A P P R O A C H I N G E N G L I S H C O M P O S I T I O N AS A P E E R - G R O U P L E A R N I N G E X P E R I E N C E : A C A S E STUDY

Reynold Feldman

ABSTRACT: With frequent voicing of concern by the popular press t h a t Johnny can ne i the r read nor write, the present article describes a successful exper iment in the teaching and learn ing of expository writ ing. Based on the peer learn- ing model, the experiment, or iginal ly conducted over a four-year period a t the Univer- sity of Hawaii a t Manoa, has been used with apparen t success at both the secondary and graduate levels as well as in regular college composition courses. The chief aspects of the approach include (1) mas te ry learning, (2) a consciously informal atmosphere, (3) a product orientation, whereby the class as a whole produces a final wr i t ten work, where possible of some social usefulness, and (4) the careful development of the wil l ingness and abil i ty to learn and work cooperatively r a the r t h a n as individual competitors.

The official course description specified %he writ ing of essays from logical and rhetorical p r inc ip les . . , to assist s tudents in the wri t ing of lucid and logical exposition which is interesting and original . . . . " Having taught the course once the standard way, I felt dissatisfied with the results. The good students had wri t ten well, the poor students poorly, and the outcome, after much ink spil l ing--both red and black--seemed questionable. One thing, fiowever, was clear. All of us had thoroughly exhausted ourselves. We were sick of wri t ing and of each other. We were chiefly glad that the term was over.

That was 1967. Over the intervening years I have taught expository writ ing at least a dozen times. With each new course I would discard or revamp some technique or other.But the peer-group approach, born of my initial discouragement, prevailed throughout. What I shall de- scribe here is what I now consider the most successful experiment,

Dr. Fe ldman is Director of Program Development a t Northeast- ern Illinois Universi ty, Chicago, Illinois 60625.

Alternative Higher Educatkm, Vol. 2(3), 1978 0361-6851/78/1300-0237500.95 ©1978 Human Sciences Press

237

238 ALTERNATIVE HIGHER EDUCATION

namely, a 6-week course given during the Universi ty of Hawaii at Manoa's first summer session, 1971.

Class met a total of 28 times, for 75 minutes each, during the 6-week session. The one-page dittoed syllabus concluded with this s ta tement on grading: ~F = completion of no wri t ten work; C = completion of some, but not all, of the required papers, rewrites, and quizzes; B = completion of all required exercises; A = high-quality completion of all required exercises, faithful class attendance, regular verbal participa- tion, and conscientious correction of class papers." The only text re- quired was the latest edition of the Harbrace College Handbook.

Meetings 1 and 2 were listed as Introduction/Games and More Games, respectively. As a pre-World War II baby, I had had my doubts about the efficacy, or even harmlessness, of so-called sensitivity excer- cises. However, my subsequent experience with the awareness ap- proach had convinced me tha t these techniques, if used carefully, selec- tively and, above all, without reference to the words ~sensitivity," ~awareness," or ~'encounter" (though the term '~yoga" seemed accepta- ble) could help lighten the atmosphere and prepare the way for the cooperative industry essential to our venture. So, we began Meeting 1 with a yoga asana called ~the Lion." I demonstrated to laughter as follows: ~The purpose of this exercise is to get us re laxed~loosened up. So--f i rs t you stand up, with your hindlegs spread apart and your forelegs and paws stretched out in front of you. Stretch your claws also as far apart as you can. (I'd bet ter take my glasses off, since lions don't wear glasses.) Okay, I 'm going to bug my eyes out, t ry to touch my nose with my tongue, and roar with all my might." Then the rest of the class joined me for a second round. After this brief exercise, the general first-meeting tension would be gone, and we could proceed to the next game.

