TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
> When I teach, I encourage students to do revisions. I believe that they
> will learn more by revising a paper than by just sticking in a folder
> marked "Finished Homework" (or lining the bird cage with it), even if
> all they do is change the suggestions I've marked.
> This method works well. However, I've also tried doing in-class reviews,
> where the class goes over two or three papers and critiques them. As you
> might expect, I've run into problems:
[material deleted]
I've taught and used this method abraod, with a major
cultural adaptation -- which you might like to try.
At about mid-term, when everyone had produced at least
three papers of about five pages in length:
I divided students into groups of four. They received
a paper written by someone in another group; the
papers were distributed 'blind' - - i.e., I knew who
the authors were, but the re-writers didn't.
The assignment: to critique the paper and re-write it - -
each student taking at least one page; yes, they had
to collaborate, so the style was consistent.
The public critique was a re-reading of the paper with
one student introducing each section with the formal
critique which had been jointly written, the reasons for the
changes - - difficulties encountered, and so on.
It worked very well. No one lost face, everyone
gained some experience, both critiquing and re-writing.
