1 of 15

Slide Notes

DownloadGo Live

Establishing Needs and Assuming Needs in Peer Review in the FYW Classroom

Published on Nov 22, 2015

No Description

PRESENTATION OUTLINE

Establishing Needs and Assuming Needs for Peer Review in the FYW Classroom

Locating "Embodied" Practices within "Embodied" Research Methodologies

"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

"Embodied" Practices