2010+Spring+Semester+Field+Study+Critical+Reflections


 * __ Critical Reflection #1: __** **“Practically painless Peer Editing”** **Instructor-Intermediate: Apr99, Vol. 108 Issue 7, p8, 3p, 2 color**

The article I chose for this reflection …Explains how to conduct a teacher-guided peer editing.How to create a positive atmosphere; Whole-class practice sessions; Exercises with paragraphs; How to hone peer-editing skills; Advantages of teacher-guided peer editing. As the author of this article states, “Any professional writer knows the value of a good editor. Youngsters can also learn a tremendous amount about how to write as they learn how to compliment, suggest changes, and correct errors in the work of others. Regular teacher-guided peer editing will give students positive and helpful feedback from their classmates and offer multiple perspectives on their work. Keeping sessions positive; doing whole-class editing first; starting with shorter, less complicated writing samples; and generalizing, focusing, and directing editing tasks--all these can make such collaborative sessions productive and (practically) painless.” The article discusses using four basic strategies when introducing students to the peer editing process: First, **create a positive atmosphere** which involves stressing the difference between ‘critiquing’ and ‘criticizing’. For example, they shouldn't say, "You used the wrong word," but, rather, "I think your story would be better if you changed this word." And outlaw "putdown" comments completely. Second, **use whole-class practice sessions**, which involves distributing writing samples for the students to that show both strengths and weaknesses in specific elements, such as organization, description, and word choice. During discussion of the differences between effective and ineffective writing, coach children on how to go beyond simple comments, such as "I liked it" and "I don't get it." Help them determine ways to suggest not only how to make weak writing stronger but also how to comment effectively on the writing they like. Third, **start small** which entails beginning the peer editing process by having students work on paragraphs, not essays. Using an overhead projector, analyze a few paragraphs as a class. The objective at this point is to provide young editors with the tools they will need to edit one another. Then break your class into groups of four to six kids and distribute another sample paragraph to each group for critique. Working together, children should list their positive comments and suggestions for improvements. Then call the class back together to compare their lists. Fourth, **hone peer editing skills.** During one-on-one editing sessions, have students divide a sheet of paper into three columns labeled Strengths, Suggestions, and Questions. As they read one another's work, they can create for the writer a list of what they liked, what they thought needed improvement, and what was unclear to them. After pairing off several times, each student will have several sheets with comments from his or her classmates. Then have students rewrite their work, taking into account their classmates' compliments, suggestions, and questions. I liked the ideas presented in this article because they fit in nicely with what I am trying to accomplish in my current field study. I found that in the field study I’m conducting with my own class, I believe it would have been more beneficial to pair up stronger writers with weaker writers. In my field study, I randomly chose the students which created some problems in terms of the results. I also would have given my students more sample writing on which to practice prior to actually commencing the field study. I think doing so would have given the students more practice and honed their peer editing skills, which would have yielded better data concerning the perceived benefits of the peer editing process…something that I hoped would occur, but didn’t necessarily happen.

**__ Critical Reflection #2: __** **“The New Digital Version of Bloom’s Taxonomy (Bionic Teaching)”**

The definition of ‘bionic’ as it appears in Webster’s Dictionary is: “utilizing electronic devices and mechanical parts to assist humans in performing difficult, or intricate tasks”. While I agree that using the many different forms of digital media represented in the new version of Bloom’s Taxonomy for teaching purposes are bionic in nature, I do not agree with the static way in which each of the digital media forms are depicted in the pyramid. They should not be segregated into levels, in such a hierarchical form. Digital Media forms are far more fluid than the way they are organized in the new version of Bloom’s.

I see them as being more circular in design, with digital media forms overlapping one another, and moving from one type of use to another. For example, Google could appear in all the levels, not just ‘Evaluating’ and ‘Remembering’. Google can be used as a bionic teaching tool for ‘Understanding’ and ‘Creating’ as well. Its use for understanding is obvious… such as when students use Google to research topics for an assignment. Google Sketch-up is a program that I as an educator have used, in which students create 3-D images of buildings (similar to computer drafting). The point being, digital media are tools designed to perform more than one task…similar to a pencil. The pencil is a tool that can be used to write with or draw a picture.

I agree with the notion there may be a danger in oversimplifying the different forms of digital media if takes the new version of bloom’s on face value. I also agree that teachers need to be aware of the fact that they could be lulled into a false sense of security if one were to assume that because one is using only digital media forms that appear in the upper portion of the pyramid, they are focussing on the most important aspects of education which is implied by the pyramid design. It is not Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs!!!


 * __ Critical Reflection #3: __** **Encouraging Peer Dialogue In The Geography Classroom: Peer Editing To Improve Student Writing: By: Kennedy-Kalafatis, Susan, Carleton, Dawn, Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 03098265, Nov96, Vol. 20, Issue 3 **

This paper describes the first author's experiments with improving students' writing in the geography classroom using peer editing exercises to encourage peer dialogue. The 'Editing Guides' presented here were developed by the authors for the geography classroom and have been used by the first author in all of her systematic upper level geography courses. The theory of audience-centred communication is presented as a rationale for using the editing guides and a simple plan for integrating writing instruction into the geography class is presented. The inclusion of peer editing assignments in the course curriculum increased peer dialogue and resulted in improved student writing.

