.. .1:....::.‘:, :w . 1¥ 3‘le V Wizfirfizg“ '1. :1‘3'1 Q: ‘ 111;? 3.191., 1:1. . :Elh.‘ it : Ml“! '- ‘kih ' 219% . . 31”?” 13% gar} Ti" 1 $9121.13“, 111 “1‘19.m111~§‘I;f.;;.I;. " L :‘ i§1f§‘13.1‘-.1.1W“1‘1;“ 1‘1... 1; ‘113133 111: “1.3.: :21. , £134...“ '13: 3.5.5.1. x. h. . 3:63.673?“ '61. 91:3: 1: £19,311. \. - 6. «fl. ' WE‘S‘Wm 1.1%. ‘1‘ .I‘m: 91,. {fiq‘l‘qtfi 11111:?” 6 (1'1“ 1.2.13.1 IImalIhIx 111 ’11... @Wxfifl‘u‘ @11th . ‘m‘fi 3 {11' 311.1191. '3 ‘ L 1 ‘Vfu‘t. ‘1 33.13921. m": '11 1 «It: 11351.. v.12- :3... i 41 ’1.‘1;.‘1 ‘11? F’II 115 1 1%Efiixm?~“%§gffig . 1131.131; 1,1. . ,.‘ ”“1912 31.1111 3., ‘HE11I5_.... .vt' ‘ 1.: 1§~~{‘L‘{2:11.. ‘L.i11 3511,15 3h 1 ‘1‘: 7 ‘1.” L :‘f‘i‘: fizz. *— , '1“ 1 039 19‘de 1] ‘91"91‘191111‘41 £13931 1‘19 { £2991 12m}: “1“, gift 1‘? ‘1. 1,. :53 1§G$EE§L¢ ‘57?” 11'! .1.‘ 111. 1-1 ”Elfin 431.1 494.9; 1.1... ‘ " i113". «61.15311 0‘“ ‘ 111913.11,“ k.” '11:}! '11“ 1-15-1’ ,.“"‘q}»‘ 31‘1th ul."};' 111' 1391 ”1.35311“ 19.11; 1 ifii‘é it“; 317*“ u " t- ' ”“5611‘31‘134‘3 1 ‘ mywd‘Lde L gig}; 13.1139 ‘1‘.” ; 1. “1....1‘ 1.113.111... , 91.11 g .‘ 3; . 0:11)! {SL4 Lu. . ‘M 11‘. 1 - ”9:11:13 16.6,." 1 4" ‘“ 3 - “it; 91 ‘1‘: ‘ “3X16. L3. ‘ 1r]. 1.- .6131 1:}? L? 1.1.91“. .1. IIII‘L «awnuhm m1 3“"! 9‘“: 1 “24 'zflglfi L 1): . M. 1 . I 1‘921’llf‘6lnms '1; 11399911?” -13‘11‘1I‘?l\f $1311.31 ’1???ng . a; 1%:{1 :1, ‘L‘t .1 1:11,” «.‘ r1 . ~ ,1" ‘ 3L1. “(1‘ 1!! 199% gghkfifigfi ‘9 3‘ {II 1L“; fit“- Ail. m“ ‘I I = 11,. 1'11 111111131 11.12161“ ‘1‘. 1 1- 111131 1.11"" {1.1.1. 1.. ‘ “x 1 f 1.. 4-1.1...“13III‘1L‘... u ital“ {1}“; An," $§§II .2}: 5‘ "$99,111- 1 . 5.“..11. ,. 1‘1! 1 :2; -. \II 411;?“ 1 1‘ 9E:~ g 111‘“ 1“" Lg..."1.1.1“1§LL$31§1"‘11I.$‘{"§91‘E‘31 . :2”: “‘C‘ ‘ L 9“ 1.11311 . 1111125111 11.111.151.11 “1‘11 $119“ ' ‘1‘311951;?‘11‘11‘172‘93313151 1.11.11.1.I.1151§I1.1..1,11,.111.1.1.141§3II1 r LU. M “1131- :4. {-61 “1 VFW; V )39-7‘4 {1149‘ . 91921933191 111“: magi-iv 1.11.399... L13" 1‘ “‘1 ~ .11.... {‘1 {1H " 1.1g"; 9’ {131,393 “ghwjm 9‘63; "3513? 939E}. * :.1:~r,' W}. “m ‘1‘ 1““: 7 ‘1; , 1:119 . 1“,!11'1‘ I]: 11 ‘1?“ i932. . ‘ . 4 II "9299:3119“ 2.1 I; {magi 081%.; III-III i‘figwiii‘i‘vfi ‘3: ”await? , 7‘1"”: 3 f -.« 1 ‘ ‘ ‘H ‘ ..._l "3.41 11.33 I. , . 11‘ ‘3 ‘11“... 11.1.11 111.131 1131 W“ 1.11391 1‘1 1,1 $111311 1&wa . “flit“; 95331.399‘31 Q1}; Em‘m .111. - 4 93, 31% . 21‘ ' ' ‘ ‘13. 3 1 I . ' .'¢l~i§rqttzu “:13. ‘ 2 ‘ . L 1 .. ‘1. Gt .‘441 . ‘1 1 W . '- ”13:11.. 1,153.: .1131‘ 311.33%. :1, ‘9: ‘ 1;: .. “13"“ 3.1.1.1 '1‘11 , Stud “1.” ”-915; '1‘Hgnlim%3tfl9iméa 11“.” it; i 11:31? .1 mgfihhfiafik‘fi 1:1. . 1 1 "1 1.11 51:31:33....5‘1 1.. m ‘ .- 1 , K tr-‘f... ,“m‘ .‘11'3'1 . .. '1’ :fitil‘ayxfin; 131.. .1 .3331» . . ' III.%,.1‘:L11,1‘11“ $41. ‘1‘ 7' 1- :11 9 ' “1‘. 111%? 1 - 1‘: Pi?“ I ' 1 . "t. 1 .1. ‘ 11“.: 1“ 1.11. -' 4‘. $113+ 1.111.161“ 3 .1‘ g: 311%: ‘ 11.619111319511113. 1, _1:9‘~1an «.1 ‘19? 74.1%,. ' " ‘ 3:132." " ‘tt‘u: 1? I . "491*. 11‘.“ 1%‘3g §' 1 31,14?“ ’ 9391551191? 1633131" “13;” 99‘? .‘jfi‘fi : . - "‘11:... . .-‘ ' 1019:. H L"! ~ ”I; 7" h; . 1A . ‘ 3.1%.. 11.31:? “ 1,". 13%;; if. 99"”‘1‘991 «1.19%.. I. 1- :211‘ 1; mum. ‘ ‘L .‘ - 5. '1': 3' 1.;25’ ' $1.11 ! I‘IItézéhth. fif‘fif‘g‘fiafi. 1 L: j .1 . ”3&19- it??? 511%. ”3‘54 :1; #393139 1 . 11.1; $1 ,.. 3.1.1.113: 3‘1”?“ » 71.5% I ~. 1.1.3111. 4%; 1311?? .3 3‘1’1‘1‘1 41121111611?“ ‘ . ‘ ‘9‘ ' 1E .1 1:1,». ' 1 ' 16:11.11: 11." .1144: ‘3 .. a 111'!“ =~': “ ‘i 1.91353” 9" :u-tfi)‘ ‘ 3' $93 ' A '66 ‘ ‘ 6793 ‘2 11 1 ”‘11 z. 5111111 MN “ ' '3. 1‘ "1 ‘1'. :1" ' '3’ *” 1143i“ . 1 ' ' 1 " “”79 “ 9* ‘ .310“ 2.. £5 «4?? .e» .. kg}; . .‘L L»; u-x?‘ 1.71.; 11.1427: ‘4 ’42:“ v-E _~‘ 32* ~r' “'55:“511 Winn: < fla’ 1...; r. 1 ‘33: 111 151;; 3““ i“ 4‘ J“ :3 “2%... -1'1431 h; v. 2‘” “$72.5. . -gritr: -~ as: I: 1,: 31:419. .m . L,....-.. ..-...1 .AA ”:1" fer—’11:: w...- 4... 7; W)“. M: ' z; 2112-. 4 .5... .. ”cry-.5 . . .‘K‘.’ Mpg—E'— . «2‘ 1»: .x . :_ 1pm «t .. .. m. 4...... . _..A~ """‘ #21511?" ‘la‘d: n.‘ .‘.' 43:? . 4.4. .44.?) -:_‘.r .9... ~.:.1Mv-,._ _ 73" .12. E53 . J...’-r.-5=5 . 1‘” .4. “:5; 11:21:. ‘1': r «run.-. .. . EF 4*" . I I 6 1 ‘ {19“‘riultn‘3 ‘ ‘ '. lltnltylzllylllllwlw“will" Tum This is to certify that the thesis entitled Peer—Response Groups in a College Writing Workshop: Students' Suggestions for Revising Compositions presented by Mary Francine Danis, C.D.P. has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for ____Eh_JL_ degree in M $4M”; A/K-J org/o,- Major professor Date 0(Zg/24 2% /7SU 0-7639 LIBRARY Michigan S ”“3 llniver9*V r'x. N id?" *“ OVERDUE FINES: 25¢ per day per item RETURNING LIBRARY MATERIALS: Place in book return to remove charge from circulation records W 179 0162 ¢o L§ m N S PEER-RESPONSE GROUPS IN A COLLEGE WRITING WORKSHOP: STUDENTS' SUGGESTIONS FOR REVISING COMPOSITIONS By Mary Francine Danis, C.D.P. A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of English 1980 ABSTRACT PEER—RESPONSE GROUPS IN A COLLEGE WRITING WORKSHOP: STUDENTS' SUGGESTIONS FOR REVISING COMPOSITIONS By Mary Francine Danis, C.D.P. For over seventy years, English educators have recommended the use of workshop or peer-criticism techniques in writing classes. Most of the literature, however, has concentrated on rationale, principles, practical guidance, and experimental results. One approach to peer response which has received little attention is the phenomenological one——investigating the discussions which actually occur in workshop groups. Through such investigation, one can gain insight into writing instruction as it is experienced by the students; this knowledge should help teachers to ground their instruction in the reality of Students' knowledge, beliefs, and concerns about their writing. This study, therefore, describes the peer-criticism sessions in a nine-week, sophomore—level writing workshop class at Michigan State University. The small—group discussions were tape recorded, and trans— criptions of three biweekly sessions constitute the primary material of the study. The transcriptions are supplemented by interviews with each of the students and by questionnaires. The analysis of the discussions concentrates on the Students' suggestions for improving their papers. The suggestions are analyzed first in terms of content (according to the system described by Paul Diederich in Measuring Growth in English , then in terms of the inter— action patterns within the groups. The findings bear out other assessments derived from both intuitive and experimental sources concerning the strengths and weaknesses of the writing workshOp: 1) There were 205 separate suggestions given. They fell into five main categories: development of ideas (64); clarity and precision of language (59); mechanics (42); organization (29), and focus (9). The student critics thus demonstrated an implicit awareness of the features of academic writing. 2) Ninety percent of the suggestions were accurate (as judged by the researcher's reading of the papers); sixty percent would, if acted on, result in superior versions of the papers. 3) In seventy-five percent of the papers, the students either iden- tified accurately the major weaknesses or recognized that the essay needed only minor revisions. 4) There were no formal provisions for leadership; thus the writers sometimes guided discussions but just as often did not. When they did, they asked questions and proposed suggestions about their own papers; they responded, generally favorably, to the suggestions they received; and they explained the intentions behind their papers. 5) As critics, the students evolved a common language which enabled them both to exchange suggestions and to maintain harmonious relationships. They typically phrased their suggestions as alternatives rather than imperatives, and their presentation of these alternatives indicated that they saw one another's papers as basically sound. 6) At the beginning of the course, the students expressed much apprehension about peer criticism; by the end, they unanimously expressed positive feelings toward the approach, though without losing sight of its limitations. They cited the following advantages: the discovery that their peers understood and enjoyed their writing, the opportunity to receive a variety of suggestions, and the development of a heightened consciOusness of the expectations of readers. The participants also noted three major problems: the imbalance of writing and critical abil- ities in some groups, the tendency to drift away from the task, and the reluctance to offer negative comments. 7) The students increased in confidence regarding their ability to write. Before the course, two-thirds said they felt positive toward writing, whereas all twenty—two who completed the final questionnaire described their outlook as positive. They spoke consistently of a new confidence about their writing and about their ability to continue improving. The participants cited both the group work and the instruc— tor's guidance as contributing to their attitude. To My Parents-— The Original Small Group ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Thinking and writing are inescapably lonely activities. Yet the ideas, prayers, and encouragement of many people have reverberated through my solitude all during this project. I owe special thanks to the following people: first, to Stephen Judy, my dissertation director, whose quiet support has been vital. To the other members of my commit— tee--to Jay Ludwig, with his special blend of enthusiasm and criticism, to Nancy Ainsworth, and Linda W. Wagner; they have been challenging critics and guides. To Lois M. Rosen and her students in English 213, who made this study not only possible but thoroughly enjoyable. To Carol Duane and Donna Casella Kern and their English 213 classes for being part of my preliminary research. To Lois Hetzer, who made sure the tape recorders were available--no easy task!——and to her successor, Shirley Kirkland. To the many people who offered valuable suggestions as I prepared my prospectus, especially Marian Hansinger, Candida Gillis, James Stalker, and Jim Kalmbach. To my sister Frances Weaver, who tran— scribed two of the tapes. To my colleagues and students at Our Lady of the Lake University of San Antonio: first, for my study leave itself; and, since my return, for encouragement during the revising process; Raymond Sousa has been an ideally supportive chairperson. To my fellow Sisters of Divine Providence, especially my community members at "J. B.," for their understanding and encouragement. To Melba Ragland, who in typing this dissertation has not only been precise but has remained calm in the face of deadlines. And to my friend Judson Mather, whose interest, suggestions, and belief have been enormous blessings. TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER ONE: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . Group Work in Education . . . . . Group Work in Writing Classes . . Early Practice and Theory Consolidation of Theory Strategies for Teaching Experimental Studies CHAPTER TWO: ELEMENTS OF THE STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . Development of Focus for the Study The Instructor . . . . . . . . . . Means of Securing Data . . . . . . Activities of the Class. . . . . . Characterizations of the Groups . CHAPTER THREE: CATEGORIZING THE SUGGESTIONS . . . . . . . . Suggestions concerning Development of Ideas Provide More Elaboration in General Elaborate on Feelings or VieWpoints Elaborate on Subject Matter Suggestions concerning Focus . . . Narrow Topic Clarify Intended Audience or Purpose Clarify Language 18 19 20 21 24 27 34 40 47 Suggestions concerning Language . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Clarify Vague or Ambiguous Sentences Rephrase Awkward Sentences Alter Length of Sentences Eliminate Wordiness Change Individual Words Suggestions concerning Mechanics . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Correct Typographical Errors Correct Spelling Mistakes Correct Verb Forms Correct Punctuation Mistakes Correct Sentence Fragments Suggestions concerning Organization . . . . . . . . . 63 Correct Order of Material Alter Paragraphing Use Transitional Devices CHAPTER FOUR: INTERACTION PATTERNS: THE DYNAMICS OF THE CRITIQUING GROUP PART I: THE ROLE OF THE WRITER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Writers Raising Questions about Their Own Papers . . . 76 Questions Initiated by Writers Questions Raised by Writers in Response to Peers' Suggestions Writers Proposing Suggestions about Their Own Papers . 84 Writers Expressing Agreement or Disagreement with Suggestions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Writers Explaining the Intentions behind Their Papers 94 Writers Choosing Not to Direct the Discussion . . . . 98 CHAPTER FIVE: INTERACTION PATTERNS: THE DYNAMICS OF THE CRITIQUING GROUP PART II: TRANSACTIONS INVOLVING ALL MEMBERS . . . . . . . . . . 100 Engaging in Pre—Discussion Talk . . . . . . . . . . . 100 Selecting a Paper to Discuss . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 Beginning the Actual Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . 104 vi Prefacing Suggestions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 GiVing suggestions 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 109 Emphasizing Clarity Emphasizing Writers' Choice Emphasizing Need for Revision Changing the Direction of Discussion . . . . . . . . . 117 Steering Discussion back to the Topic. . . . . . . . . 119 Responding to One Another's Suggestions . . . . . . . 120 Deve10ping Suggestions Collaboratively . . . . . . . . 122 Bringing Closure to the Discussion . . . . . . . . . . 125 CHAPTER SIX: THE STUDENTS1 VIEWS OF THEMSELVES AND THEIR PEERS AS WRITERS AND CRITICS O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 130 Students' Views of Themselves as Critics . . . . . . . 130 Students' Views of Their Peers as Critics . . . . . . 133 Limitations of Peer Criticism as Viewed by Participants Advantages of Peer Criticism as Viewed by Participants CHAPTER SEVEN: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TEACHING AND QUESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 Summary of Strengths and Weaknesses of Peer- Response Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146 Recommendations for Teaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148 Being Aware of Both Social and Cognitive Dimensions of Language Helping Students Prepare for Taking Part in WorkshOp Classes Providing Structure for the Sessions Providing for Accountability Providing for Reflection and Evaluation Other vii Questions for Further Research . . . . . . . . . Peer—Response Groups and the Writing Process Communication in Peer-Response Groups Teaching and Learning Other Areas APPENDICES O O O O O O O I O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O 0 Appendix A Questionnaires . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix B Instructor's Guide Sheet for Peer-Response Sessions . . . . . . . Appendix C Topics of the Papers Discussed in the Small-Group Sessions . . . . . . . . . NOTES 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O BIBLIOGRAPHY . . viii . 154 160 . 160 . 169 . 171 . 174 . 181 Table 3.1 Master Chart of Suggestions according to Group and Date . Table 3.2 LIST OF TABLES Subdivisions of Content Categories . . . Table 3.3 Suggestions Categorized Table 3.4 Suggestions Categorized Table 3.5 Suggestions Categorized Table 3.6 Suggestions Categorized Table 3.7 Suggestions Categorized Table 4.1 on Development of Ideas, according to Group on Focus, according to Group on Language, according to Group on Mechanics, according to Group on Organization, according to Group Writers' Activities in Guiding and Date . and Date . and Date . and Date . and Date . Discussions ix 38 39 4O 47 53 S9 63 75 CHAPTER ONE REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE It would be tidy but inaccurate to say that the practice of having students read and respond to one another's work in writing classes has emerged from a clearly—defined body of theory on language, learning, and human interaction. In reality, the workshop approach to writing instruction, like many other aspects of human living, has sometimes fol- lowed theory and sometimes preceded it. In either case, the use of peer- response groups is one manifestation of an approach to teaching and learning which has come to be known as "student centered" or "experience centered." As a matter of fact, all learning is necessarily student centered, in the sense that learners must make the material their own; no one can learn something for another person. Good teachers have always under- stood this principle and as a result have engaged in a number of activi- ties which fall under the umbrella of student—centered instruction: diagnosing students' present levels of knowledge and skill, involving students in setting their own goals for learning, helping them make con- nections between new concepts and previous experience, and finally, challenging students to apply their knowledge to real-life situations.1 In all of these activities, obviously, language development has a 'vital role. Students and teachers must use language in order to learn; eat the same time, they are both shaping and becoming aware of the lan— guage they are using.2 Student-centered approaches, then, seem par- ‘ticularly relevant in English classes; and, as a later section of this 1 2 chapter will show, English teachers have long regarded group work as a natural way to assist students in all phases of their language develop- ment . G_RQ_I_J_P_ E91313 IN EDUCATION Group work, of course, has been part of the American educational scene ever since the days of the one—room schoolhouse. In our own cen- tury, the vast outpouring of publications on educational theory and prac- tice has included a considerable amount of material on instructional groups. A few book-length treatments of the topic appeared in the early 19405,3 but the number of published works increased dramatically after the middle of that decade, under the impetus of Kurt Lewin and his as— sociates, who helped establish group dynamics as a distinct field of inquiry.4 By the mid 19605, there was already a vast body of material avail- able on the use of classroom groups. Mary A. Bany and Lois V. Johnson, in Classroom Group Behavior,5 review this material and highlight the findings which are pertinent to elementary-school teachers' concerns. Richard A. Schmuck's "Group Processes" in the Engyclopedia gf_Educational Research examines a variety of ways to categorize groups and approaches to understanding leadership and other dynamics in group processes. And Allan A. Glatthorn, in his article on "Small Group Instruction” in the Encyclopedia g£_Education, treats of ways to maximize the effective- ness of groups and to evaluate their work.7 The 19703 produced an abundance of material devoted to setting forth a rationale for group work and suggesting strategies for its use. (One of the most eloquent arguments available on the theory behind peer .involvement is Edwin Mason's Collaborative Learning,8 which expounds 3 on the psychological and social factors that make it vital for teachers to view their students as partners in the learning process. M. L. J. Abercrombie, in Aims and Techniques 2f_Group Teaching,9 touches on the same issues and also surveys several programs in which group work at the university level in Great Britain proved successful as a means of cover- ing content as well as helping students develop a sense of professional- ism. Many of the books published during the last decade can be particu- larly useful to teachers because they review the theories of group work, show how these theories have grown out of research and observation, and present a wealth of practical suggestions. Joseph Olmstead's §E§ll7 o 10 0 Group Instruction describes an array of methods, then comments on the advantages and limitations of each. Cassandra Book and Kathleen Galvin's monograph, Instruction in and about Small-Group Discussion,ll summarizes the research on group characteristics and provides strategies for initiat- ing and developing classroom techniques. In Group Processes in_the Classroom,12 Richard A. Schmuck and Patricia Schmuck examine research on teacher behavior in the light of "theories and research [on] social psychology and group dynamics." Finally, Gene Stanford's DeveIOEing Effective Classroom Groupsl3 describes the phases through which groups go in their collective life and recommends ways in which teachers can guide their pupils at each stage. Throughout the century, then, educators in a variety of fields have described their practice, expounded on their theories, and offered direc- tion for other teachers interested in using group work in the classroom. Thus English teachers who have turned to group techniques have been, whether consciously or not, in tune with their colleagues in other disciplines. In English itself, as in other fields, theory and practice have grown up side by side, exerting a mutual influence. An examination of the professional literature of the past seventy years reveals the inter— twining of educational, linguistic, social, and political concerns which motivated many teachers to develop student—centered approaches. Early Practice and Theory Beginning in 1912 with the first volume of its first publication, The English Journal, the National Council of Teachers of English has advocated the use of peer-response (also called workshop or laboratory) techniques. H. K. Munroe,14 for instance, recommends peer criticism of both oral and written compositions, noting that the disagreements which arise in the process may stimulate the development of logical thought 1 as well as clear expression. Focusing on written work, Jacob C. Tressler 5 offers a lively defense of peer criticism; he points out that it ensures a high level of personal involvement: When a specially trained mature man or woman finds glaring defects in Johnny's writing, Johnny feels no cause for serious alarm. . . . But when his opposite, Willie Jones, points out the same mistakes, Johnny's attitude is changed. His personal pride is touched. He vows that he will write compositions which Willie shall find unassailable. During the late 19105 and early 19203, the development of civic awareness was a theme often voiced in the professional journals; terms like "socialization," "democracy, and "patriotism” cropped up frequently. In terms of educational philosophy, the spirit of the period was summed 5 up in a 1918 English Journal editorial: "Training in a little autocracy l6 is poor preparation for citizenship in a big democracy." In terms of educational practice, group discussion and projects were frequently recommended.17 Many of those who focused on the practical connections between civic awareness and literacy emphasized the notion of "purposeful activity"--a phrase which reflects the influence of John Dewey and his follower William H. Kilpatrick. Though Kilpatrick is often credited with establishing "the project method" as an approach to teaching,18 it was W. Wilbur Hatfield who spelled out the implications of this approach for writing instruction. In a series of English Journal articles entitled "The Project Method in Composition,"19 Hatfield urges teachers to draw on their students' experience for writing assignments--for instance, asking students to recommend for a younger audience some books which they themselves had enjoyed at that age. Whatever the activity, Hatfield describes the "essential principles" of the project method as follows: . . . the pupils wrote and talked, not because the teacher expected it of them or because they needed practice, but because there was an audience expect- ing something of them. They were responsible not to an autocratic power, benevolent though it may be, but to the social group of which they were part. Articles on group or committee work in the English class continued to trickle forth during the119ZOs;21 among these was an early experiment on the effects of the workshop approach. Theodora Thie found that a grouped class in reading and composition not only made greater academic progress than did a regular class, but the grouped class enjoyed their 22 work more and "did more voluntary work outside of school." Wilbur Hatfield's influence continued to manifest itself throughout 6 the 19305, a period in which the term "experience centered" came into vogue. Hatfield chaired the NCTE committee which produced An Experience 23 Curriculum in English; the "Basic Principles" chapter of that document asserts that "The ideal curriculum consists of well—selected experiences" (p. 3) and that those experiences must be "well balanced," "orderly," "adapted to the needs and capacities of individual learners," and designed to parallel "present and future out-of—school experiences" (pp. 6-9). The largest portion of An Experience Curriculum consists of a catalog of suggested experiences organized according to disciplinary subheadings--1iterature, creative expression, grammar, and so on. While this "pattern curriculum" does not discuss group work as such, it does emphasize a problem—solving approach (pp. 6—7) which could easily find expression in group activities.24 Designed as a follow—up to The Experience Curriculum was another NCTE publication, Angela Broening's Conducting Experiences ip_Eng1ish25-— an anthology of teaching practices garnered from English educators across the United States. Conducting Experiences bears witness that, at least among teachers recognized by their peers as being outstanding in their field, small-group work was flourishing. The teachers describe a wide variety of group activities in both literature and composition classes; the section on writing includes several accounts of peer criticism of student writing (pp. 134, 177). As the 19305 came to a close, however, there appeared to be a re— trenchment from student-centered approaches; literature on peer response dwindled to a mere trickle during the 19405 and 19503. Among the pos- sible causes for this decline of interest in experience—centered approaches, the following seem paramount: first, due to the unemployment of the Depression, many people stayed in school who would not otherwise have done so; one result may have been that teachers felt the need to provide more direct guidance for these "less academic" students than they might for students with more visible scholastic preparation and aptitude.26 Second, the onset of World War II helped foster a new concern with the functional aspects of language and communication-—a concern which may have regarded peer interaction as less efficient than conventional instruction. Finally, reaction against the progressive movement in education may have caused some teachers to regard peer crit- icism as lacking in intellectual rigor and challenge.27 The Soviets' launching of Sputnik in 1957 intensified America's emphasis on academic challenge, discipline, authority, and scientific knowledge——a "no—nonsense" atmosphere which may have reinforced the posi- tion of those who believed that students learned best when they kept quiet and listened to an expert. It is not surprising, then, that a number of proposals for carefully structured academic programs emerged during this period: for instance, the Basic Issues Conference (1958) proposed a "sequential and cumulative" English curriculum from kinder- garten through college, and the College Entrance Examination Board, in its Freedom and Discipline in English, outlined an equally thorough program of training for potential English teachers.28 None of these sequences explicitly denied a place to methods like the writing workshop; but neither did they emphasize the role of talk or other concepts which would find a natural expression in such activities as peer criticism.29 Even in the late 19505 and early 19605, however, there were glim— merings of renewed activity on the peer-response front. For instance, William J. Dusel's "How Should Student Writing Be Judged?"30 points out the value of and suggests procedures for student evaluation of writing-- both self-evaluation and peer response. Other articles during this time also indicate that peer criticism was alive in the classroom, even if not discussed extensively in the journals.31 Consolidation 2f Theory Suddenly, though, beginning in the late 19603, there was a veritable explosion of published material on peer response. As mentioned earlier in this chapter, the subject of using instructional groups had already received considerable attention in the professional literature on educa— tion; thus there was an established context into which English educators could fit their newly enhanced awareness of group processes. No single force can be credited with bringing about this new aware- ness on the part of the English profession, but there were two major forces which in the late 19603 gave a new visibility to student-centered approaches. The first of these was the 1966 Anglo-American Conference on the Teaching of English (the Dartmouth Seminar), at which American educators, who had for some years tended to distrust anything that hinted of "progressivism," learned from their British colleagues that a focus on students' needs and interests could in fact be compatible with the demand for high academic standards. The major issues of the Dart— mouth Seminar are discussed in John Dixon's Growth thropgh English;32 Dixon notes that the seminar took a broad view of English, seeing it as concerned with students' understanding, use, and awareness of language in all phases of their lives. A second force promoting the visibility of student—centered zapproaches was the publication in 1968 of two influential books, both by .James Moffett, a participant in the Dartmouth Seminar. In Teaching the 9 Universe gf_Discourse, Moffett sets forth a theoretical basis for small- group activity; and in g Student-Centered Languagg_Arts Curriculum, Grades .Elli: he delineates an entire curriculum to implement that theory.33 In both works, Moffett argues for a "naturalistic method" of English instruction-—one in which students learn to write by actually writing whole pieces of discourse about subjects they are interested in, and in which they write for their peers as their primary audience--an audience which is expected to provide frequent feedback. A colleague of Moffett's at the Dartmouth Seminar, British educator James Britton has also contributed substantially to the literature on theoretical foundations for peer response. In Language and Learning and in his contribution to Language, the Learner and the School,34 Britton stresses that language learning is a cooperative endeavor from the very beginning of one's life and that language development occurs more readily in realistic tasks and interactions than in artificial assignments. Britton further stresses that talking and writing, because they are means of actively shaping experience, are just as important for learning as listening and reading are. The emphasis placed by Britton, Moffett, and others on the active use of language has vital connections with research on language learning and on the writing process, and it may be useful here to interrupt the historical review in order to examine those connections, before review- ing the literature on strategies for using peer-response groups and on experimental testing of the method. Julia S. Falk, in "Language Acquisition and the Teaching and Learn- ihag of Writing,"35 has synthesized the findings of research on children's lxanguage acquisition as they apply to writing instruction. She notes 10 that children across the world learn language, not through direct teach— ing or exercises, but through participation in the communication going on around them, and that this participation involves the implicit for- mulation and testing of hypotheses regarding the way language works.36 Falk then suggests a number of implications for the teaching and learn- ing of writing; these can be summed up by saying that writers should be involved in realistic situations which call for an expansion of their linguistic resources, and that they should be given the Opportunity to obtain feedback from a variety of audiences. These themes appear also in two studies which deal with the processes and products of students' actual writing experiences. The first is Janet Emig's The Composing Processes gf_Twelfth Graders,37 an inves- tigation which helped establish the case study as an accepted vehicle for the examination of writing behavior. As far as group work is con- cerned, the most pertinent of Emig's conclusions has to do with audi- ence: she found that in the students' school-sponsored writing, the teacher was the primary, if not the exclusive audience; but when it came to self-initiated writings, particularly in the case of the more able students, "the significant others [were] peers who also [wrote]." Through a different procedure, James Britton and a team of research associates also found teacher-directed writing to be prevalent in British schools. The Development gf_Writinngbilities 11-1838 reports on a two-year study in which the research team collected writing samples from several schools in England and then classified these samples accord- ing to the writer's purpose and audience. The British students, like those in Emig's study, directed the majority of their writings to their teachers--and specifically, to their teachers as evaluators. Britton and 11 his associates conclude, as Emig does, that teachers need to make a deliberate effort to aid students in widening their range of audiences and purposes for writing. Several other recent studies of the composing process have provided insight regarding the activities which good writers typically engage in--notably, taking their intended audience into consideration even from the beginning stages of the writing (Flower, 1979; Flower and Hayes, 1980), scanning their work frequently while writing (Pianko, 1979), and-- during the revising proce33--viewing their writing holistically rather than in a piecemeal way (Beach, 1976 and 1979). Awareness of these characteristics indicates ways in which peer-response groups can contrib- ute to writing development-~namely, through helping students experience the responses of an immediate audience and thus helping the writers learn what to look for when they reread and revise their work. Thus, ranging from examinations of initial language learning to studies of the composing and revising processes of experienced writers, researchers have established a substantial theoretical foundation for the use of peer-response methods. That context has been further expanded and enriched during the past ten years, as English educators have sought new ways to articulate the theory behind the workshOp approach and new strategies to use it effectively. Strategies for Teaching The 19703 opened with the publication of a textbook which rapidly came to symbolize the student-centered approach to writing instruction. IKen Macrorie's TellingWriting39 is based on the belief that students vrrite best when they draw from their own experiences and receive honest :feedback on their writing. "Nothing is done /in this approach/," says 12 Macrorie in his preface, "to paralyze the natural urges of a writer to discover, to invent, to play with words. And nothing to let him avoid the public nature of writing." The second edition of Telling Writing (1976) gives special attention to guidance for peer readers; Macrorie ' in which he offers has added a chapter entitled "The Helping Circle,‘ principles for and samples of peer response. In Writing without Teachers,40 Peter Elbow not only reflects on the writing process, he also sets forth a scheme—-at once practical and imaginative-—to guide writers in talking together about their work. By showing writing groups how to "give movies of their own minds," Elbow teaches participants to respond honestly and helpfully without destroy— ing one another's egos. Similar concerns are evident in Stephen N. Judy's "Writing for the Here and Now,"41 which urges teachers to discern whether a given paper reflects the writer's real involvement with the subject and if so, whether the paper could appropriately be shared with others in the class. Judy then suggests a number of ways in which student writing can be "published" so that other students may read, make their own response, and thus keep the language cycle going. Further practical suggestions on "publishing" student writing and on finding alternative audiences are available in Stephen Judy and Susan Judy's Eng English Teacher's Handbook.42 Helping students take responsibility for their own learning is the theme of two articles by Kenneth Bruffee——"Collaborative Learning: Some Practical Models" and ”The Way Out: A Critical Survey of Innovations 4 . . 