On Week 6, I had my students to do peer review of the draft they composed. Collaborating with professor Canagarajah, I came up with a peer review sheet in which 10 questions were asked. The purposes of the questions, one the one hand, is to elicit information about students' writing processes in relation to their traslingual and rhetorical strategies; on the other hand, the questions can serve as a guideline helping the writers and the reviewers to keep track of their own or the reviewed writings. The ten questions were formulated based on Canagarajah's five formulation questions and four translingual strategies (see my blog article -Week 4).
Moreover, I designed 5 reflection questions in order to understand students' rhetorical decision, negotiation between L1 and L2, construction of identity, and challenges they encountered.
I explained the purposes and concerns of peer review since all of my students have never done peer review before. I explained each question of the peer review and the reflection to make sure that they could grasp it. Besides, I demonstrated how I made rhetorical negotiation to compose my idea. I guess my demonstration was quite good for it provided a substantial example accounting for rhetorical negotiation and voice construction.
I left about 1.5 hours for students to do peer review in class. It is hoped that they could discuss with the writer when reviewing the draft and collaboratively constructed texts from both the writer and reader's perspectives.
Ten students have turned in their drafts. I was quite anxious about their outcome. And, sigh... I was quite disappointed after reading them. Most of the drafts are too short to carry in-depth reflection and to demonstrate their translingual literacy. I just wrote an email to my students to encourage them to revise their drafts by next Wednesday, which is the deadline of the final draft.
Let's see how the final results will turn out to be.
Moreover, I designed 5 reflection questions in order to understand students' rhetorical decision, negotiation between L1 and L2, construction of identity, and challenges they encountered.
I explained the purposes and concerns of peer review since all of my students have never done peer review before. I explained each question of the peer review and the reflection to make sure that they could grasp it. Besides, I demonstrated how I made rhetorical negotiation to compose my idea. I guess my demonstration was quite good for it provided a substantial example accounting for rhetorical negotiation and voice construction.
I left about 1.5 hours for students to do peer review in class. It is hoped that they could discuss with the writer when reviewing the draft and collaboratively constructed texts from both the writer and reader's perspectives.
Ten students have turned in their drafts. I was quite anxious about their outcome. And, sigh... I was quite disappointed after reading them. Most of the drafts are too short to carry in-depth reflection and to demonstrate their translingual literacy. I just wrote an email to my students to encourage them to revise their drafts by next Wednesday, which is the deadline of the final draft.
Let's see how the final results will turn out to be.
No comments:
Post a Comment