Group Meeting #7

In this meeting we explored the idea of giving feedback in the form of "movies."

We talked about how this form of feedback was different from the other methods - at first, we were confused, and couldn't really see a huge difference between "movies" and summary and say-back. We decided that the difference was subtle - your reaction to something after you have read it will naturally be very different from your response to it as you're reading it. The analogy of a movie fit very well for this method of feedback. 

We decided to read Ting's short story Sky Flying, but since she had to leave for a meeting (?), we each wrote our comments and responses in "story-form" ever few paragraphs. This way of giving feedback offers a completely different perspective to the author...

At the end of the meeting, we asked each other how effective we thought the group feedback has been. We each agreed it has been mostly confidence-building, but it has also pointed out things that the writer wouldn't have noticed, and has been a resource of advice about what needs work and what's good... 

Sixth Group Meeting Summary

First, our group read the Criterion-Based Feedback piece, and then had a small dialogue about the importance of feedback in all areas of our schoolwork, from science to history. All four of us were in agreement with many of the points from the reading. We all felt that we focus on topics such as content, organization, language, voice and mechanics when we give each other feedback. We also felt that the point about evaluating the meaning of a fiction piece is essential for a good piece of writing.
Afterwards, we decided to look at each of the pieces (revisions) we all had written for class and put the concepts to practice in our feedback. Each of us spent about 25 minutes reading all three pieces (from the other group members.) We each wrote down feedback for each person in bullet points. Then, we discussed as a whole group again each person and gave suggestions for improvement. Lastly, each person sat with their own piece and feedback, and wrote down a question for our own writing for you.
Overall, I think some of the things covered in this reading was a bit repetitive for us, since we have all had plenty of experience peer-editing other students’ work and giving constructive feedback. However I think it was a good reminder of the possibilities for giving positive feedback. Learning how to give good feedback also translates into better personal writing and awareness of our own flaws and areas for improvement.

This was another one of those days where we were missing some of our group members, so things went by pretty quickly. Stephanie and I basically went through the procedure step by step; we decided to formulate our questions and then read the selection that was about voice. It was surprising how both our questions were indeed about writing in a way that seemed like an authentic representation of our voices. A question I asked about my piece was whether I had successfully created an illusion of dialogue in my writing. Stephanie responded that I did this, and that the structure of the dialogue actually helped give my thoughts more structure. A question that Stephanie asked about her piece was actually about the use of two voices- the voice of her as a child experiencing something, and the voice of reflection about that experience. She told me that the piece wasn't finished, but wanted to know which "voice " could be utilized more effectively. I thought that she actually did a good job of starting the piece with the younger voice to draw the reader in and going on to explain what she thinks with the older voice.

Group Meeting Number Four!

Sorry this is so late.
Last group meeting, Stephanie and Don reviewed their meeting and told Ting and Shiori what "Summary and Sayback" was. Then we went on to the Protocol.

Each of us though for a while and came up with our questions for our group.

Ting's challenge was to create a realistic dialog. Her question for the group was whether a "realistic" dialog could be interesting, and if her piece seemed to be progressing to slowly.
The rest of the group responded that a dialog that is "realistic" can be interesting, as long as something is happening. We agreed that Ting's piece would be slow, if it continued at its current pace, but we suggested varying the pace...

Stephanie's challenge was to write an analytical response to the piece we read several meetings ago, "Black English." She was wondering whether she was allowed to be as opinionated as she was. The group's response was that for that adding more support and evidence would "let" her be opinionated.

Shiori's challenge was to write lyrics to songs through a stream-of-conscience method. He was wondering whether anyone picked up on any cohesive ideas or themes in either of the songs. The group agreed positively, but said they wanted to hear the songs.

Don's challenge was to write about extremely complex, abstract concepts and connect them to more concrete, literal examples. He was wondering if he was successful in doing so. The group agreed that it was an extremely difficult challenge and that the piece has the content to be successful. We suggested organizing and building on the ideas he already has. We also noticed that his piece is one HUGE paragraph. It could help to break it up.

Don and Stephanie's 3rd "Group" Meeting!!

Hey guys, here’s an update of what Don and I discussed during our 3rd meeting (Shiori and Ting were absent).
--We read about “Summary and Sayback” and while looking at the samples of summary and sayback feedback, we noticed that many of the comments we made while reading “Black English” during our last meeting were similar to the sample feedback. Don and I realized that we often do utilize these two types of responses to discuss writing.
--We then looked at every group member’s piece and applied the feedback protocol we read about to their writing.
--Then Don and I talked about our focuses for this semester and realized that we each were interested in topics that the other had explored last semester. While I was able to give Don input on his piece about freedom and the implications of adhering to the norms of society, Don was able to discuss with me the interplay among cultural diversity, minority groups, and capitalism in America.

Second Meeting Summary

Here's a basic outline of what we did during our meeting:

• We initially followed the procedure suggested by the handout that we received at the beginning of class.
• Then we went around and read both "Pointing and Center of Gravity" and "What's Wrong with Black English."
  
• After we did that, we had an impromptu discussion about the writing style and pointed out how it was obvious that the work (the latter selection) was not revised yet. We were confused about the general argument of the author. We then went back and shared memorable lines and phrases.
  
• It said use the protocol for each piece in our group, so we went and looked at the examples given in the text.
• Finally, we tried the procedure (Center of gravity) with the writing that we had. I can remember most clearly the work that we did for Shiori's object story and Stephanie's piece about the "Hsu trait."
  
• O.K. I am going to try and connect everything I said above with the main purpose of this report. You may be able to see that we slightly modified the procedure by allowing some time to talk about the message of the piece in addition to its center of gravity.
• There were some insightful moments where we discussed what we did not want to do as writers, like overuse words that are key to our arguments. We noticed how the author overused words like country and people.
• There wasn't an obvious connection between the last meeting and this one, but I think we did try to put what we said last time into practice. We sometimes strayed off course but came back to the topic at hand.
• I personally did see that each member of the group had a certain "voice" in their writing.
  
• Hopes for next meeting: Hopefully we can manage to have more time to discuss writing techniques that we like to use...
  

I GOT 1ST POST!! yeeayuuh

Hi peeps...so here's a little overview of what we did today:

--We went over/shared our metaphors, semester writing goals, and support that we plan to give ourselves as well as to each other.
--Don: Bamboo shoot because you try to be prolific and resilient in your writing process. You plan to work on revision techniques, diction, and sentence fluency among other goals during this semester. We can help you by keeping you on task!
--Shiori: Fishing trip because your writing process involves a period of struggle and procrastination, but eventually you find that a reward awaits you at the end! You plan to procrastinate less this semester and stay on task. We can help you by reminding you to use your Tiger Days and discussing your writing with you…
--Tingy: Oil painting, because your writing process starts out difficult and you need inspiration to move you to write. Your goals are to write something funny, a play, and work on time management this semester. We can help you by commenting on your revisions and also keeping you focused! (Sneaking over to your house and standing behind you while you do your homework.)
--Stephanie: Fetching water from a well, because it is a difficult but rewarding process to finally get my ideas out onto paper. I plan to write more eloquently, explore different writing styles, and maybe look into poetry. You guys can support me by helping me pace myself and open up to new ideas.

--We also shared the first drafts of our Object Stories—passed them around in a circle for everyone to revise and comment.

--Happy Almost Friday ALL STARS!