There are some very interesting ideas presented in this article surrounding the positive effects of peer editing. Although the article focuses on high college students, many of the strategies employed by the professor in her class could transfer over into a middle school Language Arts writing program. Some of the ideas discussed which interested me were the following. First, Many students forget that the purpose of writing is communication. Also, who the audience is that will be reading the written work is important. The tendency in many classes is for students not to share their work with each other. Thus, it never occurs to students to elicit comments and feedback from their peers. Some students will never improve their writing because they avoid the kinds of experiences that are necessary to develop improved writing, like peer editing.

According to the article’s author, “The theoretical underpinning of an audience-centred approach to writing instruction, whether in geography or within composition courses, arises from three specific weaknesses in students' general understanding of the writing process. Specifically, students with writing problems tend to lack awareness of the purpose of writing, of the audience's needs, and of the meaning-making function of grammar. Since the purpose of writing is to communicate to an audience and grammatical errors impede clear communication, students must be made aware of the importance of the audience in the communication process before these and other issues relevant to writing a geography term paper can be explored. Without an audience, communication cannot occur, and the purpose of writing is defeated. If the geography instructor exerts the energy necessary to create a 'real' audience within the classroom, then the students will see the reality of communication: that we write for other people, who must understand our intended meaning if communication is to avoid becoming miscommunication.”I concur with such a belief.

Another important point discussed in the article centers around the idea that we cannot expect students to be able to evaluate one another's writing when they cannot write themselves. Quite simply, teaching editing skills is part of improving student writing because critiquing others' texts eventually leads to the internalisation of standards and the ability to evaluate one's own work. Peer editing is a valuable vehicle for learning how to communicate and can be a summed up in the following statement…better editors become better writers.

The ideas of using a self-editing guide which explains the theory behind audience-centred writing in great detail along with a peer-editing guide was introduced in the article as well. The guides are designed for specific. pedagogical purposes, provide the editors with the vocabulary and guidance necessary for detailed responses to student texts, and promote the internalisation of appropriate editing behaviours. At the same time, the guides help the student writer to identify problems in the text and then to clarify content and structure, to correct grammar as noted by the editor, and to reconsider the entire text in light of the response it elicits from the audience member(s).

Although students’ writing skills improved significantly through the inclusion of peer-editing as part of the writing process, in my experience, peer-editing is useful only if the students who are having their work edited accept the constructive criticism of their peers as having validity. If a strong writer has their work edited by a peer who is not a very adept writer, they are not as likely to readily accept the suggested changes. If, on the other hand, the opposite is true, struggling writers are far more likely to embrace the proposed changes recommended by their peers who are stronger writers.

**__ Critical Reflection #4 __:** **"I don't like to write, but I love to get published": Using a classroom newspaper to motivate reluctant writers.** **By: Alber, Sheila R., Reading & Writing Quarterly, 10573569, Oct-Dec1999, Vol. 15, Issue 4**

I very much enjoyed reading this article due to the positive nature of how it was written, and the ideas offered in terms of the benefits associated with having students create a school newspaper. The article starts off with the following quote… “ After receiving feedback from his peer editing group, Antoine was hard at work revising his classroom newspaper editorial entitled "Extra Privileges for Sixth Graders." He wanted it to be "perfect" because so many people would be reading it. He loved seeing his work published, and he knew his mother would be so proud of him.” This is a great example of how editing can be used as a more positive vehicle to get kids to enjoy the writing process. In keeping with the idea that who the audience is that any given student is writing for, in this case a peer group reading a newspaper column, you begin to see the benefits of allowing peer groups to edit their work because they know the suggested edits are done with the best of intentions, and are not meant to be critical. If students are each given a section of the newspaper like the ‘fun page’ or ‘sports page’, and everyone is responsible for editing each other’s work, it fosters a feeling of cooperation and healthy competition. According to the authors of this article, “A particularly effective way to facilitate the writing skills of all students, especially those with learning disabilities, is through collaborative peer writing groups.” Furthermore, “ Students using a peer response strategy made more revisions and produced papers of higher quality than those using an individual revision strategy.” Classroom peer-editing can be framed in the guise of positive feedback, where students are not critiquing as much as they are offering suggestions of how to improve the writing of peers so that the entire class benefits from having a fantastic school newspaper. In this way, every student in intrinsically motivated to produce high quality written work, know that it will be read by other students in the school, teachers, and parents. In addition to training peers to give constructive and specific feedback, students will also need instruction on receiving feedback. The teacher should establish rules for accepting feedback, such as: listen carefully to all comments, do not dispute another person's reaction, and seek further clarification or examples if you do not understand what your peer is telling you. The author sums it up best at the conclusion of her article when she writes…Writing is a very important skill that most children will use throughout their lives. Because writing is so difficult and complex, many students are reluctant to practice, and without practice, improvement will be limited. A classroom newspaper allows students to direct their writing to a specific audience and increases motivation (because recognition through publication is very reinforcing). All students, including students with disabilities, can benefit from the variety of activities involved in producing a classroom newspaper. I whole-heartedly agree.