3 Bruffee asserts that students retain the subject in College Teaching." matter of a class less vividly than they do the values implicit in the structuring of the class. One of the values inherent in conventional 13 teaching, Bruffee says, is that the instructor alone has the wisdom to evaluate what the "recipients of knowledge" are learning. Collaborative learning, on the other hand, Opens the material of the course more fully to the students by giving them opportunities to develop and internalize their own criteria for evaluation.44 Some of these opportunities are described by Bruffee in "The Brooklyn Plan;"45 although this program is designed to train peer tutors who will work in a writing laboratory, its sequence of peer—response activities could be readily adapted for use in any writing class. Two other publications for teachers also combine reviews of theory with suggestions for practice. Thom Hawkins, in Group Inquigy Techniques for Teaching Writing,46 offers a concise overview of the theory of col- laborative learning, then presents a number of exercises for developing language skills in the "parceled classroom." And in 5 Laboratory ART proachEgWriting,47 Carol F. Laque and Phyllis A. Sherwood outline their seminar for composition teachers, report on research connected with peer—reSponse groups, and describe their own process-oriented laboratory approach, which entails both individualized guidance from teachers and the use of peer criticism. Concentrating on practical guidance for teachers is Mary K. Healy's pamphlet, Using Student Writing Response Groups_£n the Classroom.48 Healy describes ways to prepare for, establish, and guide peer-criticism groups. Her suggestions, like those of the other educators whose work is reviewed in this section, are born of the experimentation and reflec- tion in which teachers engage on a continual, often informal, basis. There have also been a number of formal experimental studies testing the efficacy of group work in writing instruction at both the secondary and 14 the college level. Experimental Studies In 1956, responding to the burgeoning college enrollments of that period, Charlton Laird prOposed a composition-course format which would lighten the instructor's burden by having the students meet regularly in peer-response groups.49 That plan was tested at the University of Oregon, and in "The Oregon Experiment: A Final Report,"50 John Sherwood summarizes the results: students in the experimental (grouped) and control (conventional) classes achieved roughly similar degrees of writ- ing improvement. The teachers, however, felt overwhelmed by the con- ferences which the plan entailed, while students were dubious about the value of peers' corrections. Similar conclusions were reached in a 1968 51 while approaches study by Clinton Burhans at Michigan State University: which emphasized an understanding of the writing process produced greater writing improvement than did the traditional approach (stressing logic, formal structure, and rhetorical analysis), there was no difference in writing improvement between students in "regular" classes and those in "tutorial" sections composed of eight students with an instructor. The verdict of "no significant difference" appears in several dis- sertations also. Howard Pierson (1967) compared ninth-grade groups using peer—correction and those using teacher-correction of themes; both groups made similar gains on the STEP Writing Test. Charles Myers (1979) likewise found teacher and peer feedback to be equally effective in helping seventh and eighth graders learn punctuation and paragraph unity. Roy Fox (1978) concluded that college freshmen improved their writing _just as much in student-centered classes (which included group work) 233 they did in traditional ones--though the student-centered group 15 produced longer pieces of writing and also experienced a faster and more extensive reduction of writing apprehension. John McNeill (1977) tested six methods of writing instruction for college freshmen; peer evaluation was third in effectiveness at decreasing errors in formal writing. (Personal correction by the teacher and the use of films were respectively first and second in effectiveness.) All six methods in McNeill's study, however, yielded significant decreases in the number of errors made. Mixed results came from Salvner's 1978 testing of a collaborative writing unit with ninth and tenth graders: students who completed the unit showed more awareness of their own writing processes, and they wrote longer essays; however, though the quality of their writing improved more than that of the control group, the difference was not a significant one. All of the preceding studies found peer—response approaches to be merely comparable to conventional approaches as far as writing develop— ment was concerned. A number of other investigations, however, have resulted in unambiguous claims for the superiority of group work. The first five of these were done at the junior-high or high-school level. Jean LaGana (1972) found that students in a class involving individual- ized learning and peer criticism made significantly greater gains on the STEP Writing and Essay tests and also responded more positively to the method of instruction than did their counterparts in a traditional class. Helen Marsh (1975) also found high—school students using group work to make greater gains in positive attitude toward writing than did those in conventional classes. In Kevin Farrell's 1977 study, eleventh graders in both peer-evaluation and group-tutoring sections improved their writing more than students in lecture sections did (interestingly, l6 peer evaluation was more effective for the boys in this study, while the girls improved more when tutored in small groups by twelfth graders). Nancy Benson (1979) found more overall writing improvement in the experimental (grouped) class of junior-high students than in the tradi— tionally—taught class. Thelma Jones (1977) apparently did not compare a grouped class with a conventional one but instead examined the comments made in a grouped class of college-oriented seniors; she also assessed the impact of those comments on the students' revision of their writing. Jones found that over 70% of the criticisms accepted and used by the writers resulted in improved papers, and that through a combination of self-initiated revision and peer evaluation, the students were able to correct about 60% of their own errors. At the college level, Bob Ford (1973) and John Clifford (1977) both noted greater writing improvement among students who participated in peer-evaluation groups. A series of case studies of community-college students by Carl Koch (1975) indicated that students who participated in small groups not only increased their confidence regarding their own writing but also wrote longer, more cohesive essays at the end of the course than they had at the beginning. And in a college literature class, Mary Edwards (1978) observed a wider variety of interpretations in literary essays by students who had engaged in group discussion than in essays by students who had participated in whole—class, teacher-led discussions. In short, the practice of using peer-criticism groups in writing classes has been tried, refined, debated, and tested by English educa- tors over the past seventy years. It is a practice whose adoption has sometimes been motivated less by theoretical considerations than by 17 an effort to respond to immediate practical needs, especially that of lightening the teacher's paper load. Nevertheless, researchers and theoreticians have consistently found peer criticism to be in accord with the principles of human learning in general and of language acqui- sition and development in particular. Teachers and researchers alike have also found that the use of peer-response groups has helped students improve both their self-confidence regarding writing and their actual writing ability. CHAPTER TWO ELEMENTS OF THE STUDY As the preceding review has shown, a substantial body of material on peer-response groups has developed over the past seventy years, and in particular during the past two decades. Educators and researchers have advocated the workshop approach, offered direction for its use, and reported on both formal and informal testing of its efficacy. However, very little has been done to show what actually takes place during peer— criticism sessions--what the participants say to one another, and how their interaction changes over the course of time.1 Without insights on these matters, there can be only a partial understanding of peer criti- cism, for no matter what structure may be imposed or suggested, it is the talk of the participants which constitutes the event.2 This study, therefore, attempts to fill a gap in the research by examining recorded discussions of the peer—response groups in one writ- ing workshop class. The conclusions that grow out of this sort of analy- sis are limited, of course, in their applicability to other classes; each class will vary in regard to such factors as the members' previous experience with writing and with peer criticism as well as in their relationship with the instructor and with one another. However, the point here is not to draw universally valid statements but to present the conclusions which flow from the close examination of one set of groups. ‘As far as wider applications are concerned, I see this study as raising questions for others who are conducting descriptive 18 19 research on this subject and as offering one set of conclusions which may be compared with others. Through such comparisons, researchers may eventually be able to make sound generalizations regarding peer criti- cism in action. For the present, then, my concern is to describe the phenomena suf— ficiently so that a reader unacquainted with the class will accept the conclusions as being justified by the data. This chapter takes the first step toward that description by providing information on the evolution and methods of the study and on the class under investigation. DEVELOPMENT OF FOCUS FOR THE STUDY The actual study was preceded by nine weeks of preliminary field- work in three different sections of English 213, the sophomore-level Writing Workshop at Michigan State University. I sat in on one or two groups during each of the weekly peer-response sessions in these classes, taking notes as I tape-recorded the discussions. I interviewed most of the students in one section, talked periodically with the teachers, and tested and refined a series of questionnaires. Even after the preliminary work, the study remained an exploratory one: my purpose was to learn, through listening to tape recordings, what the students in one class actually said to one another in discuss- ing their papers, and to supplement my conclusions by using question- naires and interviews to learn how the students themselves perceived the workshop experience. This open-ended interest continued but took on clearer definition as the actual study progressed: I became particularly interested in the suggestions which the students offered one another for revising their papers. Since the purpose of the discussions was to provide feedback for rewriting, it seemed reasonable that examining the 20 quantity and quality of suggestions would provide an accurate index to the usefulness of peer criticism for these students. The focus on suggestions also seemed appropriate as a way of doing some preliminary testing of James befett's and Kenneth Bruffee's conviction that the writing workshop offered special opportunities for students to develop the ability to "stand outside" their writing and con- sider it from the viewpoint of the intended audience.3 I reasoned that an analysis of the suggestions which the students gave one another, along with my reading of their papers, would show me whether they were accurately interpreting one another's writing and making appropriate sug- gestions; further, an examination of the students' verbal interaction would indicate whether they seemed able to entertain alternatives in their views of the papers—-an ability which forms part of the foundation for objectivity. THE INSTRUCTOR Since the study demanded a thorough familiarity with the classroom talk of one group of students, I wanted the c00peration of an instructor who was not only willing to participate in the study but who was skilled at creating an atmosphere in which students could freely talk about their writing. Such a person would need to be convinced of the value of the workshop method and experienced in using this method at the college level; it would be helpful if this person were also familiar with composition theory. Lois M. Rosen met all of these criteria: she was a Ph.D. candidate in the English Education program at Michigan State; she had taught high- school English before returning to graduate school. As a teaching assis- tant at Michigan State, Lois had taught English methods courses in 21 addition to the writing workshop; she had been nominated for an Excel- lence in Teaching award during the 1979-1980 academic year. Further, she had served on the departmental Teacher Education Committee, helped conduct in-service workshops, and worked as an associate editor of Th2 English Journal. She had also spent a summer in England, studying the English curriculum in London-area schools. Through these experiences, Lois had developed a student-centered, process-oriented approach to writing instruction, an approach which she herself summed up in her statement to the class at the beginning of this study: ”My philosophy is to show you where your strengths are. My assumptions about writing are that you write best when you care about your subject and you learn most about your writing when you have an audience." MEANS 93 SECURING DATA With Lois' consent, I chose the following procedures for recording students' discussions and for securing their impressions of the workshop. (The students all signed a form during the first week of class, indicat- ing their willingness to be observed, recorded, and interviewed, and to have their writing read by me as well as by the teacher.) 1) The primary means of collecting data was through the use of tape recorders. I was present for every class session and recorded all whole— class discussions, both to give me a fuller perspective from which to view the group work, and to accustom the students to having their class- room talk recorded. During the one class day a week when the students met in their critiquing groups, I placed a tape recorder in each group; once I had made the rounds and ascertained that the equipment seemed to be working, I stayed in the background, since I wanted the discussions to proceed as naturally as possible. 22 I recognized that the presence of a tape recorder in each group might introduce some artificiality into the discussions and thus become one more variable affecting the process. However, I had learned during my preliminary research that the students quickly began to take the recorder for granted, occasionally making reference to its presence but otherwise concentrating on their discussion. This proved to be true during the actual study as well. Some groups were relatively inhibited during their first session, but that most likely would have been the case under any circumstances. On the other hand, a peripheral conscious- ness of being on tape may, as Douglas Barnes and Frankie Todd suggest,4 have heightened the quality of the discussions by making the students feel more accountable. Even so, there was one group which did not really settle down to work until the final session. 2) To help me interpret the tape recordings and to help me see whether the discussions were actually focusing on the papers' main strengths and weaknesses, I collected copies of the first three major papers (see the next section of this chapter for details on the assign- ments). Collecting the papers was a simple matter, as Lois routinely asked for two copies of each paper so that she could return a marked copy to the writer and keep one herself. 3) To maintain communication with Lois and to ensure that she would continue to feel comfortable about my presence in the class, I talked informally with her after class once or twice a week. At these times, we compared notes on recent class periods, talked about plans for the next few days and occasionally discussed writings that had particularly delighted or distressed Lois. On Mondays, I usually summarized for her the significant points I had noticed during the weekend in listening to 23 the small—group tapes of the preceding Friday. 4) In addition to the data provided by the tape recordings and by Lois' and my perceptions, I wanted information on the way the course looked to the students themselves. To gain this information, I distrib- uted questionnaires and conducted interviews. There were three question- naires (copies are given in the appendix); two of them complemented Lois' usual beginning and ending questionnaires. During the first week of class, Lois asked the students about their goals for the course, while I con- centrated on their previous writing instruction and their present atti- tudes toward writing and group work. Two weeks into the course, I distributed a questionnaire at the end of the first major-paper discus- sion; this form involved both description and evaluation of the session. At the end of the course, there were two more evaluative questionnaires: mine was an attitude scale, dealing with the students' feelings about writing and peer criticism; Lois' form requested the students to write a short essay describing themselves as writers at that point. 5) Finally, as one other means of obtaining the students' views, I held one conference with each of them. As with the questionnaires, this technique complemented Lois' own usual practice. She talked with each student during the fifth week of the course, while I interviewed them during the seventh week. The conferences with Lois focused on each individual's own writing progress and problems and on plans for further development. During their conferences with me, the students reflected again on the insights they had gained concerning their own writing, but I also requested them to comment on the strengths and weaknesses of the course as a whole, particularly those parts of it which dealt with peer criticism. 24 ACTIVITIES QF_THE CLASS The class in this study--English 213, Section ll——met for three fifty—five minute periods each week during the winter quarter of 1980. After the add/drop period at the end of the first week, enrollment stabi— lized at twenty—four and remained at that number throughout the course. The nine—week quarter was divided into two parts: six weeks for a series of ten short writings and three longer papers, all discussed in small groups; and three weeks for the final project. Each of these assignments will be explained in more detail below.’ For the first six weeks, the cycle of class activities was as follows: on Mondays there was in—class writing and discussion of the writing process; on Wednesdays, whole—class discussion of two or three papers; and on Fridays, small— group discussions of papers. The seventh and eighth weeks were devoted to working on the final project; the ninth week to presentation and criticism of the projects and to a review of the course. For a fuller picture of the nature of the course, I will describe briefly each type of activity the students were involved in: reading, writing and revising, criticizing and discussing, and planning and evalu— ating. 1) The required reading for the course consisted of two types of material: the textbook, Writing in Reality, by James Miller, Jr., and Stephen N. Judy (Harper and Row, 1978), and the writing done by one's group members. The text began with ideas for autobiographical writing and gradually moved outward to suggest writing assignments of a more public nature, in terms of both topic and audience. 2) The writing for the course fell into three categories: assign- ments from Writing in Reality, major papers, and the final project. 25 Three pieces based on suggestions in the textbook--each a page or two in length-—were required every two weeks. Major papers, three to five type- written pages, were also done biweekly; on these, the students were free to choose their own tepics and modes of writing. The final project was to be a longer, more ambitious, and more fully polished piece of writing than the major papers; it could be done on an individual basis or as a contribution to a "magazine" by a group all working on the same general tOpic. Revising was required for two of these three types of writing. The Writing in Reality pieces did not have to be rewritten, since they were conceived of primarily as experiments to explore ideas and develop fluency. The major papers were to be revised if Lois so indicated; she gave the students her written recommendations on these papers at the end of their small-group discussions. The final project was to be in finished form when handed in, but revising was presumed to be part of its prepara- tion: Lois clearly indicated that the students should criticize one ano- ther's rough drafts, and she invited them to bring in drafts for her to look at as well. 3) Discussion was a part of almost every class period, with discus— sion and criticism being closely interwoven. In the early weeks of the course, when Mondays frequently included some in-class writing, Lois asked for volunteers to read their extemporaneous pieces, then called for brief responses to these writings. Whole—class discussions of longer papers were also part of the course from the second week on; the writers (who had volunteered at the previous class meeting) brought their papers on ditto masters several hours before class so that Lois could run them off and plan for the discussion. These sessions, guided by Lois, usually 26 began with brief comments on the tone, purpose, and overall effect of the paper, then focused on particular strengths and weaknesses. Finally, small groups--six clusters of four people each--met every Friday to dis- cuss either the assignments from Writing in Reality or the major papers. (For the final project, the students chose different groups.) To guide the students in discussing one another's writing, Lois provided both direct instruction and example. Before the groups began their work, she distributed several handouts on response to writing and elaborated on some of the points they contained--"Give specific sugges— ' and so on. tions for improvement," "Concentrate on the big picture,‘ Lois urged everyone to use the handout, "To Critique a Paper," (given in the appendix) as they prepared for the first major—paper discussion; most of the groups did so. The whole-class discussions also served as a model for the small-group sessions. 4) The final aspect of class activity consisted of setting goals for writing development and evaluating progress toward those goals. Student participation in this aspect was ensured by means of discussion, questionnaires, and conferences. The latter two involved a rather formal type of reflection and commentary; a more casual sort of evaluation took place during brief discussions at several points in the course. On the first two small-group days, the students came together as a whole class during the final minutes of the period to talk about the critiquing process as they had just experienced it. At the end of the fifth week (after the permanent groups had had four sessions together),5 the small groups were asked to talk together about their perceptions of their work as critics. One last phase of informal evaluation occurred during the final class period, when Lois set aside fifteen minutes for a whole-class 27 review of such matters as the text, the grading procedure, and the free- dom of topics for papers. The class members, then, were asked to do more than sit back and assimilate their instructor's views on writing; they were continually called on to participate, very literally, in giving substance to the class by setting writing goals, exploring their experiences and ideas, responding to one another's writing, and assessing their own progress toward their goals. CHARACTERIZATIONS QF_THE GROUPS In any class, though the sequence of topics and assignments may remain the same from semester to semester, the personalities and inter- action patterns of the members will naturally make the class somewhat different each time it is offered. That is all the more true in a class like the Writing WorkshOp, where interaction is an essential part of the course structure. It may be useful, then, as a background for under- standing the work which took place in the discussions, to have some idea of the groups themselves. Therefore, this section will describe briefly the characteristics of each group and note changes that took place in each group's interaction. These glimpses of the six highly different combinations of people who made up one Writing Workshop class may offer a sense of the likenesses and differences among the groups and also provide for a fuller understanding of the material in subsequent chapters. There were several common elements in the backgrounds of the twenty— four class members, contributing to certain likenesses from group to group. Most were from the Detroit area; all but three were juniors or seniors; almost 60% were majoring in advertising, communications, or 28 journalism; and over 90% had had at least one semester of college—level writing instruction. The composition of the actual groups was determined by Lois: she tried to balance each group in terms of writing ability (one strong writer and one who needed help in each group) and in terms of gender (two females and two males in almost every group). The following descriptions of the groups are based primarily on transcriptions of the three biweekly discussions (January 18, February 1, and February 15) of the first three major papers for the course. The same groups also met at two other times (January 25 and February 8) to discuss short assignments from the text; but these discussions were more rambling because the writings were shorter and less polished, the group members did not receive copies ahead of time (as they did with the major papers), and there was no requirement for revising these exercises. There were only two groups (One and Six) whose discussions were successfully recorded on all three Fridays; for each of the other four groups, I have two instead of three tapes of major—paper discussions. In order to protect the confidentiality of the students, I have given them all fictitious names and have referred to them by first names only. Finally, for ease in distinguishing one group from another, I have tagged each one with an epithet which highlights one salient characteristic of the group. Group One: The Debaters (Jeff, Jody, Nina, Tom) "The Debaters," as my label suggests, were the most consistently lively and argumentative group. They laughed a great deal (especially during the Writing }n_Reality discussions), they generated an abundance of suggestions, and they disagreed often, though usually in a friendly way. They disagreed, for instance, on the amount of personal opinion 29 desirable in an informative essay (Tom's first paper), on the amount of coherence appropriate for an essay portraying a confused state of mind (Jody's first paper), and on the degree of explicitness necessary in presenting a specialized topic for a general audience (Nina's second paper). Two other notable characteristics of the group were Jody's tendency on her first two papers to be defensive about her writing, and Jeff's inclination to make suggestions by rewriting passages in other people's papers. Group Two: The Encouragers (Christi, Curt, Karen, Miyuki) The second and third sessions of this group came out on tape; how- ever, only Christi and Curt were present for the third session, so my description is based almost entirely on the middle discussion. This group was relatively quiet and definitely hardworking; the over- all tone was one of pleasant but unforced positiveness. The members had many good things to say about one another's writing, especially regard— ing the descriptive passages. They were also quite supportive of Miyuki in her struggles to express herself in correct English. Group Three: The Quiet Ones (Adam, Barb, Jill, Joe) Session two and three of this group were recorded successfully. This was a group of soft—spoken, slightly bashful people. Their conversations did become freer as the members became used to working together; in fact, they became involved in a fairly lively exchange of views during the final session as they talked about Jill's essay on advertising. They stayed on track with the discussion of all the papers, at least while the tape recorder was running; when they ran out of things to say about a given paper, they turned off the recorder until they were 30 ready to begin on the next one. Despite their shyness, this group was good at identifying vague and ambiguous statements in one another's papers. They also did well at letting one another know when their writing had improved: for example, Barb told Adam about his second paper, "This is a lot easier to read than your first paper,‘ and Barb's final essay evoked praise from Jill: "This is your best paper so far." Group Four: The Assortment (Brian, Candy, Claudia, Josh) The first and third sessions of this group came out on tape. This was the group with the most internal variety. The dominant member was Brian, who was the quickest and most articulate person in the group. His peers were either unable or unwilling to offer him the chal- lenge he needed--though his manner may also have conveyed the impression that he didn't need help. He did urge the others to criticize his paper during the first session; each time, however, they responded mostly with praise and just a few requests for fuller elaboration. The other members seemed less confident about their writing: for instance, during the first session, when Brian made many corrections on matters of Spelling and punctuation, Candy sighed, ”I need a lot of help. Despite the unevenness of writing and critiquing ability in the group, the initial session was lively. The final discussion, however, was un- productive: Brian said very little after the discussion of his paper; and on three of the four essays, the talk drifted off quickly to topics related to the papers, with only two or three suggestions for revising being offered during the whole fifty minutes. 31 Group Fiyg: The Drifters (Arlene, Jerri, Marty, Steve) The first two sessions were successfully taped. Early in the final discussion, the group realized that their tape recorder was defective-- an especially disappointing fact because, as several members testified, they had finally gotten into some productive arguments and given one another some useful suggestions. The first two sessions were quite different from each other as well as from that final, unrecorded session. During the first discussion (which Marty missed), the participants praised every paper and said they couldn't find anything to criticize. They did make a few suggestions—- e.g., that Arlene describe her own views regarding life after death, and that Jerri condense her repetitious introduction. After a few minutes on each paper, someone mused that next time they would probably have more to say; and when they finished early (even after discussing the absent Marty's paper), Jerri teased, ”Maybe we should sing something." The next session was livelier but even less productive. Again, the members' remarks on one another's papers were almost entirely positive; Marty mentioned twice that everybody had written better papers for this assignment than for the first one. The only person who got any sugges- tions for improvement was Steve; the others thought he should expand one or two statements and reverse the order of two paragraphs. Most of the time during this session was spent in conversation on a variety of past or present paper topic3-—the frustrations of being a transfer student, and the inadequacy of parking space around campus, to mention just two of the topics which arose. 32 Group Six: The Workers (Darla, Joyce, Matt, Walt) All three sessions of "The Workers" were successfully taped. This group was quiet and earnest; with rare exceptions, they stuck to the task of discussing papers. They generated a large number of per- ceptive suggestions and were especially alert to point out sections in one another's papers which caused confusion for the readers. Perhaps because they were all better-than-average writers, the group members were able to be fairly Open with one another from the beginning. For instance, in response to Darla's first paper, "Baseball Survival Strategies for Women Only," Matt remarked, "I thought it was chauvinistic-- I felt like a villain reading it." By the final session, this initial openness had widened into the freedom to disagree, as Walt and Matt did over Joyce's paper, a review of Judith Guest's novel Ordinary People. The two men disagreed at length over the appropriateness of the paper's thorough plot summary, but they finally reached a compromise after learn- ing more about the book. The openness of the group, however, had a very business-like tone to it. The members rarely teased one another or laughed together, and they maintained a matter-of—fact, almost respectful formality in tone of voice as compared with the slightly more relaxed style of the other groups. Each of the six groups, then, had its own personality. As is the case with all interpersonal behavior, each group was clearly shaped by the individuals in it and their responses to one another; and the groups in turn, as was evident from the interviews and questionnaires, mediated the experience of the course for each individual.6 Undoubtedly, the following chapters would be different if the membership of the groups 33 had been altered--though what those differences might have been, one can only speculate. CHAPTER THREE CATEGORIZING THE SUGGESTIONS Listening to a tape recording of a peer—response session and asking, "What are these people doing?" can yield a number of different answers, depending on the angle one takes. As with almost any human activity, people are doing a number of things at once in a peer-criticism group: they are, for instance, striving to meet academic requirements, they are trying to negotiate social relationships, and they are attempting to display how much they know about writing or to conceal how little they think they know. Meanwhile, the instructor hopes they are helping one another see their writing from a variety of angles and thus becoming more competent, creative, and self-reliant readers and writers. Since the primary task of peer-response groups is to help the members improve their writing, it seems logical to answer the question, "What are these people doing?" in terms of another: "What are they concentrating on when they discuss their papers?” That question in turn leads to two others: "Do the students in fact concentrate on discussing their papers?" and "What qualities of the writing do they give the most attention to?" Both questions can be answered in part by attending to the sug- gestions which the participants offer one another. First, if they give one another a substantial number of suggestions, this indicates that they are fulfilling their task of discussing ways to improve their papers. Then, whatever the quantity of suggestions, one can examine their content 34 L—__ 35 and thus learn what qualities of writing the students are focusing on. With that information, teachers and researchers can ascertain something of a class's knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes regarding writing, and can work with the students in setting realistic goals for new develOpment. This chapter, then, will present a content analysis of the suggestions made by the participants in this study. First, however, it may be use- ful to establish an operational definition of the term "suggestion." For the purposes of this study, a suggestion is any utterance which proposes a change or indicates the need for a change in a piece of writ- ing. The utterance may come from the writer of the paper or from one of the group members. (The teacher, of course, makes suggestions as well, but those are outside the scope of this analysis.) Suggestions can occur in a great variety of forms and styles. They may be explicit ("You ought to give your opinion on the subject") or implicit ("I didn't know which side you were taking"). They can be general ("I thought you could use more description") or specific ("You could've told more about the small town"). They may be presented as corrections ("You need a verb in there") or offered as alternatives ("You could combine some of these shorter sentences"). Finally, they may merely point out an error or problem, or they may advocate specific ways to deal with it. In categorizing the suggestions of the Writing Workshop students, I am following the scheme set forth by Paul Diederich in Measuring Growth iii-English.l Diederich's system itself is based on research which shows that evaluators of academic prose tend to emphasize one of the following areas: ideas, mechanics, organization, language, or creativity ("flavor”). This is a useful scheme not only because the number of categories is manageable but especially because the categories were developed inductively, through an analysis of the comments 36 actually made by a variety of readers of a large number of real pieces of writing; further, the labels are clear and nontechnical. Only the first four of the categories actually apply in the present case, since none of the students made suggestions which fit under the heading of creativity. (Some did praise one another's ability in this respect, however.) Despite the usefulness of Diederich's system, it still requires a combination of judgment and guesswork to categorize some of the sugges- tions. The decision is difficult at times: the intent of the speaker may be unclear; the quality of the tape recording may be poor, or back- ground noise may interfere; and the aspects of writing are themselves so inextricably linked that it is not always possible to say with certainty that a given utterance belongs to a particular class. In making my decisions about categorizing the suggestions, I have taken into consideration the role of the comment in the context of the discus- sion, and I have also relied on my reading of the students' papers. Although the approach in this study is primarily descriptive—- i.e., showing what suggestions the participants did in fact offer one another—-I have made occasional evaluative comments as to the appropriate- ness of the suggestions. I have noted, for instance, whether a given preposal is in keeping with the purpose and overall tone of the paper being discussed. The students, too, evaluated the suggestions during the course of their discussions. Sometimes they articulated their evaluations explicitly; more often, they did not. (Chapters Four and Five will describe more fully the members' various responses to sug- gestions.) In most cases, the writers accepted the suggestions, or appeared to, though they may have changed their minds when actually 37 revising their papers. However,since this study deals primarily with the discussions themselves, I will make virtually no references to the writers' eventual use of suggestions in their revised papers. One piece of research which does analyze the writers' follow-up is Thelma Jones' 1977 study, cited in Chapter One. The two tables on the following pages offer a rapid overview of the material in this chapter. Table 3.1 categorizes the suggestions according to content, group, and date; Table 3.2 gives a breakdown of the content categories. During the fourteen sessions which were successfully recorded, the groups generated a total of 205 suggestions. A review of the master chart (Table 3.1) shows that the suggestions were not equally distrib- uted: in five of the sessions the groups produced seven or fewer sug- gestions. (The last discussion of Group Three, "The Quiet Ones,” is included in this number, but it was actually something of a special case: both Adam's and Barb's papers had already been discussed by the whole class, so the small group had only a little to add; and Jill's essay, "The Consumer,’ gave rise to a long discussion on advertising-— a discussion which generated few discrete suggestions but which may have helped Jill to clarify the focus of her paper.) 38 moon pom nacho ou wofiwuooo< omuwuowoumo msofiumowwnm mo unmfio noummz H.m manme moN Na Na I N N N as me SN I as as sN ow as m Nm I ma eases N N o I o o o N N o I o o N o o o o I o .mHz NN m m I o N o N on N I m m N N N o m I m .oNo Na m N I o o o a oi m I N o m NN N N Na I N .omz am «a e I o N o e NN a I m e as NH N N e I m .zaa a N o I o N o o m a I N o o s N a N I a .eoe me NH N I N N N on mN a I N N m NN m a m I on .