Peer editing is something that has floated in and out of my writing process throughout my high school career. Some teachers emphasized it while others stuck to personal revision and editing. In the past I have usually found it beneficial but only when working with someone who was either on the same level of writing or higher. Because giving my draft to someone who is either 1) uninformed about the topic or the style of writing or 2) not the most careful of readers doesn’t really benefit the peer editor or myself.
However, in the class editing that we did on Monday, that was not the case. My partner and I seemed to compliment each other well and were able to go back and forth on each other’s papers regarding grammar mistakes, idea clarification, as well as phraseology. It wasn’t critiquing the person it was critiquing the work. I believe it takes a level of maturity to be able to do that which is why it is most beneficial in a college atmosphere to employ this style of revision.
In comparing to the ideas expressed in chapter 10, I think our style was a little more relaxed then the steps laid out on page 275. It was merely one on one editing rather then the whole group. However, we did read over the draft completely while taking notes and were able to give well-constructed critiques as well as compliments about the writing. And going along with another idea about editing vs. revision, I think it is best to keep the peer editing groups just at editing like we did. Throwing in a revision process would only make some students feel lesser compared to others. It is ultimately up to the teacher to do those evaluations, which is why the conferences are a bonus.
No comments:
Post a Comment