"Writing Instruction Re-vamped"
Lukowski 1 Laura Lukowski Dr. Barbara Price ENG 607 17 September 2008 Research: Peer Feedback Annotated Bibliography Andrasick, Kathleen D. “Independent Repatterning: Developing Self-Editing Competence.” English Journal. 82.2 (1993): 28-31. Differentiating between editing and revision is a source of frustration in the English classroom. In her years of teaching, Andrasick came to notice that students tend to repeat previous mistakes. In response, the author created ways to remedy errors of pattern aside from just using response and peer-editing groups as part of the revision process, such as the Goof Box. Similar to many teachers, Andrasick edits her students’ papers for mechanical problems using a shorthand symbol system. She suggests A Writer’s Reference as an effective book that is easy to use, especially in grades 7-12. The point of Andrasick’s revision techniques are to help students see that “error is[…]necessary for learning” (30). After first reading the article I thought the tools may be juvenile for high school students; but after reading student reactions, I realize that the revision tools provided can be helpful aids at all levels. Barron, Ronald. “What I Wish I Had Known about Peer-Response Groups but Didn’t.” English Journal. 80.5 (1991): 24-34. Barron addresses general peer-response questions that teachers often have but only find the answers to after much trial and error. The author’s suggestions are beneficial for evaluating students writing. Barron cites a published model written by Donald McQuade and Nancy Sommers as a valuable source in how to introduce and model peer feedback about writing. This source recommends introducing peer-response groups to students through “observations, evaluations, and end comments” (24). After discussing teacher modeling of these activities, Barron addresses questions that arise when forming student groups, such as group size, how group members are chosen, number of meeting times, teacher involvement, and the qualities of successful peer-response groups. Overall, this article is helpful and informative. Not only does it provide suggestions for what works and what does not, but it is reassuring of the idea that sometimes you have to do the wrong thing to figure out what works. I appreciate Barron’s honesty, as well as his inclusion of sources and tools that helped him in developing a system that worked for peer feedback.