>Nn gases .uoe o m a m N N .uoe e a m N N .uoe e m , e m a aaoue ms sm Mechanics (Total: 42) Correct spelling mistakes F1UOtIiD> Correct sentence fragments Organization (Total: 28) A. Change order of material B. Change paragraph divisions C. Use transitional devices Clarify vague or ambiguous sentences Correct typographical errors Correct mistakes in verb form Correct punctuation mistakes (10) ( 6) (49) 3) 3) 3) AAA (12) (18) ( 2) (16) (ll) ( 6) (12) ( 3) ( 8) (13) (10) ( 5) (13) 40 SUGGESTIONS CONCERNING THE DEVELOPMENT OF IDEAS As Table 3.1 shows, the category containing the largest number of suggestions was the one involving fuller development of ideas.2 Table 3.3,below, reviews the figures in this category. Grp. l Grp. 2 Grp. 3 Grp. 4 Grp. 5 Grp. 6 Total Jan. 18 10 — - 9 l 3 23 Feb. 1 5 7 8 - 1 4 25 Feb. 15 10 2 2 2 — l 17 Total for all sessions: 65 Table 3.3 Suggestions on development of ideas, categorized according to grOup and date 1) Suggestions £9 provide more elaboration iu_general (19 suggestions) The first subcategory, a small one, contained general suggestions for further elaboration, either throughout the paper as a whole, or in unspecified areas; this type of general comment was seldom accompanied by any guidelines on ways to go about the suggested expansion. One typical suggestion--this one from a writer to himself-—was Jeff's musing on his paper about his amputee friend: I'm writing more or less just like how I feel; I expect everybody else to know /. . ./, and I should have to be more—-explain it. (Jan. 18) 41 Another very general comment was Jerri's response to the paper Steve wrote about his girlfriend: I thought maybe you could go on more /. . ./, but then I didn't wanna get nosy, so I /laughing/ didn't know if I should say anything. (Feb. 1) 2) Suggestions £g_elaborate uu feelings u£_viewpoints (§_3uggestions) The second type of suggestion on development involved recommendations that the writers incorporate their own viewpoints or feelings into their essays. Sometimes, the readers commented on the paper as a whole in this regard: for instance, in responding to Arlene's paper about life after death, Jerri said, I'd be kinda curious to see . . you know, which theory you believe in. /. . ./ Maybe just add a little paragraph about how you feel about it. (Jan. 18) In discussing Tom's paper concerning waste—water control, Nina wondered, Well, how do you feel abOut the solution to . . dumping waste into the waters--is there any type of solution now? (Jan. 18) At other times, the "tell how you felt" suggestions were directed toward specific passages--for example, Claudia asked about Brian's description of his second basketball tryout: "You said you aimed to do it in style—-but were you still nervous?" (Jan. 18) In a few cases, the passages under consideration already expressed the writer's view, but the readers wanted a fuller or clearer presenta- tion. Barbara's paper about the evils of war, for instance, evoked 42 the following bit of dialogue: Adam: Do you really believe that if "You name it, we'll kill for it?" Barb: I didn't really express how I feel /. . ./ --I don't mean that we'll kill for anything-— we're not that, you know-— Adam: I know, but you just said we were. (Feb. 1) In this case, perhaps because Barb was not convinced of the worth of her paper (at one point, she sighed, "I wanna throw it away"), the group made very little effort to help her expand or modify her state- ment . 3) Suggestions £2 elaborate 22 subject matter (39 suggestions Eu all) The majority of the recommendations for further elaboration centered not on the writers' feelings or opinions, but on their treatment of their subjects. a) Suggestions £9 provide 9932 background (2 suggestions) To begin with, there were a few requests for background information. Group members suggested defining terms (e.g., Jody asked about the word "estuaries” in Tom's water—pollution paper, then sug— gested working the explanation into the paper); they also recommended identifying characters (e.g., Curt read aloud a sentence from Christi's paper on her father's death—-"I looked at Paul's blank face"-—then asked, "It's obviously . . what, your brother?") A slightly more complex example of a suggestion relating to background material appeared in the discussion of Josh's paper about golf: Brian had expressed astonishment over Josh's decision to play football instead of golf during his first semester in high school. Josh pointed out that golf season had been in the spring when he started 43 high school, then he mused, Maybe I should explain that——most of the kids now, going to school today, golf has always been a fall sport to them. (Jan. 18) A different kind of background information requested by two or three readers had to do with the sources of the writers' ideas. Nina anticipated one such suggestion: Jeff: You say, in that last paragraph—-"At this moment in American history, Alaska is unquestionably our most important national land asset"—-um—— Nina: /Sounds as if she's smiling/ Whose opinion? My opinion, and many other, uh, environ— mentalists' and scientists' opinion Jody: Right, right Nina: And I should put that. (Feb. 15) b) Suggestions 53 provide illustration (6_suggestions) In several recommendations, group members suggested that the writers provide details or examples to support their statements. For example, Curt, in discussing Karen's paper on her grandfather, observed, The first paragraph where she says, "He always sticks up for me in many situations," it might have been interesting if she'd put up some of those. (Feb. 15) c) Suggestions £9_describe scenes more fully (Z_suggestions) Recommendations on adding more detail also entered into the readers' suggestions to describe scenes more fully. In Jeff's paper on a beached seal, for instance, Jody urged, 44 You could elaborate on the ending /. . ./See, right here like you say, "Again it happened." But I think you could have showed more of a struggle, of how hard he was trying. (Feb. 15) d) Suggestions £9 explain statements more fully (1§_suggestions) Besides advocating fuller illustration and description, readers asked for more complete explanations of statements. Admittedly, this is a catchall category; it includes suggestions for all modes of explanation except that of giving reasons (that mode, because of its size, is considered separately). Occasionally, the students requested further analysis of causes or processes; a typical suggestion of this sort was made by Jody about Jeff's paper on bicycling: "'The bicyle has been a major factor in producing a strong unity within myself'-— well, how does it?" (Feb. 15) At other times, the student critics asked the writers to explain by specifying: for instance, on Jill's paper about her decision to travel to London, Adam remarked, You said, "I knew the trip would be financially costly but the rewards gained from this experience would be priceless.” And I wrote, "What rewards?” You didn't tell us about 'em. (Feb. 1) e) Suggestions £9 give reasons (12_suggestions) Another large subdivision of requests for fuller explanation had to do with providing reasons for statements. Such suggestions were often implied in the readers' responses—~e.g., Walt commented on Joyce's review of the novel Ordinary People: 45 All the time that she was describin' how Conrad felt, I was wonderin' / . . ./, why did he £231 that way though about what happened. (Feb. 15) At least half the time, however, the suggestion, "Tell why," was couched in explicit terms. For example, on Darla's paper describing "baseball survival strategies," Walt recommended, "Like give reasons . . . for usin' a certain strategy in a given situation." (Jan. 18) There were four instances in which, according to my estimation, papers needed fuller development—-either all the way through or in a particular section—-but the readers did not comment on the matter. Three of these papers were discussed at sessions which produced very few suggestions of any kind.4 The fourth was Matt's humorous essay on septic-tank cleaners; the unusual topic and the fact that Matt's was the last essay discussed at that session may have contributed to the failure to recommend further elaboration. Despite these lapses, the matter of developing ideas was obviously a concern for many of the group members. Not only did the largest number of suggestions fall under this heading, but the recorded discussions also contained some thirty compliments which related directly to the expansion of ideas. The students frequently praised papers for their descriptiveness, and there were several accolades like, "You explained every step so well." Further, the writers made a number of comments on this matter, both during and after the sessions. On occasion, they themselves pointed out places where they recognized the need for fuller development of their own statements. Joe, for instance, commented on the old man on his 46 paper route who had become a recluse after putting his wife in an asylum: I wish I knew more . . about . . like, I thought-- sorta vague about why he had to commit her . . . but I really didn't know. (Feb. 1) On the other hand, several of the writers wondered during the discussions if they had indulged in too much detail. Jill, for instance, asked about her advertising paper, Would you include Maslow and all that, besides that little statement about /humans as/ "wanting animals?" Do you think-—is that really boring? (Feb. 15) Similarly, Walt asked about his paper on a basketball fracas: "Did you think that I went into too much unnecessary detail?" (Jan. 18) In both cases, the readers supported the writers' original versions. In a few other instances, the writers explained their reasons for not elaborating more fully. The discussion of Curt's paper on harness racing provided two examples: concerning a brief description of an accident at the track, Curt said, "Ah, I could get more gruesome if I wanted to, but I didn't think it was necessary"; all three girls agreed with his judgment. A little later, Curt noted, A lot of people don't understand horse racing or anything like that, but I didn't want to go into too much description, like explaining and explaining. Should I explain more of the things? (Feb. 1) In that instance, the group members felt that Curt could have said more about his experience with betting on the horses. 47 Not just during the sessions, but afterwards as well, the writers paid special attention to the development of ideas. After the first session, I distributed a questionnaire, asking for a summary and evaluation of that session. One item asked, "What was the most valuable suggestion for improvement/your group/ made about your paper?" Seven of the twenty-one people who returned the form responded by saying that they had been asked to "describe more," "tell more," "expand more," either on particular sections or on the paper as a whole. One final, succinct indication of the students' consciousness of adequate development came from Barbara during her interview: ”We're all amateurs, but we know when a paper doesn't have something." SUGGESTIONS CONCERNING FOCUS There were only nine items which dealt with the focus of a paper-- that is, its overall clarity and sense of direction. Though this category is small, it is presented here because focus combines with development to form Diederich's first category, that of ideas or content. Grp. 1 Grp. 2 Grp. 3 Grp. 4 Grp. 5 Grp. 6 Total Jan. 18 1 — — 1 1 l 4 Feb. 1 0 0 2 - 0 l 3 Feb. 15 0 0 2 0 — 0 2 Total for all sessions: 9 Table 3.4 Suggestions on focus, categorized according to group and date ‘ 4 48 1) Suggestions £g_narrow Egpig (3 suggestions) In three cases, readers felt that a paper was unclear because the writer had tried to cover too many aspects of the topic. For instance, after Barb commented that her anti—war paper "didn't come out anything like I feel," Adam agreed, "Seemed like you just kinda went over a whole lotta different things . . ." So Jill suggested, Maybe if you would've just stuck with a few things /and/ really complete those--you would've had more force to your paper. Later, Adam helped specify some of the alternatives: You could just concentrate on just the Soviet . . . problem, or—-or just Vietnam, or . . . your thoughts on how you don't like war. (Feb. 1) The tables were turned with Adam's last paper, which covered several changes in Americans' attitudes toward physical fitness. This time it was Barb who queried, Like what's gonna be your main thing——is it gonna be um, sports and health food, or every- thing combined still? When Adam admitted that he was ”wonderin' if /he/ should go one way or the other," Jill suggested, "Just take a——show a trend, you know, a change in society." (Feb. 15) 2) Suggestions £2 clarify intended audience 23 purpose (3 suggestions) While failure to define the topic caused a lack of focus in some papers, the problem in others was the writers' failure to be sufficiently 49 clear about intended audience or purpose. With regard to audience, Walt wondered about Darla's essay on procedures for painting a room: I wasn't really sure if you were just tellin' the steps for anybody, so that just anybody could do it, or did you have to be quote-unquote "profes- sional"? (Feb. 1) After some discussion, Matt proposed clarifying the focus by changing an early sentence to read, "Painting a room takes an acquired skill"; both Darla and her readers expressed satisfaction over the change. The first comment concerning purpose arose during the discussion of Nina's paper on the discipline of figure skating: Tom: Um—-on1y thing I, question I had in here, Nina—— Nina: Was the purpose. Tom: Yeah—-I mean, not to be, ridicule or some- thing like that, but I just, all I could see, is that you had to strive to keep going and going. (Jan. 18) Nina then said a little more about her intention, and Tom made no fur- ther comment on that point. One observation about purpose that did launch a lengthy discussion was Adam's musing on the paper Jill wrote about advertising, "I don't understand which side you're taking." Jill herself had mentioned at the beginning of the discussion, I thought, after I read it, that maybe /I should put in/, you know, my personal View on it; (Feb. 15) but as the group talked further, it became evident that Jill's 50 ambivalence lay in her attitude toward advertising and not just in her expression of it. The group had not reached any definite conclusions when they turned off the tape, but their probing of the values and limits of advertising was the most sustained discussion they had had all term. 3) Suggestions £g_clarify language (3 suggestions) The previous examples of suggestions concerning focus all had to do with major questions of clarity and purpose. But there were also cases in which the topic of the paper had been sufficiently narrowed and the purpose and audience were sufficiently clear, yet some aspects of the wording or organization left the readers feeling temporarily confused about the direction the paper was taking. For instance, Jill's second essay, about her decision to travel to England, opened with her attend— ing a travelogue on Ireland. Thus Joe was left with the expectation, "I thought you were gonna go to Iggland." After Adam agreed, Barb con— firmed, "It was kinda hard to know . . . how the paper was gonna go"; eventually she suggested: You could've said /. . ./, "I went to the travel— ogue, and it changed my mind about traveling," or some——you know what I mean? Starting a--giving more hint of what it's going to be. (Feb. 1) This problem in Jill's second paper——raising a set of expectations and then moving in a different direction toward the end of the paper-— also occurred in Joyce's middle essay, which dealt with her summer job. Most of the paper depicted the dirty, strenuous chores which fell to the summer help at the glass factory, yet the final paragraph told how much Joyce had liked working with the people there. This unexpected shift gave rise to two different questions-~one, from Darla, that 51 Joyce begin earlier in the paper to describe the peOple she had worked with; the other, from Matt, that she make some general statements to pull together the details she had concentrated on: /You could/ say the pay wasn't worth the work and that your pay scale was half of what you should be getting. (Feb. 1) Group members frequently pointed out problems of wording or sentence structure which caused a temporary blurring of a paper's focus. Most of these problems, because they had to do with isolated sentences, are discussed under Organization or Language. At least one, however, did affect the overall direction of a paper. For instance, Josh's paper on golfing raised a question from Brian about focus: You know what I wrote down at the bottom? "13 this paper about golf or football?" / . . . / For sure—-when you said, "When I got in high school it was easy to choose what sport I wanted to play in the fall," -—"football"!3 /Incredulous laugh/ I thought sure you were going to say "golf." (Jan. 18) Brian did go on to suggest a rephrasing which Josh apparently accepted, though with reservations. The fact that there were only nine suggestions in the category of focus raises several possibilities: either there were weaknesses in this area which went undetected by peer readers (there were three instances where I judged this to be the case);5 or readers noticed problems yet did not bring them up in the discussions; or the students in this class simply did not have major problems with focus. On the basis of my reading of the papers, I believe that the third hypothesis 52 is the most reasonable. The clarity of focus in the majority of papers may be due partly to the fact that most of the students in this section were juniors or seniors who were majoring in communication-related fields; further, since they were free to select their own topics and approaches for their papers, they presumably chose subjects on which they were able to write unified essays.6 Finally, the fact that there were a large number of autobiographical essays(55% of those discussed in the recorded sessions) probably contributed to the lack of difficul— ties with focus, since narration is usually an easier mode for students than exposition is. The exceptions help prove the rule: in at least four of the cases cited in this section, the writers admitted during discussion that they had done the paper at the last minute and/or that they had felt at a loss for subject matter. SUGGESTIONS CONCERNING LANGUAGE The second largest group of suggestions had to do with language; there were recommendations to rephrase awkward or ambiguous sentences, to combine or break up sentences, to omit unnecessary sections and condense redundant ones, and to add or change words. Table 3.5 reviews the figures for this category. 53 Grp. 1 Grp. 2 Grp. 3 Grp. 4 Grp. 5 Grp. 6 Total Jan. 18 3 - - 6 1 7 17 Feb. 1 10 4 5 - 0 9 28 Feb. 15 6 O 2 0 - 6 14 Total for all sessions: 59 Table 3.5 Suggestions on language, categorized according to group and date 1) Suggestions £9_clarify vague_u£ ambiguous sentences (1} suggestions) The students pointed out many vague or ambiguous sentences, though without necessarily labeling them as such. For example, Matt reported confusion near the beginning of Joyce's paper on her summer job: "The next morning when I reported for work, I met my foreman, Dan, and Frank, the person I was assigned to work with." I'm not sure if you're talking about the foreman, the person who was named Dan, EES Frank . . . or Dan who was the foreman. (Feb. 1) A more light-hearted example of ambiguity occurred in the discussion of Adam's paper on a high-school prank; Joe observed, When you said, "You bring some humor," I wasn't sure if you meant laughs, or like booze. (Feb. 1) 2) Suggestions £g_rephrase awkward sentences (1§_suggestions) Awkward sentences tended to evoke more discussion than ambiguous ones, probably because the awkward passages called for remedies rather than mere diagnosis. 54 In a few instances, group members simply reported confusion over a given sentence but could not quite identify why the phrasing was trouble- some and thus could not or at least did not make specific recommendations for change. For example, Jill expressed some bewilderment over a bit of quoted dialogue in one of Joe's reminiscences; she commented, "I understood what was going on, but just the way it was worded. . . ." (Feb. 15) On Karen's paper about teaching skiing, Curt noted, I had trouble reading through that smoothly--"The worst is when they fall down because when boredom leads to laziness the end result is usually a sarcastic little brat." I had trouble reading through it. (Feb. 1) Curt's only recommendation was, "Maybe do a little experimentation with that one sentence." It was more typical, however, for group members to suggest alterna- tives when someone called attention to an awkward sentence. Brian, for example, launched a fairly lengthy exchange of comments when he read aloud a sentence in Candy's essay on apartment hunting: . . at the end of the year you're very lucky if you even get half of the deposit back as the management ridiculously finds many damages in your apartment or house that were done by previous tenants. In most of their comments on this sentence, however, the group members took a piecemeal approach, never dealing with the larger structural questions involved: 55 Josh: How about just "management finds ridiculous damages” Brian: Yeah--that's the point I was going to make Candy: Sounds like it's getting a little long there, huh? /Self-conscious laugh/ Josh: No--just change /. . ./ damages--drop out—- change "find" and "ridiculous" around, and-- Brian: What he's tryin' to say, is, tell you that-— /. . ./ The way you have it worded here, you're, you're saying that the management is ridiculous (Jan. 18) There were three or four other cases where groups lingered over a single sentence in this manner. 3) Suggestions Eu alter length 2: sentences (2 suggestions) Not only the construction but the length of sentences came in for scrutiny, though there were only two suggestions under this latter head- ing. In discussing Darla's paper, "Baseball Survival Strategies," Walt commented, This second sentence, I thought it was kind of long-- you could've maybe broken it down into a couple of sentences. (Jan. 18) As a matter of fact, the "long" sentence was simply an enumeration of half a dozen categories of obnoxious people that "one must be prepared to handle" in order to enjoy a baseball game. On the other hand, Walt's paper during the same session--a descrip— tion of temper flare—ups during a basketball game--e1icited the follow— ing response from Joyce: The only thing I thought was, that could've been improved, was that . . sentences seemed kind of short to me--a lot of short ones, that I thought 56 could've been connected--combined, sort of like flow more smoothly. (Jan. 18) 4) Suggestions £g_eliminate wordiness (lg suggestions) Group members pointed out many instances of redundancies, irrelevan- cies, and overly long introductions. Sometimes they recommended trim- ming a passage for the sake of moving to the point more quickly. For instance, Jerri's first paper, describing the way some girls make them- selves sick in order to stay thin, opened with a lengthy reflection on concepts of beauty; Steve urged, "If you wanted to, you could've cut out like one part of that." (Jan. 18). At other times, readers suggested cutting out words or phrases in order to make a given sentence more precise; for example, Darla commented on a passage in one of Matt's papers, Like the second page, "We had decided to camp at a private campground with the idea of showering off the smell of the three days of backpacking we had"-- "we had" doesn't/need to be there at the end/. (Feb. 1) Again, cuts might be recommended as ways to heighten the forcefulness of the writer's voice. For instance, on Adam's paper about the changing uses of leisure time, Jill reasserted a view which had been offered during the previous period's whole-class discussion: Like the last paragraph--they talked about it /Wednesday/ too--"I think many. . .," you know, just say "Many"--be a little more positive, definite. (Feb. 15) 5) Suggestions £g_change_individual words (11 suggestions) Finally, there were recommendations for changes on the level of the 57 single word or phrase; some of these seemed concerned with greater variety of phrasing, some with greater precision, and one with greater vividness. The one suggestion aimed at enhancing descriptiveness came during the discussion of Nina's essay on Alaska; Jeff praised a sentence that was "tellin' a lot about the country," but he went on to add, "Maybe if you could really elaborate, and say, 'plush, green /hills and so on/.'" (Feb. 15) Two or three comments dealt with sentences whose impact was dulled by needless repetition of a word—-e.g., Brian criticized Candy's paper on apartment hunting: "'1 found this very easy to find'—-that's really redundant--you use the word 'find' twice in the same sentence." (Jan. 18) Most of the diction—oriented comments focused on word choices which the readers saw as imprecise or inaccurate. Brian, for instance, in discussing Claudia's description of her trip to Ireland, zeroed in on the phrase, "the amount of babies,‘ asking, Is "amount" the right word to use when you're speaking of human beings? You make it sound like a pile of trash /. . . / Maybe "number." (Jan. 18) Sometimes a comment which focused on a single word led eventually to more extensive changes. For example, Jeff criticized a sentence in Nina's paper on inequality: "In this society it is inevitable that the term equality can never be fully achieved to the utmost." Jeff suggested speaking of "the concept of equality" rather than "the term equality"; when Nina objected to that, Jeff pr0posed a more precise alternative: "Okay, you could put, 'In this society it is inevitable that what the term equality implies. . . .'" (Feb. 1) 58 In a few cases, the readers questioned word choices because they were not sure they understood what the writers had had in mind. For example, Christi's paper on her father's last illness opened with the family wait- ing for the ambulance. In the story, Christi herself was fourteen years old and unaware of the real gravity of her father's illness; she wanted to be "able to just relax and enjoy the excitement." Curt objected vigorously to the word "enjoy" in that context: "It seems like you had a smile on your face." (Even after Christi explained the situation and the other two group members defended her choice, Curt still remained unconvinced of the appropriateness of the word.) Only rarely did a suggestion on diction seem to arise from the reader's prejudices rather than from a concern with the writer's inten- tion. One of the exceptions focused on a sentence of Candy's which opened with the statement, "I've recently heard that at the end of the year you're lucky if you even get half of the deposit back"; Brian sug- gested, without giving any reason, "I think maybe 'learned' would be a better word there /instead of 'heard'/." (Jan. 18) In general, then, the suggestions on language typically identified passages whose general meaning was relatively clear but whose impact was blunted because of the choice or placement of words or phrases. In making suggestions on diction, the students often spoke of their own responses as readers--especially responses of confusion; thus they placed their recommendations in the context of real communication. SUGGESTIONS CONCERNING MECHANICS Suggestions dealing with mechanics, or the conventions of standard written English, fell into the following subcategories: comments on 59 typographical errors, on spelling, on verb forms, on punctuation, and on sentence fragments. Table 3.6, below, reviews the figures in this category. Grp. 1 Grp. 2 Grp. 3 Grp. 4 Grp. 5 Grp. 6 Total Jan. 18 2 - - 18 2 7 29 Feb. 1 3 0 1 — 1 5 10 Feb. 15 1 0 0 0 - 2 3 Total for all sessions: 42 Table 3.6 Suggestions on mechanics, categorized according to group and date The greatest number of suggestions on mechanics, as Table 3.6 shows, occurred during the first session; the majority came from Brian. After the first meeting, suggestions in this category dropped noticeably. The change was probably due to Lois' direct suggestion to the class to concentrate on larger concerns; another factor, though, may have been that as the students became accustomed to the critiquing process, they grew conscious of a wider range of qualities of writing to discuss. 1) Suggestions Eu correct typographical errors (6 suggestions) The typographical errors pointed out were mostly matters of acciden- tal misspellings. In one case, though, Candy had apparently left out an entire line when typing and thus created a readable but perplexing bit of text. h‘ud-w N - ~ 60 Most of the comments on typing mistakes were made quickly and matter- of—factly, as they did not provide much substance for discussion. How— ever, Steve's essay on his girlfriend contained a mistaken pronoun which Marty made a considerable fuss over because he thought it was so funny: "I really liked talking to her. He always had so much to say." Steve did not sound amused, though later on in the session he alluded to the mistake in a joking way which seemed to indicate he had decided to take the teasing in stride. 2) Suggestions 59 correct spelling mistakes (12 suggestions) All the comments on spelling came from Group Four ("The Assortment") and Group Six ("The Workers"). In Group Four, the source was usually Brian, who simply pointed out errors and made corrections--e.g., "'Negative' is spelled with an 'a,' not an 'i.'" In Group Six, each of the members pointed out spelling mistakes at one time or another. They usually did so directly, as Walt did with one of Matt's papers: You used the wrong "add" a couple of times /. . ./ You used "a—d—d—s”; should be ”a-d-s.” (Feb. 15) Occasionally, they took an indirect approach, as in the discussion of Darla's last paper: Walt: How do you spell "shepherd"? Darla: S—h-e—p—a-r—d Walt: You sure? (Feb. 15) 3) Suggestions 59 correct verb forms (3 suggestions) There were three instances when group members commented on verb forms. One had to do with subject-verb agreement. Brian changed was 61 to were in Josh's sentence, "It showed me that all the things they had done to me was in fun." (Jan. 18) The other two corrections involved verb tense. Brian called attention to a sentence in Candy's paper, "What many people do, and I was one of them, was to quick grab an apartment that looked good. . . ." Here, Brian focused on the first two verbs——"That's two different tenses"—-and suggested several possible rephrasings of the sentence. In contrast, Nina accurately identified a perplexing tense shift in one of the sentences in Jody's first short story: For I am blind now, and I am going to tell you of my last three days of being able to see, and what it_i§ like to have such precious time on my hands never realizing what people, beauty, time, but most of all life meant to me. (The emphasis is mine; the two underlined verbs were the focus of discus— sion.) After several efforts to suggest corrections, Nina summed up her difficulty as a reader: "You use the present and the past in the same sentence, and I'm not sure where you are." (Feb. 1) 4) Suggestions_£u correct punctuation mistakes (8 suggestions) Suggestions in the area of punctuation ranged from apparently idiosyn- cratic responses through simple corrections to comments which emphasized the effect of mispunctuation on readers' understanding. One of the com- ments which seemed idiosyncratic was Matt's general recommendation on the first paper Darla wrote: "You could've used, um, a few commas in there too." Apparently Matt had second thoughts; he added, "You might want to read it first, you know, and see how it sounds—-'cause it might just be the way I was readin' it." (Jan. 18) 62 In two or three other instances, readers pointed out specific places where they believed commas to be necessary, though without explain- ing their reasons. For instance, Joyce read a sentence in Darla's second essay and said, "I just thought/ . . . / like maybe you can put a comma there." (Feb. 1) On the other hand, group members did sometimes hint at the importance of punctuation for accurately conveying meaning to readers. On Jeff's first paper, for example, Nina mentioned, "You put commas in the wrong places, and I kinda bad to read the sentences in the wrong way." (Jan. 18) 5) Suggestions £3 correct sentence fragments (13_suggestions) The final, and largest, subcategory within punctuation dealt with sentence sense. Most of the suggestions involved the pointing out of fragments, but one focused on a sentence which needed to be broken down and repunctuated. The latter sentence occurred in Claudia's first paper; it read, "Ask yourself when was the last time you heard something good about your country, recently or was it in your high school History books?" Brian suggested, You might want to stop there and ask a question here. "When was the last time you heard something good about your country--recently?" /. . ./ Or "Was it recently?" with a question mark-- (Jan. 18) The comments on fragments were often no more than observations and corrections, as in the same paper of Claudia's: Brian: On your second page, at the bottom-- "No other choices to direct my life." /. . ./ That's a fragment. Claudia: Yeah--I knew it was when I did it. [Chuckles] (Jan. 18) 63 In two or three instances, though, readers articulated some of the confusion elicited by an unintentional fragment. The following example comes from the discussion of Matt's paper, "The Powers of a Beach": Joyce: This one, next one was confusing, and I read it again and . . . Darla: I thought it was-—"Then the tragedy of all the ships. . ." I got lost there Matt: You gotta put yourself in the spot /. . ./ Walt: You say, "Then the tragedy. . ."-—well, what about 'em? (Feb. 1) SUGGESTIONS CONCERNING ORGANIZATION Organizational matters commented on by the groups fell into three main subdivisions: the ordering of ideas, the division of paragraphs, and the use of transitional devices. Grp. 1 Jan. 18 3 Feb. 1 2 Feb. 15 1 Grp. 2 Grp. 3 Grp. 4 Grp. 5 Grp. 6 Total - - 3 0 1 7 3 3 - 1 7 16 O 1 0 — 3 5 Total for all sessions: 28 Table 3.7 Suggestions on organization, categorized according to group and date 1) Suggestions £9 changg order 9f material (10 suggestions) The largest number of comments on the ordering of ideas had to do with introductory material. The prevalence of comments in this sub- category underlines the importance of "first impressions" in written communications. As an illustration, Barb's essay on war evoked a series 64 of interrelated suggestions concerned with helping her arrange her material. Adam, for instance, recommended a familiar rhetorical pattern: Like in the first paragraph, do all the different, all your examples, and then, then go on your thoughts, on how you don't like /war/. (Feb. 1) A more dramatic opening was advocated for a personal-experience paper; Miyuki commented on Curt's essay about horse-racing, You know, I thought you could have changed a little bit the introduction /. . . ./ Some kind of sensa- tional type--that you can just get the people's attention. Miyuki's suggestion was modified later when Karen asked about the paper's opening scene, in which Curt as a small boy had had his picture taken at the race track. Karen recommended, "Maybe . . use that as maybe the beginning, as how you first started, you know /. . ./ and then kinda blend it in--at the top." (Feb. 1) Comments on introductions were more frequent than suggestions on the organization within the body of a paper. One instance of the latter involved Steve's paper on his girlfriend. Marty observed, You go——one paragraph, two /turning page/ . . . three / . . ./. then you come back to the party again / . . ./—-it was like a hanger, you know what I mean? Arlene agreed, suggesting, "Maybe you could've switched the order of those two paragraphs." (Feb. 1) And Jeff, the irrepressible rewriter, had several organizational suggestions on Nina's paper about inequality: I might even bring in this sentence down here, like, about "may require special talents and 65 extensive training," okay /. . ./ And then I'd tell about the rewards they get, okay. (Feb. 1) There were also suggestions on organization as it related to concluding passages. Matt, for instance, had the following observation on Joyce's summer—job description: The tone changes suddenly, and--to bring that in right, I think maybe you should have mentioned something about the people beforehand / . . . ./ 'Cause the last paragraph should be something that, uh, closes it out, doesn't . . . build it up to what you're actually leading to. (Feb. 1) 2) Suggestions Eu alter paragraphing (5 suggestions) Paragraph divisions were the subject of a few suggestions. In two instances, readers pointed to the final sentence of a paragraph and recommended that it be moved to the beginning of the next paragraph. Brian made one of these suggestions in reference to Josh's paper on golfing: You said that "The next two years in school the golf team ended up winning the conference title and we finished well in the regional tournaments too." Um, then, the next line, "In the fall of my senior year . . ."-—that should be a new paragraph. (Jan. 18) In two other cases, readers advocated lengthening or combining paragraphs. Josh made the following recommendation to Claudia concern- ing her paper about Ireland: On the second page--the second and third para- graphs--you think you could combine those? 