Creating Context for
Meaningful Feedback on Student Writing
Dusty Neibauer
St. Mary’s University
Writing is
hard (even for English majors). Whether a student in Masters degree-level
classes, high school classes, or even a professional writer of novels, journalism,
or online publications of various means, the act of writing usually carries
with it a certain level of anxiety regarding many things: the nebulous concept
of grammar is often on the list of stresses; “moving commas around” is a cliché
often employed by the movies when speaking of writing; peer and teacher
feedback can be easily misinterpreted as (and can be in actuality) overly
negative and/or discouraging; what makes up “good writing” is subjective
depending on the audience, purpose, and forum; these facets, among many others,
lead to a highly subjective and stressful educational activity for many
students, for which they could be deemed anything but excited- intimidated,
nervous, disengaged, overly-sensitive, or twitchy may be better descriptors.
Despite the miasma of nervousness, negativity, and anxiety that can surround it,
writing is a huge part of what forms our species’ worldview with regard to many
aspects, from academia to religion to entertainment; It is also considered one
of the best methods of gauging meaningful student learning.
The challenge for modern educators is to
provide meaningful chances for students to write in many avenues while
providing specific means of improvement without being discouraging, or making
writing more of an exercise in error-avoidance. Specific feedback regarding
writing is absolutely key in helping students improve, but must balance
constructive criticism and praise, all while avoiding the use of empty praise,
too much negativity, and, to be honest, large delays in returning essays to
students for meaningful revision while still maintaining a social or family
life of any sort (all those essays can stack up quickly and detract from
productive comments on essays, sanity, family life, personal leisure time,
exercise and fitness, etc. If English teachers were superheroes, grading essays
could be deemed their Kryptonite). To achieve all of these lofty goals –
helping students enjoy writing of various, authentic means while still helping
them to improve in key areas – having students create writing portfolios is
arguably the best method in differentiating between varying writing styles and
assignments, as well as making writing more enjoyable and student-driven. That,
however, doesn’t solve the real issue here: providing meaningful, constructive,
timely feedback with regard to specific traits in student writing. Since this
is consistently the most time-consuming and pertinent issue with respect to the
teaching of writing, I decided to focus
my research on finding the best methods to employ in facilitating student
writing improvement and cementing my role as an advocate for their writing –
not an adversary. I find that, when
providing feedback on student writing, providing a mixture of positive
commentary (genuine, not inflationary or disingenuous) and suggestions for
improvement related to “large concept” issues (thesis statement, organization
method, use of pertinent evidence) and syntactic / style choices (and limiting
grammatical feedback to specific concepts taught during the writing process)
yields the most significant improvement in students’ writing, and fosters an
engaged, positive, and symbiotic learning environment.
Waconia High School’s District, Contextually
I teach English and Speech at
Waconia High School, a relatively wealthy city just outside of the more
“suburban” suburbs. It is a “lake town” (host to the 2012 Governor’s Fishing
Opener!), and lacks a large dose of diversity with regard to both race and
socioeconomic status. As of the 2012-2013 school year, ISD 110 had
approximately 9% of families benefitting from free and reduced lunch. Other
than an unofficial case of what I’ve begrudgingly coined as “postmodern suburban
existential angst,” Waconia is a good district in which to make a living touting
the subject of English and Literature. I teach in a classroom to which I’ve
recently moved in the upstairs addition (what we dwellers dub “The Loft,” circa
2007) to the high school originally built in 1995, and it has a totally
righteous floor-to-ceiling corner window situation in which my desk resides.
From my perch, I routinely gaze upon wetlands in which I have seen deer,
woodchucks, squirrels, and birdhouses erected by the Conservation Club. The
district is steadily implementing more technology into its classrooms and
practices in the form of iPads, Smartboards, projectors, new computers in the
labs, Turnitin.com and Schoology subscriptions, etc. I have taught a variety of
subjects and grade levels within the confines of the high school: 9th grade
English, Composition 12, Speech, Performance Media (film analysis), and, three
years ago, I (with the help of the vertical team, of course) started and
maintained a Pre-AP 9 English class. Next year, however, I’ll be switching out the
primarily-freshman-centric schedule with a primarily sophomore-centric one,
with both the mainstream sophomores and Pre-AP students learning under my
purview.
