one: props to the folks whose screencasts we watched in class. They were both really professional and did a good job of explaining how to use the tool they were about and making it seem friendly at the same time.
two: on the word "use" -- the reason it's so difficult to come up with a definition of "information literacy" that does not include the word "use" is that it's the most common word in the English language to describe the action/process of taking something and doing something with it for a purpose. So yes, it's an incredibly vague word, but that's how languages tend to work a lot of the time -- common words have a wide range of meaning, determined by the context of where they were used. If you want an great example, take a look at the entry for "ago" in a good Latin dictionary sometime. The entry's at least a full column long.
three: I know all the reasons why peer reviewing (in the sense of looking at them in class, etc, not in the sense of peer-reviewed academic journals) papers is such a good idea. I know that it's good to practice your critique skills on real documents written by people at roughly your level, that reviewing other people's work helps you to improve your own, that it helps reduce teachers' work loads, every reason in the book, but the fact is, I absolutely hate having to look at and comment on other people's work. I never know what to say unless the work in question is really bad, and then I get in trouble for tearing it to bits. I also never seem to get useful feedback from when other people peer review my papers, so the entire process feels like a waste of energy. That's not to say that I've never gotten useful help from friends on my assignments, but it seems to work better if I go to a particular person for help with a particular issue, or even ask a particular one of my friends what they think of something that I've been working on, rather than the "everyone pass your papers to the person on the right" model that I tend to associate with formal peer reviewing in classrooms. I thought that one point that Sadler made was really true -- that it's really hard to say anything about something unexceptional. But for peer review (or anything really), for some reason it's not okay to say, "It was okay. There's nothing wrong with it. It's not going to win a Pulitzer. But it's solid and competent." Why does everything we do have to be outstanding? What's wrong with doing a competent, workman-like job?
four: on connecting teaching/learning with the real world: There needs to be a better way of connecting science-for-school and math-for-school with science-for-real and math-for-real (especially the math, since the disconnect seems to be almost total). I will admit that my experience with science-for-real and math-for-real has been rather limited and second-hand, but it seems to me that there's no connection between science and math as they are taught high-school and lower and what real live scientists and mathematicians do. Science-for-real isn't about memorizing a bazillion factoids, and math-for-real isn't about doing pages and pages of exercises. It's tricky, because to get to what real live scientists and mathematicians do you do need that general background of knowledge, but there's also very little understanding going on about what science-for-real and especially math-for-real even are. I had no idea until I got to college and started hanging out with people taking upper-level math that math was really about ideas and concepts, and that it was possible to be creative and make new discoveries in math, and that there was more to math than pages of cut-and-dried exercises that just got more complicated the further along you got. Maybe I'm trying to argue that upper and lower level math need to be integrated (no pun intended) more, instead of existing as almost completely different domains. But then I think, does everyone need to be able to do upper level math, or should we settle for just everyone being able to balance a checkbook?
I agree with your view on in-class peer editing - I think it can be helpful if both parties put equal effort into the process, but the model of "pass your paper to your right" typically does not work. Being a peer writing tutor in college, however, did teach me a lot because I was not simply "editing" papers, I was helping students become better overall writers. Explaining writing techniques and concepts to students required deeper understanding on my part. Perhaps this is closer to the "learning from peers" that is valuable.
ReplyDeleteAs so often happens on your blog, you tease out really fascinating points from class and the readings. At the risk of sounding elitist, let me posit this possibility: that "pass your paper to the right" may mean you're passing your paper to someone who is not your peer. I wonder if many UM students (who tend to be above average in their K-12 and undergraduate studies) experienced what you did in their K-12 experience. When you seek out one-to-one feedback, you're specifically targeting a peer (if not someone more expert). It could also be that the peers did not have good scaffolding/guidance from the teacher in what it meant to be a good peer editor, hence vague compliments or comments. I played with the idea that more scaffolding of the peer editing experience or providing language for feedback (both for the author and the reviewer) would be helpful when you did your edits in 624. I wonder ... was it effective?
ReplyDeleteI can definitely understand where you're coming from when you talk about peer advising. I know I've had pretty positive experiences with it in the past, but I don't think it works for everybody and in every situation. I think because my experiences were in college, I got more out of it then say maybe a high school or middle school student. You might still come across the occasional slacker in college, but I think it's safe to say that when you reach a certain level in school, you are much more responsible and can take your job as a peer editor more seriously. I also think that as long as the guidelines are explained thoroughly to all students, and a rubric for revising was given to each student, then you have a much better chance of getting some quality comments and critiques from your peers. I think it's not only important for you as the author of the article to get feedback, but you as the editor to give feedback too.
ReplyDeleteI can relate to your hesitation about commenting on other people’s work. I think Sadler made some really good points as to why this is useful. But when it comes to putting that into practice, I sometimes feel uncomfortable commenting on other students work. Making critics can seem harsh well simply saying “good job” or something along those lines feels completely unhelpful. I guess doing this activity continually helps with creating a balance between these two lines though. I think Jill's comment that having a rubric for advising is good and would make the process easier.
ReplyDeleteIn one college class of mine, the professor taught us what made constructive peer feedback and how to offer useful and manageable comments for improvements. The problem is, it's hard to give feedback that is worthwhile and constructive if students are never taught how. Some times peer feedback can be just as helpful, if not more, than teachers/professors, and students tend to be more available especially if the course is large or the professor busy; this is not to say that instructor feedback isn't great and the best, but student/peer feedback can be good and useful, too.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOff topic: I'm not sure if you're really interested in the subject of mathematics as ideas, but there's a book by David Salsburg you might want to look at--The Lady Tasting Tea: How Statistics Revolutionized Science in the Twentieth Century (2001). I'm not at all interested, but found this wonderfully readable.
ReplyDelete