I am an avid hunter. In my ENC1101 class I was asked to peer review a classmates essay. Her topic was why hunting is unnecessary and mean, or something to that nature. For the 15 minutes or however long it took me to review it I was forced to read generously and sort of assume her point of view temporarily so as to not give a biased review, definitely reading with the grain.
I have also read against the grain. Last year, I had a friend that was writing and essay and he had finished his rough draft. He asked me to play devils advocate for the points and supports in his essay. I read it and picked out every weakness and potential counterargument I could find. Anyway i could disagree or argue the opposite I did. It was probably the most critical i've ever been on a piece of writing.
Zack,
ReplyDeleteThat's cool that you used examples from reading student's papers. When we do peer review, it will be necessary to do both. Indeed, I would argue that even though you would have to initially read generously, this classmate would have benefited from your arguments for hunting, since it would have forced her to address them.
I used to like hunting--I didn't have much luck though, so I found it a bit boring. The biggest game I ever got and ate was a squirrel.