'Cause really, you're talking about the same thing--the opportunities that the person has. . (Jan. 18) 66 A more general suggestion on paragraph structure occurred during the discussion of Joe's paper on an old recluse; Adam observed, "The para- graphs /. . ./—-it seemed like they're-—you know, you chopped it all up." 5 (Feb. 1) 3) Suggestions £g_use transitional devices (33 suggestions) The organizational matter which received the greatest amount of attention was the use of transitional devices. In several instances, readers merely described their confusion and implied that clear tran— sitions would be helpful. For example, Joe told Barb about her anti-war essay, You talked about World War II in this paragraph, and then you had that little short paragraph about World War I . . . . I said, "Thought she's talkin' about World War II." /. . . / Kinda confused me." (Feb. 1) In a few other cases, the readers explicitly identified the .problem--"Need a transition" or "This was kind of jumpy"--but did not suggest specific ways to make the improvement. There were, however, ' several points where the critics did offer alternatives. For instance, Joe's description of a high-school party ended with a paragraph in the present tense; the time shift was unsignalled, so that Adam commented, I thought you were continuing on with where you were, in the past /. . ./--like, if you woulda said, "Now, I leave the partying /to others/," you know, something like that. (Feb. 15) Most of the suggestions on organization seemed to be aimed at help- ing the writers convey their thoughts more clearly and coherently. It was help which the writers appeared interested in: several people, in L 67 soliciting criticism, wanted to know about their papers, "Did it flow?" and there were a few questions as to the effectiveness of a particular organizational pattern. For example, Walt, who had used a chronolog- ical approach in his first two papers, had deliberately employed spatial organization in his third essay and wanted to know if his experiment had been successful. The group felt it had. There were seven papers which had some organizational difficulties that the student critics did not bring up.8 In two of these papers, the problem was an introduction which was excessively long and detailed, so that the focus of the paper remained in doubt for a time. Four other papers suffered from weak transitions, though not to such an extent as to destroy the coherence of the writing. The seventh essay, Tom's piece on waste-water control, required a major rearrangement of ideas. Jeff had made one minor suggestion relating to the placement of ideas, but otherwise the group had concen- trated on the issues raised in the paper without discussing the organi- zation of the material. The essay was used by Lois, with Tom's permis- sion, in a whole-class discussion the following week; her guiding questions elicited praise for Tom's ideas, along with suggestions for their more effective arrangement. Tom thus became especially concerned with organizing his ideas, and his group took cognizance of his effort. When he asked at the third session whether his organization had improved, Jeff responded, "Compared to your first paper, this one was like a million dollars." During the fourteen sessions, then, the peer-reSponse groups brought forth 205 suggestions; these recommendations fell into the 68 following categories (the total percentage is slightly under 100, due to rounding): Number of Percentage of suggestions total Development 65 31.7 Ideas { Focus 9 4 . 3 Language 59 28.8 Mechanics 42 20.5 Organization 28 13.6 Miscellaneous 2 .9 Admittedly, there were occasions when a weakness in a given paper was overlooked by all of the group members. Such oversight occurred on fourteen of the papers, or about 25% of the whole; in seven of these, the overlooked problem was a major one of focus, development, or organi- zation. However, the suggestions which did come forth tended to be both valid and valuable. In my judgment, not more than 10% of the 205 suggestions were incorrect or out of keeping with the overall direction of the paper at hand. At least 30% of the suggestions represented either accurate corrections or equally effective ways to do what the writer intended. Most importantly, 60% of the suggestions proposed changes which, if acted on, would clearly improve the passage in question. Though many of the suggestions were not direct responses to questions, the recommendations did focus on areas of concern to the writers, as Chapter Four will show. Further, the phrasing of the sug- gestions generally indicated the student readers' concern with under- standing the writers' ideas and with helping them communicate those 69 ideas more effectively. The language of the suggestions will be one of the matters discussed in Chapter Five. And, as Chapter Six will demonstrate, the writers did perceive the responses of their peers as helping them grow more confident about their own writing. CHAPTER FOUR INTERACTION PATTERNS: THE DYNAMICS OF THE CRITIQUING GROUP PART ONE: THE ROLE OF THE WRITER The preceding chapter has examined one of the major "products" or outcomes of peer—response sessions--suggestions for improving papers. But as valuable as this categorizing can be for understanding the work of the groups, it remains limited, for two reasons. First, it abstracts the suggestions from the flow of talk in which they occurred and thus yields a static picture of group work. Second, it stresses only the cognitive or task-oriented dimensions of the groups' activity; thus it plays down the fact that people in a group are negotiating relationships at the same time that they are working on a task. An exclusive focus on this cognitive aspect also fails to suggest the unique contribution which peer—response groups can make to a writing class. Looking only at the groups' "products," their suggestions, one might conclude that the students were essentially doing in a less expert way the same thing the teacher was doing, with the only advantages of the workshop being that the advice came from several people instead of one, and from peers in addition to an authority figure.1 To complement the findings of content analysis, then, one must examine the work of the peer-response groups in light of research which stresses the fact that language use is a matter not only of content but also of processes. Three related disciplines are pertinent here: psycholinguistics, sociolinguistics, and research into the writing process--research which often draws on the first two fields. 70 71 Research into the psychological dimension of communication has many connections with theories of rhetoric and with research on the writing process. From these sources, there have emerged three insights which are particularly relevant in this connection: first, speakers and writers do not simply select words to fit a pre-formed idea but often discover their thought as they express it (Emig, 1977; Murray, 1978); second, many factors influence the content and form of any given communication-~the topic, the speaker or writer's own history and purpose, and his or her perception of the intended audience (Britton, 1975; Flower and Hayes, 1977; Hymes, 1974); and third, the expression does not "contain" the meaning in such a way that one can get at it directly——rather, hearers and readers must reconstruct the meaning for themselves according to their own frames of reference, and may need time and/or the intervention of others before being able to do 30 (Smith, 1973, 1975; Barnes et al., 1969; Labov and Fanshel, 1977). These three insights, which apply to both written and oral com- munication, hint at the complexity of language. That complexity becomes particularly evident in face-to-face communication, where, in the midst of a rapid flow of words, which leave no trace once they are spoken, the participants must both interpret the talk of others and plan their own. In so doing, they are working at two purposes simul- taneously: exchanging ideas and opinions, and negotiating relationships. These two purposes, though labeled in a variety of ways, are common themes in the literature on communication in groups. Barnes and Todd (1977) speak of participants as jointly constructing two kinds of meaning at once--cognitive and social. Frederick Erickson (1980) draws a similar distinction between "referential" meaning (what the conversation 72 18 "about") and "social" meaning (how a given utterance both signals and affects the relationships among the participants). Social psychologists, too, frequently point out that the two main concerns in any group are the accomplishment of a task and the development and maintenance of group identity (Bales, 1970; Shaw, 1976; Olmstead, 1974); of course, one purpose may predominate most of the time in a given type of group, and the emphasis in any group may shift from time to time. This notion that language both "says" something and "does" something to the relationships among the participants has also been dealt with by philosophers of language. John Searle (1969), for instance, distin- guishes between the "propositional content" of an utterance (the topic and what is said about it) and the use of that utterance to accomplish a speech act ("asserting, questioning, commanding, etc.") With regard to the function of an utterance, Searle further distinguishes between "illocutionary force" (what the speaker intends to accomplish by means of the communication) and " perlocutionary" value (how the communication actually affects the heater). Whatever label is given to them, these dual dimensions of language—— the cognitive and the social--are present in any experience of group work; further, they are continually subject to change, both within a given session and over the life of the group. These changes are as much the product of the members' interaction as they are the result of any outside influences. As Barnes and Todd emphasize, meaning is not fixed once and for all in single utterances; it changes as the participants gain new understanding of the subject and of their own and one another's views on it. 73 . . . . the meanings which the participants made were not stable. They were fluid and changing, built up out of the existing knowledge and expec- tations which they brought to the situation, along with their own implicit summary of what went on in the conversation, and their reaction to that summary. Meanings change in response to on-going events in the conversation, which lead to a reinterpretation of what has gone on so far.2 This notion of the fluidity of meaning, like that of the two "types" of meaning, forms a common theme in studies of group activity. Erickson, for instance, talks about the fact that conversationalists engage in a "moment-to-moment steering of one another through a conversation." Though they express the theme in a variety of ways, these researchers are in agreement that meanings do change in the course of a group's inter— action, and that the participants themselves are the primary agents of these changes. All of these motifs-—the discovery of meaning through expression; the active, constructive nature of listening and hearing; the inter- weaving of cognitive and social dimensions; and the collaborative creation of the meaning of an event by those involved--are dimensions of face-to-face communication which a simple categorizing of content cannot shed light on. These social, dynamic aspects, however, must not be overlooked if one is to work toward a full description and analysis of a group's activity. The rest of this chapter, then, will examine some of those social aspects as they relate to the work of the peer-response groups in this study. I will concentrate on two major areas of the groups' interaction. First, since writers and their work are the focus of the discussions, I will examine ways in which the writers assumed or did not assume 74 responsibility for guiding discussion of their papers. That examination will be the subject of this chapter. Then, in Chapter Five, I will examine some of the transactions involving the group as a whole, with emphasis on the members' joint creation of the event known as a critiquing session. There were no provisions for formal leadership in the groups; thus the building up of the critiquing event depended on all the members. Even when the writers took charge of the discussion of their papers, which did not always happen, they did not usually try to maintain control throughout the discussion. In cases where the writers failed to offer leadership, other members sometimes filled the gap but sometimes did not. The writers themselves, when they assumed responsibility for guiding the discussion of their own papers, did so in the following ways: raising questions about their papers, asking for clarification of group members' comments, pr0posing their own changes, expressing agreement or disagreement with suggestions, and elaborating on their intentions in writing the papers. Table 4.1 outlines these activities and indicates the frequency of their occurrence. II. III. IV. 75 Table 4.1 Writers' Activities in Guiding Discussions Writers raising questions about their own papers (Total: 48) A. Questions initiated by writers 1. General questions (12) 2. Specific questions (21) B. Questions raised by writers in response to peers' suggestions (15) Writers prOposing suggestions about their own papers (Total: 21) Writers expressing disagreement or agreement with suggestions (Total: 47) A. Disagreement ( 3) B. Agreement (44) Writers explaining the intentions behind their papers (Total: 30) 76 I. WRITERS RAISING QUESTIONS ABOUT THEIR OWN PAPERS Most sequences of interaction did not begin with direct requests for feedback. However, during the fourteen sessions, there were forty- eight occasions when the writers asked questions about their own papers. Two-thirds of these questions initiated new topics; the remaining third followed up comments that the group members had made. What did the writers want to know about their papers? To begin with, they simply wanted to know what their readers thought. But they also wanted to find out whether specific sections were clear or effective, and they frequently sought advice on ways to improve their papers. For a more detailed view of the writers' queries, I will look first at the questions they themselves initiated, and then at the questions they raised in response to their peers' comments. A) Questions initiated py_writers The first category of writers' questions, those initiated by the writers themselves, can be subdivided in turn into general queries and specific ones. 1) General questions initiated py_writers The general questions proved to be more fruitful in eliciting further suggestions, perhaps because the phrasing of these broad requests for feedback signalled that the writers were interested in receiving what- ever comments their readers had to offer. The most open-ended of these questions came from Josh during the last session; as the following excerpt shows, he had difficulty in getting the group to discuss his paper. The essay was an extension of a Writing iu_Reality piece on Josh's grandmother. The group had read the earlier version, and Candy had just been recalling how they had gotten off the track in discussing 77 it. Now Claudia came in with her own bit of association: Claudia: I tried to write one on my grandma—- she's a complete mystery to me, just complete mystery. I, I couldn't even start . Josh: What'd you think about mine? Candy: [Undecipherable; apparently a question to Claudia.] Claudia: Yeah, well, we only saw 'em twice a year when I was little--you know, my grandma's the only one alive out of 'em a11--but she's living with us now. . for a while Josh: What'd-- Claudia: She's funny Josh: What'd you all say about mine? Claudia: I liked it. Did you—~you extended it in the beginning, didn't you? Josh: Mmhm. (Feb. 15) After three more brief exchanges, the group strayed off the topic again. So, with the possible exception of written comments, which I did not see, Josh never did learn what his peers thought about his paper. This reluctance to get on with the task was typical of Group Four, "The Assortment," during that final session, but it did not represent the dynamics of the class as a whole. Much of the time, as the follow- ing pages will show, requests for feedback did elicit suggestions for revision. As mentioned earlier, Josh's question, "What'd you think about mine?" was the most Open-ended of all the requests, in the sense that it left the listeners free to offer either praise or suggestions. There were eleven other general requests; all of these were couched in such a way as to orient the readers toward pointing out weaknesses or making sug- gestions, These "Let me have it" openings occurred at various points in the 78 discussions. Three of them came at the very beginning of a group's talk- ing about a particular paper; the following request by Brian was the most graphic Of these: Brian: Really tell me--give me some good criticism on it. It really reeked, in my Opinion. Claudia: I thought it was a good paper-—it held, held my attention. Candy: Mmhmm. (Jan. 18) In all the other cases, the general questions arose when the discus- sion had been underway for some time and the writers tried to open up new possibilities, either because one vein of thought had run dry, or because the conversation was fading out and the writers wanted to be sure all the readers had had their say. In one instance, the writer's questions helped bring discussion of the paper to a close. Here, Group Five, "The Drifters," had digressed briefly from commenting on Jerri's paper, and Marty brought them back to the task: Marty: Let's cut this one up a little more. /Self—conscious laugh./ Jerri: Tell me what's wrong with it. Marty: It was good, I thought. Arlene: I thought it was really good—-at first I thought like maybe more detail but then you really told everything in detail. Marty: Yeah. Arlene: There's like nothing I would change. (Feb. 1) From there, the conversation drifted Off again. With the exception Of the previous three excerpts, the writers' general eliciting questions were met with new suggestions, as in the follow- ing illustrations. Sometimes there was a preliminary word Of praise: 79 Nina: Anything else? /Laughs./ Jody: No, it was really good. /Pause/ Jeff: Um, I just noticed something. As far as choice of words and stuff like that, you're Okay. And there's some things that I think you could incorporate in / . . . . (Feb. 15) But just as Often, the advice came immediately, without any intervening compliments: Darla: Are there any places that were vague, or something? Matt: There was something here which I think could be worded a little better / . . ./ (Jan. 18) As the preceding material indicates, even general questions of the "What else should I work on?" type brought forth responses from the readers. One—fourth of these questions were met with praise for the papers, while the rest were followed by additional suggestions for improve— ment. 2) Specific questions initiated 3y writers However, not all of the writers' requests for feedback were of this general nature; in fact, the majority of writer—initiated questions (twenty—one of them) dealt with specific features of a paper, ranging from spelling and paragraphing to large matters of organization and clarity. Sometimes the writers asked about a particular quality in their writing; for instance, Curt wondered about his description of a daredevil friend: Curt: I tried to use like a little . . sarcasm under it. Could you . . catch any Of the sarcasm I used? Christi: Oh yeah /. . . ./ YOu know, it would have been terrible things that could have 80 happened to him, but you could tell by the tone of the writing and, you know, the whole atmosphere was humorous /. . ./ (Feb. 15) At other times, the writers focused on Specific passages which they wanted advice on. For instance, Barb's anti-war paper Opened with a sentence from a news article about the President's announcement Of a draft- registration program. Barb had already expressed dissatisfaction with her paper as a whole, and now she wondered: Barb: Was that kinda bad, how I started Off with President Carter? I didn't knowe-should I just start it Off with a paragraph that has different things in it. . .? Adam: Um--what direction do you want it to take you in? / . . . ./ You could do a lot of things-—like you could just concentrate on just the Soviet . . problem, or-- (Feb. 1) In two instances, the writers asked for comparisons between the present paper and earlier ones; for example, Tom commented during discus- sion of his third paper, Tom: I tried to, ah--I don't know if you can see probably much more improvement as far as flow Jeff: Yeah Tom: My organization Jeff: Your organization was really gOOd. (Feb. 15) Finally, there was one request for feedback on an approach the writer had considered using: Walt: One thing I had thought about doing, that I didn't, was includin' like a paragraph about the different directors I had. —-Think that would take away, or—- 81 Matt: I do tOO--it would've. You're tryin' tO talk about your experience in band itself. SO--if you start talkin' about directors, that could be a whole 'nother paper-- your reactions to the other peOple in the band / . . . / Walt: Yeah, that's why I left it out. (Feb. 1) As the preceding examples suggest, these more specific questions drew forth more compliments than advice. In fact, three—fourths Of the specific questions were followed by affirmation of the status quo. "It was good the way you did it"; "It fits in with the way the paper is." The discovery that the questions on specific passages tended to elicit praise rather than recommendations was surprising until I looked at the language of the requests. Most of these specific queries were phrased in terms like "Did you understand?" or "Was it clear?" That sort Of question was apparently taken by readers tO be a request for reassurance, which they fulfilled. Occasionally, such a question may have dealt with a passage which did not trouble the readers, so that they had no alternatives to prOpose. The general questions, on the other hand, elicited far more suggestions, not because they were general, but because they tended to be phrased in such a way that they invited criticism: "Was there any- thing else?" "Any more complaints about this paper?" The same openness to criticism was also evident in the next category Of writers' activities, namely, asking questions about their peers' sug- gestions. About half Of these "follow-up" questions brought forth new recommendations for change. B) Questions raised 3y_writers 3n_response E2_peers' suggestions In addition to the questions which the writers initiated concerning their own papers, they also raised questions about the suggestions or 82 other comments made by their group members. Although the label "follow- up question" might connote a weaker sort Of activity, these questions did demonstrate initiative on the part of the writers; rather than letting a suggestion just "lie there," they picked it up and examined it further. There were fifteen instances of follow-up questions during the discussions. Some Of these were primarily concerned with clarifying what the readers' reactions had been, as seen in Adam's question at the end Of the following excerpt: Joe: When you said, uh, "Yeah, I hOpe /the c0p/ sees you guys walking home," and then . . you said, "We jumped in my truck and drove to Dan's house"--did, did they walk home, or did you drive 'em? Adam: Oh, we drove home-—I drove 'em home. /Explains further./ Joe: Oh, I see Barb: [That could be a little clearer, yeah Adam: SO, was that confusing? Joe: Yeah Barb: I thought the c0p was gonna get you /. . ./ (Feb. 1) Several other follow-up questions were requests for help with the problems which the readers had just pointed out. The following segment comes from the discussion Of Jill's paper about her decision to visit London--a decision which had taken firm shape after Jill had seen a travelogue on Ireland. Joe: I thought you were gonna go to Ireland . . . I don' know, maybe it was just me Jill: Well, I-- Adam: I sorta did tOO Jill: Really? /She talks about her decision./ How--how could I have changed it, like the first part of it, so you wouldn't think I was going to Ireland? 83 Barb: Oh . . you could've um . . well, there's like a bunch of ways you could've gone / . . . / (Feb. 1) Sometimes, instead of asking the others for suggestions on a pas- sage that had been questioned, the writers themselves pr0posed alter- natives and then asked for an assessment of them. For example, Matt had criticized Darla's satirical essay, "Baseball Survival Strategies for Women Only,‘ as being "chauvinistic," and Walt had agreed, "I felt awkward reading it." So Darla asked, If I had changed it and taken out __3_ , made it so as it would affect guys and girls—— would you have . . taken it better? (Jan. 18) In this case, the group quickly decided that that alternative would change the whole tone and purpose of the paper, and that the essay should be kept in its original version. This examination of writers' follow—up questions points out the value of persistence and probing in discussion. The questions also illustrate one aspect of the "fluidity of meaning"--the fact that discus— sion participants may be "chewing on" an idea and perhaps formulating a response even while the talk moves on to other topics. Four of the fifteen questions were "delayed responses”: someone pointed out an area needing work; the group talked about ways to improve the passage, then moved on to other matters; and after a while the writer returned to the earlier comment. For instance, in Walt's description of the florist's shop where he had worked, Matt found a discontinuity in tone, and the group offered a few remedies. They proceeded then to praise the 84 vividness of the paper's language, but Walt steered the conversation back to the "problem area": Walt: OK--where you said I made that . . sudden change . . in language and description-- Matt: It wasn't really sudden/ . . ./ Walt: Did you get lost or anything-- Matt: No , ? Walt: --Or just notice the difference Matt: I just noticed the difference / . . ./ (Feb. 15) In terms of discussion content, follow-up questions thus enabled the writers to test their understanding of their peers' ideas, and sometimes to receive new suggestions or different formulations of previous sug- gestions. In terms of interaction, the writers' questions not only kept the talk flowing, but, more importantly, they signalled that the speakers were taking their peers' contributions seriously. II. WRITERS PROPOSING SUGGESTIONS ABOUT THEIR OWN PAPERS As noted earlier, writers' requests for feedback sometimes took the form of bringing forward hypothetical changes and asking the group to estimate the effect that those changes might have on the paper. At other times, though, writers guided the discussion by mentioning alter— natives without asking for evaluation of them. As with suggestions which they themselves originated, the readers responded in a variety of ways to the writers' ideas for change, though none of the proposals or responses launched the groups into lengthy discussions. There were twenty—one cases where the writers made suggestions about their own papers. In only two of these did group members disagree with the writers; both instances occurred in Group One ("The Debaters”). In both, the writers felt they should elaborate further, while the readers said "No.' Tom: Jody: Tom: Nina: Jody: Tom: 85 One thing I didn't do in this, and I should have done, is that, um-- Explain what water pollution is? No--I'll explain that / . . . / --but I mean as far as what's goin' on today with the, um, with the ground water pollution, here at Michigan State 9 I think that'd be too much Yeah (Jan. 18) In the next example, the disagreement is puzzling, since the writer is talking about development, while the responder shifts the ground and focuses on organization: Jeff: Nina: I'm writing more or less just like how I feel, I expect everybody else to know, right-some things I'll say, I expect you guys to know it, and I should have to be more—~explain it Well, you did explain-—I mean-—I thought the organization was very well /. . . / You put it very well, you know. (Jan. 18) In both cases, disagreement ended the discussion of the writer's suggestion, since the responders dissented without asking for specifics. Another move which had the same effect can be seen in the half-dozen instances where readers either acknowledged a writer's suggestion with a "Yeah" or ignored it altogether and moved on to their own questions or comment S . Tom: Jeff: Tom: Jeff: And like this, I don't know if. . you know, I should have put, Hamady's is a food store-- a lot of peOple might not know that Yeah Maybe I ought to identify it So that's it. I just thought it was very well done. Oh, um, this last sentence / . . . . / -- maybe if you could have 86 just expanded a little bit more / . . ./ (Feb. 15) In exchanges like the one just quoted, group members seemed to assume that the writers knew best what they needed to do with their papers. That assumption was even more evident in the many cases where the readers expressed clear support for the writers' suggestions. Ten of the twenty-one writers' suggestions met with definite approval, and in half of these cases, one reader's affirmation of the writer's proposal was seconded by at least one other group member: Nina: They have a lot of beautiful animals there /in Alaska/ that—- and I, maybe [I should go into That's what I was going to say--just some more description Jody: Yeah—-she needs more description. (Feb. 15) Jeff: Besides reinforcing one another's approval, the readers frequently applauded the writers' suggestions by giving reasons why the suggestions were good ones. For instance, Matt pointed out a minor problem with coherence in Darla's paper on painting a room; Darla herself then proposed a solution, and Matt explained why he agreed with it: Matt: There's one thing that got me off--right after you talked, three steps, three main steps, then you said, "There are four basic steps" again /. . . / Maybe you should pick out different words to lead into it / . . . / Darla: maybe I should say, like, "In the prepa- ration of a surface there are four steps" Joyce: Yeah, maybe if you did that—- Matt: Yeah--then there's four steps. Just . . something that can pull you into those four basic steps, in that category / . . / (Feb. 1) 87 Another way in which the readers occasionally expressed their approval of the writers' suggestions was by paraphrasing those sugges- tions. For example, Group Three ("The Quiet Ones") discussed ways in which Adam could focus and organize his essay on attitudes and practices related to physical fitness: Adam: I could just--you know--describe the changes or the--what . . the present—— presently is--like all the things Jill: Mm Barb: Do, do a big section on what used to be. . and then, what happened, what is now (Feb. 15) As this section has indicated, the suggestions made by the writers on their own papers were greeted favorably more often than not. Some- times readers merely offered a quick expression of agreement; but most of the time, they expressed their approval more forcefully--by giving reasons for their approval, by expanding on or paraphrasing the sugges- tions, and by agreeing with one another's agreement. Even when such reinforcement was enthusiastic, though, there was never any extended discussion of the writers' suggestions-—partly because there is not much need for further discussion when a group is already in agreement, and partly because the writers typically phrased their suggestions as hypotheses-—"I should. . ." or "Maybe I could. . ."--a form which did not place on hearers the obligation to respond that a question would (Speier, 1973; Coulthard, 1977). III. WRITERS EXPRESSING AGREEMENT QEIDISAGREEMENT WITH SUGGESTIONS Although agreement and disagreement are reSponses to other peOple's suggestions, they also form a means of guiding the discussion, since the 88 writer's approval or disapproval of an alternative does influence the flow of talk. This influence is most evident in the few instances where writers flatly rejected group members' suggestions. A. Disagreement with suggestions There were in fact only three such instances in the fourteen ses- sions. Two of the rejections came from Brian during the discussion of his first paper; in both cases, someone (first Josh, then Claudia) recommended expanding on a point, and Brian stated that carrying out the suggestion would destroy the unity of the paper. In the first instance, he considered the idea before dismissing it: Josh: You know, the coach said you were great-— but what happened after that-~the rest of the year? Brian: ? Claudia: Yeah--it'd be nice to hear the rest of it Brian: ? /They laugh./ Brian: You're right--go on with it Claudia: It's just that ? Brian: I didn't think that though was directly related to the whole idea of the paper-- me being castigated for my height Claudia: Yeah, yeah Brian: So I didn't, that's why I didn't go on with it In the next such instance, Brian rejected the suggestion out of hand: Brian: Ah, the first part was just . . . life in a small town-- /people can really be rude/ Claudia: Maybe you should've said something about that- 'cause I don't think Brian: But that has nothing to do with the paper. (Jan. 18) Both quotations illustrate one possible result of rejecting a suggestion: the cutting off of discussion on that tOpic. 89 However, the Opposite effect can also take place, as in the discus- sion of Jody's first paper. The essay in question was a series of reflections on Jody's growth in self-acceptance; it began this way: I experienced death today. I didn't actually kiss it on the nose, mind you, but it touched me none the less. My Grandma died. I can understand the fact that it doesn't mean anything to anyone outside the family because to tell you the truth it meant absolutely nothing to me-—yesterday! But that was yesterday. Today I realize it's something that's going to be on my mind for quite some time. / . . . ./ The fact is her death also started me thinking of other things. For instance, I found myself dealing with this "thing"—-this mental awareness--but it wasn't some- thing new, it had been a frequent happening in the better part of my eighteen years. The discussion on this paper was lively, and a fairly long excerpt will be necessary to give its flavor. Nina: I was getting confused in the beginning there / . . . ./ Tom: You used death as an entry--at least, that's what I saw, you-- Jody: Right--I, I do use it as an entry Jeff: Okay Jody: And then I said, ? Tom: Right Jeff: Um . . I think that you say other things-- you can put, "for example, awareness about mys__n Jody: That isf-"instance, I found myself dealing with this 'thing,'" and then I say it right here Jeff: Uh, no--I think I'd leave it even in this paragraph though Jody: Nooo! /In tone of voice that suggests, "How unthinkable3"/ Jeff: 'Cause I think you need to relate the paragraphs together more Jody: But I don't want 'em to relate. Jeff: Okay, yeah, but see Nina: But you have to have a transition Jeff: See, your transition is--this is what ? Jody: But that's why I put this in--"aware" 90 Tom: / . . ./ I just thought, maybe--if you had a--next time, or whatever time you ever do this again, um, kinda try to work--give an example of what you're thinking Jody: But I don't know what I'm thinking Tom: I know that, but-- Jeff: You have to let us know what you're thinking Jody: But I don't know that /Tom begins to laugh in exasperation, and the others join in./ (Jan. 18) The difference between the discussion of Brian's paper and that of Jody's paper suggests that the effect of disagreement depends not merely on the content of the utterance, i.e., the refusal to accept the sug- gestion, but also, and more importantly, on the language in which the refusal is couched and the social meaning which that language conveys to the group. Brian's clear statement, "I didn't think that was directly related to the whole idea of the paper," his concise summary of his theme ("Me being castigated for my height"), and his assured tone of voice all spoke of conviction and helped bring that phase of discussion to a fairly rapid end. Jody's approach, on the other hand, conveyed the idea that she was too close to the paper to see it from the readers' perspective; as Linda Flower and John R. Hayes would say, Jody had not yet transformed her "writer-based prose" into "reader-based prose"5—- she apparently did not see why her audience wanted the ideas linked in the paper, when they had not been linked in her experience; and when she talked about the paper as a whole, it was in terms of the abstract phrase, "mental awareness," rather than in terms of a statement as to what she had wanted to say about that t0pic. These three cases of disagreement have received extended consideration 91 because they show vividly the influence of the writer's response on the movement of the discussion; they also point up a fact already noted in the previous section--that the group members generally seemed to assume that they understood one another and thus neglected to ask for specifics. The fact that they did not press for greater explicitness meant both a loss and a gain: the group members failed to secure the full advantage of criticism--the challenge to precision of thought and language--yet they maintained the casualness of conversation among inexperienced equals, thus preserving a context in which a more demanding sort of dis— cussion might evolve, given sufficient time. B. Agreement with suggestions At any rate, the three solitary expressions of disagreement contrasted with the forty-four cases in which the writers accepted the suggestions of their peers. As one might expect, these acceptances varied in their degree of enthusiasm and elaborateness. Most often, writers assented to suggestions with a simple "Yes" or ”Okay." Where the suggestion dealt with mechanics, a "Yes" usually signalled the end of conversation on that tOpic: Brian: I don't know if you did this purposely or not—-"He pointed out that I would be able to play golf longer than football," not "then." Josh: Yeah (Jan. 18) With regard to qualities other than mechanics, the writers' approval of a suggestion sometimes Opened up the talk briefly, with the sugges- tion—giver offering (further) reasons for the proposal: Darla: On the last part, where you say, ". . . there are many more articles on backpacking Matt: Darla: Joyce: Walt : Darla: Matt: 92 available"-—could you give an example? Backpackers' Magazine or something like that? /Little laugh/ Okay Like just-— Yeah That's true A lot of people like to have something to be steered to Mmhmm (Jan. 18) On the other hand, the writers seemed in three or four cases to be using expressions of agreement as a way of closing off further discus- sion. Sometimes that effort was successful, as in the following segment from the conversation about Nina's paper on inequality: Jeff: Jody: Jeff: Tina: Jeff: I could bring this sentence up- To back up your sentence. And then I'd put, this uh, like then I'd tell about the rewards they get, okay. 