Review1

GG

Gustav and Marcela's excerpt MISSING

Barbara Schneider and Jo-Anne Andre certainly start highlight the need for instructors to encourage students in the academic identity in their own career in order to write with authority, but according to the authors not always happened that way.

The authors argue their proposal of doing wring peer critique as a way take in two mean ideas.

The first is Based on Clark y Ivanic (1997), Schneider and Jo-Anne indicate that the students use some conventions in which can be demonstrate a degree  of identity in writers and base their work stand three types of self in the writing practices; the autobiographical self, the discoursal self, and the authorial self the most importance as well. They also imply that writers' handling of discourse conventions could show them as experts or novices writers through the incorrect use of the citation conventions for example or specialized terminology, also point out the importance about the authority position of the author into the text, because “it has something to say” that’s why they underline the authorial self. 

The authors also mention the work of Walvoord and McCarthy (1990) indicating the following three roles that students should adopt in academic writing practices, which are: the layperson role, the text-processor role, and the professional-in-training role, this last one has a important implication in the ideas, and is the base in which they argue the importance to evidence the authority and identity as an students professionals writers. Finally the authors meritoriously affirm that all students have to improve the professional-in-training role in their writing practices, it shows the ability and the pertinence identity that have in theirs field.

In a great conclusion the authors argue the propose they have is to do wring peer critique as a way take models the describing representations of writers in texts to reach the goal as instructors should be to give students chance to develop a sense of themselves as professionals-in-training by developing an authorial self in their texts.

Authors Barbara Schneider and Jo-Anne Andre stand that students most write from a knowledge base as a way to ensure them to know and understand what they are critiquing. According to the authors this process ends on constructing an authorial voice. 

Schneider and Andre talk about the importance of genre conventions as key elements of an effective critique. They argue, in a logical way, that if students learn tacitly the academic conventions of a discipline, maybe “through trial and error may slow their progress toward mastering academic genres”.  Of course, other elements are implicated in the appropriation of authority such as class, ethnicity, sexuality, gender, etc.

As a way of constructing a critique voice students may take into account when writing a critique the content; they should comment on strengths and suggest areas of improvement. But, instructors should not hand a guide for students to tick because this will limit them while building their critical character.

The authors effectively establish some factors that are involved in an effective Written Peer Critique. These factors are determined in such a great way by instructors who may encourage students to build their authorial character without using a checklist. Students most figure out how to critique taking into account the knowledge they have of a discipline and how they feel about their peer written.

Barbara's two section of classes
first class


-Write one page summary about Raymond William's essay
-Write three questions about
-The audience for the summary was an hypothetical absent student
-She gives to the students a list of effective summaries in specified context
-Homework was to get copies for the whole class of the summary and questions that they did



Second class
-Divided the class into two groups, each group with one part of the essay making discussion about it, developing join understanding
-Unified the class and present their thought to the rest of the class
-Form a discussion about with the questions that they did
to be continue..

Diego's excerpt missing

Schneider and Andre present a type of categorization that they analysed based on the types of comments the students gave to his peers. Those comments show them that they are three possible types: one offered praise, other is about the students confidence to point problems and offer suggestions, and the last one is about the lack of authority show in a text. 

After the authors present these categorization, they talk about the importance of teaching conventions to the students in order to be more specific and critique with the comments that they do to their peers. They support this idea based on Clark and Ivanic (1997) who said that when you teach those writing conventions it gives to the students an "authoritative voice on others".

The examples that are presented in this part of the text, makes a very real approach to those types of categorization comments presented above, but when they talk about the using of conventions as a very useful tool to increase students authority, you would like to now more about it and how to use it and perhaps if they used it in their research. However, this "useful and important" tool is only mentioned in that part of the text and it does not have a deep and clair explanation. 

Barbara Schneider and Jo-Anne Andre argue that students can reinforce the authority of their own experience as readers by doing comments about their peers written exercises.

They also notice that students are used to offer personal reactions on their comments  and that they learn to  identified the problems that could be found by readers and lead to misunderstood. 

Finally, Schneider and  Andre mentioned Clark and ivanic (1997) to developpe the idea that peer critique serves to get the authorial presence in responding to texts writing. In the same way they mentioned Geisler (1994) to express that even students that have the capability  to write very well tend to underestimate their writing habilities within the academic field. 

The article said or expressed to us in which ways students temper the authorial voice in their peer critiques, the text said “ students comments on the completeness and accuracy on their peers’ summaries could easy mistaken for instructors’ comments”, but also the article asserted that “however the students critiques sometimes included a personal voice often lacking in teacher commentary”. Also the text told us that more striking feature of student’s critiques can be seen in the different ways student’s temper their authorial voice is the use of politeness hedges.

The article show us some examples this is one of them: “Please forgive me if I have made any unfair judgement. Thank you”

The article asserted how students often framed their responses as invitations to the writer to “considerer” their “suggestions” and they often used modal constructions to qualify their comments: “Maybe you could……”, “You might want to……”It may be better to….”, etc…

The article indicated that while these strategies temper the voice of authority incorporated in the critiques, they can be seen as a natural outcome of the rhetorical situation in which students are writing to each other as equals rather than as authorities in a position of power over each other. In addition the text explains that at first glance this feature of the students critiques seems slightly disconcerting but perhaps because of instructor commentary and the voice critique we are most familiar with almost never shows this kind of sensitivity to the other students audience, for instance we can’t imagine an Instructor ending a comment with a disclaimer with something like: “If you don’t agree with any of my comments feel free to disregard” as one student wrote in her critique.

In conclusion although students responder may appear to turn up authority trough hedging remarks, qualifications and polite constructions, their writing display more awareness of what it mean to the colleagues and themselves, as the text named Clarck ans Ivanic (1997) :being considerate to the reader involves making space for the readers’ own intentions and interpretations.

At the end of the text "Developing Authority in Student Writing through Written Peer Critique in the Disciplines", the authors Barbara Schneider and Jo-Anne Andre present the Epistemological Underpinnings and Pedagogical Implications of the pedagocial strategie "Written Peer Critique". Based on the conception of writing as a social activity that "accomplishes  meaningful social functions", the authors propose that Written Peer Critique can help students to build their own authoratitive voice. In that way, students get self confidence and the sense of authority. Those factors become students' tools for reading their peers' text by using a critical view. Besides, those factors contribute to the creation of disciplinary or professional conversations between students.

Written Peer Critique help students to become in professionals-in-trainning. This means, those students are able to read and respond with authority and confidence their peers' texts.

John's opinion:

When I participated of this kind of practice in an Spanish subject before, I was disagree with it, because in that time I thought, the teacher was the only authority to do this job, I wasn't comfortable with the fact my classmates had to check and to correct my writings, at the same time, I believed I don't had the capacity to correct them. Now, after have read the article and to check  other sources, I think I was wrong. this is an excellent tool to improve and interact with the other classmates. is a good share with others, where all of us to feed our selves from the suggestions.

I know that this sort of practices will bring us authority and security in writing.