John
C. Bean’s “Writing Comments on Student Papers” is a very straightforward piece
which addresses the immeasurable importance of sensitivity and constructive
criticism when in the position of “paper-grader.” This positive reinforcement
of students can only serve as a tool for improved skills as well as incentive
for success. I especially enjoyed the section on “mitigated criticism” which is
explained quite thoroughly. The combination of both positive and negative
elements, presented in an encouraging yet succinct manner, seems a very honest
and productive method for this task. Students are praised for their strong
choices while being reminded of their weaker areas that need attention. The
approach clarifies, for the student, where revision is needed while praising
the sections that exhibit strength. I also was impressed by the concept of
teacher as coach (instruct and encourage) and later judge.
The
strategy for teachers placing the comments on a later draft as opposed to
each rough copy makes sense as does the hope this will prompt revision. The
list of possible marginal comments, and sample paragraphs included, I found
very helpful. The author runs workshops on this process of grading/ commenting
on student writing, so these examples are worthwhile tools. It does appear that
grammar truly is considered far less important than one would think when it is
referred to as a “lower-order concern.” Because grammar does seem to be a
recurring situation in many cases. “student-driven” corrections demanded by
teachers is completely acceptable. Also, the refusal to grade papers until said
student has cleaned up these errors, is fully within the scope of reason.
Stylistic problems, however, are not so easily dismissed.
Wordiness
is another problem, and one I can relate to far too easily. I generally have to
eliminate a great deal of my original writing to create anything free of
excessive language. Choppy sentences are hard for readers to follow and need to be
avoided--students have to try and smooth their writing for their intended
audience. The review of all these marvelous skills, organized and clarified by
the author, is an invaluable reference I may turn to hopefully one day as I
grade papers. I rather enjoyed this useful and informative essay.
“Response
to Writing” written by Richard Beach and John Friedrich, is a very similar
piece which also supplies vast amounts of research, innovative methods, and
outcomes. A somewhat older work geared towards a larger range of students, this
essay is filled with statistics from various research projects on the same
topic. These studies found that:”...the nature and quality of the teacher’s
feedback during the composing process is critical to whether students revise”
(223). This research shows how essential it is for students to understand a teacher’s
feedback in order to utilize the recommendations in a positive manner. The
revision process can then be a source of substantive change towards a higher
quality of writing.
The
section on teachers misjudging a student’s writing is reflective of Peter
Elbow’s piece and his suggestions to know students as people in an effort to
objectively and constructively read their works without bias. Also, the stress
in this discussion on knowing one’s audience reminded me of our discussion last
week, and Martha’s knowledgeable reply. The techniques for feedback in this
study are consistent with the other piece--most teacher’s comments are deemed
too vague, inconsistent and just not very helpful. Elbow’s “reader-based
feedback” (226) is referenced as a method of positive reinforcement; I felt that
concept is the equivalent of the “Mitigated Criticism” discussed by Bean in the
previous essay.
The
majority of students:”... prefer comments that explain why something is good or
bad about their writing” (226). As for peer review, the point made in regard to
student’s effectiveness is quite true; I often am uncertain how much is proper
to say when in this position. Training for this task would probably be
productive as well. I found the trend towards teacher conferences to discuss
writing issues more personal and a wise choice as well as the online
conferencing tools. In retrospect, both essays offered many excellent processes
that have been proven effective as per research. Hopefully one day soon I will
find myself in a position to utilize my new-found knowledge!
The
final essay: ”One Approach to Guiding Peer Response” by Kim Jaxon, is an answer
to my suggestion for student training for this task! The author is quite
thorough with her instructions for successful peer responses, and the process
makes a lot of sense. I especially liked
the clarity of this author and her inclusion of both questions and an example
feedback statement. The only drawback to this process is that it involves a
great deal of extra writing for both parties.
Assuming
that all students in the class have the same assignment, both the initial essay
(with its accompanying research) and the requirements listed for a successful
peer review would be the first matter of business. Then, before submission,
carefully writing a memo for the teacher as well as peer reviewer, AND proofreading
the original assignment, both memos and
requirements for the student reviewer. Wow! That is thorough but requires a lot
more preparation time. It does sounds wonderful but only if all class members share this enthusiasm, and will treat the peer
review with sensitivity and respect. If so, I think it’s a terrific process to
implement in all writing classes.
No comments:
Post a Comment