'Cause this is kinda like going back to that sentence ? , and then the rewards would follow Mmhmm Just like _3__ process. Um, well . . ? /There is a pause, then Jeff moves on to a different point/ (Feb. 1) However, the writers' use of agreement as a device to secure closure was not always immediately effective. The following dialogue, for instance, took place at the end of a prolonged exchange on the tense-shift in Jody's paper; here, Jody seems ready to accept the suggestion while Nina wants to be sure she understands it as well: Nina: You use the present and the past in the same sentence, and I'm not sure what, where you are 93 Jody: /Reading quietly/ "For I am blind now, and I am going to tell you of my last last three days of being able to see" Nina: "And what it i§_like to have"-- Jody: Okay--was. , Nina: No, I——if you're tellin' me in the present what it is like now, 'cause you're blind-- Jody: No, see Nina: Or are you tellin' me what it was like Jody: I'm like, like lookin' back Nina: Okay Jody: But I'm goin' to tell you about it now, but I'm lookin' back Nina: All right-- 'cause see, do you understand what I mean, though, that like, "was"-- if you use "was" you have to use "meant"; if you use "is," you use "means" Jody: Okay, I'll use "was." Nina: All right--well, it's up to you, I don't care--I'm just--wanted to show you that you can use both (Feb. 1) Expressions of agreement, particularly when they occurred at the ends of exchanges, were often hard to interpret on the basis of an audiotape alone. Where the "Yeah" or "Okay" was spoken quietly or uncertainly, it was difficult to know whether the writer was accepting the suggestion but wishing to foreclose further discussion of it, rejecting it tactfully, or simply acknowledging it while remaining unready or unwilling to comment further. Perhaps the group members too were unsure how to interpret some of these ambiguous acceptances, as the quiet "Mmhmm" often marked the end of that phase of discussion: Jeff: Okay--"Innate qualifications by an indi- vidual are rare and therefore are suited for jobs which cannot be filled by anyone" Jody: By just anyone Jeff: ”By just anyone"--you might want to interject, okay Nina: Oh (Feb. 1) 94 There were three or four instances, though, when it was evident that the writers were accepting suggestions, but only with reservations: Jeff: Okay, well, why don't we try this: "The second reason for the inevitable existence of the inequalities in the system"-- Jody: Yeah Jeff: "is how the positions are filled." Nina: All right--it just sounds like it has so many words, but if it makes more sense to you, then it's probably /better/ Jeff: ? just tryin' to give you some perspective IV. WRITERS EXPLAINING THE INTENTIONS BEHIND THEIR PAPERS One final way in which the writers sometimes took leadership in the discussions was by elaborating on their intentions in writing their papers--expanding on the experiences they had described, rephrasing the ideas they had been trying to communicate, or explaining their reasons for expressing a thought in a particular way. One or two of these thirty explanations served to open the discus- sion, as in the following instance. Barb: Oh--I didn't know what to write mine on either, but . . I felt really strongly about the war, so I thought I'd try writin' a paper, but it didn't come out anything like I feel, you know what I mean--didn't--supposed to be a kind of a strong paper against it, but it didn't-- ? /Laughs self-consciously/ Adam: Seemed like you just kinda went over a whole Barb: Yeah Adam: lotta different things Barb: It did--that's how I-—I had a really hard time with it (Feb. 1) In all the other cases, these explanations arose as part of the writers' response to questions or suggestions. 95 Sometimes, as in the illustration above, the writers were primarily concerned with expressing their dissatisfaction over a paper. In the majority of cases, though, they were either defending their way of doing things (as seen in most of the examples below) or simply providing further background, as in this excerpt from the discussion of Joyce's paper on her summer job: Joyce: They were making money off us, you know-- [they were gettin' money You mentioned that with the, uh-— they drOpped the whole cleanin' company Joyce: Yeah Darla: ? Joyce: Uh-huh. It would take me an hour to explain that, though-- Darla: /Chuckles appreciatively./ Joyce: It was just /sighs/, oh, God--I mean, you couldn't walk like, you couldn't--you walk down in the basement--you couldn't see the floor at all, you know--they had all these huge piles lyin' there-—finally like, when--I'm near quittin' week-- / . . . ./ One of the really big, um, vibrators, you know, that shook every- thing--it broke Darla: Oh, no Joyce: Oh my God, it was just like everything just had to be all sc00ped out of there again--you know, it's a never—ending job / . . . ./ Matt: (Feb. 1) As this example shows, the writers' explanations of their experiences and ideas typically brought an end to discussion of that particular topic: these explanations either diverted attention from the original concern, or they conveyed the impression that the writers knew what they were doing and thus should have the last word, or both. Occasionally, though, the writers' descriptions of their intentions opened up a new phase of talk as the writer entered into a dialogue with the suggestion giver: Jeff: Nina: Jeff: Nina: Jeff: Nina: Jeff: Nina: Jeff: Nina: 96 Um, some other--"The cold heartless ice would never break, only my body could. I have been disciplined against its sur- face and am always fighting back by kick- ing my blade or jamming my toe pick into its tough skin." I was trying to ? I would say ? Like a person Oh , okay Oh, that's the way--I didn't know if you caught it or not Well, I thought—-I looked at that sentence, and I ? -- I'd rewrite it, okay It's, I-- I think you're--let's see, I think you're personifying when you say Ui£§_tough skin," you know, / . . ./ Well, you know why--I didn't want to use "surface" again because I used it once already in that sentence, and I didn't want to use the same word twice (Jan. 18) In that instance the writer did have the last word, since she was explain- ing stylistic choices; there were times, however, when the writer's explanation of "What I was trying to do" opened a conversation which resulted in new suggestions. Darla: Matt: Darla: Matt: Darla: Matt: Joyce: Matt: Joyce: Matt: I feel, as though——is this a transition paragraph? ? /You should have more of that/ Yeah ? Well, we drove there--I mentioned that /flips page/ over there--"twelve hours of driving"-- ? we just went to the beach Oh, I see You might've missed that when you were reading it Maybe you could-- Getting cleaned up before, and uh, and then there was the camp-- "Finally we reached the beach"--not "reached the beach," but-- Well, we were at the beach, but finally we had a chance to get down to the ocean itself-- and go to the beach, to the ocean 97 Joyce: "Finally we had a chance to get to the o--"--I don't know Walt: Or maybe you could say, "to enjoy the beach"-- "Finally I had a chance to enjoy the beach" Darla: Yeah (Feb. 1) As the examples in the preceding pages suggest, writers who talked about the ideas and experiences behind their papers sometimes appeared to be merely describing their intentions, while others were expressing an awareness of discrepancies between intention and execution. This latter type of awareness can be seen in the discussion of Barb's "Thoughts on War": Joe: On the last page, where it says, "So everyone goes around cursing /the threat of war/ for the wrong reasons"--uh, what are the right reasons? Barb: No--I just meant, um-they um, this is really terrible, but the politicians are really--you know, a lot of 'em are really mad about this um, threat of war because now it ruins their chances of becoming president, because the whole nation is so . . hepped up--y'know, so they're, they're saying "Damn this war,” not because it's stupid, but because it's gonna ruin their own political chances, which-- Joe: I know, but—— Barb: Which I did not explain /Giggles/ Joe: Yeah (Feb. 1) The contrast between "I meant" and "I did not explain" are evident to the observer; for indications that the participants also recognized this contrast, one needs to hear from the students themselves. Their statements on questionnaires and during interviews suggest in fact that they profited from talking about their intentions. Chapter Six examines this matter in more detail; for the present, I will simply point to one 98 illustration. Christi mentioned during her interview that it had been valuable to "talk out" the experiences that the group members had written about; they would encourage one another, "The way you said it was good; put it that way." As an example, Christi recalled the discussion of one of Curt's papers: in talking about the paper's central incident, Curt had explained a good deal more fully, and then asked, "You want me to put that in?" As a result, Christi said, the revision was "much better." V. WRITERS CHOOSING NOT TQ_DIRECT THE DISCUSSION The absence of talk, as Dell Hymes points out (1974), is as important as the presence of talk. Thus, in considering the roles played by writers in the critiquing groups, it is useful to pay attention also to the ways in which they did not try to direct the course of the discussion, and the effects of those patterns of not-talking on the groups' inter- action. Absence of talk on the writers' part was most evident in the few instances where other group members asked the writers whether they had questions or comments. Such questions occurred five times, and in response to three of them, the writers either did not reply or said "No." In the fourth case, the writer simply recalled an earlier line of talk: Darla: D'you have any questions? Walt: Um——no, other than wondering if there was too much detail in spots. /Walt had asked about this point earlier, and the group had assured him that he had not used an excessive amount of detail./ Darla: I read through it really fast, but um . . . I don't think so, I think that, for this paper, it was apprOpriate. (Jan. 18) 99 Only in the fifth instance of group members eliciting writers' comments did the author have some fairly extensive comment, perhaps because this time the question occurred quite early in the discussion: Jeff: What are some things you think about the paper, Tom? Tom: I, ah, I enjoyed writing it. I, when I got into it, when I tried to explain a lot of the examples, I kinda like based the whole paper on the examples, you know-- when I started writing it, I remembered seein', watchin' these commercials on TV / . . . ./--and how I thought, you know, how they exaggerated too much, either indirectly or directly. (Feb. 15) Except for this final example, invitations to the writers to men- 'tion their concerns typically occurred at the end of discussion of their paper; such invitations usually signalled that if the writer had anything further to add, this was the time, since everyone else had exhausted their supply of comments. These questions offered the possibility of new openings, but that possibility was seldom realized, since the writers, though offered the floor, typically relinquished it. The role of the writers, then, varied from time to time and group to group, depending on such factors as the writers' temperaments, their degree of satisfaction with their papers, and the responsiveness of their group members. Thus, to complete the examination of interaction patterns in the groups, it is necessary to consider the activity of the other members as they discussed the paper of one of their peers. Thus, transactions involving all the group members will be the subject matter of Chapter Five. CHAPTER FIVE INTERACTION PATTERNS: THE DYNAMICS OF THE CRITIQUING GROUP PART II: TRANSACTIONS INVOLVING ALL GROUP MEMBERS Whether or not the writers assumed leadership during the time their papers were discussed, there were many ways in which all the members of a group cooperated to make the critiquing event a reality--by getting the discussions started, giving suggestions to the writers, steering one another back to the tOpic after a digression, responding to one another's ideas, working together to suggest alternative ways of solving problems, and bringing the discussions to a close. In describing and illustrating each pattern, I will concentrate on the extent to which the interaction either added to or detracted from the meaning of the group as a body which advised the writers on ways to improve their papers. I. ENGAGING £11 PRE—DISCUSSION TALK The groups generally began with a brief ritual for my convenience: the members all gave their names and the titles of their papers. After that, in all but three cases, they moved immediately to decide whose paper would be discussed first, and then to talk about the chosen paper. The three divergent instances consisted of what I call pre-discussion talk-—talk related to the papers or the process of criticizing them but not yet actually getting down to the task of responding to a particular paper. In one instance, the group engaged in some small talk as they gathered their papers and critiques together: lOO lOl Nina: This is really very easy--you can just whip through it, got no-- Jody: It looks like ? /probably referring to the poor quality of Jeff's photo- c0pies/ I need my glasses Nina: No--there's no--nothing to it—-the night before, about an hour's worth /Pause; then some indecipherable chatter/ Jody: /Probably to Tom, who had written out page-long critiques/ You wrote that about mg? Jeff: We're running right now. /Laughs./ Hi! Jody: Are we really? Tom: We're running right now? Jeff: Yeah /Brief conversation about singer Neill Diamond./ Tom: /To Nina/ Have you really--you been skatin' ever since that time--your age-- you say in here, I think it was--I don't remember your age Nina: Oh, no--that was fifteen--no, I've been skatin' since I was three Tom: But you're still—— Nina: I'm still . . .but I can't . . . anymore . . school-- Tom: A shame Nina: Isn't that a shame? /Little laugh/ (Jan. 18) Actually, this kind of preliminary talk may easily have been more widespread than the tapes suggest: group members may not have turned on their tape recorders until they were actually ready to begin discus- sion. It seems quite natural that a group of relatively unacquainted people should engage in small talk as a way of easing into a new situa- tion--though on the other hand, it seems equally likely that in groups where most of the members were relatively reserved and serious, they would concentrate on the cognitive rather than the social aspects of the gathering and would begin immediately to engage in criticism of the papers. A definite emphasis on the social dimension is evident in the second example of pre-discussion talk. 102 Apparently Marty, who was late with all his assignments, had just given c0pies of his paper to the group. Steve: Why don't we start with Marty's, since we just finished readin' it Arlene: Okay Marty: I didn't write that much on you guys' papers this time, but uh-- ? I figured I wrote a lot last time Jerri: Okay. /Laughs./ --helpful. Um . . . Marty: Nah, I didn't write any, um, really, c--criticisms, you know, 'cause um, I read 'em—- Jerri: You were afraid we were gonna beat you /Chuckles./ Marty: Yeah /Chuckles./ But I liked all three of the papers for sure. I thought they were better'n last time Arlene: Neat Marty: I liked Steve's, that was a good one Jerri: Yeah Marty: That was all right—— ? I wouldn't ever expect a guy to write some'in', you know, about a girl /he and Jerri chuckle/—-I mean, ya know, "first time I fell in love" or whatever Arlene: Okay--shall we do yours then? Marty: Sure (Feb. 1) This sort of friendly digression was typical of Group Five, "The Drifters," who, besides wandering off the t0pic regularly, also congrat- ulated one another frequently on their papers and their group spirit. Another late paper--a fairly unusual phenomenon in this class-- launched the final instance of pre-discussion talk. Brian had apparently been absent the previous class period and had not made copies of his paper for the group, so the first few exchanges centered on the problem of getting things moving. 103 Claudia: Well, Brian gets to read his, since-- Brian: What-- Claudia: We didn't hear it. [You get to read your paper. Brian: I don't have it. Claudia: Oh, you don't have a copy. Josh: ? Brian: Where is it? /Little laugh./ Claudia: She must have it Brian: She--does she have it? Candy: Yeah, go ask her Brian: I don't have a copy. /Sound of furniture moving./ Josh: ? Candy: Yeah, really--especially the library ? Josh: Read it, if it's so damned . . good Brian: It isn't—-it's pathetic, but I just-- Claudia: Read the /title/ too Brian: Okay /Brian reads his paper aloud./ (Feb. 15) The examples quoted here all involve talk at the very beginnings of sessions. The hypothesis which I mentioned earlier, that there was probably a good bit of pre-discussion talk that went unrecorded, gains support from the fact that during the discussions there were another six instances of similar, though briefer, conversations. They all occurred at the point when a group was moving from one person's paper to the next, and they dealt with such tOpics as procedures for critiquing and revising, the length of a paper, and sources of ideas for papers. Preliminary talk, then, paved the way into actual discussion of a given paper in at least nine cases, and seems to have helped the students orient themselves both toward the task of criticism and toward one another as participants. II. SELECTING A PAPER TO DISCUSS The bridge between pre-discussion talk and the discussion proper was the selection of a paper to focus on. In three or four cases, one person 104 volunteered his or her own paper: "Want to do mine first?" More Often, though, someone would "volunteer" another person for the opening (or next) Spot; for example, the previously quoted excerpt from Group One, "The Debaters," came to an end in the following way, just after Nina's "Isn't that a shame?" Tom: Okay--somebody take command in here. Jody: ? take command the way I ? Nina: Tom--you go first, we'll do your paper first. (Jan. 18) Apparently, a good number of the "Whose shall we do first /next/" decisions were made with the tape recorder off, either before a session got underway or during pauses between papers: there were several instances when the recorder clicked on and the group was either announc- ing its decision—~e.g., ”Now we're gonna discuss Curt's paper"--or was already talking about the paper itself. During this always-brief process of selecting a paper to focus on, there were a few signs of self-consciousness--mostly laughs and dis- claimers——but otherwise, no one made much fuss about getting started; and once someone launched the process, everyone joined in. III. BEGINNING THE ACTUAL DISCUSSION Once the group had decided whose paper to concentrate on, they moved to the critiquing itself--though in a very few instances, as with the earlier excerpt from "The Drifters" (”I liked all of you guys's papers"), a group might select a focal point and then digress briefly. There was considerable variety in the approaches used to get the discus- sion underway. In about ten instances, the writers themselves Opened 105 the discussion with comments about their papers, requesting feedback or mentioning problems they were aware of. Curt, for example, introduced the discussion Of his paper on horse-racing with the lament, "This didn't come out too good / . . . ./ It just didn't come out the way I wanted it to." (Feb. 1) Host Of the time, though, the writers did not make the Opening moves but waited for their peers' reSponses. In six or seven cases, the group members' initial response took the form--probably modeled after whole-class discussions--Of summing up overall impressions or mentioning aspects of the papers which stood out for the readers. Christi: Okay, this is on--Miyuki's--and she's not here either-—it's on the world Of—- haiku and /. . ./ in the end, when she was talking about-—uh, how the-—the, the children in Japan you know are taught this at a very young age really kind Of struck me-- [how Japan um, tries that um, Curt: The customs, yeah Christi: to improve you know the culture, not just trying to make--you know it seems like here we put more emphasis on-- Curt: Right, right Christi: you know, mathematics, or you know, something like this (Feb. 15) In another eight cases, group members Opened the discussions with questions-~either about the writers' reasons for choosing their tOpics, or about particular sections in their papers, as with this bit of dialogue concerning Jeff's first paper: Nina: I, you know, there was one part in your paper that .. was kind of interesting-- you mentioned this girl twice, and we never know who she is, or what she--what her purpose is in the paper, and it really 106 doesn't matter, but she is mentioned in the paper, ? why she was there Jeff: ? Nina: Oh, you didn't have to go into it but it was interesting that you mentioned some— body who really had no purpose-—I mean, she must've had some purpose in the paper, but the reader really didn't know what her purpose was (Jan. 18) Most frequently, however (about forty percent of the time), the opening move was an expression of praise--either a simple compliment ("It was good”) or a compliment with a reason ("I liked it--it was really humorous.") Sometimes the praise came from a single person, and then someone else brought forth a question or suggestion; but occasionally there was a whole round of verbal applause before the group moved on to another topic. The example below comes from the Opening minutes of discussion on Christi's second paper, the one on her father's death: Karen: '8 another good story Curt: Yeah, I know Miyuki: I know it Karen: You're really good at descrip-- descriptions Miyuki: I think so, too. /Pause/ Miyuki: I think you know the--you know, how to pick out the right word or the right--you know, exact expressive--or expressions. (Feb. 1) In addition to these expressions of unmixed praise, there were another six instances where a reader began with a compliment but moved immedi— ately to a suggestion for improvement--the "It was good, but . . ." pattern. Joyce: /TO Walt/ I thought it was, I thought it was a good paper, like the events were described well--the only thing I thought 107 was, that could've been improved, was that, sentences seemed kind of short to me, like they were--a lot of short ones, that I thought maybe could've been con— nected, combined, sort Of like flow more smoothly, you know what I mean? Wa l t : Mmhmm (Jan. 18) About half the discussion-Opening comments, then, involved praise for the paper, though sometimes the compliments were immediately fol- lowed by recommendations for revising. The giving of compliments Obviously helped both readers and writers ease into the discussion: it assured " and it gave writers that their work would not be utterly ”ripped apart, readers a way to begin offering their observations without putting the writers on the defensive. IV. PREFACING SUGGESTIONS As indicated above, the groups typically moved—-sometimes very rapidly, sometimes at a more leisurely pace——from giving compliments to offering suggestions. The forms and functions of the suggestions them- selves will be examined in the next section; but first, it is note- worthy that the overwhelming majority of the suggestions Opened with some sort of prefacing phrase. There were two main types of these suggestion- initiating phrases, and group members might use one or both of them. The first type was a locating phrase--literally locating the spot which the speaker was about to comment on, and often reading aloud from the passage under consideration. Such phrases were used even when the writer of the paper was absent from the discussion, as Marty was when his first paper was discussed: 108 Arlene: When he says like, I don't know~~on the last page, up tOp-- ? he's talkin' about his dream about money, and then his money--"Hence the feeling of worth which a dream fulfills when one discovers his lost wealth. The interpretation . . " --I didn't . . get it, . . I don't un- derstand that Jerri: Yeah, maybe he can make it a little clearer (Jan. 18) These page references and quotations served a practical function: they helped assure that all members were attending to the same passage and could thus join in with expressions of agreement or disagreement. Socially, they also lent authority to the readers' comments by showing that they were talking not only about general impressions but about specific uses of language. The use of locating phrases served a third function, too—-providing for continuity: one sequence of discussion sometimes led into the next by means of a transitional phrase such as "I got confused on that next sentence." The second type of lead-in phrase was more abstract but equally functional. This was the mitigating phrase (Labov, 1970; Labov and Fanshel, 1977); it typically followed a formula such as these: The only thing I thought you needed to work on was . . . There was one other place . . . Can I ask you a question? The primary function of these mitigating phrases appears to be one of both signalling and maintaining the equality among the partici- pants-—i.e., to say something like, ”I don't want to sound superior by telling you what to do--but we both recognize that part of our role as students in this class, is to give one another suggestions, so I hOpe 109 you'll take this in the right Spirit." That is a long gloss on a brief phrase, but the frequency of mitigating phrases in all the groups (fifty occurrences in the fourteen sessions)leads to the view that these are important devices for helping both giver and receiver of a suggestion to construct a context for its delivery. Of course, mitigating phrases accomplished other social purposes besides reminding participants that they were equals even though they were doing "the teacher's work." These phrases were also means of getting the group's attention while providing the speaker with an extra moment or two for formulating his or her thoughts. Further, they signalled that the speaker was not going to talk about just anything but was taking the floor in order to advance the group's major task, that of giving suggestions. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, mitigating phrases emphasized the speaker's basic appreciation for the paper. The frequent use of the qualifier ”one"-—as in "There was only one thing " and in ”There was one I thought was confusing, in the whole thing, other spot—-on the last page"-—gave the impression that the reader saw the paper as being basically sound and was trying to help the writer surmount whatever Obstacles remained in the way of total clarity and effectiveness. V. GIVING SUGGESTIONS The spirit of COOperation among equals that characterized the pre— facing Of suggestions was also evident in the language of the sugges— tions themselves. As Susan Ervin-Tripp points out in her study of directives (1973), there are connections between, on one hand, the status and relationships of the participants in a conversation and, on the other, the language they employ in the process of asking or llO telling one another to do things. There are two points I would like to make concerning the language of the suggestions. The two points are closely related; one stresses the cognitive dimension of offering suggestions, and the other, the social dimension. First, the phrasing of the suggestions indicated that the students' primary OOgnitive concern was with the clarity of communica- tion in their papers; second, their language indicated that they saw themselves as raising alternatives for one another, not as teaching one another or evaluating one another's work. A. Emphasizing clarity The emphasis on clarity has already been discussed in Chapter Three, where the categorizing of suggestions according to content demonstrated that the students paid considerable attention to the completeness and straightforwardness of presentation in the papers.1 Another indication of this concern with clarity is the fact that on twenty-three occasions, the readers asked questions which either implied or grew into alter- natives for revision. There were of course many other questions asked, but it seems worth noting that ten percent of the two hundred five suggestions evolved from genuine requests for information. One or two of the twenty-three information-seeking questions dealt with the writers' reasons for doing things in a particular way. For instance, Tom had a question about Jody's fable, "The Girl Who Wanted to Be King": Tom: When you capitalize like Strength and Courage, did you mean just the emphasis of it? Jody: That's what I was talkin' about to /Jeff/, yeah. I'm tryin' to, I didn't lll know how to exactly go across, gettin' the point across (Feb. 15) That exchange opened a conversation which yielded a number of alternatives, most Of them revealing some confusion about the conventions of written English. Though Jody's use of capitals in the story would be quite acceptable to an editor, Tom advised underlining the words, while Nina recommended putting them in single quotation marks. A few of the questions which grew into suggestions dealt with the focus of a paper--for instance, an earlier-quoted question by Barb concerning Adam's paper on changes in the use of leisure time: Barb: If you had one, like main . . main sentence that you would start off with, you know, the changes that've occurred—- I don't know, don't ask me, but . . . like what's gonna be your main thing that's--is it gonna be um, sports and health food, or everything combined still Adam: ? health food, just kinda get a con-- conglomerate . . . I don't know if, you know--I was wondering if I should go one way or the other . . . I think it /sound of pages turning/, it's /self- conscious chuckle/ . . (Feb. 15) In that case, the combination of the reader's question and the writer's response did generate some practical ideas on focus and organization. Many of the questions, though, involved clarification of Specific areas of content rather than the overall direction of a paper: Christi: At the--near the end of the second page-- I had some trouble with that one. Um, I mean I knew what happened, but that-- the line from-uh, "I can vividly remem- ber the time when I was holding Jack for the 112 blacksmith and Jack shook his head back as his eyes rolled." And then, when you said your "butt went flying through the air"--I mean, I—-it was obvious that he went and kicked it, right? Curt: No. Christi:[0h, it wasn't that-- Curt: It's just when they—- when they jerk their head back, uh, you wouldn't believe how strong they are, you Others concentrated on Curt: The the the the know (Feb. 1) structure: last--bottom of the-—starting with very bottom of the second page and end of the third, is that part of speech, or is that something else? (Feb. I) And still others concerned the writer's attitude: Adam: Do you really believe that . . . if “You name it, we'll kill for it," . . at the bottom of the second page? Barb: Well, um-- Adam: DO you really believe that? Barb: Well, no, I just mean that we . . . see, I didn't really express how I feel / ./ (Feb. 1) Besides asking direct questions, the readers also indicated their concern for clarity by calling attention to passages which they had trouble following. Group members introduced at least a dozen sugges- tions with phrases like "I was confused," "I didn't understand," or "I got very lost"; and there were other responses where the readers implied that they were confused without saying so explicitly. ll3 Curt: Okay, in that same--like, at the very bottom of what she's talking about, where it says, "In fact, I was trying to find my own love towards baseball" Miyuki: Uh-huh Curt: I--couldn't grasp what w—-you were trying to do there. Miyuki: I see. Um-- Curt: By the word "trying." "In fact, I was trying. . ." (Feb. 1) As far as the content of the suggestions was concerned, then, there was a noticeable emphasis on helping the writers convey their thoughts with lucidity. The means through which the student critics gave that help, as I suggested earlier in this section, was not so much through instruction and evaluation--although these elements were present too-- as through the raising of alternatives. B. Emphasizing_writers' choice In keeping with their status as peers, the students typically phrased their suggestions in terms of possibilities rather than rules. In fact, approximately half of the suggestions were couched as hypotheti- cal constructions. On a few occasions, the participants used the first person in setting forth Options: Jeff: Um . . . okay, then, you can kind of—- what I might do in that paragraph, okay, is ? "what the term equality implies" to talk about it, Okay. I'd start saying that equality implies that some peOple will do, you know, certain things-— (Feb. 1) But most Of the time, the alternatives were addressed to the writers: Matt: There was something here which I think could be worded a little better /. . . / You said, "A fist, hot-dog, baseball glove 114 or anything that conveniently serves as a plug." Darla: Mmhmm Matt: I thought if you said, uh, "A fist, hot-dog, baseball glove or anything that i§_convenient gag serve as a plug." Darla: Mmhm . (Jan. 18) Phrasing a suggestion in this way--"Maybe you could," "It might be better if," etc.--implies a tentativeness on the speaker's part and thus a respect for the autonomy of the writer. It also leaves an escape hatch for the suggestion giver, since it serves as a sort of mitigating device; and, as Labov and Fanshel (1977) point out, one of the virtues of mitigation is that it provides a cushion: the speaker can always pull back if there is a negative reaction and can remind the hearer, "I didn't say you had to. . . . There were only two or three instances in these discussions where group members found themselves in need of such an escape mechanism, but it was obviously useful. For example, in the midst of the long debate over the necessity of transitions in Jody's paper on self-awareness, Tom tried to sum up the group's recommendations in the following way: Tom: Uh-—maybe--I don't know if you want to put it--you don't have to, I'm just sayin'-- that transition, if you wanted to add it to make it look like--You could list, like two or three things, but kinda emphasize death as a relation to what you're gonna say--I mean, to what you want--I mean, what you, you've emphasized death up here, but like you say, in thinking of other‘ things and then you come into talkin' about yourself and relatin' to yourself, so kinda like--I just thought, maybe-- if you had a—-next time, or whatever time you ever do this again, um, kinda try to work--give an example of what you're thinking. . . (Jan. 18) 115 In this case, despite Tom's Obvious efforts at diplomacy, Jody's reply was ”But I don't know what I'm thinking"--and the argument continued for a few more exchanges. Another form Of mitigation in the offering of suggestions involved the use of "distancing devices." There were two such devices used in these groups. The first, which came into play less frequently, consisted of phrasing the suggestion as a report, telling what a reader had noticed while reviewing the paper in preparation for class. Brian, for instance, used this reporting technique to initiate a discussion of focus and coherence in Josh's first paper: Brian: /Chuckles/ You know what I wrote down- at the bottom--"Is this paper about golf or football?" / . . . ./ For sure-—when you said, "When I got in high school it was easy to choose what sport I wanted to play in the fall,"-- "football"!! /Incredulous laugh/--I thought sure you were going to say "golf"! (Jan. 18) The second distancing device involved phrasing the recommendation in an impersonal way, focusing on the principles of academic writing rather than on the activity of the writer. This impersonal formulation was used most often in talking about mechanics: Brian: Uh--"upkeep" is one word too Josh: Yeah Brian: "Upkeep" isn't two words. Candy: Okay (Jan. 18) C. Emphasizing need for revision All of the previously-discussed transactions--expressing confusion, asking questions, prOposing alternatives--stressed the writers' freedom 116 to accept or reject a suggestion. In about ten percent Of the sugges- tions, however, the readers presented their views more forcefully. In eight or nine cases they used "modified imperatives"--suggestions which said, "You need to. . . "You should. . ." but which were softened by the use of a phrase such as "I think" or "I felt." For instance, Jody read aloud and then tried to paraphrase a section of Nina's paper on Alaska-~a move which led to a suggestion: Jody: You said right here about, ”This led to the destruction of some of the Indians' livelihoods and they began to move into cities. The unemployment rate was (and still is) very high and the true Alaskans were left with nothing. This led to the problem of alcoholism"—-Are you saying that the a1c--that the Alaskans, just because they didn't have anything, that they became alcoholics, just because they didn't have anything? ‘ Nina: Because, their, their land was destroyed, so when they moved out to the big cities looking for jobs and that kind of thing, it was just, um-- Jody: I think you should go into detail Nina: I don't know, just thought I, I shouldn't have even put that in there, I don't even know, or maybe I should have, I don't know, because-- Jody: / . . ./ I think you should go into sayin' why it was really taken away, 'cause you really kinda like wind up a thought and then—- (Feb. 15) Though phrasing a suggestion in terms of "I think you should" seemed in one or two instances to be primarily a matter of personal style, it did play an interactional role in most cases. With this combination of imperative and qualifier, the participants could express the view that a given change was highly desirable, yet they could simultaneously refrain from taking a dominant role and insisting on the change. 117 In contrast, there were about seven suggestions, all dealing with mechanics, which contained phrases like "should" or "need to" but did not have qualifiers. They were all stated quite matter—of-factly: Darla: On the second page at the bottom, where it says, "However, sandwiched in between . . —-that should be a new paragraph--that should go /Over here/ Walt: On the second page? Darla: Yeah-—right at the bottom where it says "However, sandwiched in between football season and spring parades was concert season" Walt: All right H (Feb. 1) The writers, as the above illustration shows, responded in the same matter-of—fact way, either acknowledging the suggestion with a word like "Okay" or not saying anything at all. VI. CHANGING THE DIRECTION QE_DISCUSSION Most suggestions evoked responses of one kind or another, and sometimes entire chains of responses; I will look further at some of these responses in Section VIII of this chapter. But whatever the duration or direction of follow-up, there was always the need to restart the cycle when someone had a suggestion to offer which moved away from the existing line of discussion. As with all the other interactional moves discussed in this chapter, that Of steering group members into new directions was accomplished in a variety of ways. One of the simplest was to wait until there was a pause in the talk, and then to introduce a new suggestion, often by means of one of the orienting phrases discussed in a previous section. Or there might not even be a pause but only an indication that the preceding speaker(s) might be ready to move away from the current topic. 