Breuch, Lee-Ann Kastman. “Challenges of Virtual Peer Review.” Virtual Peer Review: Teaching and Learning About Writing in Online Environments. State Univ. of New York P: 2004. 79-107.
The use of online media and the textual nature of commentary raise complications relating to ownership and authorship. The collaboration used in online peer review may differ from that of f2f peer review in that written comments may be integrated into texts. This is an “illustration of the remediation of peer review to virtual environments” (80). To address these challenges, the relationship between virtual peer review and collaboration needs to be made clear. Virtual peer review and f2f peer review are similar in that they are both forms of responding to writing but differ in that virtual peer review lends itself to editing more easily. To minimize appropriation, Breuch suggests that “explanatory editing” (85) be used to promote student learning. Virtual peer review is a form of collaborative learning but should never be confused with collaborative writing. Collaborative learning aims to improve writers’ ability to produce their own text. This is done through interaction between the reviewer and writer. Hence, the reviewer should not make extensive additions to text. Breuch outlines an important way in which technology may undermine writing center pedagogy. This is an example of the substantive view of technology. She also discusses ways in which tutors may have to adjust their practices to adhere to theoretical principles of writing centers.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Remediation in the Online Environment
Breuch, Lee-Ann Kastman. “Virtual Peer Review as ‘Remediation.’” Virtual Peer Review: Teaching and Learning About Writing in Online Environments. State Univ. of New York P: 2004. 7-35.
Using Bolter and Grusin’s notion of remediation, Breuch applies it to electronic communication, specifically peer review, to ascertain the extent to which online peer review draws on or remediates f2f peer review. She defines virtual peer review “as the activity of [peers] using computer technology to exchange and respond to one another’s writing for the purpose of improving writing” (10). She concludes that while virtual peer review draws on the same theoretical principles as f2f peer review, in practice, there are fundamental differences. Virtual peer review is therefore “a remediation of face-to-face peer review in the sense that it emphasizes stark differences rather than similarities” placing emphasis on written communication over oral communication and highlighting the way in which “differences of time, space and interaction in Internet environments” affect response (8). This has pedagogical implications. Not only does it support social theories of language espoused by Bruffee and others, it emphasizes the need for technological literacy. It should not be taken for granted that the shift from f2f peer review to online peer review is natural and intuitive. Rather, in the same way in which f2f peer review is systematically taught, techniques of online peer review also need to be modeled. This view reflects the substantive theory of technology in that it emphasizes the way in which computers as a medium can impact the online tutorial.
Using Bolter and Grusin’s notion of remediation, Breuch applies it to electronic communication, specifically peer review, to ascertain the extent to which online peer review draws on or remediates f2f peer review. She defines virtual peer review “as the activity of [peers] using computer technology to exchange and respond to one another’s writing for the purpose of improving writing” (10). She concludes that while virtual peer review draws on the same theoretical principles as f2f peer review, in practice, there are fundamental differences. Virtual peer review is therefore “a remediation of face-to-face peer review in the sense that it emphasizes stark differences rather than similarities” placing emphasis on written communication over oral communication and highlighting the way in which “differences of time, space and interaction in Internet environments” affect response (8). This has pedagogical implications. Not only does it support social theories of language espoused by Bruffee and others, it emphasizes the need for technological literacy. It should not be taken for granted that the shift from f2f peer review to online peer review is natural and intuitive. Rather, in the same way in which f2f peer review is systematically taught, techniques of online peer review also need to be modeled. This view reflects the substantive theory of technology in that it emphasizes the way in which computers as a medium can impact the online tutorial.
Developing an OWL
Hall, Mark and Thia Wolf. “One Writing Center’s First Steps Onto the Web.” The Writing Lab Newsletter 28.3 (2003): 1-6. Oct. 2008 .
OWLs provide greater access to writing centers thereby democratizing them. In this way, they can benefit non-traditional students. The OWLs which Mark and Wolf created was designed to extend, not change, the social constructionist based pedagogy upon which their writing center was based. This ensured that tutors could work in both f2f tutorials and online tutoring. They also added links to online resources such as the OED, and grammar and style manuals. They opted to use synchronous online tutoring for this better fits with the goals of writing center pedagogy, emphasizes a non-hierarchical environment and mimics the f2f conference. They view asynchronous tutoring as “a virtual ‘drop-off’ proofreading and editing service, in which students might simply e-mail papers to a tutor, and then receive a single written response” (3). These writers echo the view shared by many other writers that synchronous tutorials are better able to promote writing center pedagogy. They also subscribe to the instrumental theory of technology which they think should extend but not alter practice.
OWLs provide greater access to writing centers thereby democratizing them. In this way, they can benefit non-traditional students. The OWLs which Mark and Wolf created was designed to extend, not change, the social constructionist based pedagogy upon which their writing center was based. This ensured that tutors could work in both f2f tutorials and online tutoring. They also added links to online resources such as the OED, and grammar and style manuals. They opted to use synchronous online tutoring for this better fits with the goals of writing center pedagogy, emphasizes a non-hierarchical environment and mimics the f2f conference. They view asynchronous tutoring as “a virtual ‘drop-off’ proofreading and editing service, in which students might simply e-mail papers to a tutor, and then receive a single written response” (3). These writers echo the view shared by many other writers that synchronous tutorials are better able to promote writing center pedagogy. They also subscribe to the instrumental theory of technology which they think should extend but not alter practice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
