Blog Assignment #3

At some point in our academic careers, we're all faced with the defining moment of peer editing. Not everyone takes to it very well, maybe even like "fish out of water". Others, I'm sure, may absolutely enjoy peer editing and wish it would have happened more often. I certainly remember in my younger elementary years that this activity was one that many of my classmates considered to be wonderful, and fun, and any other colorful adjective that one could put here. I, on the other hand, did not find this collaborative activity to be enjoyable, not completely anyway. I never did mind being the one to receive the critique, I was the one that never wanted to give the critique. I recall one instance where we were assigned to write a short story. Once we were finished, we passed our paper to our neighbor, and he or she then critiqued what we wrote. This certainly sounds simple enough. While I did enjoy reading other's work, I was afraid of being too nit-picky or domineering in what I thought should be changed. Don't get me wrong, if there happened to be a grammatical error, a misspelling, or some other thing incorrect in the basic elements of my work, I would definitely want to know about it. The real issue that always bothered me was that whatever changes I would recommend to my peer would somehow devalue their work. What I felt, or what you might feel, should be changed about a piece might not be shared or even liked by the writer. I was worried that my opinions on how I felt the assignment could "be better", or what should be changed, would offend that person and I would somehow inadvertently offend them, resulting in one less friend on the playground. Yes, my teacher did tell us the "do's and don'ts" of peer editing and that was all fine and dandy. Now that we're all big boys and girls, I still can't help but to have this same sort of thought process when thinking of critiquing my peer's works.

Like Paige Ellis shared on her blog, I too, was once unsure of just how far I should go when critiquing. Even though I may want the little things pointed out in my work, that doesn't mean this person wants their work dissected in the same way. Paraphrasing what Dr. Strange said in a reply to Ms. Ellis, he says to her that we're going to be future teachers and need to practice. When I eventually become a teacher, I'll have to make that decision when I grade and critique my student's work. Ultimately, being nit-picky is a requirement of being a teacher. We are responsible for building up our students and making them in to better individuals, academically and as growing persons. BUT, there is a right way and a wrong way to going about doing it. Both videos Peer Editing by Youtube user nrpatric, and Writing Peer Review (Peer Critique) TOP 10 Mistakes" by Tim Bedley, along with Adriana Zardini's slide show Tutorial Peer Editing, all go about showing you how to do it correctly, and importantly, keeping your friend on the playground. Zardini and nrpatric give us three great steps to peer editing: compliments, suggestions, and corrections. As long as we can do all three without being what the student's in Tim Bedley's video call "Picky Patty" and without being a lackadaisical "Whatever William", peer critiquing or editing can be a fun and great learning process that students can benefit from greatly. Even though being picky was cast in a negative light, if done in a positive and correct manner, it can do more good than harm.