give me some insight into the way the group gave feedback - which in turn might help me understand how better to work with you on your writing.
Content: Say what worked, what you heard as the author's main point + how s/he supported it, and any points you might like to make about focus, organization, development, and answer the author's questions (since I was not in your group, you might need to re-state these for me).
For next class:
Read: Chapter 12: How do I read poetry?, 488; and Yeats, The Second Coming, 607;
Frost, Birches, 611; Lorde, Hanging Fire, 647; Eady, The Supremes, 657; Espada, Bully, 660
Write: 1) peer reviews for your group members (on the peer review page, on the sub-page for short stories. We decided you would attach your peer reviews for each group member as a separate document, attached to the short story peer review page. Name documents AuthorSSReview.
2) Put the final touches on your short story essay, and make sure you have posted your work for the short story unit (you can check the homework assignments at the end of the blog posts).
In class Monday we will start on poetry, and make sure everything is set/wrapped up for the short story unit. After class, I will look through the work you did for the short story unit and write up some feedback along with the points you earned for homework and participation for this unit.
No comments:
Post a Comment