Richard Straub is a Professor at Florida State University,
and teaches writing, rhetoric, and literature. This article is about peer
revisions and how to revise and go over a fellow students work correctly. I
like how he setup the article. He would ask a question and then answer it using
both points of view. He explains how to
determine what to revise and what to focus on. If it is the first draft of an
essay he says not to focus on the little things, like grammar and spelling;
those will hopefully be worked out by the final draft. He instead says to focus
on the assignment and what is asking for. It was stated in the article that we
are readers and only readers. We aren’t teachers or judges. We aren’t professionally
trained nor masters in language. We have no right to change the piece because it
isn’t ours, we didn’t write it.
I agree with his points on every level. I know that when
someone critiques my writing I tend to take offense when others tell me what I should
and shouldn’t have in there. I admire and respect those that ask questions and
cause me to push on my ideas. Having someone review your paper that is a peer
is, I feel, crucial to being a great writer. The more people that read a piece
of writing the easier it is for the writer to understand what they are doing
right and what may not be being conveyed. It allows insight from others points
of view, which is needed for academic success.
I have a few golden lines for this article. “You’re not the writer; you’re a reader.
One of many. The paper is not yours; it’s the writer’s.” I choose this line
because it is the thesis for the entire article. It states that you are the
reader and that is it. It explains why the rest of the article was written, to
explain how to critique ones’ papers as a reader.
The other line I choose is “Don’t be Stingy.” This line
stuck out to me. It is telling the reader to give critiques that have some
depth. Whether they are positive or negative critiques they need to have enough
information behind them to allow someone to believe that it can be beneficial
for their writing.
I love how the author of this article emphasized on a responder being only the reader, not the writer. I think that is a good mind set to have while responding and editing work. At what point does a responder look like they're being the writer? Is it editing too much, too many examples, or what?
ReplyDeleteI chose the same golden line that you did. I think we agree that it's important to remember that you're only the reader and shouldn't attempt to rewrite someone else's paper, no matter how much you might want to (or how badly that paper might need it!). I think it can be tough to give suggestions on what to write without giving examples as well. I looked at how Megan is always asking questions in her comments on my papers and I plan to phrase my suggestions in the form of questions as well so as not to sound as definitive. I like "don't be stingy" too, but I have been known to do this when I didn't want to make a paper "bleed" red ink. Tough to get it just right, for sure...but I imagine Megan will give us plenty of practice in the workshops!
ReplyDeleteI agree with your first quote. To many people think they have to rewrite the paper, when all they are doing is looking over it. I think we did a good job in class of this and should continue to help each other out.
ReplyDelete