PRESENTATION OUTLINE
Establishing Needs and Assuming Needs for Peer Review in the FYW Classroom
"Failures" of/and Peer Review
- "shallow"
- "inconsiderate"
- "unproductive"
Fallout
- "a deeply rooted ambivalence about collaborative assessment in graduate-student instructors and administrators, in contrast to a much more serene commitment to this practice in the full-time faculty member directing the program." (Bedore and O'Sullivan)
So . . . (Part I)
- putting larger numerical value on collaborative assessment (Bedore and O'Sullivan)
- effective peer review needs to be taught and mentored (Rysdam and Johnson-Schull; and Brammer and Rees)
- rethinking overall assessment process rather than identifying tools to cope with existing tensions (Manion and Selfe)
A Little Bit of Context
- collaborative learning dates back to early-1970s in response to a general and perceived sense of unpreparedness among students entering the university for the first time (Bruffee)
Implications and Rejoinders
- predicated on acquiring a set of efficient and fruitful pedagogical tools to answer the call of remediation
- must provide structure to heighten students' interactional possibilities vs. putting onus on students to realize the theoretical promise of collaborative learning and interactional diversity (Kerschbaum)
Possibilities
- feedback is only powerful when it takes place in particular learning contexts (Hattie and Timperley)
- technologies that support review are just as important as rhetorical function of texts (Swarts)
The Call for Context (read: technology)
- word processing (track changes; comment function)
- screen capture (combination of visual and oral/aural considerations)
- orality/aurality (dialogism)
- learning management systems (facilitating and hosting collaborative assessment)
But . . .
- control over mode of communication as expression of power (Kress)
- digital literacies involve "technical stuff" and "ethos stuff" (Knobel and Lankshear)
- students less discerning of ideological underpinnings of templates and interfaces (Arola)
- using vs. integrating (Reed)
So . . . (Part II)
- the medium is not (necessarily) the context
- unilaterally selecting media relegates students' role as rhetorical agents to teachers' imagination and their assumptions about students' unique and personalized needs and preferences (Selfe)
An "Assessment Ecology" (Manion and Selfe)?
- Of the media that were discussed, which would you prefer to receive feedback from your peers? Please explain.
- What are the advantages and disadvantages of "composing" feedback in this medium?
- What are the advantages and disadvantages of "reading" in this medium?
Hopes and Expectations
- raising stakes for collaborative assessment
- developing community predicated on responding to one another's rhetorical and affective demands and preferences
- providing insight into various interfaces and design features
- situating the review process as a complex and dynamic genre of writing
Establishing Needs vs. Assuming Needs
"Embodied" Research Methodologies