The article was about how to respond to other students' writing effectively. Richard Straub tells readers not to imitate the teacher and "talk" to the writer as you are their peer. Throughout the article, he just give tips on what to do and what not to do when responding to someone else's writing. He says you should be clear when you write your comments and ask a lot of questions. He suggests that you, "point to problems and areas for improvement but do it in a constructive way." He tells the reader not to just blatantly destroy the writing, but be clear and assertive in what you think the writer should improve on. He encourages the reader to make marginal notes as well as comments at the end of the paper. These comments emphasize key points of the response and allow the writer to see where they need improvement. He talks about praising and criticizing simultaneously, saying that you should praise as much as you can but always expect more form the writer. Don't judge the writer work without considering who the writer is as a person. He uses a good example when he talks about the girl who is confident and arrogant. He says to challenge her to think more about her writing and present different perspectives for her to think about.
There was not really a point to argue because it was more of an informative piece but Richard does a good job of telling why you as the reader should do and shouldn't certain things when responding to other people's writing. He says it can give them a sense of confidence and some encouragement. He assumes that most people when responding are supposed to sound like the teacher when critiquing someone's writing when in fact, they are not supposed to.
I agree with the author when he says to "read the paper with an eye to the circumstances that it was written in and the situation it is looking to create." I agree with this because sometimes as readers and critiques we are biased as to what we are supposed to be looking for when we are responding someone else's paper.So if we begin with what our focus is, we will give more effective feedback and help the writer improve.
My golden line is " Instead of telling the reader what to do, suggest what she might do." (Straub, 140)
I chose this line because, I feel, in order to give good feedback you must be specific in what the problem is. In being specific, you must show the writer ways in which they can improve and not just simply tell them what is wrong.
The writer of this reading did do a good job in telling the reader how to edit and critique another student's writing. He got the information across effectively by breaking it down into different steps and giving small examples. I also agree that when reading and critiquing a paper, the reader should have in mind what the topic and focus of the paper is supposed to be. Also, the writer says that you should also keep in mind anything that you know about the writer as this will help you to understand where they are coming from with their writing. As far as his argument for the reading, I agree that there wasn't really any sort of clear argument. You could, however, say that he had small mini arguments in each of his "responding to writing" steps or paragraphs.
ReplyDelete