Unifying
Purpose, Specificity, and Student Investment
Since writers, as a species, are
sensitive on the whole about their skills and product, an optimal environment
for their evolving creations can help to ease tension between the artists and
their reviewers / editors. This starts with classroom management and teacher
persona, which is a huge issue of which this paper cannot support the weight. However,
with regard to the writing environment and the grades it produces, there are
multiple methods writing teachers can use to assuage student doubts and
stresses as well as foster creativity and improvement. It all starts with the
concept of grading.
According to Peter Elbow, grades are
not trustworthy: they are unclear; they don’t give students feedback well; they
undermine the teaching and learning of writing in multiple, significant ways
(Elbow, 2000b). This is exacerbated by the traditional method of grading a
final draft that students passively consume and discard, not using the
painfully-conceived teacher feedback to improve their writing at all. If the
objective for student writing is, truly and through many facets, to increase student learning, then there
are ways for teachers to work around the traditional method of grading essays
and writing. To make essays do as little damage to student psyches and make
them as fair and accurate as possible, creating a writing portfolio is one way
to do it (Elbow, 2000a). A student’s writing portfolio would encompass many
different styles of student writing within one cumulative assignment; it could
include a mixture of high-stakes writing (essays, short stories, etc.) with
low-stakes writing (stream-of-consciousness, journaling, etc.) and any mixture
of other types desired. To distinguish between “high” and “low” stakes further,
I’ll paraphrase Elbow’s definitions: zero-, to minimal-/nonverbal-/noncritical-
(teachers never have to comment or even read – purely for students’ eyes), to
supportive (no criticism, just check for completion), to
descriptive-/observational, to minimal-critical-, to critical-diagnostic
response (highest stakes – usually used for essays, and includes reviews of
everything from coherence to grammar to thesis quality to tone). Through mixing
up the types of writing required, teachers can create a writing environment
that balances the stakes and pressures of writing and promotes learning,
adjustment, experimentation, and creativity – all while having students write
with more frequency!
To increase the level of continuity and
complexity among the pieces of writing, and perhaps tie it to a unit of study
or concept, instructors could teach writing through a multigenre writing project.
Tom Romano, author of multiple teaching guides about getting students to write
with passion and commitment (most notably Writing
With Passion), states this definition in his book specifically geared
toward writing multigenre papers: “A multigenre paper arises from research,
experience, and imagination. It is not an uninterrupted, expository monolog nor
a seamless narrative nor a collection of poems. A multigenre paper is composed
of many genres and sub genres, each piece self-contained, making a point of its
own, yet connected by theme or topic and sometimes by language, images, and
content. In addition to many genres, a multigenre paper may also contain many
voices, not just the author's. The trick is to make such a paper hang together”
(Romano, 2000, x-xi). If students are given such choice and control regarding
genre and topic, they are much more likely to invest in their writing and
actively work toward its improvement; it creates diverse papers that prize the
creative over the overly-technical or analysis-based criticism (though there is
absolutely, undoubtedly a place for that sort of thing – I regularly include multiple
literary criticism essays throughout my courses as well), and encourages
students to write more frequently with lower stakes. This sort of assignment
can be invigorating to read, work with, and write, and makes the act of writing
itself much more enjoyable and engaging in the eyes of many students.
