In both
writing and teaching of writing, peer critiquing is a big deal. It’s one of the
hot topics in both worlds. There’s a certain knack of being able to critique
another person’s writing. It’s an absolutely essential skill to becoming a
better writer. Critiquing teaches a writer how to accept criticism and sharpens
the eye for mistakes in his own writing.
I use it
when I write, and I’m eager for as much feedback as I can get, and happy to
reciprocate.
I don’t use
it when I teach.
As I said
before there’s a certain knack to a critique. The fact is my students don’t
have the ability to critique. They don’t know what to look for or how to make
comments. They simply don’t have the level of expertise necessary to point out
mistakes.
Furthermore, they’re too afraid of
hurting an author’s feelings to offer valuable, necessary criticism. They
mistake the content of the message for the tone of the message. Because of this
they simply write something positive (I agree, I like what you said, this is
good) and be done with it.
Consequently, when the writing
moves on to me, I find obvious mistakes are shot throughout the writing, and
that the peer experience has done nothing whatsoever to make them better
writers. For an activity such as Peer critique, it’s a bit of chicken and the
egg. What comes first, language proficiency or peer feedback?
I’m still looking for a way to make
it work, but haven’t found it yet.