This model is the basis for most creative writing classrooms. It’s the “standard” or “generic” model so much so that many of those who have participated in an Iowa model creative writing workshop did so without knowing that it was the Iowa model at all, or even that other workshop models exist. At its essence, the Iowa model involves three things: 1) Student X sharing their writing with the class, usually in the days leading up to workshop; 2) classmates reading the writing, usually in the days leading up to workshop; and 3) a class discussion of Student X’s work, where Student X remains silent, taking in feedback. The spoken feedback Student X receives during the workshop is often accompanied by typed or written feedback letters from classmates and/or typed or written feedback directly on the piece of writing.

Benefits

• For the writer: This model offers the chance for a writer to be a silent observer during a discussion of their own work; they get to “see” their work as others see it, which can facilitate a deeper, more nuanced understanding of their work and where they want to take it moving forward.

• For the peers discussing the work: Peers get the chance to share authentic responses to a piece of written work, something they’ll likely be used to, as many creative writing classes also involve group discussions over published writing (stories, poems, etc.) in the week leading up to workshop.

• For the professor: This model is simple, well-established, and likely the one the instructor and students have experience with already.

Drawbacks

• For the writer: The silencing of the writer can cause irrelevant, unhelpful, and/or harmful discussion—for instance, classmates may be discussing world-building when the writer is most interested to hear about character development. As Sean Glatch notes in his article on creative writing feedback, especially as “[w]riting workshops have historically catered to privileged groups,” silencing a writer belonging to (a) historically group(s) is especially problematic. Finally, this model is not conducive to offering the writer space to articulate their own hopes and aims with the piece of writing.
• For the peers discussing the work: Even if told “Pretend the writer isn’t here,” it can be difficult for students to talk about a piece of writing in a genuine way with the author present. For instance, students may be overly quick to praise and overly hesitant to offer constructive criticism with the author in the room. 
• For the professor: Logistically, this model is time intensive. For an hour-long course with 20 students, it would take five consecutive class periods to workshop each student for exactly 15 minutes. Further, the “silencing” that occurs during this model can run against efforts to prioritize student agency and autonomy.

Citations

The quote from the drawbacks of the Iowa workshop model draws from Sean Glatch’s article (also included above), Creative Writing Feedback: How to Workshop Creative Writing. (text)