Having students publish their final
projects to the web is another way to encourage student investment and ensure a
higher-quality product, and “help(s) students find real purposes to write and
real audiences to reach” (Zemelman, Daniels, & Hyde, 2005, 78-105). The act
of publishing the final product aids in the teaching of the multigenre paper,
and also helps teach “the craft of writing (organization, diction, syntax,
grammar conventions, etc.)…most effectively…through brief mini-lessons focused
on skills appropriate to particular writing tasks students are tackling, so the
skills can be practiced immediately in meaningful settings.” In another
endorsement for publishing student writing, Shelbie Witte states: “By combining
writing with online technology, teachers can provide opportunities for students
and future educators to develop their digital fluency while also strengthening
their traditional literacy skills” (2007, 92-96). In encouraging students to
engage in a global community of writers, which is easier than ever nowadays,
the multigenre paper enhances students’ digital fluency, online conduct, and
writing skills. There are multiple ways to publish student writing: Blogger is
a site owned by Google- if students have an e-mail address through Google, they
can use Googledocs to write the essays, Drive to share and review each others’ essays,
and Blogger to publish them; Figment is working toward creating an online
community of writers to share and review each others’ work, and help students
create good-looking digital covers and pages; collecting students’ multigenre
papers and publishing them, online or in print, for a school’s literary
magazine is a great option to hype their work for their classmates as well. The
list of avenues is extensive and continues to grow; thus, the publishing of
students’ writing is easy, raises expectations and results, and increases
students’ excitement, execution, and investment in their writing skills – it is
truly a great idea.
The
last step in preparing students for their writing assignments is being specific
about what criteria make up the summative grade for the paper. Using a
subjective, “catch-all” system is hard for teachers – the amount of time it
takes to grade all of the diverse factors that make up student essays is
massively daunting – and for students, as they can be confused about how to achieve
their desired result (grades are a part of the American educational system;
until (or if) it changes, discussing its finer points isn’t a productive use of
time for instructors – mobility and adaptation within the established system must
suit most educators for the time being). The following section of this essay
focuses on selecting grammatical elements, so I’ll skip that element for now-
which brings me to the issue of defining “good writing” and its elements, which
is tricky, as Elbow succinctly states: “Since scholars and critics have failed
to agree on what ‘good writing’ really is, we get to decide what we are
actually looking for and admit it openly to our students” (2000b). This allows
instructors a bit of freedom to “add the horizontal” using specific criteria
for our expectations regarding purpose, content, flow, organization, and
coherence, which varies depending on the type of writing being done. “The
important principle here is that we do well to name and acknowledge and
communicate the features of writing that influence our judgments” (2000b).
Using multiple student essays as examples, including their (sans name) grades
and the comments that instructors have made, is a great start; teaching
mini-lessons to stress specific elements, such as which elements help to
formulate a good thesis statement or conclusion, is another good practice;
varying the stakes of the writing assignments and providing chances for
students to experiment with varying techniques and styles certainly helps as
well. As long as instructors are as specific as possible with what they’re
looking for in a “good” essay, provide examples, practice, and encouragement of
creativity, both instructors and students will benefit with more meaningful,
clear, and concise writing and grading periods.
Targeting Specific Grammatical Issues for
Constructive Feedback
Instead of including in the assignment a
category broadly-labeled something like “Grammar and Mechanics” or something of
its ilk (confession: I have done this in the past, as have many teachers in my
department- Some still do! Ah, the guilt- it eats at me!), teachers of writing
need to be more targeted and specific with which particular grammatical skills
writing students need to demonstrate proficiency. Limiting the scope of grammatical
feedback will save the instructor time in the review phase to be able to focus
only on one or two targeted skills; for example, on a first writing assignment,
focusing on comma splice prevention, in which students use a variety of
methods- such as using coordinating conjunctions directly after commas, or
using a conjunctive adverb following a semicolon-is narrow enough (yet
meaningful enough) to be both meaningfully, expediently taught; It also allows
students to know exactly what is expected of them and to specifically focus on
improving in that area, and makes grammar more pertinent to their writing, as
stated in the article Best practice for
teaching and learning in America’s schools: “The craft of writing
(organization, diction, syntax, grammar conventions, etc.) is most effectively
taught through brief mini-lessons focused on skills appropriate to particular
writing tasks students are tackling, so the skills can be practiced immediately
in meaningful settings” (Zemelman, Daniels, & Hyde, 2005, 78-105). This
specific focus helps expedite the feedback process for instructors and helps
the students make more meaningful progress on a targeted skill than if the
grammatical feedback were a sort of “catch-all” in which all aspects of English
grammar are included.
