Responding to Peter Elbow’s “Sharing and Responding”
“Sharing and Responding” is actually a pamphlet extract from
a larger textbook, “A community of Writers”. The goal of this writing was to
help “writers become comfortable and skilled at asking for feedback and giving it.
I believe this is very important to know as writers because most writers feel pushed
back in allowing other readers give them feedback or respond to their work,
which could be as a result of fear of responders giving bad feedback or making
their work look bad. Bringing out these 11 techniques of asking for response to
one’s writing will make writers and also students confident, by choosing which
of the response they would want from their readers. Also, students (readers)
who are asked to respond feel reluctant to judge or evaluate their fellow
classmate’s writing and give advice on how to improve the writing. According to
Peter, writers do not need an evaluator, they need a thoughtful, interested
audience rather than “advice-givers”. The techniques go from quicker to more
time-consuming, easier to harder and from safer to riskier. Although, I
understand the techniques and how it makes the writer develop confidence and
trust with the responder, but I see no difference in applying the techniques of
responding and asking for evaluation of the writing. This is unless if the
writer wants to use the 1st technique, “Sharing: No Response”, where
the writer asks the reader to just read his/her work as a “form of communication
or celebration” with no feedback needed. The rest of the technique, especially
the 7th technique, “Movies of the Reader’s Mind”, seems to be
ranking the writing. The writer ask the reader to tell him/her “honestly and in
detail what is going on in their minds as they read (his/her) words”, which
according to Peter is the richest and most valuable form of response, which
requires the writer to feel confidence in himself/herself, because when getting
the response from the readers, they may say they don’t like the writing or be
angry with it. What if the writer gets embarrassed or angry? This is a topic
that I would like to discuss with the authors if I am to meet with them. I
believe as a writer and responder, what is needed is trust between them, which
is going to drive the objective feedback and the writer not feeling bad about
it. Also, making the responder realize that criticizing or giving feedback to
the work is not criticizing the writer, it is all about telling the writer what
he needs to hear to make the writing better.
Considering Peter Elbow’s “Writing without Teachers” and
Kenneth Bruffee’s work on Collaboration and Writing, there is no doubt that
peer response can play a significant role in the writing process, especially if
both writers and respondents are engaged. In Bruffee’s foundational article,
“Collaborative Learning and the Conversation of Mankind”, Bruffee makes clear
that students are working “collaboratively on their writing not when students
write or edit or, least of all, proofread, but instead when students (1)
converse, (2) talk about the subject and about the assignment, and (3)talk
through the writer’s understanding of the subject (645)”. Also, in the summary
of Daniel Starch and Edward Elliot’s 1913 School Review articles in
Kirschenbaum, Simon and Napier 254-59, they tell us what it is like to evaluate
or rank someone’s writing, “We know the same thing from literary criticism and
theory. If the best critics’ can’t agree about what a text means, how can we be
surprised that nothing in literary or philosophical theory gives us any
agreed-upon rules for settling such disputes.” This is also something to
consider when a student hand in his writing to two different teachers for
grading. The teachers will obviously give different grades because they don’t
see it in the same light, which supports Peter’s writing about giving a
non-judgmental feedback. Although, composition theorists are critical of Peter’s
writing, arguing that it fails to empower students to effect change through language.
These critics argue that Elbow’s theory “hides the social nature of language”
(Faigley 531) and teaches students how to “assert a private vision, a vision
which, despite its uniqueness, finally represents humankind’s best nature”
(Berlin 487).
As a teacher of writing, I believe that Peter’s writing is a
powerful force in composition studies. Placing the power and authority for
learning how to write squarely in the hands of students, makes them feel
involved and they will derive joy in their writing. Using such techniques as free-writing,
open-ended writing, and other forms of private writing, students are encouraged
to tap their own ideas over the academic community. So, the students will be in
control of their writing. The teacher just leads them along, and their fellow
classmates becomes the readers and responders. Also, as the teacher, before we
begin the groups formally, the class looks at something I'm working on. I read
it aloud; they read it silently. Then I encourage everyone to give a response.
I let them see how the "I" statements work. ("I was with you
there; I saw exactly what you were talking about.") The statements makes
editors to tell the truth and keep authors from feeling like they're being
attacked. I model the appropriate non-defensive author behavior that includes
taking notes and responding gratefully to helpful comments. I listen, nod, and
say little but, "Thanks." This is great fun for me, prodding them to
take my writing to task, which eventually my students would have helped me
immensely with my article. Then, I allow them to take charge of theirs. This
affirms Peter’s writing on Sharing and Responding aims to help bring about a
productive environment for group work. The activities featured in his writing
moves from nonjudgmental kinds of responding to criticism to help build students’
confidence and trust.
Comments
Post a Comment