Originally used within dance, the critical response process offers a highly structured, artist-centric approach to workshop. This model includes the writer and the responders (in this case, classmates) who participate in a dialogue mediated by a facilitator (in this case, the instructor). The model, as detailed online, includes four steps (Lerman, 2025): 

1. Responders present “statements of meaning” by indicating what was “meaningful, evocative, interesting, exciting, and/or striking in the work”.
2. The writer asks questions about their work to the responders.
3. Responders offer what Lerman calls “neutral” or opinionated questions to the writer (for instance: “What was your intention with the poem’s last stanza?” rather than “Why did your poem end so abruptly?”).
4. Responders offer opinions about certain facets of the work, if the author indicates she’d like to hear an opinion on said facet of the work. The facilitator works to keep the process on-track and focused throughout.

Benefits

• For the writer: Throughout this process, the writer maintains autonomy—they get to pose pertinent questions to their classmates, field classmates’ questions about their work, and decide to hear (or not hear) classmates’ opinions over certain elements of their writing. This autonomy can help the writer guide the discussion in a helpful manner.

• For the peers discussing the work: Some peers may appreciate the opportunity to interact directly with the author rather than bearing the brunt of the workshop conversation. Also, the experience of presenting neutral questions is a helpful skill for having effective, open conversations both inside and outside the classroom.

• For the professor: The pressure on the instructor to provide the “expert opinion” during discussion is removed from the equation with this model, as their role is explicitly to facilitate. Further, the structure this model provides can help relieve instructors of some of the labor involved in deciding how to facilitate discussion.

Drawbacks

• For the writer: Some writers may feel uncomfortable when it is up to them to accept or reject talking about certain elements of their work. A writer’s decision to reject commentary over a certain facet of their work could also limit or disallow potentially illuminating conversations for the author and peers alike.

• For the peers discussing the work: Some peers may feel silenced, especially if the author declines to hear their opinions about their work. A writer’s decision to reject commentary over a certain facet of their work could also limit or disallow potentially illuminating conversations for the author and peers alike. Further, some might feel the structure this model imposes causes conversation to be stilted and unnatural.

• For the professor: Similarly to the Iowa model, the Critical Response Process is time-consuming. This model may also require the most modeling and/or time spent preparing students, given the novelty of its structure and the specific skillset, such as learning to ask neutral questions, that it requires.

For additional resources for creative writing, click here.

Reference

Lerman, L. (2025). Critical Response Process. Liz Lerman. https://lizlerman.com/critical-response-process/