Despite the admittedly rosy outlook of paragraphs
like the above, this targeted approach is hard to apply. In my eight years of
teaching high school English, I’ve seen some of the worst phrasing errors
imaginable, and, sweet sassy molassy do they beg to be lashed by the irreproachable
whip of grammatical justice – the English language does not deserve such brutal
treatment! Focusing on only one or two issues is very hard to do, and will take
some adjustment for many instructors. Most studies corroborate, however, with
Silver and Lee’s findings regarding broad feedback: “…less skilled writers
[they also found that skilled writers are commonly tied to this as well] are
the ones who get the least from teacher feedback on writing, and often just rely
on the exact feedback to make changes, without engaging actively with their
writing and forming autonomous habits” (Silver, Lee, 2007, 25). If this is
true, then more of that feedback is just a waste of the instructor’s time, as
it does not foster student motivation. To make a selected skill more meaningful
to writers and engage them regarding its use, a writing conference following
the review session, where students must demonstrate their knowledge of a skill
based on teacher feedback, “mak(es) students responsible for pointing out their
effective usage of grammatical constructs...makes it more useful…and shifts
responsibility to the student” rather than having the instructor be wholly
responsible for all things grammar (Zemelman, Daniels, & Hyde, 2005, 78-105).
This is a key distinction shared by the National Council of Teachers of
English; it agrees that for the best assessment (major facets of the essay as
well as grammatically) essays must include peers, instructors, and the student
him/herself: “Reflection by the writer on her or his own writing processes and
performances holds particular promise as a way of generating knowledge about
writing and increasing the ability to write successfully” (Conference on
College Composition and Communication Committee, 2009). While those phrasing
and grammatical errors are distracting, their impending correction actually
does little for students’ writing skills unless taught specifically and
thoroughly either before or during the writing process and emphasized throughout.
I’m not arguing against grammatical correction – just for it to be
commented-upon and applied in a more targeted, specific approach that promotes
its integration into student writing.
Organization
of Operations
The order in which an assignment proceeds
matters greatly when it comes to the potential effectiveness of a teacher’s
feedback and students’ use of it. I’ve graded essays in the “traditional” way,
where the final product is worked toward, peer reviewed, and turned in as a “final”
essay, then marked and handed back. This just does not seem to work for my
students or me. Generally speaking, because there are always exceptions to
rules and grand pronouncements, students didn’t come in for extra help; they
wasted their time in class (precious, precious time that I could have used for
other things!) instead of consulting me on the finer points of writing; they
didn’t really learn anything from the final comments other than to be quietly
offended, hurt, misunderstanding, or dismissive of them- and from my
perspective, that horrible screechy “mental-stabby” music from the movie Carrie (whenever she sends her psychic
mind-bolts of enmity toward an abuser) plays anytime I see one of the essays I
SPENT ALL OF MY PRECIOUS TIME AND ATTENTION PROVIDING FEEDBACK FOR in the
recycling bin after being handed back. Dealing with tragic phenomena was
costing me sanity and time away from my wife and daughter, and all for naught.
So, I revised the “order of operations” in which I conducted the writing
process, and that made a large difference in both time and result.
As students pre-write and write a rough
draft, as well as assemble usable sentences featuring grammatical flourishes
and direct quotations, workshop ideas in small groups, etc., I monitor their
progress like I previously had. However, before they turn in their rough draft
for my feedback, I have them complete a Schoology survey predicting /
explaining a couple of their perceptions: what they do well and not well in
writing; what they expect to earn for a final grade; what they think their
rough draft would earn at the moment they turn it in (based on the rubric which
I would have already circulated and discussed with them); and what they hope to
gain through my feedback. This sets the tone for improvement, and makes them
bear some responsibility for what they are turning in. It also helps me give
them more directed and usable feedback for things pertinent to the assignment
and genre in which they are writing.
After I mark their rough drafts (more
information regarding the specifics of this practice is forthcoming in the
following section), I record a “for teacher eyes only” informal grade of the
students’ rough drafts; this helps me speed up the process when I read and
grade their final drafts, and helps me see how much (or, regrettably, how
little) they’ve progressed. This is the tradeoff for not giving any corrective
feedback on their final drafts (unless a personal conference is desired): they
receive the instruction in-process instead of after, and (hopefully) use it to
positively influence their writing. It also helps me focus on the product as a
whole when reading the final essay, and speeds up the grading of the final
significantly, since the quality is better, I remember their rough drafts and
their quirks, and can (dare I say it) enjoy reading their writing instead of
dreading its marking!
