After reading Nuebert and McNelis, I realize that revising someone’s writing takes a lot of understanding what critique really means. Critiquing one’s work takes proper skills so that you can give the writer specific suggestions to improve the writing. In my years of education I was paired up with many peers to help revise each other’s writing. I would generally only read quickly through the writing and I would agree every time with what the writer was stating. I was not giving my peer a proper response of his writing, this was not helping my peers what so ever.
Nuebert and McNelis showed in a study that by focusing on Peer response with the technique, Praise / Question / Polish. Nuebert & McNelis stated, “We found that this technique helps students focus on the task at hand as well as maintain a positive attitude toward the critique process (52). Group members take turns reading the text and follow the PQP technique. This will help the writer better use his strong points in his writing and tighten up his week points with the help of the peers. If I had been taught this technique, at a younger age I believe that I would have become a better writer and I would have help my peers do so as well.
My peer group stated that my examples are too vague and I need to elaborate more with personal experiences.
Dante,
ReplyDeleteThis is a better Q&R.
You say a lot of interesting things that could be developed: in the past what kind of guidelines were you given for peer response? why were you just agreeing withthem? could it be that you were not interested in the task anyway? maybe it has to do with how you felt as a student, as writer, how you thought maybe that you has nothing to contribute to the discussion?
C+