118 For instance, Tom's hesitation allowed Nina to introduce a new phase in the discussion of Jeff's paper about one of his friends: Tom: Definitely it is a very close relation- ship there--serious and warm. Um-—I don't even have my critique, then I could really follow it Nina: There was, um, I mean it--something that could be corrected Tom: I ? Nina: It's just--nO--not sentence structure-- but also, um. punctuation and things like that /. . ./ (Jan. 18) Another way of initiating a new phase of discussion was through the use of a transitional device, which indicated that the new speaker had been listening to the previous one and had a contribution which related to the one just made. One of the simplest and most frequent of these transitional phrases has already been discussed--i.e., the locating phrase which moves the reader on to "the next sentence" or "the paragraph right after that one." But more abrupt changes of direction might occur too--e.g., a speaker might introduce a new suggestion as a way Of showing that he was letting go of a tOpic he had previously been pursuing. For instance, II Group Two, "The Encouragers, had had a lively argument after Curt objected to the use of the word "enjoy" in Christi's paper, and it was Curt himself who concluded that line of talk by Opening up a new one: Christi: It was just a . . . new-—you know what I mean, it was exciting--a new, you know--I mean, I see what you're saying. . I, I, I—- Karen: Well you didn't know, like-like you said you didn't--it wasn't serious. Christi: NO. NO, I--/self-conscious laugh/ Curt: ? I don't know. I—-I can see your point, too, but it's just when I read it, 119 it just sort of hit me bad. Miyuki: I see. Curt: Okay, on the bottom of the second page-- where it says "the appearance of the two men at the door"? Can you be more descriptive there /. . . ./? (Feb. 1) VII. STEERING DISCUSSION BACK :9 THE TOPIC Another kind Of steering process was sometimes used when a group had strayed for a while from discussing the paper at hand and had begun talking about the topic in general. There was only one occasion when a group member explicitly reminded the group that they ought to return to their task: Group Four, "The Assortment," had been discussing Candy's paper on apartment living, and Josh had begun talking about the conditions of his lease. After four exchanges on this subject between Josh and Candy, Brian finally broke in: Brian: We should . . critique this paper Josh: Yeah, I know Candy: That's right Josh: I'm sorry Brian: Uh, let's see--"Coming to Michigan State as a freshmen"--should have a comma there (Jan. 18) Most of the time, though, rather than saying "Let's get back to work," group members accomplished the same purpose more subtly, by offering a new suggestion or otherwise speaking about the paper itself. For instance, in the midst of discussion on Matt's last paper--a fictional monologue by a septic-tank cleaner--Matt commented that he had showed the paper to a friend, who had reSponded with, "Oh, God, are you going ' That comment led to to turn that in? I hope the teacher flunks you!’ a short digression, which Walt brought to an end by moving directly into a new suggestion: 120 Walt: The only thing that I found, you used the wrong "add" a couple times--when you're talking about the classified ads /. . . ./ (Feb. 15) The other members generally took the hint implied in such a move and joined in the critiquing process-—though if the comment which had restarted the discussion was hard to follow up, the conversation might soon fade out again. Where this happened, someone might suggest, "Shall we go on to the next one?" VIII. RESPONDING 12g ONE ANOTHER'S SUGGESTIONS Once a suggestion was Offered, it frequently evoked responses not only from the writer but also from other persons in the group. Often, participants chimed in to agree or disagree with their peers'ideas, sometimes expressing their Opinion in a word or two, and at other times elaborating. There were at least twenty-six times during the discus- sions when one or more members explicitly indicated that they supported someone's proposal. For instance, when Joyce recommended to Walt that he combine some of the short sentences in his paper on basketball, the rest of the group joined in: Joyce: The only thing I thought was, that could've been improved, was that sentences seemed kind of short to me / . . . ./ Walt : Mmhmm Joyce: Like . . Darla: Like this one-—um, "After failing to get him to see my point I went and put my warm-up pants and coat on. I was angry, disgusted and disappointed." You could've said, "I was angry, disgusted and disappointed after failing to get him to see. . ." Joyce: I just thought that, yeah Walt: Matt: 121 Mmhmm, yeah--I can see what you mean ? short sentences like that, sometimes you do repeat, a few things a few times (Jan. 18) There were far fewer examples of disagreement, implicit or explicit--only about nine, in addition to the three previously-quoted instances of writers rejecting suggestions. Presumably, if group members thought a suggestion was not good, they kept quiet and let the writer decide what to do with it—-and in fact, three Of the nine explicit indications of disagreement came from the writers themselves. Where the other members in a group disagreed with one another, a few lively arguments ensued; this excerpt, for instance, comes from the first session of Group One, "The Debaters": Jeff: Jody: Nina: Tom: Jody: Nina: Jeff: Jody: Tom: Um, the beginning of the next paragraph /. . ./--I would include people, okay ? and then go on, return to the definition, which is really good I think that would've made it more nonpersonal--and you should make it more personal--what, what your feelings are about it But he said this paper would be used for a certain class and that's, you probably-- Yeah Research paper? ? you're supposed to tell how you feel about it Well, I don't know about that-—I think a research paper is Objective instead of subjective You've gotta be Objective more or less But at the end? I leave the ending as a question (Jan. 18) On two or three occasions, rather than disagreeing outright, group members would raise questions about a proposed change. Jeff: Tom: Jody: Jeff: Jody: Jeff: 122 Then ah, "Exporting the sewage out of the lake basin is the only way to keep it sparkling clean since it is not economically feasible to build treat— ment plants." Maybe if you kind of went into the argument Of why-—okay Don't you think that would broaden the subject too much? This is true, but ? I think you're tryin' to narrow it I agree with that, he's tryin' to narrow it, but I think that would add a little more. . . . (Jan. 18) One other pattern of response to a suggestion--besides agreeing, disagreeing, or questioning--involved modifying the original proposal: Walt: Matt: Walt: Matt: Joyce: Matt: Darla: Walt: Matt: Uhh--there was one other spot--on the last page . . . At first you say, "... I was further enthralled at the sight of Herons, Cranes, and Pelicans." Mmhmm And then you say, "All three birds looked so majestic"--did you mean, "All three types of birds," or were there just three birds?' Those were the three types of birds-- Oh, yeah-- ? But if I put in "all three types of birds," it would take away from the emphasis on the birds themselves. Uh—-read the paragraph-— How 'bout "These birds looked so majestic"? Or "They all looked so majestic" Mmhmm (Feb. 1) IX. DEVELOPING SUGGESTIONS COLLABORATIVELY One of the most interesting facets of the negotiation of meaning was the collaborative formulation of suggestions. This activity went a step further than the modification by one member of someone else's full- fledged suggestion; it involved tentative efforts by two or more members 123 to work toward a solution of a writing problem. This process occurred when one person asked a question or expressed confusion, and the group, through asking further questions and offering partial answers, tried to help the writer find a clearer way of expressing the idea. The members did not always resolve their differences or reach clear-cut solutions, but there was evidence in these segments of discussion that they were grappling together with Options and thus in a very real way creating meaning together. The clearest and simplest example of creating a suggestion jointly appears in the discussion of Candy's first paper. Candy had not given a title to the essay; however, her comment on her living situation stimulated ideas from the other members: Brian: Let's see here-—what would you title it if you could? Claudia: Hmm Candy: I know, I got, I got stuck. I was thinking about that, but I couldn't think of anything Claudia: "Apartment Hunting"? Candy: I just couldn't think of anything. Uh--I guess lately we've had so many hassles with our apartment--it seems like nothing works or anything Josh: "The Hassle of /Off-Campus/ Living" Candy: "The Hassle of Finding Off—Campus Living" Brian: That would be true Josh: "The Housing Hassle" /Chuckles/ Candy: Yeah--"The Off-Campus Housing Hassle" (Jan. 18) Coming up with a title, however, is easier than recasting an entire sentence. In the following episode, the group eventually arrived at a revision acceptable to the author, but only after a lengthy process. The paper under discussion was Jody's short story narrated by 124 a woman recalling the last three days before she lost her sight: Jeff: ? your paper--"Through my childhood I didn't understand what memories really meant to me until I found out the world shall not be seen before me ever again" Nina: All right--that-—can I just say-~that-- I put a question mark, because Jody: What-—I mean-- Nina: "Through my childhood I didn't under- stand what memories really meant to me until I found out the world--" Jody: /Finishing the sentence in a tone of voice that suggests, "If you hear it, you'll understand."/ "--shall not be seen before me ever again." Nina: It doesn't make sense--that, this phrase right here, "the world--" Jeff: Maybe if you put, "It was not until" Nina: "until I found out" ———- Jeff: "until I realized" Nina: "until I found out" Jody: I don't know--I asked the teacher-- she said it didn't need to be changed. /Pause/ Jody: You know, 'cause I didn't realize it Nina: "until I found out I will not be able to see the world around me again" /little laugh/ or something. It just doesn't sound right, "the world shall not be seen before me"--it's a phrase that I'm not real sure of Jody: Mm--uh--Shakespeare Nina: Uh--well. . /sounding hesitant/ Jody: "Shall" instead of "see" Jeff: Childhood, okay--sounds like a young ? -— I don't know, I just get the impression ? At this point, Nina steered the discussion onto a different track by asking about a tense shift; she spent a long time trying to make clear to Jody what the problem was. During that dialogue, Jeff had apparently been tinkering with the original sentence; he eventually re-entered the conversation with a new alternative: 125 Jeff: /I've been working on/ this sentence a little bit, Okay? "Through all my childhood I didn't really understand what memories really meant to me. It was not until I found that I would never see again that I realized /this/." Jody: It sounds like you. /Laughs./ (Feb. 1) Despite that reservation, Jody copied down Jeff's version of the sentence, and then the group moved on to consider another passage in the paper. The process of collaborative formulation occurred not only in cases of disagreement or confusion but also at moments when writers anticipated what their critics were about to say and leapt in to complete the statement themselves: Steve: You had a nice conclusion, um . . . there was one part in here that . . I don't know, was kinda . . . Jerri: I thought it might be a little repeti- tive, you know, how I kept talking about . . actresses and models and all that kind of stuff Steve: Yeah, if you wanted to, you could've cut out like one part of that / . . ./ Like you know right here you have your "worshipped and idolized gods and goddesses" and then you go right on to, you know, "actors and actresses," you know--you could probably all put that in one sentence, you know . . . (Jan. 18) . BRINGING CLOSURE E9. THE DISCUSSION >1 No matter what treatment a suggestion received while under consid- eration, it sooner or later gave way to some other topic of discussion; and eventually the entire paper was "finished” and the group turned to the next one. By far the most frequent way of bringing closure to the discussion of a particular suggestion was for the writer to acknowledge 126 or accept the proposed alternative. While a "yes" or "Mmhmm" from the writer did not automatically bring discussion to an end, there were at least thirty suggestion-giving sequences which did conclude with an affirmative comment by the writer. For example: Adam: Joe: Adam: Joe: Adam: Joe: I thought you were continuing on with where you were, in the past . . . and then, "I leave the partying . . ." like, if you woulda said, VNgw, I leave the partying to Others," you know some'in' like that Okay At first I was thinkin', "leave"?-—I left" /chuckles/-—then-- Oh—- I read on-- Oh, I see--sorta like in retrospect, yeah--okay (Feb. 15) The second most common way for the discussion of a suggestion to end was for the writer to explain his or her reason for presenting the material in a particular way: Jeff: Nina: Jeff: Jody: Jeff: Nina: Jeff: With that, Jeff another point. I thought this was kinda jumpy, Okay All right--well, ? Like you're talkin' about ? Need a transition? Yeah--the concept of equality you're talkin' about, Okay, and I thought all of a sudden you were jumping, about "Much has been done to lessen the severity of inequality with regards"—- Okay--well, I can understand what you're saying, but still I really--I don't think it's that bad Okay, um . . . (Feb. 1) let go of his insistence on transitions and moved on to 127 Though it was primarily the writers' comments which brought an end to the consideration of many of the suggestions, the other group members participated too. At times they did so by not saying anything, i.e., by recognizing when there was no need-—or no use--for elaborating further on a possibility. In a few instances, it was the readers' chorus of agreement which brought discussion of an idea to an end: Jeff: Oh, um, this last sentence, okay—- okay, it goes along a little bit with the-—at the top of the page--I could see--it goes along good; maybe if you could have just expanded a little bit more, added some more stuff Tom: As far as maybe revert back to the examples, you mean? Jeff: Yeah Tom: Okay Nina: You mean the conclusion could have been. a little longer or something? Jeff: Yeah Nina: It's kind of like, there's your whole body of the paper, and then-- Jody: It's too sudden Nina: Yeah, like two sentences to sum everything up Tom: Okay Jody° It's all very true but I think you could expand it Tom Okay. (Feb. 15) On the other hand, closure might also occur when a reader withdrew a suggestion or expressed uncertainty about it: Josh: Maybe add on to the end—-or just say how you ? Maybe not-— Let's see what she says Brian: Yeah ? I didn't know whether to go on or not. (Jan. 18) 128 But the group members also used direct means on six or seven occasions to bring an end to discussion of an idea or of an entire paper. They occasionally reminded one another of the time; for instance, Nina brought a close to the long discussion of Jody's sentence about "the world shall never be seen before me" in this way: Nina: Jeff: We only have a few minutes--we should look at the rest of it Okay (Feb. 1) Or, without necessarily mentioning the time, someone might suggest, "We'd better move on." Again, a reader might guide a segment of discussion to an end by affirming the author's right to decide: Curt: /To Christi/ I just took a little offensive to the word, uh, "enjoy." I just didn't like the way it was used. But it's your writing, you know, it's up to you. (Feb. 1) But on three occasions there was no real closure because of the speed with which a group member leapt in to offer a new proposal: Darla: Matt: Darla: Matt: Oh--the only thing I found was--the last, the very last paragraph—- "...and will always remember that clas- sical music is both fun to listen to and to play." You never mention that ? never mentioned classical music-- I didn't-— I got-- You never said-~there's nothing about it ? I have this one sentence--this one thing here which gave me any problems—-I had to go back and read it over again-- "The band performed three concerts, a 129 Christmas concert, and winter and spring concerts." / . . . ./ (Feb. 1) At the opposite extreme, there were five or six cases where discussion of a particular suggestion gave way to discussion of the paper in general or to some other tOpic, and the group drifted until one of the members guided them back to their work. In short, the student critics did far more than toss suggestions at one writer after another. Rather, in the process of exchanging sug- gestions, they participated in an entire network of informal yet elaborate patterns of interaction. Since they were not self-analytical groups (Bales, 1970; McLeish et al., 1973), they spent a minimum of time in analyzing their own dynamics; yet they constructed a variety of ways to move into and out of discussions, as well as ways to bring forth, modify, and respond to suggestions. In short, they demonstrated their understanding of the critiquing context by helping to create that con- text with and for one another. Not every group managed this feat con— sistently; yet, as Chapter Six will show, the effort as a whole was judged by almost all the participants to be successful. CHAPTER SIX THE STUDENTS' VIEWS OF THEMSELVES AND THEIR PEERS AS WRITERS AND CRITICS The previous three chapters have analyzed the students' suggestions from the standpoint of the observer. For a fuller picture of the Writing WorkshOp, one must also examine the experience from the inside--that is, from the viewpoint of the participants. Expressions of the students' attitudes can be gleaned from their comments during interviews, from occasional remarks during the discussions, and from responses to the three questionnaires distributed during the term. This chapter will examine first the students' views of themselves as critics; second, their opinions on their group members as suggestion givers; and finally, their perceptions of the group discussions as an influence on their writing. STUDENTS' VIEWS 9§_THEMSELVES‘A§_CRITICS As might be expected, many of the students were apprehensive at first about their own ability to offer useful criticism to their peers. On the initial questionnaire, that apprehension was more evident in the students' comments than in their responses on the attitude scale. In answer to the question, "How do you feel about reading and commenting ” sixteen people on the papers of a small group of your classmates?, said that they felt either "positive" (twelve) or "very positive (four). Eight peOple rated their attitude as ”neither positive nor negative" on the subject, while no one checked the "negative" or ”very negative" columns. 130 131 Three-fourths of the class members wrote comments under their answers to the question about criticizing peers' writing. Four of them expressed strong reservations, e.g., "I don't feel that I would be very helpful because I would analyze the paper according to my style, which is not right." Another six seemed more confident but expressed some concern over potential risks; as one person said, "I enjoy reading the works of others, but must approach other's mistakes carefully so as not to injure pride or feelings." Finally, five respondents expressed strong Optimism about their contribution to the workshOp approach; a typical comment here was, "I may be able to help them and I will definitely help myself." By the end of the course, the students' views of themselves as critics-~generally positive to begin with--had become almost entirely positive. Of the twenty-two people who filled out the final question- naire, only one registered "neither positive nor negative" on the ques- tion, "How did you feel about reading and commenting on [your group's] papers?" Twelve people checked "positive" for this question, and another nine checked "Very positive." Ten provided additional comment, all indicating that the papers were generally interesting and that the process was both enjoyable and beneficial. One person summed things up by saying, "I didn't think I would be able to 'do much good' but I became more perceptive." The "before/after" contrast in self-image as critics was revealed not only in the questionnaires but also, to some extent, in the students' comments during interviews. Curt, for instance, mentioned that at first he had simply looked for "the flow" of a paper but later found himself more able to offer suggestions on other qualities. Two other people 132 indicated that they had grown more confident in their ability as critics. Jerri said, At first, I assumed people had written things the way they wanted to; now, if something strikes me as funny, I say so. Or if I don't understand, I say so. Karen drew a similar contrast, noting that "At first, I thought every- thing was good"; she added that she had initially tried to fill in a paper's gaps simply by doing her own thinking, assuming that such demands on the reader were the mark of a good paper. By the end of the course, then, the students believed they had increased their ability to detect areas where a paper needed further work. However, they expressed mixed feelings about their abilities to convey their insights. As Walt said, "I felt competent as a reader but not so confident as a critic." Several other students said that they had restrained their comments, not so much from inability to criticize as from unwillingness to do so. Some were concerned about being too harsh; a perceptive comment by Joe speaks to this point: "You don't know where the paper stops and where the person's feelings start.” At least three other students also implied that they had held back somewhat in their criticism. Steve, for instance, said he was "pretty easy" on his group members, though he did not explain why; and both Joyce and Nina indicated that they felt freer to express their Opinions as time went on but were still occasionally reluctant to do so. For instance, Nina mentioned a paper written by one of her group members; Nina had had reservations about it, but since the other two readers liked it, she did not say anything. 133 Despite their sense of their own limitations as critics, the students did feel that they were successful in helping one another. Joe, for instance, mentioned that he tried to assist others by "finding nggy " and Tom generalized, "I look more for good points--I help the places, person." According to their own testimony, then, the workshop participants developed an increased confidence in their abilities as peer critics, though that confidence remained mixed with a healthy measure of self- doubt. The same balance characterized the students' views of themselves as receivers of peer criticism: they moved from apprehension to accept- ance, although they remained aware of one another's shortcomings as suggestion givers. STUDENTS‘ VIEWS _O_F_‘ THEIR PEERS _A_S_ CRITICS When asked on the initial questionnaire, "How do you feel about having a small group of your classmates read your papers and tell you what you've done well and how you can improve your writing?," the stu- dents gave a full gamut of responses: three people checked ”Negative"; four, "Neither positive nor negative”; fourteen, "Positive"; and three, "Very positive." Brian labeled his attitude as "Slightly negative," asking, ”Who the hell are they to comment on my work." Opposite reasons for apprehension were expressed by two peOple who said they were reluc- tant to share with classmates a piece of writing that they weren't pleased with or confident about (one of these was Miyuki, the only member of the class whose native language was not English). The largest number of com- ments on this question were of the "Yes, but--" type: "I see how it can u be helpful but I feel embarrassed at having others read my papers. Finally, there were confident statements from two of those who had 134 checked "Very positive": one hOped that "the pressure of others discov- ering my writing weaknesses will motivate me to correct those particular flaws." And the other simply said, "I accept the help." Whatever their degree of anticipation or apprehension, all twenty— four students persevered through the entire course. As the term drew to an end, the class members indicated that they had found the workshOp experience beneficial--within limits. I will first review the students' perceptions of the shortcomings of peer criticism and then examine the benefits which the class members pointed out. A. Limitations pf peer criticism a§_viewed by_the participants During interviews, three people expressed reservations about the workshOp approach itself. Karen, a member of "The Encouragers," tended to be quiet though not withdrawn; she believed that the course would have been "just as good without the small groups." Still, she preferred the group sessions to the whole—class discussions of papers. Steve, who belonged to "The Drifters," maintained a middle-of—the-road point of view: the small-group work, he said, ”wasn't the strong point of the course, but I enjoyed it." The strongest hesitation about the work- shOp per se came from Darla. Though she had been an active participant, she stated simply, "I don't like to work in groups." She added, however, that the discussions had been freer and more Open in her temporary group of the first week than in her permanent group ("The Workers"). Several other peOple, while they did not object to the group work as such, were troubled by the imbalance of writing experience and ability in their groups. Theoretically, the mixture of stronger and weaker writers is an advantage of the writing workshOp;l but for a few of the more experienced or more reflective writers, the differences were 135 a matter of concern. The most negative comment on this point came from Brian, who declared that his group members, "The Assortment," were "afraid to say anything" and that "They weren't smart enough" to offer useful criticism. Several other people also commented-—though far less acerbically--on the challenges involved in working with writers less able than themselves. One recurrent controversy in this regard had to do with the development of ideas: as Matt put it, "Some people want things spelled out, but that can destroy the effect." Christi was ambivalent on the matter: "Sometimes I feel I'm spoonfeeding; intel- lectually, I know I need to explain more." Regardless of a particular group's abilities, the students noted two other problems which were common to all the groups. The first, brought up spontaneously by four or five people, was the temptation to "get off on tangents," to drift away from dealing with the paper at hand and to talk instead about the subject in general—~and sometimes to wander even farther than that. Claudia put the matter candidly: "Our group was a little lax, expecially toward the end." Some groups were more prone to this tendency than others, but all fell into it on occasion. The problem of drifting may have been the result of a second dif- ficulty: the widespread reluctance, especially during the first session, to express negative opinions. Over half the class mentioned this characteristic, though most noted that their group moved away from the ”mutual protection" of the first session to being "more critical" later on. As one person put it, "At first, it was mostly 'Good paper'; later on, it was 'Good paper' and then other things." Darla noted that her group had improved during the last session, after Lois had urged, "Be a little harder on one another." Likewise, Marty recalled that at 136 the beginning of the third session, he had said, "This is the last time; we're not going to be so friendly." But even with this growing sense of ease and responsibility, several peOple still felt that there could have been more concentration in the discussions "on ways to do things better"; in Joe's phrase, "maybe they could've been more nasty." On the other hand, as peOple got to know one another's personalities and writing styles, a certain amount of staleness set in in some groups. Darla, for instance, Observed, "You get to predict what each one will ' and Christi felt that her group's responses had been more varied say,’ at first, while later, peOple focused on the same aspects of a paper and made similar comments about these aspects. (Christi also mentioned that on the earlier papers, it had been easier to detect the strengths and weaknesses, whereas with the later ones, which were better, it was more difficult to know what to say. This contrast between the earlier and later papers may have caused the change in responses; on the other hand, Christi may have had different peOple's papers in mind when making the two different statements.) Perhaps because they were conscious of their own and their peers' reluctance to be overly critical-~and because they quickly became aware of the limited sc0pe of one another's criticism--many of the students relied more on the instructor's comments than on the reSponses of their group. Some half-dozen peOple brought up this point. One person said that if Lois and the group disagreed, she would accept Lois' view, though she would be sure to reread the disputed section of the paper before deciding. The only student who offered a reason for giving first priority to the instructor's comments was Karen, who noted that Lois usually clarified things which the group merely touched on in a general way.2 137 Actually, the fact that the students did not feel totally confident of one another's criticism is not such a limitation at all. Being able to assess the criticism one receives is vital for any writer with a sense of integrity, and the students' reSpect for Lois' comments (they had high praise for her balance of positive responses and suggestions for improvement) offered a touchstone for their own work. Many of them noted that Lois and the group had basically the same things to say but that Lois went into helpful detail. Their giving priority to the instructor's comments appears to be less a matter of distrusting their peers or of staying in the teacher's good graces than one of recognizing the talents of a more experienced critic. The students were aware,then, of both their own and their peers' shortcomings as critics. As they themselves pointed out, they wandered off on tangents, they did not always understand one another's papers, and they did not always know what to look for or how to articulate their perceptions--especially when it came to offering suggestions for improve- ment. Yet, despite these limitations, the students ultimately declared themselves in favor of the workshOp approach. All 22 of those who turned in the final questionnaire said that they felt "positivé'(10) or "very positive" (12) about having had their group members read and com- ment on their papers. (It may be recalled, in contrast, that there were three "negatives" and four "neutrals" on this question at the beginning of the course.) B. Advantages pf peer criticism 3§_viewed by the participants Simply knowing that the class's attitudes became more positive toward the workshOp approach is reassuring in itself. But much more useful than numbers on an attitude scale are the students' comments on 138 the benefits of peer-response groups. The advantages most Often cited had to do with mutual encouragement, the exchange of ideas and sugges- tions, and the discovery by many individuals of new insights into their own writing--particularly concerning the need to be conscious of potential readers. Many group members seemed encouraged even after their first session together. At the end of that session, I distributed the questionnaire, "How Did It Go?" (given in the appendix), asking for highlights and evaluation of the discussion. Twenty-one peOple returned this form, and a majority of these said that the "most valuable comment" they received on their paper was that the group understood the paper and found it interesting. The relief suggested by such replies was not sur- prising, considering the fact that many of the students had feared "being ripped apart" when they brought their first writings to the group. The participants felt encouraged, then, by the discovery that other peOple enjoyed reading their writing. Josh, for instance, was pleased that "They like the way I look at things." Tom noted, too, that "They feed back the good things." Although the students were naturally grateful for their peers' general interest and pointing out of specific good features, they also valued the suggestions they received for improving their papers. During interviews, six peOple brought up the fact that they had received help- ful suggestions or that they appreciated having several alternatives brought forward. As Jody said, "They would tell you, 'This is good but it would be better if. . . .'" Tom specified one type of suggestion that seemed especially significant to him: "They'll tell me, 'You need to clarify this.'" Of course, several of the writers admitted-- 139 though they did not always say this aloud in their groups-~that they did not plan to use all the suggestions they received. But at least each person "had the chance," as Walt put it, "to see things my way and a few other ways, and evaluate." The students did not often make explicit evaluations of the sug— gestions while the discussions were going on (Chapter Five notes the exceptions to this trend), but they did acknowledge the value of being able to talk together about their perceptions of the papers. Several people mentioned the advantage of receiving both written comments (pre— pared before the class sessions) and oral ones; they noted that the dis- cussions provided for immediate elaboration and clarification of re— sponses. Christi added that "talking out problem parts" in papers was useful, since valuable new suggestions sometimes arose during that process. The comments exchanged during the discussions were often seen as relevant not just to one section of a paper but also to a writer's perceptions of his or her work in general. When asked during interviews, "What have you learned this term about your own writing?," many people based their reSponses at least partly on the feedback they had received from their groups. They also drew, of course, on their personal evalu- ations of their own work, on the experience of reading their classmates' papers, and on Lois' comments. In summing up what they had learned, some peOple mentioned the strengths they had discovered in their own writing: that they could in fact present their ideas clearly to others, that they could tell a story or describe a scene well, and so on. But most of the students concentrated on the aspects of their writing which they still needed 140 to strengthen; unity, develOpment, organization, coherence, and concise- ness were the features mentioned most Often. Besides these Specific qualities, the students emphasized another, larger theme when they talked about insights into their own writing: namely, a new conscious- ness of the needs and expectations of readers.3 Lois frequently urged the students during whole-class discussions to keep their readers in mind. Presumably, she offered the same advice as she marked individual papers: Karen noted, "Lois says I give the reader too much to think about." Lois' emphasis on guiding the reader was reflected and reinforced by the group work, according to the state- ments of eight students. Josh, for instance, had discovered that "All they /the readers/ know is what I say." Several peOple mentioned that they had become more careful about considering the audience after they realized that group members did not understand or could not follow their thought. For example, Joe reflected, "I take it for granted that the reader knows more than he does"; he had become aware of this problem both through Lois' comments and through his group's pointing out of "foggy parts." Besides helping writers experience the need for the elaboration and explicitness demanded by most writing (Tannen, n.d.), the group work apparently brought home another dimension of reader-awareness: attention to language. As demonstrated in Chapter Three, the discussions fre- quently dealt with sentences whose wording or structure caused readers to lose their train of thought. The need for reworking awkward sen- tences was emphasized by Marty during his interview; he said he had I learned that "Revising makes or breaks a paper,‘ and he had begun to pay Special attention to clarity of structure when revising, because "You 141 shouldn't make somebody read twice to understand." Thus, through the discovery of errors, gaps, and hard-to-follow sentences, the students learned to pay heed to the expectations of audiences. Audience awareness was not Simply an abstract principle stressed by the instructor; it was an actuality, built into the format of the course. Several peOple mentioned that from the beginning, they wrote with the awareness that their peers would be reading their work. This awareness affected different peOple in different ways: Walt Simply said he "took it into consideration" when writing; Claudia felt inhibited by it, at least in her first papers, while Barb believed that "being accountable" for what She wrote helped her be more creative. After the first session, the influence of the peer audience became a matter of remembering as well as anticipating responses: in writing their next papers, at least some of the students kept in mind the kinds of criticism they had previously received, and they tried to avoid making the same mistake twice. Claudia, for instance, said, "When I'm writing my first draft, I can bring in the corrections they made on my other papers." Jody offered a concrete example of the carry-over from one paper to another. Her first paper had used several pronouns in a vague and confusing way: "The group put a question mark by 'it,'" Jody recalled; "now, when I type 'it,' I stOp and think. . . . I'm eXplaining myself better now." The Students, then, had evidently begun to internalize the criti- cisms they were receiving from their instructor and peers. This pro- cess of internalization certainly occurs as well in the conventional course where the teacher alone reads and marks the papers (McNeill, 1975)-—or at least it happens for the students who care about improving ]42 their writing. But when the teacher's comments are reinforced--as many in this class said they were—-by the responses of one's own peers, then a writer has to pay special heed, if for no other reason than the force Of numbers.4 As one student noted, "If they tell you something's wrong, you know it's wrong." The reality was not actually that simple, nor did the students perceive it to be. In fact, as discussed earlier, the students had to decide among conflicting interpretations and bits of advice. The need to weigh alternatives is present in a conventional class too; the work- shop simply makes that need more readily visible to the students (Bruffee, 1972; Laque and Sherwood, 1977). Further, the students not only had to evaluate the alternatives presented to them; they also had to remain active in the process of offering suggestions to others. This involvement, as they themselves emphasized, influenced their ability to assess their own writing strengths and weaknesses.5 At least three people mentioned this benefit on their final questionnaires, although they did not provide specific instances. Karen's comment sums up the rest: she stated that giving criticism to her group members helped her too--"I gained more insight into many of the problems I had in writing." Statements such as Karen's indicate that the students had grown both more realistic and more confident about their own writing. Further evidence to support that view comes from a contrast between the initial and final questionnaires. When the course began, the students were asked, "In general, how do you feel about writing?" Four placed them- selves at the negative end of the scale--one "very negative" and three "negative." Three were in the middle ("neither positive nor negative"); and the majority were at the positive end——thirteen "positive," and 143 three "very positive." When the same question was asked on the final questionnaire, all twenty-two of those who turned in their forms rated their attitude toward writing as "positive" (twelve) or "very positive" (ten). Seventeen of the twenty-two who returned the final questionnaire added comments after the question on attitude toward writing; all said in one way or another that they now felt more confident about their writing. The comments ranged from the very modest--Christi's "I guess I'm not as bad as I thought"——to the very exuberant--Barbara's "MOve over, Lillian Hellman!" In addition, almost half of those commenting expressed the hOpe that their writing would improve still further. The most exciting of these latter comments--because it represents a writing instructor's hOpes for the workshop--was a typically unpretentious state- ment by Adam: "Not only did I improve, but I know how to continue to improve." It is unlikely, of course, that the students' growth in confidence was due entirely or even primarily to the eXperience of peer criticism. On the contrary, I have already pointed out sufficient reservations about the approach to make such a claim dubious. Further, the students' unanimous reSpect and admiration for Lois as a teacher and evaluator of writing indicates that she was a key factor in the success of the course. It would be reasonable to assume, though, that since the stu— dents expressed a generally positive attitude toward the peer—reSponse process, there was a strong interaction between instructor and method in bringing about the increase in positive feelings toward writing. The students began the course, then, with a relatively sanguine view of themselves and their peers as critics; once they had gained 144 experience with the workshop approach, their attitude became more definitely positive. They remained aware of their own and their class— mates' limitations as suggestions givers, and they continued to give first priority to the instructor's responses. For the most part, how- ever, the students valued the experience: they felt they had received helpful suggestions, they had become more aware of the need for reader- consciousness, and they had grown more confident about their own writ— ing. They knew more, too, about their own weaknesses as writers; but their end—of—the-term goals for continued writing development represented the next step for peOple who had learned from teacher and peers that they could write, rather than the vain wishes of people who suspected that they could not. CHAPTER SEVEN RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TEACHING AND QUESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH A comprehensive understanding of the verbal behavior of even one class would require an examination of aSpects beyond the scOpe of this study--the use of praise, and the nature and frequency of digressions, to mention just two areas. But the present focus on suggestions, by illuminating some of the strengths and weaknesses of peer-response groups, can offer a number of insights for teaching. There is no one way to teach a workshOp class, just as there is no one way of teaching writing. Yet a knowledge of what actually happens in a workshOp class can help provide a firm basis for both theorizing and making recom- mendations regarding the effective use of peer-response groups. This chapter, then, will briefly review the strengths and weaknesses of peer criticism as seen in this class and then will offer some recommendations on ways for teachers to capitalize on those strengths and cope with those limitations. Finally, I will Spell out some of the questions raised by this study--questions which further research may help to answer. In both the recommendations for teaching and the questions for further study, the areas are overlapping, and the techniques for implementation are left up to the fertility of the imagination of the teacher and the researcher. 