There are other factors that instructors
can also use to help make this process rewarding and expedient: convincing
one’s district to subscribe to Turnitin.com, if financially feasible, would be
a spectacular accomplishment. When students know what Turnitin.com does, how to
use it, that they will have to submit anything they write to it, and that it is
being used as a helpful tool and not a “GOTCHA!” plagiarism checker, teachers
will find that they have much more time on their hands – they can stop Googling
phrases! They can stop playing the “I’m going to find where you got this if it
takes me all night” game and just make the students re-do (or whatever adheres
to the school’s plagiarism policy) what most teachers will recognize as
blatantly plagiarized. Finally, one can grade students’ papers through Turnitin.com
using rubrics of his or her making, and even leave feedback in the form of a
voice message – that can really speed up the grading process, especially on the
final draft. Another factor that can help students polish is the peer review
process. If given proper direction and specificity, it can be a great tool for
students to use during the drafting of their writing projects. Lastly, once the
essays are handed back, some teachers find it useful to have students fill out
a quick survey of what they think the instructor is saying with his or her
feedback, whether they agree with the instructor’s perception, and whether they
would like an individual writing conference to further discuss the grade and
how it was conceived. This can help to prevent some students from playing the
“blame game,” silently seething away in their desks for the rest of the class,
and speaking of the instructor’s obvious prejudice against them outside of the
instructor’s immediate hearing. Any combination of these methods can be used
based upon instructor preference; it just comes down to personal style choices
and what works best for his/her classroom instruction.
Providing Meaningful, Quality,
Constructive Corrective Feedback
Once all of the above factors have been
established and accounted for, truly helpful and apt feedback can be given and
used for the benefit of students’ writing skills. As stated above, all of the
pre-feedback factors matter immensely in fostering student understanding and a
positive writing environment; thus, the context of the commentary matters as
well. The context in which teacher feedback is made must be established as being
for the purpose of “wean[ing] [of] students away from criticism from the
teacher and toward forming their own ability to review and revise their texts”
(Dunsford, 2006, 12-18). With that goal in mind, students should be able to
view the comments in the correct light and use them for improvement.
The most useful types of feedback,
broadly at first, are summed up fairly well by Dunsford: “Generally…students
revised more successfully when given specific comment (regarding not only
what’s wrong with the essay, but what can be done to improve it) that included
suggestions or strategies for making revisions. The students also revised
frequently in response to oral comments” (2006, 12-18). This suggests that the
more personal and contextual comments made with a chance for oral feedback and
discussion between the instructor and the student yield the best results. This
point is echoed and further elaborated-upon by Cindy Gunn and John Raven in
their article Evaluating teacher feedback
in writing classes. They assert the importance of providing guiding
feedback for the “larger” issues of an essay (versus the smaller issues, such
as typos and grammatical issues), such as flow, context, organization, quality
of information, and thesis statement on the drafts leading up to the final (2005,
265-273). This, in addition to specific grammatical commentary as stated
previously, can help to focus students on the most important facets of their
essays.
The specific tone and phrasing of
teacher feedback on student writing also matters greatly. Peter Elbow is a fan
of stating that, when it comes to both corrective feedback and a summative
essay assignment, teachers must be certain to “Make [essays as summative
assignments] do as little damage as possible to teaching and learning…[as well
as] Make them as fair and accurate as possible” (Elbow, 2000a). Elbow further
states that instructors should “Frame comments in a forward-looking way,
emphasizing what to improve upon for future assignments” (Elbow, 2000c). Further
confirmation of such success with focused, positively-phrased feedback has been
confirmed by many of the other sources listed, including Silver & Lee,
Storch & Wigglesworth, Yangin Eksi, Konold, Konold & Miller, and Petit
& Soto; however, Deborah Dunsford frames the argument most succinctly: “Generally
this study showed that students revised more successfully when given specific
comment (regarding not only what’s wrong with the essay, but what can be done
to improve it) that included suggestions or strategies for making revisions”
(Dunsford, 2006, 12-18). With effort made by the instructor to phrase
constructive feedback in the aforementioned manner, students will be more
likely to see the feedback “in a positive light” and use it well.
