What is a good alternative to general commenting to writing?
Students must realize a short generalized comment on what they see and read in an article is fear from what professors and the original writer are looking for. Writing “change this” and “change that” do not do much to give an idea to what really needs to be fixed to convey the point across better to the reader. This method of short changing proper reviewing for the sake of not having to do work defeats the purpose of peer revision. If a peer is not willing to “rhetorically” read like H&F stated, the text that you wrote will be foreign to them.
Furthermore, it helps to have developed a general language between the writer and the reviser. As two students, peer editing can be a great advantage. A peer can identify and give an account of their experience to your writing. The language built as a “vernacular” gives flexibility to communicate the ideas easier.
Using the “PQP” method is a good alternative to general commenting because it goes into detail about what is wrong with the article, and how it can be fixed. Praise offers a way of telling the writer this is what you like about the work as a reviser. It is positive reinforcement to the reader. Questioning the writer on his motives of writing is a good way of make sure that every word and phrase is relevant to the topic. It also trims the extra fat off the steak of writing. In the end you are left with a good, entirely relevant piece of information. “Polish”ing make the review of the article complete by suggesting what changes will make an article better.
In conclusion, taking time to really read and understand what the author is trying to say is the best way to revise. To see from the authors perspective will help judge your revisions so that you make the right choices.
No comments:
Post a Comment