This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
Considerations As with any new instructional strategy, single-author peer review does come with


its own set of challenges. First, how should faculty group students of mixed ability? One suggestion is to put students of equivalent ability into pairs. This way, the power differential feels nominal within the pairing. For group reviews, it might be beneficial to use small mixed level groups. Or, faculty can randomly assign pairs or groups. A second challenge might be resistance from more advanced students who resent pairing with a less advanced student. To thwart this from occurring, faculty will want to build a class climate that upholds the value of mentoring and that acknowledges writing as a process. Again, modeling is crucial in staving off such concerns. With training, even less advanced students can provide useful feedback. A third challenge is a faculty concern that the student has received ―assistance‖ on the writing. If we recognize writing as a process and acknowledge the value of peer review, then we are perhaps more inclined to see the review process not as merely ―assistance,‖ but as an essential component of academic research, writing, and reflection. For grading purposes, one strategy faculty might adopt is having student writers complete a reflection piece in addition to the final written document. The reflection piece can outline the interaction between the review process and the final revision, thereby making the student writer’s contribution more apparent.


Evaluation Options Faculty may want to weight the collaborative process differently, depending on


course goals. If the course goal is to facilitate the collaborative process and to teach


team building and conflict resolution strategies, then an instructor may want to design a rubric that perhaps more heavily weights the collaborative process. (See Insert 2.2a).


39


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128