A good starting point for teachers
to start their renaissance of constructive feedback is focusing on how they
phrase their constructive feedback. As far as the actual phrasing goes, Peter
Elbow has quite a few good strategies. As stated previously, teachers should
phrase commentary in a “forward-looking” way – in other words, focusing on what
students should do to more clearly convey their ideas on future assignments
(i.e. the “final draft” of a summative assessment). Teachers must avoid
sounding like “a God-like writing judge” (2000c) – examples of this would be
statements that are overly harsh (or honest! I know students are still
learning…but still!), too technical about issues not covered in the
instruction, etc. If too many issues are plaguing an essay, teachers must
narrow their foci to the specific things being graded as listed on the rubric
and let the tertiary things go – grammatical issues not covered, (in nonessential
cases) logical fallacies not emphasized in class, complex phrasing issues, and
other advanced techniques that have yet to be covered. Indeed, direct
corrective feedback can sometimes be misinterpreted as being harsh, too
critical, mean-spirited, or evil (if written in the dreaded red ink!) by
sensitive students, because writing is something that is both personal and
close to their own speaking and thinking voices; a critical comment about it
can make them feel foolish, embarrassed, or shamed; thus, softening the
phrasing of a critical comment, as well as establishing a respectful writing
environment focused on improvement and creativity, can make a large difference
for the perception of the student. Elbow even goes as far as having students
write a 5-minute reflection about (the feedback), “telling us what they ‘hear’
us saying about their work, so we can catch misinterpretations” (2000c). This
is a good self-reflection tool for teachers as well, as they can then see how
their comments are being interpreted and whether further “softening” is needed.
Other strategies for improving the
way teachers provide feedback can be more process-related. The first can be
implemented during an earlier point in the writing process: when students are
working on framing their arguments and finding supporting evidence. Students
compete in a competition for which there is some sort of trivial (yet
completely righteous) prize; they then create arguments for why their group
deserves to win the most, using (in this instance, for an argumentative or
persuasive essay) argumentative techniques the teacher wants to focus on. They
then compete to recognize and point out logical fallacies, critiquing each
other’s arguments, as they would be expected to critique their own essays’
arguments. While this is an oral review game, it “sets the stage” for the type
of focus and complexity needed to critique their own arguments- thus sparing
the teacher from having to point out simple logical fallacies (or whatever the
focus for that assignment is) (Petit & Soto, 674-682).
Another simple strategy possibly employed
is for instructors to comment upon a rough draft and not a final; this helps
instill in students an environment of improvement, and forces (in theory!)
consideration and revision of their writing. Elbow, when commenting on a rough
draft, refrains from writing any comments (except for straight lines indicating
good uses of diction/syntax/rhetoric and wiggly lines indicating poor uses of
the same) until he has read the entire essay; this prevents the commonly-seen
“retraction line through a comment” on essays that can make teachers feel
sheepish (2000c). If the writing is a low-stakes assignment, Elbow advises
reading two examples of the writing consecutively, so as to make more clear
trends and skills that students do well and not so well. Mixing high- and
low-stakes writing assignments (some have feedback; some are free of it; some
are formative, and some are summative) is a great way to foster creativity,
risk-taking, and a general aura of writing improvement by lowering the stakes
and pressure associated with the traditional summative essay. By combining all
of these factors, teachers can really help students improve their writing, and
help themselves grade essays more speedily, accurately, and constructively.
Not all feedback can be praising the
positive aspects of writing, however, nor should it. If instructors only focus
on pointing out what students do well, students will inevitably miss out on
chances to hone the less-developed aspects of their craft. Also, if teacher
feedback is not genuine, then it has been found to be ineffective by many sources.