This time, I informed the class, we would play a game so simple it was h a r d - - a game requiring coordination, skill, and, above all, the ability to snap the fingers of both hands. This game, in short, was the Name Game. With that , I explained that my name was Reynold as in Reynolds Wrap (or as one wag put it, '~Reynold's Rap") and tha t only my mother referred to me as Doctor (as in ~my son, t he . . . " ) . I then asked us to go round the room (the 22 of us were seated around a super-seminar table built up of four rectangular dining-size tables placed together) with each person stat ing his or her name and offering some device to help remember it. Finally, we got to the game itself, which called for slapping our knees twice in unison, then snapping the fingers of the right hand followed by the left hand. As we snapped, the ~'it" person said his first name on the right-hand snap and anyone else's

REYNOLD FELDMAN 239

on the left. The ~receiver," without breaking rhythm, had to repeat the operation with the lone proviso that he chose a person other than the one who just had "sent" to him. Whoever fumbled had to begin anew. Then, after 5 minutes, I asked if anyone could go around the room and identify all the names. The first person to try was inevitably success- ful. He or she called in turn on someone else. Before too long it was my turn, and just as inevitably I confused a name or two. By this point no one had any trouble calling me Reynold, and by the end of the second meeting everyone had everyone else's name memorized for the rest of the course. Indeed, students in classes where I used this technique often mentioned at the end of the semester that this was the only college course in their experience where they had learned the names of all their fellow students!

At this point I handed out the syllabus and explained procedures. The course would be divided into three parts: preparation, production, and refinement. Preparation, the longest part, would last 14 sessions and would include (1) introduction and games (session 1-2), (2) reviews of mechanics, grammar, structure and style, with accompanying mas- tery quizzes (sessions 3-8), and (3) three small-group essays--in the narrative, descriptive, and explanatory modes, respectively (sessions 9-14). Production (specifically, the production of the one required indi- vidual paper on any subject and of any length) would occur during sessions 15-23. In other words, the class would discuss the strengths and weaknesses of their colleagues' compositions, generally two or three per meeting, during these nine periods. Refinement, finally, would cover the last five sessions (24-28). Dittoed revisions were to be circulated one class period before they were due for discussion (session 24, 25, or 26). Then, on the basis of additional oral and written criti- cism, we would present our final drafts carefully typed on ditto masters at session 27, during which we would deliberate on the best Way to arrange our forthcoming anthology. The final session, then, would serve a dual function: Having jointly collated the dittoed typescript, we would celebrate the successful completion of the course with a prear- ranged potluck party (our ultimate cooperative venture). As it turned out, after unanimously agreeing that each of us deserved an A accord- ing to my schema, we spent the time left writing our final "compositions"--notes or inscriptions in our fellow-participants' copies of The Third Draft: A Collection o f Hassled-Over Essays.

To review the curriculum in somewhat greater detail, during the second meeting we began with the name game but quickly moved on to the trust game, an exercise used frequently in awareness and sensitiv- ity training. One of us stood in the center of the two tight circles that

240 ALTERNATIVE HIGHER EDUCATION

we formed. The persons in the middle of each circle had then to close his/her eyes, spin around, and fall over backward. The members of the circle had, of course, the task of keeping their falling colleague from ever hitting the floor. We continued this game until everyone had had his or her chance to be ~'it." As usual in this early stage of the course, I made it a point to go first. The remaining games, likewise aimed at building cooperation, related more closely to communication. First, we dug out the old party game '~pass the message," with the three mes- sages used all focused on the art of writing. The initial message, more- over, was of medium length and difficulty, the second of greater simplicity, and the last of considerable complexity. For this game the student participants divided into two teams. Then, the same two teams finished up the session by playing "collective poet." In short, both teams received a sheet of typing paper with the same single line writ- ten at the top. Each team member had then to add his or her contribu- tion to what the preceding teammates had written. The results, of course, tended to be comical, and so, session 2 ended with a greater willingness to work together--and with laughter.

To review fundamentals, I spent an entire session, respectively, on mechanics, grammar, structure (including paragraphing and outlin- ing), and style. For each session, moveover, the appropriate chapters in theHarbrace Handbook were assigned. After the sessions on mechanics and grammar, and again after those on structure and style, I gave quizzes designed to measure how well the students had the rules and principles concerned under control. Subsequently, students who did poorly in a particular review quiz had to take new quizzes until they showed near-perfect proficiency in a particular area, be it the use of hyphens or of transitional devices. Meanwhile, I was introducing the standard correction symbols we would be using as well as reviewing the matters at hand.

