INTRODUCTION:
So, last week during class we were charged with the task of presenting our tentative ideas for our final projects for ENGLISH 597 to our fellow classmates. Everyone had anywhere from 10 to 20 minutes to articulate the general framework and/or inquiry questions they are working with in these nascent stages of conceptualizing, researching, and composing the final project. Our classmates asked questions and offered suggestions based on their understanding of the final project, oftentimes pushing the presenter to consider new or different contexts that might help nuance and/or crystallize their ideas and help develop a solid point of entry for the presenter's project.
PROPOSAL:
In my presentation, I proposed a sort of exploratory project that pertains to the ways in which digital technologies, anonymity, and deliberate course scaffolding might be used to improve peer review practices among students in the composition classroom. My project is a two-fold response to the efficacy of traditional, face-to-face peer review procedures. It responds to: 1) the general discomfort and/or tenuousness that students oftentimes exhibit when responding to their classmates' work in peer review sessions; and 2) ineffective peer review sessions that not only cause students to disregard the merits of peer review altogether.
Peer review serves as one of the more potent and palatable platforms available to composition instructors through which to emphasize a larger audience or community of readers outside of instructors themselves. It is also provides for unique and valuable opportunities for students to test out and externalize their existing and emerging composing skills and strategies, and to function as facilitators of sorts in the composition classroom.
I would like to explore the prospects for using digital platforms like Google Classroom, ELI Review, SWoRD, etc. to conduct anonymous peer review sessions between two separate composition classes. By juxtaposing students from separate composition classes alongside one another, I envision a kind of "cross-talk" between the classes, a "cross-talk" that alleviates much of students' initial apprehensiveness about traditional face-to-face peer review, and places a great deal of emphasis upon notions of ethos, audience, and community in unorthodox and potentially-fruitful ways.
Most importantly, I see digital anonymity as just a point of entry in a semester-long sequence on peer review, a sequence that slowly and progressively works towards peer review as an embodied practice. By in effect staging (scaffolding) peer review across four major inquiry projects and four separate delivery systems, this approach reinforces the value and importance of peer review as an institution and better positions students to understand the dynamics and possibilities of peer review across various media.
In a brief and separate note, I would also like to say that I see a number of overlaps between my final project and a number of areas of scholarly interest, including: distance education, inclusivity, writing center pedagogy, online education, and embodied writing, just to name a few.
FEEDBACK FROM CLASSMATES:
My project was generally well received by my classmates, but they did provide some very useful and important feedback about how I might organize and further elucidate my ideas and some of the potential downfalls of its application in a composition classroom.
Much of the discussion revolved around the role I would serve as an instructor instituting the platform across classes and overseeing overall student progress. As I am still exploring different mediums to stage the digital anonymity portion of my project, I cannot speak on that as of yet. (Of course, I welcome suggestions here.) However, there were some really great suggestions about having students review one another and reflect on the process. This might avoid my serving as a sort of digital big brother looking over their shoulders, therefore creating a friendlier space for students to compose and navigate.
Presently, I am kind of oscillating back-and-forth between where, how, and why I should position myself one way or the other, but I suppose I will have to read a bit more and digest the ideas before I can map this out. Either way, this quandary will absolutely play a role in the final project that I compose.
There was also quite a bit of talk about how I (and, of course, students) may or may not make direct or significant enough distinctions about what it actually means to engage in peer review in different spaces ranging from digital to embodied, and why these choices matter. Some of my classmates suggested that I pay particular attention to how questions are tailored and how they correlate to the overall conceptual goals and course outcomes of ENGLISH 101 as we navigate various units and delivery systems. Again, I do not have a fleshed-out response to this suggestion, but I am very grateful that it was brought up. I would love to get some feedback here about how I might make such distinctions, though.
Lastly, they recommended getting in touch with the Institutional Review Board (IRB) about my platform and overall project, particularly if I have any intention of truly implementing this in my classes next semester and perhaps using my findings in a publication in the future. This is absolutely on my radar. And this final project will go a long way in exploring the virtues of conceptualizing and materializing the peer review process as a sequence from digital anonymity to embodied practice.
No comments:
Post a Comment