145 146 SUMMARY OF STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES 9E PEER—RESPONSE GROUPS ____—_.—.___——__——_ During the fourteen sessions, the students produced a total of 205 suggestions for revising their own and one another's papers; ninety percent of these suggestions were accurate, and sixty percent would, if acted on, have resulted in improvements of the original versions. In seventy—five percent of the papers they discussed, the students either identified accurately the major weaknesses or recognized that the essay needed only minor revisions. The students' suggestions dealt with the following qualities of writing: content (development and focus of ideas), 36% of the sugges— tions; language, 29%; mechanics, 20%; and organization, 14%. These are the qualities on which both academic and nonacademic evaluators of writ— ing have been shown to concentrate (Diederich, 1974; Freedman, 1979). As the above percentages suggest, the peer critics were especially apt at identifying and making recommendations on passages which needed development of ideas, improvement of cohesion, and revision of awkward or ambiguous passages. In concentrating on these areas, the students showed themselves to be aware of the unique demands for elaboration and explicitness called for by academic writing (Tannen, n.d.; Scollon and Scollon, 1979). In providing a rationale for their suggestions, the students often spoke during the discussions of the need to consider their readers; during interviews as well, many referred to their heightened conscious— ness of readers' expectations. The use of peer—response groups, then, clearly helped the students to internalize the instructor's assumption: 147 "The way to learn about your writing is to have an audience" (Moffett, 1968; Falk, 1979). Perhaps because they were interacting in face-to—face groups, the students were tactful in making their recommendations. They phrased over half their suggestions in terms of alternatives to consider rather than imperatives to enact. On questionnaires and during interviews, the students described their groups as providing both affirmation of their present writing abilities and direction for future writing growth. Weaknesses of peer criticism as seen in this class Almost twenty-five percent of the papers discussed had major dif— ficulties which the students overlooked. Half of these oversights, however, occurred during sessions in which the group members generated almost no suggestions of any kind. One-Sixth of the students mentioned during interviews that their groups drifted away at times from the task of criticism. There were four sessions in which groups produced five or fewer suggestions during their forty—five minutes of discussion. Approximately half the participants observed during interviews that they and their group members had been reluctant to make negative comments. There seemed to be some blurring in the students' minds be- tween negative comments and recommendations for improvement; this blurring may have resulted in hesitancy to suggest changes in peers' essays. In five or six casses, a group Spent a disproportionate amount Of time (sometimes half the time allotted for discussion of the paper) on 148 efforts to rephrase a single sentence. In perhaps ten percent of their suggestions, the peer critics offered inaccurate advice; most of these inaccuracies, however, had to do with mechanics. The writers did not raise a great many questions about their own papers; thus they may have failed to secure feedback on areas which had concerned them during the writing process. Neither writers nor readers made a great many efforts to ask one another for examples of generalizations or clarification of terms used in talking about the papers. In short, most of the weaknesses of the peer-response sessions stemmed from the group members' uncertainty as to their task; some limitations arose from the social situation, primarily from concern that making negative comments and questioning one another's statements would offend one's group members. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TEACHING 1) Being aware gf both social and cognitive dimensions 2f_language Awareness of the double function of language can be useful to teachers as a background for guiding group work in the writing class. Such awareness can help teachers remember, for instance, that students need time to become accustomed to one another's styles of writing and interacting (Healy, 1980). Teachers need to remember, too, that criti- cizing a peer's writing is not solely an academic activity; it has social dimensions which may appear threatening to the participants, and they may need Specific guidance in order to COpe with the perceived threat. 149 2) Helping students prepare for taking part ip_workshop classes Since language both reflects and creates contexts (Erickson, 1977), and since experience generates expectations (Smith, 1975), group work will be most productive if students have an accurate understanding of the task they are being asked to participate in (Megna, 1976). They need, first, to understand the nature of revising, to recognize that rewriting is neither a punishment nor a sign of incompetence but a necessary part of the process for most writers, and to see that it involves more than "the correction of minor infelicities," as Emig puts it (1971). They need, further, to understand what is involved in the process of criticizing, so that they do not become mired in the detection of spelling and punctuation mistakes. They Should be aware of the dif- ference between merely making negative judgments (which, as Barnes and Todd point out, do not seem to contribute to the learning process) and helping one another find specific ways to improve a paper. In responding to their students' papers, teachers can model the behaviors they expect their students to practice in the critiquing groups; this sort of modeling can occur both in comments on individuals' papers and in the conducting of whole-class discussions on papers (Moffett, 1968; Judy, 1974). To remind Students of the principles which the teacher is trying to model, handouts can be useful; teachers might demonstrate ways of using the handouts by conducting discussions which follow the guide sheets they have distributed, thus testing their own instructions and also making explicit for the class what is happening at each stage of the discussion. It is important to help students understand the ways in which peer criticism is both Similar to and different from other forms of small-group 150 communication. This sense of the distinctive features of the context is Vital: if students see themselves as engaged in everyday conversation, using what Martin Joos calls "the casual key," they will tend to accept one another's statements without asking questions of clarification. Such questions would be out of place in many conversations among friends, where experiences are shared and communication can often be implicit; but requests for clarification are standard features of the "consultative key” of commu— nication in groups such as committees and other task-oriented bodies (Joos, 1967). By reminding students, then, of the nature of the peer— response context, teachers can emphasize the participatory element in the creation of meaning (Erickson, 1980). They can show students that critics do not always know precisely what they want to say until they have tried to say it, and that there is no shame in saying, even to an.articu1ate critic giving a perceptive insight, l'I didn't understand what you were trying to tell me" (Barnes, et al., 1969). 3. Providing structure Egg-£23 sessions Working in peer—response groups is a new experience for many students; thus, giving them clear directions on ways to carry on this activity will help minimize both anxiety and aimlessness (Beck et al., 1978; Bruffee, 1978; Hawkins, 1976; Healy, 1980; Elbow, 1973; Judy, 1974; Macrorie, 1976). The evidence from the tape recordings suggests that writers do not often have questions about their own work; therefore, urging them to write down the things they want to know about their papers should enable them to take an appropriate degree of responsibility for the discussion (Judy; Emig). Another action which writers can take to help both them and their readers establish a perspective on the papers is to 151 spell out the rhetorical situation of each paper--the purpose, audience and so on (Ede, 1979). Since students often find it comfortable to begin with pointing out successful portions of one another's papers, teachers might encourage them to follow this inclination and to go beyond mere showers of vague compliments: first, as Elbow and Macrorie both suggest, students can point to specific words and phrases which they have found effective; second, they can be urged to identify why a section works well——a move which would not only help the writers capitalize on their strengths but would challenge the readers to look at the papers both more closely and more holistically. Another move which is beneficial to both readers and writers is to have students summarize or outline one another's papers (Bruffee, 1978; Elbow, 1973); this technique, like the previous one, helps writers see the extent to which they have conveyed their ideas clearly and cohe- sively; it also demands that the readers become thoroughly familiar with each paper——a process which creates vital perspective for the giving of suggestions. A framework for peer—response developed by Stephen Judy incorporates the phases discussed above as well as further steps. Judy recommends that writers, peers, and teacher all engage in the following series of activities in commenting on each paper: pointing out positive features, summarizing lines of thought, raising questions, bringing forth alter— natives, and proof-reading. Many other systems for responding to papers——systems in the form of checklists, lists of criteria, questions to consider-~are available; while the majority are designed for teachers to use in marking papers, 152 most can be adapted for use by peer—criticism groups. Some response schemes designed particularly for students to use on one another's papers can be found in Kenneth Bruffee's A Short Course 13 Writing. There are also activities which guide students in looking at specific features in one another's work. Lynne Spigelmire, for instance, offers a plan for students to follow in assessing one another's use of detail in a paper. One final aspect of structure has to do with the use of time. It may be useful to urge students to mark corrections of spelling and punctuation on one another's papers before class but to avoid spending group time on these matters; teachers can also point out how much time can be frittered away in the refashioning of a single sentence (see Chapter Five for illustrations), and urge that students limit the time they spend on "minor repairs" so that large issues of clarity, cohesion, and so on can receive the time they deserve. 4) Providing f2; accountability In this study, the tape recorder itself provided for an external element of accountability: the students knew that, although there was seldom an authority figure sitting in on their discussions, someone would at a later date be listening to their talk. Mary K. Healy des— cribes her own practice Of using tape recorders regularly as both a monitoring and a teaching device. That idea gains support from the participants in this study: several of them were curious as to the conclusions I was reaching through listening to the tapes, and at least one suggested that her group might have profited from my giving them feedback on what I had heard (Whipple, 1975). 153 Some instructors have their students turn in the critique sheets written by their peers when they submit their papers; the instructors then comment on the merits of the critiques as well as those of the papers themselves. As an alternative procedure, teachers might ask students to submit a list of the two or three most valuable suggestions they received in a particular session; this activity shows whether a given discussion stayed on track consistently enough to generate two or three useful suggestions per paper. It also gives a clue as to the students' perceptions of useful criticism. Students can also be asked to list the most thought—provoking questions their group members raised about their papers. This articulation of what happened in a session not only helps teachers offer more informed guidance; it also provides ways for students to reflect on their communication and thus to act with greater awareness in future sessions (Barnes, 1969). Other methods of working for accountability, besides hovering over or circulating among the groups, include the use of individual journals and conferences, notebooks kept by group secretaries, and end-Of—class reporting sessions (Hawkins, 1976). Whatever the channel of communica- tion, it is important for teachers to stay in touch with the work of the groups in order to provide security as participants try out this new form of discussion, to assure them that their efforts are taken seriously, and to identify both problem areas and evidence of success. 5) Providing for reflection and evaluation Accountability should not mean that teachers bear the sole responsi— bility for observing and assessing the behavior of the groups; on the contrary, the very nature of the group enterprise suggests that, since students are expected to carry large amounts of responsibility, both 154 individually and collectively, for their work, they should receive careful guidance on ways of exercising that responsibility. Teachers, then, can involve students in developing goals for their groups and in periodically reflecting on and evaluating their work as critics as well as their progress as writers. There were a number of activities built into the course in this study to help both individual students and groups review their work as critics; Chapter Two lists these. The above section on accountability also pertains here, especially if the principles are construed so as to include the students in the process of accounting for their work. 6) Other Teachers might do well to emphasize the connections between criticism of amateur writing and the criticism of literature, thus placing the process of criticism in the larger context of theories of reading and interpreting, and placing those theories in the context of the construction of meaning in all uses of language (Smith, 1975). QUESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH l) Peer—response groups and the writing process Are there correlations between the responses students make to their peers' writing and the perceptions they have of their own writing? How do peer critiques of a paper compare with the teacher's comments on the same paper? What kinds of comments from their peers do students identify as most helpful for the revising process? Whose comments-—teachers' or peers'-—do students actually follow when there are cases of disagreement? 155 How do peer-response groups in a required writing class composed of students from many fields compare with peer-response groups in a class or workshop composed Of people who have experience with and a commitment to writing? Does participation in a peer—criticism group encourage students to experiment with new possibilities in their writing? under what conditions? To what extent and with what effect do students keep their peers' comments in mind while writing new papers? To what extent do students' criticisms show awareness of the "decontextualized" nature of written language in our culture (Tannen, n.d.; Scollon and Scollon, 1979)? To what extent is reading papers out loud a desirable part of the peer-response process? Do different groups concentrate on different qualities of writ— ing? Does the emphasis vary with the teacher's instruction? What connections are there between qualities which participants praise in one another's papers and qualities which they focus on in making suggestions? 2) Communication in peer-response groups Are there correlations between personality types and communica- tive activity in peer-response groups (Bales, 1970)? How does an individual student's communication in a peer-response group compare with that person's communication in whole—class critique sessions? 156 How does the communication within a group change after the grOup has worked together several times? How do changes in one group compare with changes in other groups in the same class? Do different types of writing evoke different patterns of response? How do the written comments of students compare with the com- ments they make during discussions? What light does the analysis of communication in peer—response groups shed on the study of everyday language, and vice versa (Erickson, 1977; Tannen, n.d.)? What can videotapes of peer-response sessions contribute to our understanding of the process? (Some questions which might be asked in a study involving videotapes include these: How much do writers write down of the suggestions made, questions asked, etc.? What non— verbal cues accompany the various linguistic and interactional moves such as trying to get the group's attention, giving a suggestion, uestionin another erson's vie oint havin one's comment i nored etc.? q. 9 9 3) Teaching 33d learning a) Procedures How do groups of four or five compare with groups of two in terms of numbers of suggestions generated and Students' perceptions of peer response? How does spontaneous commentary on papers compare with comments given after students have had time to read and mark the papers before class? How do responses of students in groups which have worked together throughout a term or semester compare with responses of students in 157 groups which have changed periodically? Is there any difference in groups which have been formed through students' choices and those which have been formed through teachers' assignments? b) Teachers' Eplgp What are the most helpful kinds of teacher activity during the time students are working in their groups? Are there different helpful teacher behaviors for different phases in groups' development? for students of different ages or levels or development? How do specific kinds of teacher intervention or non—intervention affect the work of groups? How do different kinds of instruction and feedback from teachers between group sessions affect the work of groups? How is such feedback best given-—to individual students, to specific groups, to the class as a whole? How do various course structures and sequences of writing assignments affect the work of peer-response groups? c) Students' perceptions How do students perceive the process of responding to a piece of writing? DO they regard the teacher's reSponses as different from theirs? If so, is it a difference in kind, or only in degree? What do the students identify as their reasons for concentrat- ing on particular elements in one another's papers? 4) Other areas What do professional editors say about the processes involved in their work? What do writers say about the kind of help they receive from their editors? about the kind of help they receive from other 158 writers? What light can answers to these questions shed on the peer- response process? Teachers and students already possess intuitive, experiential answers to many of these questions. There remains the challenge to articulate the answers so that those who are engaged in workshop teach— ing and learning can develop a fuller understanding and raise more telling questions about the realities that peer-response groups create together. Appendix A Questionnaires Looking at Yourself as a Writer (Researcher's Questionnaire # 1) Personal Goal-Setting (Instructor's Questionnaire # 1) How Did It Go? (Researcher's Questionnaire # 2) One Last Questionnaire (Researcher's Questionnaire # 3) Looking at Yourself as a Writer Once Again (Instructor's Questionnaire # 2) 160 LOOKING AT YOURSELF AS A WRITER [Researcher's Questionnaire # 1] Today's date Name: Date of birth Major: Student number: Classification (circle answer) la. Fresh Soph Jr Sr Grad Is this course required for your major? (cicle answer) Yes No If now, what are your reasons for taking it? (check all that apply) I want to improve my writing My advisor recommended that I take this course. Other (please specify): If you are taking any other writing courses this term, please tell what they are: . Please list your previous college writing courses: Course Where taken Year What types of writing have you done in school in the past five years? (check all that apply) Informative (expository) papers letters Persuasive (argumentative) papers other (specify): Short stories ______Poems "creative” writing plays journals 5 What types of writing have you done on your own over the past five years? (check all that apply) Informative (expository) papers letters Persuasive (argumentative) papers other (specify): Short stories " . n . . —————- ;} creative writing Poems Plays Journals Have you ever taken a course in which the students read and commented on one another's papers? (circle answer) Yes No Please tell why this was or was not helpful: Has anyone besides teachers (and the students in #6, if you answered "Yes" there) ever read any of your writing? Yes No If so, who? Please tell why this was or was not helpful. 10a. 11. 12. 13. 161 Please give the name of the one person who has helped you most in improving your writing: What is or was this person's position or relationship to you (friend, teacher, parent, etc.)? How did this person help you? (check all that apply) Pointing out good features in your writing. Pointing out weaknesses Making specific suggestions for improvement. Just being interested. Other (please specify). What do you see as the major strengths of your writing? How have you become aware of these strengths? What are the main things you want to improve about your writing? How have you become aware of this need for improvement? How do you feel about the idea of having a small group of your classmates read your papers and tell you what you've done well and how you can improve your writing? (circle one) Very negative Negative Neither negative Positive Very positive nor positive Comment: How do you feel about the idea of reading the papers of a small group of your classmates and telling them what they've done well and how they can improve their papers? (circle one) Very negative Negative Neither negative Positive Very positive nor positive Comment: In general, how do you feel about writing? (circle one) Very negative Negative Neither negative Positive Very positive nor positive Comment: 162 PERSONAL GOAL—SETTING [Instructor's Questionnaire # 1] Name 1. What do you hope to learn in this course? like to see take place in you and in your writing by the end of the course? Please make a list of your own personal goals for this course. At the middle and end of this course I will ask you to write about your progress toward meeting these goals. 2. Based expect to on the goals you set out above, what do for this course? (Check all that Informative essays Persuasive or argumentative essays Plays Research papers Short stories Personal experience papers Business writing: reports, letters memos -———— Paper for other classes Other Comments: What changes would you kinds of writing do you might apply.) Mainly the type of writing I do in college courses Mainly the type of writing I rarely get a chance to do in college courses Mainly the type of writing I will do after I graduate from college and get a job Mainly writing I've always wanted to do but never got a chance to do before 163 "HOW DID IT GO?" (Group discussion of first major paper) [Researcher's Questionnaire # 2] Name: Title of paper: Date of session: 1. You as a writer (Please be as complete as possible in your answers; but if you don't have an answer to a particular question, leave it blank) a. What was the most valuable positive comment the group made about your paper? b. What was the most valuable suggestion for improvement they made about your paper? c. What questions did you have about your own paper? d. What answers did the group have to your questions? e. What comment(s) from the group made you notice new things about your paper? moanmsam> ouoE sown m>m£ wHDoo GOflmmwm msu mmB mama ecu was own: .£ muowmmmm wgu mo suwcmuum name ecu was umcz .m OHO£3 m mm msouw O35 .m waHuwHB CSO nsox usoam muflamwu now mme ow mo COHmmsomww Ho momma men paw .wCHfiuzdm we .umczxxr A.ufi Momma Acouufluzv use .EOHumomwom Moo» muOHB >Hco so» MH .fifimwoumefl How cowumwwwom ucmuuooefl umoE ecu was um:3«« A.uceroo Ono umumm Asunuflmzv use .ufl hem u.cpflw use u:mEEoo OSu OuOHB 50% MHV muwamm mafia co mmmE 30> uEOEEoo O>flufimoo ucmuuomEH umoE mfiummayumszx 164 wcwuHHB CBC Hock ucOEO>OHmEfl momma wo ewe usonm muswwmcH Huwmom Oflmou Ho mHuHH Houses wo memz In: A.m:ouw HOOA a“ muwdma Hafiuo momma ego ou mmwcommom Moo» ONfiumEESm Ommwaa .Boaon ummso mam cov umpmou m mm 50% .N N .m vsowmmom wo puma "Oemz 165 ONE LAST QUESTIONNAIRE [Researcher's Questionnaire # 3] Name: Please circle one answer for each question. 1 — Very negative 4 — Positive 2 — Positive 5 — Very positive 3 - Neither negative nor positive About the small group you were with for most of the term: 1. How did you feel about having your group members read and comment on your paper? 1 Comment:* 2. How did you feel about reading and commenting on their papers? 1 Comment: About the group you worked with for the final project: 3. How did you feel about having the members read and comment on your paper? 1 Comment: 4. How did you feel about reading and commenting on their papers? 1 Comment: About the whole—class discussion of papers: 5. How did you feel about having the whole class discuss one of your papers? (Circle "6" if you didn't have a paper discussed by the whole class.) 1 Comment: 6. How did you feel about participating in the whole-class discussion of papers? 1 Comment: About the "publication" of one paper by each person for everybody else in the class: 7. How did you feel about the written comments you received from other classmates on your "published" paper? 1 Comment: 166 8. How did you feel about writing comments on the "published" papers of your classmates? l 2 3 4 5 Comment: E. About your writing in general: 9. How do you feel about your own writing at this point? 1 2 3 4 5 Comment: *(If there's not enough space here for comments, write on the back of this sheet.) 167 [Instructor's Questionnaire # 2] Lois Rosen 213-11, Winter 1980 Final Assignment: Due Friday, March 7, in your portfolio Approximately two pages long, handwritten, or the equivalent typed Directions: Go back and re-read all the writings you've done in this class this term. Also re—read the list of personal writing goals you set for yourself at the beginning of the term. It's important that you do this at one sitting so be sure to allow yourself a block of time long enough to read it all through. Now, see if you can characterize yourself as a writer. Ask yourself the following questions: What do I prefer to write about? Ideas? People? Places? My own feelings? My past? The present? Events? How do I write? What are some of the characteristics of my own "personal voice"? What writing was easiest? Why? What writing was most fun? Why? What writing was hardest? Why? What writing did I dislike doing? Why? What piece of writing do I feel is the best thing I wrote this term? Why? Did I produce at least one piece of writing this term that I feel justifiably proud of? More than one? Be specific. What writing problems do I see that I still have? Has my writing changed at all during this term? If so, in what ways? Has my attitude toward writing changed at all this term? What are some of the other insights I got about myself as a writer, about the writing process, about the writings of others in the class compared to myself, about the ways others respond to my writing? Have I met the goals I set for myself in this class the first week of the term? Once you have re—read all your own work and thought about or jotted down answers to all the questions, write a well-organized paper which will be, in effect, an in-depth, comprehensive self-evaluation. Appendix B Instructor's Guide Sheet for Peer—Response Sessions 169 To Critique a Paper 1. Read the paper once and then set it aside. What do you remember about what was said? What stands out in your mind? List these at the end of the paper. 2. If you could talk about only one thing you noticed in this paper, what would it be? Note this on the paper. 3. Read the paper again, marking the places you stopped reading by underlining them or putting a * in the margin. Why did you stop? Did it make you think? Were you confused? Did you respond positively or negatively to these sections? Any other reasons? Comment about this on the paper. 4. In one sentence, state what you think the author's purpose was in writing this paper: what idea was he/she trying to get across? Write this at the end of the paper. Is the purpose clear? Is the purpose worthwhile? 5. Who do you think the author intended to be the audience for this paper? Write this at the end of the paper. Is the style, tone, vocabulary, information consistent for this audience? 6. From the paper itself, what kind of person was the author? What does he/she look like? What kind of clothes was he/she wearing? What about the paper tells you what the author is like? 7. Examine the structure or organization of this writing. Can you draw it? Can you compare it to something else? Can you outline it? Is this the best way to organize the material? Can you think of alter- native organizational patterns that would work as well or better? Write a comment about the organization. 8. Does the writing begin and end in the right place? How did you respond to the beginning and the end? Comment on this somewhere on the paper if you care to. 9. How much or what kind of revision would you like to see? If you can, offer specific ideas for improving the paper. DO you want more infor— mation, a change in the organization, better transitions between para— graphs or sections, condensation of wordy passages? Think about what you would do if you were the editor for this piece of writing, but keep in mind that the author always has final say in any changes and does not have to follow all suggestions. 10. Finally, do any proofreading that you see is necessary: spelling, punctuation, etc. Mechanical errors such as these interfere with the communication of ideas so they must be corrected before the paper is considered fully "polished" and ready to be read. However, this should always be the last step in the revision process. What good is a mechan- ically perfect paper that doesn't have anything worthwhile to say? Appendix C TOpics of the Papers Discussed in the Small—Group Sessions 171 TOPICS OF THE PAPERS DISCUSSED DURING THE SMALL-GROUP SESSIONS PAPER # l--JAN. E Grou l ("The Debaters") ____Jl__ ___ _________ Jeff: "Fortune" (an amputee friend) Jody: "Through the Eyes of Time" (journey to self-awareness) Nina: Figure skating Tom: "Waste Water Control" Groups 2 and 3——not recorded Group 4 ("The Assortment") Brian: "Cut Short” (not being tall enough to play basketball) Candy: Factors to consider when apartment—hunting Claudia: "My Country" (appreciating the U.S.A. after traveling abroad) Josh: Personal experiences with golfing Grou 5 ("The Drifters") ___._R._ ______._.____ Arlene: "A Beginning after an End" (life after death) Jerri: "America the Beautiful: Where Does It Stop?" (sacrificing health for the sake of beauty Marty: "Dreaming in Reality” (theories on dreaming; his own favorite dreams) Steve: "Memories" (playing cribbage with grandfather) Group E ("The Workers") Darla: "Baseball Survival Strategies for Women Only" Joyce: "Canoeing Can Be Fun?!" Matt: "The Backpacker's Guide for the Inexperienced" Walt: "A Time When Cooler Heads Prevailed??" (fracas at intramural basketball game) PAPER # —- EB. l Group 1 ("The Debaters") Jeff: "Nobility" (a beached seal) /Discussed on Feb. 15/ (Fiction) Jody: "Three Days until Darkness" (Fiction: three days of sight before blindness sets in) Nina: "Inequality" (reasons for social and economic inequality) Tom: ”Euthanasia" (paper not discussed; Tom was absent) 172 Group_2 ("The Encouragers") Christi: "What's the Score?" (the night of her father's death) Curt: "They're Off!" (harness—racing) Karen: "My Part-Time Job: An Experience" (teaching skiing) Miyuki: "The Speech at the Batgirl Contest Banquet" (being honored as outstanding baseball batgirl) Group §_ ("The Quiet Ones") Adam: "The Cow Game Home" (a high-school prank) Barb: "Thoughts on War" Jill: Decision to travel to England during the summer Joe: "A Tiger Fan" (about a recluse on Joe's paper route) Group 4 (not recorded) Group 5 ("The Drifters") Arlene: "Growing into a Well—Adjusted Person" Jerri: "Celia" (a blind friend) Marty: The frustrations of being a transfer student Steve: "First Date" (his girlfriend) Grou 6 ("The Workers”) _.___R._ _.__________ Darla: "The Preparation, Materials and Techniques for Painting an Indoor Room" Joyce: "Summer Job" (working in a glass factory) Matt: "The Powers of a Beach" Walt: "Music in My Life" PAPER # 3--FEB. Lg Grou l ("The Debaters") _____R._ _______.