Rosie Beard

Peer Review Jill

1. Based on the requirements:

a. Description of the session and a specific focus were both included and
can be seen in the paper. However, I feel like your focus (how much of
my talk is too much) does occasionally get lost or even excused. For
example, on page 6, you claim that you did a lot of talking but that
you felt like it was necessary. Why was it necessary? How was this
talk different from the talk that you consider to be too much?
b. Analysis, using Blacks methods and otherwise, is present throughout
the paper. Discussion of what the talk did for the writer/session is also
present, more than it is in mine, but there are instances where it isnt
mentioned. For example, on page 2, how does your backchanneling
effect the session or the writer? You say that you gave her the
opportunity to explain her assignment and that you allowed the writer
to hold the floor. Implied power dynamics aside, what did that DO?
c. Lots of transcript! I might almost say too much? You have big chunks of
transcript preceded by not a lot of analysis. Half of page 4 and the
entirety of page 5 is entirely transcript, and yet the analysis that goes
with it isnt a whole lot. I definitely think you could cut down on that
portion of transcript especially. Also, try to include time stamps
consistentlyyour last three portions have them, but the preceding
ones dont.
d. Your conclusion focuses more on the fact that the writer was able to
demonstrate learning and that you became more aware of your
tutoring habits (simply the good, the bad, and the ugly) than it does
on discussing what you learned from the assignment. You say it was an
excellent learning experiencehow so? What exactly did you learn?
Which tutoring habits of yours are the good? Which are the bad or the
ugly?
e. Primary use of terms is from Black or occasionally Gilewicz. However,
at least one area where you could bring in another reading is when you
mention questioning on pages 3. Referring to Thompson and
Mackiewicz, what TYPES of questions were you asking her?
2. For simplicitys sake, Im just going to list the terms you use from
Black/Gilewicz along with the explanation you provide and/or my
understanding of them based solely on your paper.
a. Word count (Black) no explanation provided; however, common
knowledge term, so none is needed. Its pretty obvious what this
means.
b. Minimal overlaps (Gilewicz?) you explain them as interruptions.
Since theyre called overlaps, Im a little confusedare you
overlapping in your talk? Or are you interrupting her? Are they

minimal interruptions? Not sure exactly what this means or what it

looks like.
c. Backchanneling (Black/Gilewicz) defined as a type of overlap, things
like okay, uh-huh, sure. You also mention that the writer maintains
the floor, so I assume shes just talking over you when youre engaging
in backchannel.
d. Cooperative overlap (Black) First instance (p. 3) has no explanation,
so I have no idea. Working together while talking at the same time,
maybe? Second instance (p. 4) defines it as aggreable [sic]
interruptions. So I am again confused, first of all because overlap vs.
interruption and also because there were more cooperative overlaps
(aggreable [sic] interruptions) than interruptions. So there were more
agreeable interruptions than interruptions?
e. Controlling (power) statements (Black?) No explanation. Assumedly
its a statement that you use to keep control of the session?
3. See above!
4. Other strategies you could talk about:
a. Directives (Black, pp. 14, 45). You mention dominating the session, but
aside from word count, you dont really specify how. Reading your
transcript sections, I think that you could talk about your tendency to
direct your writer as another aspect of how you dominate the session
through your talk. Some examples of directives can be found in lines
39, 121, and 495-496.
b. Topic initiation and control (Black, pp. 23, 25-26). This can tie into
dominating the session as well. Youre very firm about where you want
the session to go as opposed to where the writer wants it to go.
Examples can be seen in lines 22-24, 98-99, and 102-103.
c. Minimal responses (Gilewicz, p. 29). While you focus a lot on your own
talk, you dont touch a whole lot on the writers. For example, just from
looking at the bits of transcript you have here, Im not seeing a lot of
minimal responses from the student. I counted only 7 (lines 38, 64,
101, 104, 116, 126, 514), and most (if not all) of them are responses to
yes/no questions. I think that this could be a good area to point out
what YOUR talk is doing to influence the writers, in that the writer
seems to be more willing to actually talk.