December 9, 2015

Peer Review of Teaching: Peter Carillo

I observed Peter Carillos English 101 class on the afternoon of December 2, 2015. At
this time, the class was working in the final unit of the semester, which focused on revision of a
paper from earlier in the course. The main goals for this particular class were to get students
thinking about their own writing processes and where revision might fit into that process as well
as offering students different methods to approach their own revision. The class was clearly
geared toward these goals, working students toward being better prepared to undergo the unit
assignment. The unit assignment specifically addresses the third goal for English 101, which
states that students will revise to improve their own writing, both on global and local levels.
The class began with a journal entry where students wrote about their writing processes,
from the time they receive an assignment to the time they turn it in. After responding to this
prompt, Peter asked students to discuss what they wrote about, recording elements of the
students processes on the board. Peter led the class to list steps in the process in order at first,
but then took the opportunity to ask students for the other options available, inserting steps
throughout the process. This practice helped to validate and value each students response, and as
the board filled with different options, students could see quite clearly that they all took different
approaches to writing. Most students in the class contributed during this process, and the
classroom was engaged.
In order to shift the focus of the class to revision, Peter asked students where revision
might come in their own processes. Several students offered their opinions, and Peter noted their
thoughts on the board as well. Notably, one student suggested that he was constantly revising as
he wrote. This allowed for a great moment where Peter was able to point out to the students that
they all revise in different parts of their process and are probably doing it almost unconsciously.
In this instance, Peter was able to both reply to the students comment and also use it to
demonstrate a useful point to the rest of the class. Validating student responses and relating them
back to the class at large was an effective strategy Peter used to provide feedback. The first half
of the class seemed successful in getting students to perceive revision differently.
Next, Peter asked the class to get out the clean copies of the papers they planned to
revise. Individually, students were directed to look through the papers, considering opportunities
for revision. This part of the class was brief, but several students offered some ideas on how they
might revise, and Peter followed up these comments with thoughtful advice.
In order to give the class more concrete methods for revision, Peter worked with some
digital resources and the projector to introduce students to the paramedic method of revision,
developed by Richard Lanham at UCLA, and the concept of sideshadowing, proposed by Beth
Carroll. The class discussed pros and cons to each approach. For the paramedic method, for
example, Peter led students to see its focus on mostly surface level concerns and that following
its steps would not lead to significant content revision. Importantly, Peter emphasized to the class
that the methods they discussed were options and that students must try out different approaches
in order to find what works best for their particular writing styles. Throughout, Peter connected

the concepts the class considered to previous assignments and discussions. This seemed quite
effective in leading students to see how they could apply the information from the day, as well as
concepts learned throughout the semester, to the upcoming revision assignment.
Throughout the class and most notably at the end of the days activities, Peter emphasized
for the class the fact that he is, like them, a student and a writer. By displaying a seminar paper in
progress on the overhead, complete with marginal notes and editing marks, Peter showed
students that revision is not just a specific assignment they must complete, but a useful part of
the writing process used by real writers to produce better drafts.
At the end of the class, Peter asked for feedback from the students in regard to their
upcoming assignment. A few students asked clarifying questions and were given appropriate,
helpful feedback. Students appeared to have gained confidence in their ability to successfully
complete their revisions.
Overall, I found that the classroom environment was calm and respectful, leading to a
setting that was conducive to student participation and learning. Peter is able to cultivate this
environment through a composed, approachable command of the classroom that students seem to
appreciate. Students appeared to be comfortable participating in discussion and activities and
interacting with Peter, which is vital to a productive classroom. From my observations, I feel that
Peter is doing a great job of working toward both the department goals for English 101 and those
set for his individual class.