Finally in this preparatory part of the course, I asked the student participants to break up into fbur groups to write cooperative essays. During three sessions these groups had full freedom to compose what they wanted as long as they (1) stuck to the mode of development specified--session 9, narration; session 11, description; session 13, explanation--and (2) presented me with correctly written ditto master sheets by the end of class. During the following sessions (10, 12, and 14), then, the class as a whole practiced correcting and commenting on these brief essays. I emphasized the need for clear, diplomatic, yet truthful comments that went to the heart of each composition. As a general rule, we were always to look for and comment on the strengths of each paper as well as the weaknesses. Also, we were to sign our

REYNOLD FELDMAN 241

names to our comments so tha t the author of the paper could check back, if necessary, with the author of the comment. Thus by the t ime the first individual themes were presented at session 15, weo already (1) knew each others' names; (2) felt fairly easy and confident in each others' company; (3) were able to participate in cooperative projects; (4) were fairly sensitive to common writ ing errors and the s tandard sym- bols used to indicate them; (5) were familiar with three modes of ex- pository wri t ing--narra t ion, description, and explanation; and (6) were prepared to wri te comments on and orally discuss each others' themes in a forthright yet supportive manner.

In fact, the following nine sessions were not at all characterized by failure either to get work in or to give meaningful comments. I do not mean to say that every theme or comment was equally valid or useful. But the collective effect of 21 comments, each carefully wri t ten since the commentator would himself soon be exposed to tha t part icular person's appraisal of his paper, was overwhelming. Thus, in the normal comp class the student, disappointed or upset at having gotten ~shot down," may consider part icular criticisms the teacher's word against his. But in our class of ~fellow editors," all the Indians could not be wrong!

Another point to be made about these ~production sessions" con- cerned how the classes were run. Specifically, the person whose paper had jus t been discussed became the moderator for the discussion of the next paper. The first moderator during a part icular session, moreover, general ly chose the format for that day's discussion, al though the for- mat on occasion changed from one moderator to another. To give a few examples: We sometimes went around the room, with each critic read- ing his commentary so as to avoid merely ~seconding ~' what another person had already said. Or, the moderator asked for whatever ques- tions or comments there might be, in order, on mechanics, grammar, structure, style, and content. Or sometimes, we were asked to break up into four- or f ive-member groups for 45 minutes of discussion, after which we reassembled and a presenter from each group reported on tha t group's findings.

This, then, is essentially what took place. Each participant, includ- ing me, wrote just one official paper. But between the several revisions of the paper, often no more than 300 or 400 words long, the group essays, and the 21 wri t ten commentaries (occasionally longer than some of the papers), all of us did a considerable amount of public writ- ing.

As for the success of the overall approach, I would say, first, tha t all 21 students who began the course finished it. Moreover, the a t tendance

242 ALTERNATIVE HIGHER EDUCATION

was o u t s t a n d i n g ~ h a r d l y anyone ever m i s s e d - - a n d the a tmosphe re l ight ye t businessl ike. No t on ly did the s tuden t s f inish the course, bu t t he y were of one mind in express ing how m u c h they fel t t h e y had prof i ted f rom it, as the fol lowing ~yearbook" comments on my copy of ou r f inal product suggest :

o~'I really enjoyed and learned a lot from this class."

~Now, I don't mind English. I really enjoyed this course.

~This is the first time I ever liked English."

~Again thanks for teaching us so much, not only things in English but practical things as well."

~'Your class was really terrific. In fact, it was a once-in-a-lifetime (I had to get hyphens in somewhere!) experience (thank goodness for the sanity of all concerned!)."

~Really, super-enjoyed your ~class.' I've gained a lot and hope to use some of 'tit" when I teach . . . . "

"This class has really been fun, also quite a learning experi- ence . . . . "

~Thoroughly enjoyed your class and I know it's helped! . . . I hope, C.T. [Cooperating Teacher] permitting, to teach the Feldman Ap- proach to writing!"

"This has been the MOST terrific English course I have ever taken! Thanks to you and your method.

Never in my whole life have I ever enjoyed an English class until I was able to get this course.

A l th ou gh m a n y of the comment s s ingle me out as the chief fac tor in m a k i n g the course enjoyable and useful , I be l i eve t h a t the peer -group approach i tse l f deserves much more of t he credit . I t h u s ag ree with. t he s t ud en t who wrote , '~It's r ea l ly been g rea t h a v i n g an ~instigator' l ike you as a teacher !" My role, I feel, was m a i n l y to set up t h e sys tem and m a k e i t work. Stil l o t he r ev idence in favor of the approach ve r sus a n y p a r t i c u l a r pe rsona l i ty comes f rom a fo rmer col league in the U n i v e r s i t y of Hawa i i Eng l i sh D e p a r t m e n t who has also used th i s m e t h o d of teach- ing composi t ion wi th considerable success. As for the objective qua l i t y

REYNOLD FELDMAN 243

of the s tudent writing, I find the overall effectiveness of expression and freedom from technical faults generally superior to that achieved in s tandard hard-line composition courses I have taught. The reasons for this effect, I believe, are not far to seek.

