I have to say that I would love to be student in a class led by either Barry Lane or Richard Kent. Barry Lane would make me want to write. I loved the visual prompts he provided--thoughtshots and snapshots, the flashlight activity for focus, inside questions and outside questions, and seeing the tension in the story as "the potato, the thing that both the writer and reader want to dig up and find out more about." The reader and the writer are working together to uncover the truth (as is always the case, really.) The idea of soliciting reader questions to spur and give purpose to revision seems promising. Students tend to view revision as basically unnecessary..just a matter of correcting the grammar and spelling. In the real world, revision is a critical part of composition. When readers have raised questions about the meaning, intent, etc. of his paper, an author would be revising for a "real-life" purpose--and least more "real life" than simply to meet the expectations of his teacher.
Richard Kent's Room 109 with its sense of community, gift of choice, emphasis on peer editing and reader reflections student's work seems like a warm, supportive, yet challenging writer's environment. I was struck the part of Matthew's year end reflection: "Reading other people's papers has also helped my own writing." I had not fully considered the benefits to the editor as well as the writer in effective peer editing!
Barb
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Yes, this is exactly the point of critical partners. It is hoped that you both learn from and provide insight to your partner. It is a give and take relationship--one that has to be established from the very beginning.
ReplyDelete