______ Jeff: "Joys of Bicycling" Jody: ”The Girl Who Wanted to Be King" (Fiction) Nina: "The Last True Wilderness" (Alaska) Tom: "The Promises Commercials Make" Grou 2 ("The Encoura ers") ___.P _. ___________Ji_._ Christi: "A Long Way from Nowhere" (Fiction: a despairing young man) Curt: "Memories” (a high—school friend) Karen: "Grandpa” (Karen was absent, but her paper was discussed) Miyuki: "World of Haiku" (Miyuki was absent, but her paper was discussed) 173 PAPER # 3--FEB. 15 (cont.) Group 2_ Adam: Barb: Jill: Joe: Group 2_ Brian: Candy: Claudia: Joe: ("The Quiet Ones") "Try It, You'll Like It" (changing uses of leisure time) "Misunderstood" (a first-grader with problems) "The Consumer" (pros and cons of advertising) "The King and His Court" (a high-school party) ("The Assortment") "A Dialogue with John Denver" "Travelling" (the advantages of travel) Growing to reSpect the feminist movement after taking a class in women's literature Getting to know his grandmother Group 5 (not recorded) Group.p Darla: Joyce: Matt: Walt: ("The Workers") "Red Berries and Willow Bark" (origins and uses of caffein and aspirin for athletes) Review of Judith Guest's novel Ordinary People "The Other Americans" (fictional monologue by a septic—tank cleaner) "Two Worlds All Their Own" (a florist's shop) NOTES Chapter One 1 James K. Moffett, é_Student-Centered Language Arts Curriculum (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1968). Patrick L. Courts, "Freshman Com- position: Student Centeredness and the Drama of the English Class," Diss. Michigan State Univ. 1971. Stephen N. Judy, Explorations in the Teaching pf_Secondary English (N. Y: Harper & Row, 1974). See aI§o_—_- James Moffett, "Coming On Center," English Journal, 59 (Apr., 1970), 528-33. 2Janet Emig, "Writing as a Mode of Learning," College Composition and Communication, 28 (May, 1977), 122-28. John Dixon, Growth through English (Oxford and N. Y: Oxford Univ. Press, 1969). James E. Miller, Jr., and Stephen N. Judy, Writing 12 Reality (N. Y: 'Harper & Row, 1978). 3 L. Thomas Hopkins, Interaction: The Democratic Process (Boston: D. C. Heath, 1941); Bernice Baxter and Rosalind Cassidy, Group Experi- ence: The Democratic Wpy (N. Y: Harper & Bros., 1943). Cited by Bany and Johnson, p. 12. 4 See Joseph A. Olmstead, Small Groupelnstruction (Alexandria, VA: Human Resources Org., 1974). 5 Mary A. Bany and Lois V. Johnson, Classroom Grouprehavior (N. Y: bLacmillan, 1964). Richard A. Schmuck, "Group Processes," Encyclopedia pf Educational 'Research, 4th ed. (1969). 7 Allen A. Glatthorn, "Small Group Instruction," Encyclopedia pg Education, 1971 ed. See also Glatthorn, "Creating Learning Environments," in The Teaching 9; English, Part 1, ed. James R. Squire (Univ. of Chicago Press, 1977), pp. 197-299. 8 Edwin Mason, Collaborative Learnipg (N. Y: Agathon Press, 1972). 9 M. L. J. Abercrombie, Aims and Techniques pf_Group Teaching, 2nd ed. (London: Society for Research into Higher Education, 1970). 0 Joseph A. Olmstead, Small-Group Instruction (Alexandria, VA: Human Resources Org., 1974). 11 Kathleen Calvin and Cassandra Book, Instruction i3 and about .§mall-Group Discussion (ERIC/RC3 and SCA, 1975). 12 Richard A. Schmuck and Patricia A. Schmuck, Group Processes ip_ _Eflg Classroom, 2nd ed. (Dubuque: William C. Brown, 1975). 174 175 3 Gene Stanford, Developing Effective Classroom Groups (N. Y: Hart, 1977). 14 H. K. Munroe, "Some Experiences with Oral Composition," English Journal, 1 (June, 1912), 359—63; hereafter cited as EH: Jacob C. Tressler, "The Efficiency of Student Correction of Composition," Hg, 1 (Sept., 1912), 406. See also John M. Clapp, "Oral English in the College Course," Hg, 2 (Jan., 1913), 18-33. 16 "Democratization of Method," Editorial, El, 7 (Oct., 1918), 538. 7 Alice L. Marsh, "Socializing Influences in the Classroom," EH; 5 (Feb., 1916), 89-98; C. C. Certain, "Organizing for Patriotic Work in English Classes," E2; 7 (Mar., 1918), 177—86; M. H. Hedges, "Group Collaboration: An Experiment in Play—Writing at Beloit," EJ, 8 (Jan., 1919), 39-41. 18 Arthur N. Applebee, Tradition and Reform 33 the Teaching 9: English (Urbana: NCTE, 1974), 107-109, 133. 19 W. Wilbur Hatfield, "The Project Method in Composition" (four- part series), Hi, 11 (Dec., 1922), 599-609; Hg, 12 (Jan., 1923), 11-23; _EJ, 12 (Feb., 1923), 107-16; E2, 12 (Mar., 1923), 173—79. 20 "The Project Method: 1," Eg, 11 (Dec., 1922), 603-4. 21 Flora Snyder, "The Use of Committees in The English Class," fig, 9 (June, 1920), 345-47; Charles R. Gaston, "Purposefulness and Co-Opera— tion," EJ, 10 (Jan., 1921), 28-34; "Responsibility Educates," Editorial, EEI, 17 (Nov., 1928), 766-67. 22 Theodora M. Thie, "Testing the Efficiency of the Group Method," ,EJ, 14 (Feb., 1925), 134-37. See also M. Aline Bright, "Pupil Partici- pation in Theme Correction," fig, 15 (May, 1926), 358—67. 23 ép_Experience Curriculum 13 English, by Curriculum Commission on NCTE, W. Wilbur Hatfield, chair and major author (N. Y: Appleton- Century-Crofts, 1935). 24 See Patrick Courts for a critique of ép_Experience Curriculum. The Curriculum Commission's theories, Courts says, "were too often perverted by narrowly defined Objectives derived from rigid interpreta- tions of what was practical or relevant. Instead of memorizing facts, students were memorizing PEEZEBNEEE.in certain Situations" (p. 59). See also Applebee, p. 175. 25 Angela Broening, Conducting Experiences ip_Eng1ish (N. Y: Apple- ton—Century-Crofts, 1939). 26 Applebee, pp. 140-41. 176 7 Applebee, pp. 187-89. See also Fred M. and Grace Hechinger, Growing Up_ip_America (N. Y: McGraw-Hill, 1975), pp. 114-31. 8 . Michael Shugrue, English ip_p_Decade p£_Change (N. Y: Pegasus, 1968), reviews these programs. (See also Applebee, 193-98). 2 9 On the role of conversation in the English curriculum, see Geoffrey Summerfield, Creativipy in English (NCTE, 1968). 30 William J. Dusel, "How Should Student Writing Be Judged?," .EJ, 46 (May, 1957), 263-68, 299. Loren J. Grissom, "Student Leadership in Evaluating Composi— tions," Hg, 48 (Sept., 1959), 338-39; Linda W. Wagner, "The Student Centered Theme Series,"_§J, 53 (Dec., 1964), 689-90; Edwin H. Sauer, "The Cooperative Correction of Paragraphs," in Essays pn_the Teaching p£_English, ed. Edward Gordon and Edward Noyes (N. Y: Appleton-Century- Crofts, 1960), pp. 138—49. 32 John Dixon, Growth thropgh English (N. Y: Oxford Univ. Press, 1975). See also Herbert Mu11er, Tpp_Uses pf_English (N. Y: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1967), and Geoffrey Summerfield, ed., Creativity ip_English, Dartmouth Seminar Papers (NCTE, 1968). James Moffett, Teaching the Universe pf_Discourse (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1968), and g Student—Centered Language Arts Curriculum, Grades K-l3 (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1968). The latter has under- gone a second edition: James Moffett and Betty J. Wagner, Student- Centered Languagg Arts and Reading, K—l3 (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1976). James Britton, Languagp and Learning (Harmondsworth, England: Penguin, 1979); Douglas Barnes, James Britton, and Harold Rosen, Language, the Learner and the School (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1969). 35 Julia S. Falk, "Language Acquisition and the Teaching and Learn- ing of Writing," College English, 41 (Dec., 1979), 436-47; hereafter cited as 9E. 36 For an expanded and highly readable treatment of this idea, see Frank Smith, Comprehension and Learning (N. Y: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1975). 37 Janet Emig, The Composing Process p£_Twelfth Graders (Urbana: NCTE, 1971). James Britton et al., The Development p£_Writing Abilities 11-18 (London: Macmillan, 1975). 39 Ken Macrorie, Telling Writing (Rochelle Park, N. J: Hayden, 1970). Second edition, 1976. 177 40 1973). 41 n o I . 0 Stephen N. Judy, Writing for the Here and Now,' in Current Topics in_Language, ed. Nancy Ainsworth Johnson (Cambridge, MA: Winthrop, 1976), pp. 97-112. 42 Stephen N. Judy and Susan J. Judy, The English Teacher's Handbook (Cambridge, MA: Winthrop, 1979). 4 3 Kenneth Bruffee, "The Way Out, " CE, 33 (Jan., 1972), 457- 70, and "Collaborative Learning," CE, 34 (Feb., 1973), 634- 43. 44 H. B. Zirinsky, "An Investigation of Student Awareness of Teacher Criteria for Evaluating Writing as an Element in the Composing Process," Dissertation Abstracts International, 39 (1978), 168A. Zirinsky found that tenth-grade students could not predict the grades they would receive from their writing teachers because they did not understand the criteria the teachers were using. Peter Elbow, Writing without Teachers (N. Y: Oxford Univ. Press, 5 Kenneth Bruffee, "The Brooklyn Plan," Liberal Education, 64 (Dec., 1978), 447-69. See also Paula Beck, Marcia Silver, and Thom Hawkins, "Train— ing and Using Peer Tutors," 9E, (Dec., 1978), 432—49. 46 Thom Hawkins, Group Inquiry Techniques for Teaching Writing (ERIC/ NCTE, 1976). 7 Carol F. Laque and Phyllis Sherwood, A Laboratory Approach 59 Writing (Urbana: NCTE, 1977). 48 Mary K. Healy, Using Student Writing Response Groups }p_the Class- room, Curriculum Publication No. 12 (Univ. of California, Berkeley, Bay Area Writing Project, 1980). 49 Charlton Laird, "A Do-It-Yourself Program for Teaching Composition," in And Gladly Teche (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice—Hall, 1970), pp. 185-94. 50 John C. Sherwood, "The Oregon Experiment," College Composition and Communication, 9 (Feb., 1958), 5-9. 51 Clinton S. Burhans, Jr., Extended Testing of a Unified Experimental Course in Composition in a Variety_ of Materials and Formats, Cooperative Research Project NO. 7- 1149 (E. Lansing: Michigan State Univ., 1968). Chapter Two 1 Mary K. Healy, in Using Student Writing Response Gronps in the Classroom (Univ. of California, Berkeley. Bay Area Writing Project, 1980), describes her practice of using tape recordings as a way of both monitOr- ing and guiding the work of the groups; she does provide examples from her transcriptions. 178 2 William Labov and David Fanshel, Therapeutic Discourse (N. Y: Academic Press, 1977). Frederich Erickson, "Timing and Context in Child- ren's Everyday Discourse," in Sociolinguistics Working Papers, ed. Richard Bauman and Joel Scherzer (Austin: Southwest Educ. Dev. Lab., 1980), pp. 1-43. See also Barnes and Todd, below. 3 James Moffett, Teaching the Universe of Discourse (Boston: Houghtonliifflin,1968), 194- 98; Moffett, A Student- Centered Curriculum (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1968), 46. Kenneth Bruffee, "The Way Out," CE, 33 (Jan., 1972), 457-70. 4 Douglas Barnes and Frankie Todd, Communication and Learning* in Small Groups (London and Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1977). 5 classes. 6 Robert F. Bales, Personality and Interpersonal Behavior (N. Y: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1970). The permanent groups were formed during the second full week of Chapter Three 1 Paul Diederich, MeaSurinngrowth in_English (Urbana: NCTE, 1974). Diederich's system is based on his 1961 study, Factors in Judgments 9f Writing Ability (Princeton: ETS), with John W. French and Sydell T. Carleton. In that study, fifty—three readers from six fields, nonacademic as well as academic, graded and commented on three hundred essays by college freshmen. Diederich cites a 1959 study by C. A. Remondino as revealing a similar clustering of comments; and Lois M. Rosen, in her dissertation prospectus, cites a 1979 dissertation at the University of Virginia, in which B. E. Jones also reached similar conclusions. 2 In Diederich's system, the category of ”ideas" includes both the development of ideas and their focus. 3 In transcribing material from the tape recordings, I have used the following conventions: a) Bracketed ellipses indicate that I have omitted part of the speaker's statements: b) Unbracketed ellipses represent pauses longer than those symbolized by a comma: c) Bracketed words such as "laughing” indicate non-verbal activity; d) Other bracketed words or phrases indicate that the words did not come through clearly on the tape, so I am reconstructing what the person probably said; e) An underlined question mark indicates that a phrase was undecipher— able; f) The absence of a period at the end of an utterance signals that the speaker's voice trailed off; g) Square brackets joining the comments of two or more speakers signal an overlap of voices. 179 4 Papers needing fuller development (no suggestions given on this point): Christi's "A Long Way from Nowhere"; Claudia's paper on the feminist movement; Josh's paper on his grandmother; Matt's "The Other Americans." 5 Papers needing clearer focus (no suggestions given on this point): Josh's "Golf"; Marty's "Dreaming in Reality"; Steve's "First Date." 6 See the works already cited by Bruffee, Judy, Macrorie, and Moffett. See also Joan Putz (1969), Louisa Rogers (1978), and James Walker (1974). 7 Karen Hodges, "Proposed Stages of Writing Development," Research in Composition Newsletter, 1 (Spring, 1980), 7. 8 . . . . . Papers needing work on organization (few or no suggestions given on this point): Candy's paper on apartment life; Marty's "Dreaming in Reality"; Walt's "A Time When Cooler Heads Prevailed?."; Matt's "Back— packers' Guide"; Matt's "The Powers of a Beach"; Candy's Travelling"; Tom's "Waste Water Control." Chapter Four 1 See Carl J. Koch (1975) and Roy Fox (1978) for indications that student-centered approaches are particularly helpful in reducing writing apprehension. Also, Marcia Hurlow (1979) notes that "The insecure student often has strikingly less sophisticated writing in essays for the teacher than in writing for himself or an uncritical, friendly audience." Pertinent here too is the 1925 study of Theodora Thie, cited in Chapter One. 2 Barnes and Todd, p. 17. 3 The writers raised thirteen questions during the first session; twenty at the second; and fiteen during the third. There were four groups successfully taped during the first session, as compared with five groups during the second and third meetings. 4 Bany and Johnson, pp. 98-99, summarize a 1950 study by Festinger, who "found that members of groups communicated more when there was dis— crepancy in opinion." 5 Linda Flower, "Writer—Based Prose: A Cognitive Basis for Problems in Writing," CE, 41 (Sept., 1979), 19-37. 180 Chapter Five 1 . . . . . Teachers also give priority to clarity of presentation: Sarah W. Freedman, in "Why Do Teachers Give the Grades They Do?" Egg, 30 (May, 1979), 161-64, reports that the twelve teachers in her dissertation study were influenced most by the content of students' writing, next by organization, then by mechanics, and finally by sentence structure. Chapter Six 1 See H. K. Munroe and Jacob Tressler, cited in Chapter One. See also Richard Barbieri, "Composition: Competitive or Cooperative?" in Teaching the Basics—-Rea11y!, ed. Ouida Clapp (Urbana: NCTE, 1977). See also Moffett, A Student-Centered Curriculum, p. 46. 2 Moffett, Teaching the Universe 2£_Discourse, pp. 188—98. 3 In "An Interview with Janet Emig” (fig, 68 /Oct., 1979/), Lois Rosen asks, "What do you see as the basic purposes for teaching writing in the schools?" As part of her reply, Emig states, "one of the most diffi- cult things in learning to write is to imagine an audience, and what schools provide are audiences consisting not only of teachers but of the other students in the class as well" (p. 12). 4 Moffett, Teaching the Universe 2£_Discourse, pp. 195-97. 5 Joseph A. Olmstead, Small-Group Instruction (Alexandria, VA: Human Resources Org., 1974). Gerald M. Phillips, Communications and the Small Group (N. Y: Bobbs—Merrill, 1966), pp. 23 and 54. BIBLIOGRAPHY Abercrombie, M. L. J. Aims and Techniques g£_Group Teaching. 2nd ed. London: Society for Research into Higher Education, 1970. ' Applbaum, Ronald L., et al. The Process pf Group Communication. Chicago: SRA, 1974. Applebee, Arthur N. Tradition and Reform in_the Teaching pf_English: A History. Urbana: NCTE, 1974. Bales, Robert Freed. Personality and Interpersonal Behavior. N. Y: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1970. Bany, Mary A., and Lois V. Johnson. Classroom Group Behavior: Group Dynamics in Education. N. Y: Macmillan, 1964. /Barbieri, Richard E. "Composition: Competitive or Cooperative?" In Teaching the Basics—-Rea11yl Ed. Ouida Clapp. Urbana: NCTE, 1977, pp. 71-75. Barnes, Douglas, and Frankie Todd. Communication and Learning in_Small Groups. London and Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1977. / Barnes, Douglas, Peter Churley, and Christopher Thompson. "Group Talk and Literary Response." English in Education, 5 (Winter, 1971). Barnes, Douglas, James Britton, and Harold Rosen. Language, The Learner and the School. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin, 1969.. Barone, Frank J. "The Small Group." English Journal, 61 (Oct., 1972), 1051-53, 1059. Hereafter cited as EJ. J.Beach, Richard. "The Effects of Between-Draft Teacher Evaluation Ver— sus Student Self-Evaluation on High School Students' Revising of Rough Drafts." Research in the Teaching pf English, 13 (May, 1979), 111-19. Beach, Richard. "Self-Evaluation Strategies of Extensive Revisers and Nonrevisers." College Composition and Communication, 27 (May, 1976), 160—64. Hereafter cited as CCC. Beaven, Mary H. "Individualized Goal Setting, Self-Evaluation, and Peer Evaluation." In Evaluating Writing: Describing, Measuring, Judging. Ed. Charles R. C00per and Lee Odell. Urbana: NCTE, 1977, pp 135-53. Beck, Paula, Thom Hawkins, and Marcia Silver. "Training and Using Peer Tutors." Collegg English, 40 (Dec., 1978), 432—49. Hereafter cited as CE. 181 182 Benson, Nancy Louise. "The Effects of Peer Feedback during the Writing Process on Writing Performance, Revision Behavior, and Attitude toward Writing." Dissertation Abstracts International, 40 (1979), 198A (Univ. of Colorado at Boulder). Hereafter cited as 2A}, Bloom, SOphie. Peer and Cross-Age Tutoring in the Schools: .An Individualized Supplement £2_Group Instruction. National Insti- tute of Education, DHEW, 1975. ERIC ED 118 543. Braddock, Richard, Richard Lloyd-Jones, and Lowell Schoer. Research in Written Composition. Urbana: NCTE, 1963. Bright, M. Aline. "Pupil Participation in Theme Correction." _EJ, 15 (May, 1926), 358-67. Britton, James. Languagg and Learning. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1970. Britton, James, et al. The Development pf Writing Abilities 11-18. London: Macmillan, 1975. Broening, Angela. Conducting Experiences_in English. N. Y: Appleton- Century-Crofts, 1939. Bruffee, Kenneth. "The Brooklyn Plan: Attaining Intellectual Growth through Peer-Group Influence." Liberal Education, 64 (Dec., 1978), Bruffee, Kenneth. "Collaborative Learning: Some Practical Models." pg, 34 (Feb., 1973), 634-43. Bruffee, Kenneth. "The Way Out: A Critical Survey of Innovations in College Teaching, with Special Reference to the December, 1971, Issue of College English." _EE, 33 (Jan., 1972), 457-70. Bruffee, Kenneth. 'A_Short Course in Writing. Cambridge, MA: Win- throp, 1972. Burhans, Clinton 8., Jr. Extended Testing 2£_§_Unified Experimental Course in Composition in a_Variety p£_Materials and Formats. COOperative Research Project No. 7-1149. E. Lansing: Michigan State Univ., 1968. Burnett, Ronald 0. "Tutorial Composition." CCC, 18 (Dec., 1967), 255-580 Cazden, Courtney B., Vera P. John, and Dell Hymes, eds. Functions 9: Language in the Classroom. N. Y: Teachers College Press, 1972). Certain, C. C. "Organizing for Patriotic Work in English Classes." _EJ, 7 (Mar., 1918), 177-86. Clapp, John M. "Oral English in the College Course." Ed, 2 (Jan., 1913), 18-33. 183 Clifford, John Patrick. "An Experimental Inquiry into the Effectiveness of Collaborative Learning as a Method for Improving the Experiential Writing Performances of College Freshmen in a Remedial Writing C1ass.' _QAL, 38 (1977), 7289A (New York University). Collier, K. G. "Syndicate Methods: Further Evidence and Comment." Universities Quarterly, 23 (Autumn, 1969), 431-36. Cooper, Charles, and Lee Odell, eds. Evaluating Writing: Describing, Measuring, Judging. Urbana: NCTE, 1977. Cooper, Charles R. "Student-Centered Small Groups for Literary Study." The English Record, 23 (Fall, 1972), 60567. Coulthard, Malcolm. .An Introduction £3 Discourse Analysis. London: Longman, 1977. 1 ’gCourts, Patrick L. "Freshman Composition: Student Centeredness and _,»the Drama of the English Class." Diss. Michigan State Univ. 1971. "Democratization of Method." Editorial. ‘EJ, 7 (Oct., 1918), 538. Dewey, John. Experience and Education. 1938; rpt. N. Y: Macmillan, 1957. Diederich, Paul B. Measuring Growth in English. Urbana: NCTE, 1974. Dixon, John. Growth through English: Set in the Perspective p£_the Seventies. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1975. Dusel, William J. "How Should Student Writing Be Judged?" fig, 46 (May, 1957), 263—68, 299). Ede, Lisa S. "On Audience and Composition," CCC, 30 (Oct., 1979), 291-95. Edwards, Mary Parsons. "Collaborative Learning: Small, Student— Centered Discussions Groups in the English Classroom." Diss. Univ. of Virginia 1978. Elbow, Peter. Writing Without Teachers. N. Y: Oxford Univ. Press, 1973. Ellman, Neil. "Peer Evaluation and Peer Grading." pg, 64 (Mar., 1975), 79-80. Emig, Janet. The Composing Processes_g£ Twelfth Graders. Research Report No. 13. Urbana: NCTE, 1971. Emig, Janet. "Writing as a Mode of Learning." CCC, 28 (May, 1977), 122-28. 184 England, David, and Stephen N. Judy. Historical Essays 2n the Teaching p£_Eng1ish'ip_American Schools. Unpublished manuscript. Erickson, Frederick, and Jeffrey Schultz. "When Is a Context? Some Issues and Methods in the Analysis of Social Competence." uar- terly Newsletter pf the Institute for Comparative Human Develop: ment (The Rockefeller University), 1 (Feb. 1977), 5-10. Erickson, Frederick. "Timing and Context in Children's Everyday Dis- course: Implications for the Study of Referential and Social Meaning." In Sociolinguistics Working Papers, ed. Richard Bauman and Joel Scherzer. Austin: Southwest Educational Deve10pment Laboratory, 1980, pp. 1—43. Ervin-Tripp, Susan. "'13 Sybil There?’ The Structure of Some American English Directives." Dittoed revision of "Wait for me, roller- skate" (Ann Arbor: Linguistic Society of America Colloquium, 1973). Experience Curriculum in English. Curriculum Commission of NCTE, W. Wilbur Hatfield, chair and major author. N. Y: Appleton- Century-Crofts, 1935. Falk, Julia 8. "Language Acquisition and the Teaching and Learning of Writing." .EE, 41 (Dec., 1979), 436-47. Farrell, Kevin James. "A Comparison of Three Instructional Approaches for Teaching Written Composition to High School Juniors: Teacher Lecture, Peer Evaluation, and Group Tutoring." .2A1, 38 (1977), 1849A (Boston Univ. School of Education). Fishman, Joshua A., ed. Readings in the Sociology pf_Language. The Hague: Mouton, 1968. Flanders, Ned A. Teaching with Groups. Minneapolis: Burgess, 1954. Flower, Linda, and John Hayes. "Problem-Solving Strategies and the Writing Process." .92: 39 (Dec., 1977), 449-61. Flower, Linda. "Writer-Based Prose: A Cognitive Basis for Problems in Writing." _QE, 41 ( (Sep., 1979), 19-37. Ford, Bob Wayne. "The Effects of Peer Editing and Grading on the Grammar-Usage and Theme-Composition Ability of College Freshmen." Diss. Univ. of Oklahoma 1973. Fox, Roy F. "Treatment of Writing Apprehension and Its Effects on Composition." DAI, 40 (1979), 81A(Univ. of Missouri-Columbia). Freedman, Sarah Warshauer. "Why Do Teachers Give the Grades They Do?" CCC, 30 (May, 1979), 161-64. Galvin, Kathleen, and Cassandra Book. Instruction in and about Small— Group Discussion. ERIC/RCS and SCA, 1975. 185 Gaston, Charles Robert. "Purposefulness and Co-Operation." _El, 10 (Jan., 1921), 28-34. Gaston, Charles Robert. "Social Procedure in the English Classroom." Eg, 8 (Jan., 1919), 1-7. Gelshenen, Rosemary. "Compositions on Trial." ‘Eg, 41 (Oct., 1952), 432- 32. Giglioi, Pier Paolo, ed. Languagg and Social Context" Selected Readings. Baltimore: Penguin, 1972. Gillett, Thomas D. "Managing a Proof-reading Dialogue." In Teaching the Basics--Rea11y} Ed. Ouida Clapp. Urbana: NCTE, 1977, pp. 76—79. Glatthorn, Allan A.\ "Cooperate and Create: Teaching Writing in Small Groups." .EJ, 62 (Dec., 1973), 1274-75. Glatthorn, Allan A. "Creating Learning Environments." In The Teaching .3: English: The 76th Yearbook pf the National Society for the Study 3: Education. Part 1. Ed. James R. Squire. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1977, pp. 197-229. Glatthorn, Allan A. "Small Group Instruction." Encyclopedia_gf Education. N. Y: Macmillan and Free Press, 1971. Grissom, Loren V. "Student Leadership in Evaluating Compositions." _EJ, 48 (Sep., 1959), 338-39. Gumperz, John J., and Dell Hymes. Directions }n_Sociolinguistics. N. Y: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1972. Hardaway, Francine. "What Students Can Do to Take the Burden Off You.” In Ideas for English 101: Teaching Writing in College. Ed. Richard Ohmann and W. B. Coley. Urbana: NCTE, 1975, pp. 220-23. Hatfield, W. Wilbur. "The Project Method in Composition." Four-part series. pg, 11 (Dec., 1922), 599-609. 3.1. 12 (Jan., 1923). 11-23. _E__J_, 12 (Feb., 1923), 107-16. 131, 12 (Mar., 1923), 173-79. Hawkins, Thom. Group Inquiry Techniques for Teaching Writing. ERIC/ NCTE, 1976. A condensed version of the second part of this pam- phlet appears under the same title in GE, 37 (Mar., 1976), 637-46. Healy, Mary K. Using_Student Writing Resppnse Groupg in the Class- room. Curriculum Project No. 12. University of California, Berkeley: Bay Area Writing Project, 1980. Hechinger, Fred M., and Grace Hechinger. Growing_Up_ip America. N. Y: McGraw—Hill, 1975. 186 Hedges, M. H. "Group Collaboration: An Experiment in Play4Writing at Beloit." .EJ, 8 (Jan., 1919), 39-41. Hipple, T. W. "Grader's Helpers: Colleagues, Peers, Scorecards." .§1, 61 (May, 1972), 690-93. Hurlow, Marcia Lynn. "Writing Mode and Linguistic Insecurity." DAI, 40 (1979), 2021A (Ohio State). Hymes, Dell. Foundations ;n_Sociolinguistics: .An_Ethnographic Approach. Philadelphia: Univ. of Pennsylvania Press, 1974- Jacko, Carol M. "Small-Group Triad: An Instructional Mode for the Teaching of Writing." CCC, 29 (Oct., 1978), 290-92. Johnson, Nancy Ainsworth. Current Topics in Language: Introductory Readings. Cambridge, MA: Winthrop, 1976. Jones, Melissa A. "Dangers and Possibilities of the Project." _EJ, 11 (Oct., 1922), 497-501. Jones, Thelma Ludwig. "An Exploratory Study of the Impact on Student "4 Writing of Peer Evaluation." Diss. Michigan State Univ. 1977. Joos, Martin. The Five Clocks. N. Y: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1967. Judy, Stephen N. The ABCs p£_Literacy: .A_Guide for Parents and Educators. N. Y: Oxford Univ. Press, 1980 _Judy, Stephen N. "Engaging Students in Editing and Self—Assessment." " Lecture. Michigan State Univ. Fall, 1979. Judy, Stephen N. Explorations in the Teaching 3f Secondary English: é Source Book for Experimental Teaching. N. Y: Dodd, Mead, 1974. Judy, Stephen N., ed. Lecture Alternatives }n_Teaching English. Michigan Council of Teachers of English. Ann Arbor: Campus Publishers, 1971. Judy, Stephen N. "Writing for the Here and Now." EJ, 62 (Feb., 1973), 69-79. Rptd. in Explorations, by S. N. Judy, pp. 101-114. Also rptd. in Ainsworth Johnson, Current Tppics, pp. 97-112. Judy, Stephen N., and Susan J. Judy. The English Teacher's Handbook. Cambridge, MA: Winthrop, 1979. Kelley, Earl. The Workshgp Way pf Learning. N. Y: Harper and Bros., 1951. Kelly, Lou. From Dialogue £3 Discourse: ‘An Qpen_Approach.£p_Competence and Creativity. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman, 1972. 187 Klaus, David J. Patterns pf Peer Tutoring. Washington, D. C: American Educational Research Assn., 1975. ERIC ED 103 356. Klein, Julie Thompson. "The Small—Group Approach to Writing." In Measure for Measure. Ed. Allen Berger and Blanche Hope Smith. Urbana: 1972, pp. 32—35. Koch, Carl James. "Small Groups in the Composition Class: A Case Study of Developing Linguistic Security and Written Fluency." DAI, 36 (1975), 3629A (Univ. of Michigan). Koch, Carl, and James M. Brazil. Strategies for Teaching the Composi— tion Process. Urbana: NCTE, 1978. Koch, Susan. "Writer and Audience." The Inkwell. No. 22. E. Lansing, MI, 1975. Koclanes, T. A. "Can We Evaluate Compositions?" E1, 50 (Apr., 1961), 252—57, 264. Labov, William. "Mitigation and Questioning in a Verbal Repertoire." In Current Topics in_Language: Introductory Readings. Ed Nancy Ainsworth Johnson. Cambridge, MA: Winthrop, 1976, pp. 81-90. Rptd. from Th5 Study pf Nonstandard English, by William Labov. Urbana: NCTE, 1970, pp. 51—59. Labov, William, and David Fanshel. Therapeutic Discourse: Psychotherapy fig Conversation. N. Y: Academic Press, 1977. LaGana, Jean Remally. "The Development, Implementation, and Evaluation of a Model for Teaching Composition Which Utilizes Individualized Learning and Peer Grouping." DAT, 33 (1973), 4063A (UniV. of Pittsburgh). Laird, Charlton. "A Do-It-Yourself Program for Teaching Composition." In énd Gladly Teche: Notes 23_Instructing Egg Natives $2 the Native Tongue. Englewood Cliffs, N. J: Prentice—Hall, 1970, pp. 185—94. Originally published as "Freshman English During the Flood," CE, 255 (Dec., 1977), 11, 15—16. Laque, Carol Feiser, and Phyllis A. Sherwood. A Laboratory Approach £2 Writing. Urbana: NCTE, 1977. Leek, David C. "Committee Study Improves Writing." EJ, 39 (Oct., 1950), Litsey, David. "Small—Group Training and the English Classroom." El, 58 (Sept., 1969), 920—27. Logan, Conrad T. "Composition Teaching in America before 1850." Ei, 23 (June, 1934), 486—96. 188 Lyons, William David. "The Effects of Teacher-Peer Response and Teacher—Only Response upon Attitudes toward Writing, and upon Writing Performance." EAL, 38 (1977), 615 (Univ. of Missouri- Columbia). McComb, E. H. Kemper. "Social Motives for Composition." fig, 3 (Sept., 1914), 408-15. McLeish, John, Wayne Matheson, and James Park. The Psychology 2: the Learning Group. London: Hutchinson Univ. Library, 1973. McNeill, John Lawrence, Jr. "A Study of Six Methods of Teaching Formal English Writing." DAI, 38 (1978), 7257A (Univ.of South Carolina). Macrorie, Ken. Telling Writing. 2nd ed. Rochelle Park, N. J: Hayden 1976. bhrsh, Alice Louise. "Socializing Influences in the Classroom." pg, 5 (Feb., 1916), 89-98. Marsh, Helen Unger. "A Task-Oriented Learning Group Approach to Teach— ing Descriptive-Narrative—Expository Writing to Eleventh—Grade Students." DAI, 36 (May, 1976), 7259A (Ball State University). Martin, Nancy, et al. Writing and Learning across the Curriculum. London: Ward Lock Educational (Schools Council Publications), 1976. Mason, Edwin. Collaborative Learning. N. Y: Agathon Press, 1972. Megna, Jerome F. "Teaching Writing Skills through Peer Evaluation." The English Record, 27 (Summer—Autumn, 1976), 98—106. Messelaar, Dirk. "The Use of Peer Rating Scales in Teaching Writing." The English Record, 27 (Winter, 1976), 17—19. Miller, James E. Jr., and Stephen N. Judy. Writing in Reality. N. Y: Harper and Row, 1978. Moffett, James. A Student— Centered Language Arts Curriculum: Grades K-13. Boston: Houghton Mifflin,1968. Second edition: James K. Moffett and Betty J. Wagner. Student-Centered Language Arts and Reading, K—13zié Handbook Teachers. Boston: Houghton Mifflin,1976_ Moffett, James. "Coming On Center." EL, 59 (April, 1970), 528—33. Moffett, James. Teaching the Universe 2: Discourse. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1968. Muller, Herbert J. The Uses Lf English. Guidelines for the Teaching Lf English from the Anglo-American Conference at Dartmouth College. N. Y: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1967. 189 Mulvey, Catherine. "Dialogue in the English Class." EJ, 23 (May, 1934), 411-13. Munroe, H. K. "Some Experiences with Oral Composition." EJ, 1 (June, 1912), 359-63. Murray, Donald M. ‘A_Writer Teaches Writing: 5 Practical Method 9: Teaching High School Composition. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1968. Murray, Donald M. "Internal Revision: A Process of Discovery." In _Research‘gn_Composing: Points 9£_Departure. Ed. Charles R. ' Cooper and Lee Odell. Urbana: NCTE, 1978, pp. 85-103. Myers, Charles Frederick. "Teacher and Peer Evaluative Feedback in the Development of Two Composition Skills: Punctuation and Paragraph Unity." DAI, 40 (1979), 1313A (St. John's University). Nicholson, Richard. "Impersonal Writing in Groups." English.in_Edu- cation, 3 (Autumn, 1969), 29-33. Nyquist, Jody L. "Grouping Other Than Ability." EJ, 57 (1968), 1340-44. Olmstead, Joseph A. Small-Group Instruction: Theory and Practice. Alexandria, VA: Human Resources Research Organization, 1974. Pfister, F. R. "How to Apply the 'If You Want to Learn Something, Try To Teach It' Principle to English Composition." School and Com- munity, 59 (May, 1973), 27, 34. Phillips, Gerald M. Communication and the Small Group. N. Y: Bobbs- Merrill, 1966. Pianko, Sharon. "Reflection: A Critical Component of the Composing Process." CCC, 30 (Oct., 1979), 275-78. Pierson, Howard. "Peer and Teacher Correction: A Comparison of the Effects of Two Methods of Teaching Composition in Grade Nine English Classes." Dissertation Abstracts, 28 (1967), 1350 (New York University). Postman, Neil, and Charles Weingartner. Teaching §§_§ Subversive Activity. N. Y: Delta, 1969. Putz, Joan. "The Effectiveness of Non-Directive Teaching as a Method of Improving the Writing Ability of College Freshmen." Diss. New York University 1969. Putz, Joan. "When the Teacher Stops Teaching--An Experiment with Fresh- man English." CE, 32 (Oct., 1970), 50-57. "Responsibility Educates." Editorial. .El, 17 (Nov., 1928), 766-67. 190 Rinne, Carl H. "Teaching in Small Groups." E1, 56 (Feb., 1967), 289-92. Rizzo, Betty. "Peer Teaching in English 1." CCC, 26 (Dec., 1975), Rogers, Louisa. "The Composing Acts of College Freshman Writers: A Description with Two Case Studies." DAI, 39 (1978), 101A (Rutgers). Rohman, D. Gordon, and Albert 0; Wlecke. Pre-Writi_g: The Construc- tion and Application Lf MOdels for Concept Formation in Writing. Cooperative Research Project No. 2174. E. Lansing, MI: Michigan State Univ., 1964. Salvner, Gary Martin. "Using Collaboration to Teach English Compo— sition: Theory, Model and Research." DAI, 38 " (1978), 4634A (Univ. of Michigan). Sauer, Edwin H. "The C00perative Correction of Paragraphs." In Essays Ln the Teachi_g Lf English: Reports 2£_the Yale Conference 23 the Teaching Lf English. Ed. Edward Gordon and Edward Noyes. N. Y: Appleton-Gentury-Crofts, 1960, pp. 138—49. Schleicher, John Gordon. "The Effect of Knowledge of Results on the Maintenance of Writing Skills." DAI, 40 (1979), 656A (Michigan State University). Schmuck, Richard A. "Group Processes." EncyclOpedia 3: Educational Research. 4th ed. N. Y: Macmillan, 1969. Schmuck, Richard A., and Patricia A. Schmuck. Group Processes in the Classroom. 2nd ed. Dubuque: William C. Brown, 1975. Scollon, Ron, and Suzanne B. K. Scollon. "Literacy as Focused Inter- action." Univ. of Alaska, Fairbanks: Alaska Native Language Center (Dec., 1979). Searle, John R. Speech Acts: An Essay in the PhilOSOphy of Language. London and N. Y: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1969. Shaughnessy, Mina. Errors and Expectations: A Guide for the Teacher .2: Basic Writing. N. Y: Oxford Univ. Press, 1977. Shaw, Marvin E. Group Dynamics: The Psychology 9£_Small Group_Behavior. 2nd ed. N. Y: MbGraw—Hill, 1976. Sherwood, John C. "The Oregon Experiment: A Final Report." CCC, 9 (Feb., 1958), 5-9. Shugrue, Michael. ‘English in a Decade of Change. N. Y: Pegasus, 1968. *—*_ Sinclair, J. McH., and R. M. Coulthard. Towards an Analysis of Dis- course: The English Used by_Teachers and Pupils. Oxford and N. Y: Oxford Univ. Press, 1975. 191 Smith, Dora V. "Problems of Class Size and the Efficiency of Instruc— tion in English." EL, 19 ( Nov., 1930), 724-36. Smith, Frank. Comprehension and Learning: ‘A Conceptual Framework for Teachers. H. Y: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1975. Smith, Frank. Psycholinguistics and Reading. N. Y: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1973. Snipes, Wilson Currin. ”An Inquiry: Peer Group Teaching in Freshman Writing." CCC, 22 (MHy, 1971), 169-74. Snyder, Flora. "The Use of Committees in the English Class." E2; 9 (June, 1920), 345-47. Speier, Matthew. How_£g Observe Face—to—Face Communication: A Sociological Introduction. Pacific Palisades, CA: Goodyear Publishing Co., 1973. Spigelmire, Lynne. "Use of a Modified Heuristic Device to Teach Peer Critiquing to Basic Writers." CEA Forum, 10 (Feb., 1980), 10—12. Squire, James R., ed. The Teaching 2: English. National Society for the Study of Education. 76th Yearbook. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1977. Stanford, Gene. DeveloEing Effective Classroom Groups: _A Practical Guide for Teachers. N. Y: Hart, 1977. Stoops, Emery. "Pooled Thought." EJ, 23 (Sept., 1934), 585—87. Strout, Beverly. "Writing Workshop: What Is It?" fig, 59 (Nov., 1970), 1128—30. Summerfield, Geoffrey, ed. Creativigy in English. Dartmouth Seminar Papers. NCTE, 1968. Sussman, Barbara. ”Student Seminars in Teaching Writing." Journal 2E English Teaching Techniques, 2 (Summer, 1979), 18—23. Tannen, Deborah. "Spoken and Written Language and the Oral/Literate Continuum." Dittoed manuscript, n. d. Washington, D. C: Georgetown University. Thie, Theodora M. "Testing the Efficiency of the Group Method." E_J, 14 (Feb., 1925), 134-37. Tressler, Jacob C. "The Efficiency of Student Correction of Compo— sitions." E2, 1 (Sep., 1912), 405-11. Trudgill, Peter. Sociolinguistics: An_lntroduction. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1974. 192 Verner, Zenobia. "A Student Writer's Workshop." In 93 Righting Writing. Ed. Ouida Clapp. Urbana: NCTE, 1975, pp. 55-58. Wagner, Linda. "The Student—Centered Theme Series." EJ, 53 (Dec., 1964), 689-90. Walker, Francis Ingold. "The Laboratory System in English." EJ, 6 (Sep., 1917), 445-53. Walker, James Paul. "A Study of the Comparative Effectiveness of an Experience-Centered and a Knowledge—Centered Method of Teaching Composition." DAI, 35 (1974), 3704A (Peabody). Waterbury, Pam. "The Red Pencil Blues." The Inkwell. No. 4. E. Lansing, MI, 1976. Whipple, Babette Samelson. Dynamics g: Discussion: Grouptalk. Cambridge, Mass: Schenkman, 1975. Wolf, H. R. "Composition and Group Dynamics: The Paradox of Free- dom." 9E, 30 (Mar., 1969), 441-44. Zimmerman, June Woodard. "An Investigation of the Effect of Students' Self—Concept of Writing Ability on their Writing Processes and Writing Achievement: Case Studies of Eleven Black College Freshmen.” .DAL, 38 (1978), 7132A (Florida State University). Zirinsky, H. B. ”An Investigation of Student Awareness of Teacher Criteria for Evaluating Writing as an Element in the Composing Process." DAI, 39 (1978), 168A. "lllmmm