First, there is the joy in learning, which replaces fear and anxiety with the desire to do the assignments, come to class, and participate. Too long have we in the educational establ ishment tended to rely on the ~hell-fire" approach of heavy, uninterest ing assignments and low grades, with the students si t t ing passively in class while we lecture on logic and grammar. A chief a t tempt in this course was to open the students ' minds and feelings to the mat te r at hand. The use of games, the learning of each others' names, the clear guidelines on grading-- all from the s tar t - -p lus the deceptive requirement of only one paper of any length and on any subject (deceptive because the participants, of course, did much more refereed writing during the term than that one paper) helped to achieve this goal.

Second, I should mention the product orientation. Life in America is product-oriented; there is simply no getting away from this fact. In the summer-session class described above, to be sure, the product was merely a collection of the participants ' essays in final-draft form. In other 315 sections, and in the original Emily Dickinson graduate seminar where I first used this approach, however, we produced writ- ings with applications beyond the context of the classroom. At any rate, the psychological effect on writers tha t their creation will even- tual ly be published (even if only for each other) tends, I believe, to make them more careful.

The third and most important element of the approach, though, is the sense of cooperation that I a t tempted in various ways to instill from the very first session. All of us, myself included, had to write essays; all of us had to offer constructive criticism on our colleagues' efforts. All of us, beginning with me, had to chair meet ings and organize them for the most efficient use of the limited available time. The nub of the matter , nevertheless, lies in the community criticism. Even the most incisive, most conscientious teacher will not have the t ime or energy to find and comment on every error in a student 's paper. But 21 surrogate teachers will tend to find and comment on vir tual ly everything. I have already mentioned the persuasive power of a large group of colleagues independently arriving at the same, or at a related, critical conclusion. The corollary is tha t this approach circumvents the usual Oedipal fric- tions between student and teacher tha t may prevent the s tudent from accepting the teacher's advice---especially when the teacher not only goes by his first name, as first among equals, bu t undergoes and

244 ALTERNATIVE HIGHER EDUCATION

willingly accepts constructive criticism from his student peers. (As teacher, of course, I was anxious to give the best possible example. But the other participants also wanted to shine, to give good examples, and to receive a minimum of criticism from their colleagues.)

In the case of English 315, finally, some of the metagoals achieved were as significant as the expressed goal of our becoming better ex- pository writers. These metagoals essentially follow from the three points just made. First, having learned by having fun, students had the revelation that learning could be fun. Students who prior to the course were ready to drop out, as several told me later, were now prepared to stay in school. Students who had formerly hated English came to love it again through--wonder of wonders--a composition course. In fact, the general joie de vivre of the participants was inevitably strengthened.

Second, all of us learned by doing and thus became better able to exist in a product-oriented culture. Indeed, we learned to be learners, writers, editors, and--in the case of the Dickinson seminar and two other groups that got together reports on innovation in American higher education--doers of significant research.

Finally, in a society marred at times by selfish individualism and cutthroat competition, we learned to cooperate, to work together in a productive, harmonious, truly human manner. Amidst the impersonal- ity of a large state university, some of us made lasting friendships. In any event, we learned to criticize constructively yet diplomatically. Also, we learned by leading class sessions to understand some of the management, or leadership, problems facing teachers (or any indi- viduals obliged to conduct a cooperative, product-oriented undertaking of a group of human beings). This last experience, as well as that of criticizing and learning to profit from criticism, I take as especially useful for future teachers, as the majority of the 315 students were.

Of course, no human undertaking is perfect. Each time I have given this course, I have made some changes or variations based on the preceding experiences. Still, of all the courses I have taught since 1961, I find the particular summer-session composition course described here to have been in every way the most successful. Therefore, I would be happy to learn of the results of similar attempts elsewhere to humanize and enlarge the effectiveness of teaching expository writing through what I have called the peer-group-learning approach.