The Language Teacher
04 - 2000
Introducing the Writers' Peer Support Group
Andy Barfield
*Author's note: This text is the collaborative reading and writing of Andy Barfield, Jim Goddard, Wayne Johnson, Wilma Luth, Jill Robbins, Sandra Smith, Craig Sower, and Malcolm Swanson.
| The Language Teacher currently has two editorial bodies in place for reviewing material for possible publication. The Peer Support Group (PSG), described in this article, is a recent creation, and we wish to thank Andy Barfield for his vision and energy in assisting its development. The Editorial Advisory Board (EAB) is the more formal avenue for manuscript vetting. Manuscripts are subject to blind review by two board members, and their recommendations passed on to both the writer and TLT Editor. We deeply appreciate the work of this volunteer group in assisting TLT with article selection. TLT is always on the lookout for new members for both the EAB and the PSG. Persons interested in assisting either body with reviewing manuscripts should contact the Editor. |
Every writer is an island? Perhaps. For sure, writing with a reader who gives responses to your writing can be more motivating than writing solo, as the following reaction from a writer shows:
Jim: I was expecting some quick thoughts. This was much more in depth than I had imagined . . . . Since I hadn't heard back and didn't know how the piece was being read, I was re-writing the piece blindly, but many of the changes are in accord with the comments.
Helping writers beyond that isolation and collaborating with writers as they develop their texts are two modest aims of The Language Teacher Peer Support Group.
The group has come together informally as a network of colleagues interested in giving peer responses to writers who would like to try and get their articles published in The Language Teacher. This network started up in November 1999, and has been collaborating with just a couple of writers so far.
The process of peer support
The process goes like this: If you are interested in benefiting from some peer reader responses on different drafts of a work in progress, you can contact the Peer Support Group. (See the contact information at the end of this column.) You then forward your text in progress as an RTF attachment, and the PSG decides which two of its members will partner you on your writing.
The next stage is for the peer responders to place their responses in the attached file, and send them back to you. You then have the chance to read their comments, and see some different points and interpretations that your readers have raised.
Wilma:: I was quite impressed with his interest and enthusiasm for my article. He pointed out ideas that he liked or agreed with, as well as points to clarify and strengthen. His well-thought-out comments and questions are allowing me to take a step back from the article and look at it from another, more objective, perspective. I'm finding this very valuable as I continue the editing and rewriting process. I feel fortunate that I submitted this article when I did, and so have been able to take advantage of the Peer Support Group system.
Jim: The kinds of comments I found most useful were those that helped me to organize my thinking about the topic I was writing about, or gave input about solidifying the layout or presentation of the paper. Reminders regarding appropriate focus on audience were also useful to me, if couched in a sensitive way.
Over several writer-responder exchanges, the process continues until you are satisfied with your final text.
Sample peer responses
What kind of peer response might a writer get? This varies according to the nature of the writer's text and needs, as well as the responder's style. However, in the set-up period, the team has also been trying to establish, in collaboration with the first writers, a set of core principles by which to work. Here are some sample responses, before we look at the principles that we are still developing.
Becoming clearer about content
This is a big leap for me here. It may be useful for you to place some type of sub-headings in here.
Becoming more specific:
'Things' is a little vague. Do you mean techniques, methods or activities?
Judging the need for explicit specialized knowledge:
I like this intro, but some readers may not be aware of what a "pidgin" is. You may want to define it and pidginization briefly here -- Richards' dictionary of applied linguistics has some nice examples.
Questioning the sense of audience:
Writer: I have a question regarding the audience for the article. I'm kind of having a tough time feeling my way around this point. My feeling was that the program in itself is rather interesting, but maybe that's just because I was involved with it.
Reader: To me the key point is that fascination and your own interest . . .
Writer: Do you have any further suggestions about the opening?
Reader: How about starting from a living image, something specific, and then move into the body? My feeling was that I wanted to see a much more personalised opening rather than some dry generalisations at the very start.
The peer responder, it is clear, treads a fine line between supporting the writer's development of the text, and imposing the reader's own values on the writer's work. Indeed, although peer support is intended to be collaborative, it always risks becoming evaluative, in that the writer may feel that his/her position as owner and creator of the text has been undermined. This is the case, for example, in the following unsuccessful peer response, as the writer points out:
Writer: Other comments seemed invasive in the sense that I felt they began to take the writing process out of my hands:
Reader: The strengths need to be more strongly stated if the writer believes in them -- i.e., remove the 'perhaps'.
We are learning as we go, and make no claims to perfection. However, we do strive to set the writer-reader relationship on an equal footing.
Developing a set of working principles
What, then, are the basic working principles that we have been developing? The first working principle is that the peer responder should frame points and suggestions in a manner that enhances, rather than threatens, the writer's confidence. The second principle is that specific peer responses are more powerful than generalised comments for helping a writer re-think. Reader comments need to speak to a particular part of the text, in other words. Having focussed on specific details of the text, the reader should consider the overall development of the discourse in order to avoid unnecessary nitpicking comments. That is the third working principle; it entails, for example, that the peer responders give pride of place to comments about content and organisation rather than trivial points of language or argument. The final working principle is this: Each writer lets the peer responders know which comments have or have not worked for them, and why. In this way, we hope to make the writer-reader collaboration open, collegial and developmental for both sides.
The clarity of experience and the experience of clarity
Much has been written about peer responding, yet it remains, in our experience, a relatively limited feature of professional discourse in the increasingly "publish or perish" world of foreign language teaching and research. This pressure may have unforeseen consequences for all of us as we write. It pulls us towards isolation. It encourages us to hedge our bets. But more than anything it can seduce us into losing our individual voice. How might we counter these effects? One simple way is through writing with a reader and writing with power. In a word, we hope the Peer Support Group can help you "breathe the clarity of experience and the experience of clarity" into your writing about language learning and teaching.
Contacting the peer support group
Currently, two writers, Jim Goddard and Wilma Luth, are collaborating with Peer Support Group members Andy Barfield, Wayne Johnson, Jill Robbins, Sandra Smith, Craig Sower and Malcolm Swanson.
If you're interested in sharing your writing with the PSG, or in joining the PSG as a peer responder, please contact:
Andy Barfield, Foreign Language Center, University of Tsukuba, Tennodai 1-1-1, Tsukuba-shi, Ibaraki-ken 305-0006, Japan; <andyb@sakura.cc.tsukuba.ac.jp>
All materials on this site are copyright © by JALT and their respective authors.
For more information on JALT, visit the JALT National Website