One of the biggest problems I have when teaching peer revision is getting students to comment on each others’ drafts. Student often lack confident enough in their own opinions and reactions, so they believe they have nothing of value to say when giving feedback. So while I’ll never completely prevent their reticence to commenting, I chose to do some work that might warm students up to the task.
For homework, I asked students to reflect on their time in college. Since most (with the exception of two or three) of the students in my classes are entering freshman, I’ve been assigning reflective writing assignments over the weekend. This particular assignment was the “4S” reflection. Students wrote about what Surprised them about their first weeks in college, what Sacrifices they are making to be in college, what Solutions they are having to come up with for the problems they are encountering, and what they think or feek about becoming a Scholar. Low stakes writing. But meaty enough questions relevant for students transitioning into college.
In the first installment of this two-part post, I tried to capture how I used a fishbowl protocol to demonstrate peer critiques. You might want to eyeball what I wrote there first. I ran the demonstration in four separate classes, switching it up a little each time based on the success or weakness of each iteration. I'd like to reflect here on what worked, what didn't, and what I'd do differently. In no particular order, here goes:
- I gotta do this whole process much, much earlier in the semester - students appreciated observing the process. My verbal description couldn't capture a session. It's all about "showing and telling". Plus, doing this process earlier makes time for separate editing sessions. I want to keep revising and editing as distinct as possible.
- The first session, I didn't share the peer critique guidelines with the rest outer circle. Afterwards I quickly crafted a quick version of the guidelines for the remaining three demonstrations We "popcorn red" the guidelines and stems before each of the subsequent demos. Made a huge difference because students had a sense what to observe.
- During the sessions when students had printed guidelines, I instructed them to take notes on those guidelines as if getting ready to critique the author. This kept them engaged beyond simply listening. After the inner circle finished their process, I asked if anyone in the outer circle wanted to share their comments. Many students volunteered, rehearsing the stems. i could hear how well students "got it" (or not!).
- By the third demonstration, I realized it would be good to review key terms of the assignment in addition to reading the peer critique guidelines. In this case, the project was a narrative, so prior to diving into the fishbowl, I had students pair-and-share relevant concepts: action, exposition, thought-shots, flashbacks, transitions, description, explanation, plot, dialogue, etc.
This post is the first of a two-parter about using "fishbowls" in an English class. This installment outlines the purpose of the fishbowl protocol and how I used it to demonstrate a peer critique session. In the second post, I discuss what I learned from the process and what I plan to do differently the next time I use the process.
In my English classes last week, I experimented with a protocol I learned in my counseling graduate program: the "fishbowl." We used the fishbowl technique to model a peer critique session to get ready for actual peer critiques students would do in a subsequent class.
I wanted to do something a little different than the kind of peer revision that relies on checklists. Those protocols are useful, but limited. Often, those revision sessions turn into editing and surface level exercises. I hoped to facilitate meaningful conversations between students, and I think this process has potential. I did four different fishbowls over a period of three days and met with great success.
One of the biggest problems I have when teaching peer revision is getting students to comment on each others’ drafts. Student often lack confident enough in their own opinions and reactions, so they believe they have nothing of value to say when giving feedback. So while I’ll never completely prevent their reticence to commenting, I chose to do some work that might warm students up to the task. 