While some state that “constructive feedback is encouraging and positive, and
that its focus lies in what the student did correctly, as well as what can be
done to improve future performance,” (Gunn & Raven, 2005, 265-273), they
assume that all students are engaged and invested in the writing process and
turn in quality work and/or care about their own improvement. Most teachers
know that some essays, due to a lack of effort, motivation, or skill, are nigh
irredeemable in various states. Even assuming that all students are
similarly-invested and will work toward their own improvement, “insincere
praise doesn’t yield good effects…and either leads to a lack of trust in the
instructor or to ‘A-grade junkies’ who ‘find writing to be a chore,’ as their only
pursuit is the grade” (Silver & Lee, 2007, 25). Perhaps most startling of
all: in their study, “out of all of the 66 students…only one made a revision
because of being praised! 1! So, while praise is important, it doesn’t
necessarily encourage revision or careful consideration of writing (though it
was reportedly appreciated); it must be placed side-by-side with constructive
criticism to truly be effective in crafting better writers.” Feedback, then,
must maintain a tenuous balance: providing pertinent information and
opportunities to improve while still, as Elbow states, “Humaniz(ing) comments –
mak(ing) them sound softer than a ‘God-like writing judge’ of sorts” (Elbow,
2000c). Again- while a tough skill to master, and probably more time-consuming
[it’s tougher to comment in this way, as “I’m not understanding your point here
– further clarify” takes longer to write than “invalid!” “Misguided,”
“Erroneous!” “Ridiculous!” “Meandering…” “AU CONTRARE, MON FRERE!” or
“SIR/MADAME, I BEG TO DIFFER!!!!!!!!!” (one may also note that the number of
exclamation points increases based on the instructor’s level of outrage at the
student’s claim – this can be most commonly-observed on persuasive or
argumentative essays!)], it is still what most benefits students, and therefore
deserves implementation.
Contextual
Closing Observations
Writing is one of the most important
skills that a student can be taught, in my completely biased opinion; it
facilitates the exercising of multiple parts of their brains; it encourages
them to think critically, creatively, and with an eye toward specifics and
detail. It is a very ancient mode of communication, but can be made to feel
modern, relevant, and massively important to students and how they perceive
their individual educations. It can be tempting for the current generation of
teachers (much like every generation attempting to advise, educate, or guide
the next) to “write off” (pun intended) the current students seen today, heads
pointed to the floor- texters, Tweeters, Viners, Facebookers, bloggers (I don’t
think that’s as big a thing anymore!), Tumblers, Youtubers, XBOX Livers,
Minecrafters, Snapchatters, Instagrammers, or whatever
stupidly-named-social-media-craze-captures-my-attention-in-the-next-five-seconds-Mr.
Neibs-is-raging-LIKE-OH-MY-GOD-I’M-GOING-TO-TWEET-THAT- that make up the
proverbial “Snapchat snapshot” of their generation; however, it will be much
more satisfying, gratifying, and progressive to help guide them toward creating
something with meaning, both personally and educationally; to show them that
they can publish something of quality and worth; to help them demonstrate why
writing- the preserver of culture, the bringer of knowledge to the masses, the
great equalizer, that which is stronger than the sword- is not something that
can be merely discarded by a viscera of narcissistic social media trends coyly
served to them by a world trying to steal away their collective attention
spans, perspectives, and souls. The teaching of writing can do that – it is
something that most English teachers recognize, tout, and love about their
shared profession. Thus, it is time, at least for me, to reinstate the teaching
of writing- an enjoyable, influential, and culturally significant art form- to
its rightful place at the forefront of the world’s shared cultures – something
that matters immensely to those that form, create, shape, and consume it. While
these are grandiose claims, I think that they are warranted; for all any
teacher knows, he or she could teach the love of writing to a revolutionary –
and it will have started with a supportive learning environment, prizing
creativity, critical thinking, clear-cut goals, experimentation, and a shared
goal of improvement.
Conference
on College Composition and Communication Committee (2009). Writing Assessment: a Position Statement. Retrieved from http://www.ncte.org/cccc/resources/positions/writingassessment
Dunsford, Deborah. (2006). Feedback follow up: The influence of
teacher comment on student writing assignments. NACTA Journal, 50(2), 12-18.
Elbow, Peter. (2000). Evaluation and
Grading. Everyone Can Write – Essays
Toward a Hopeful Theory of Writing and Teaching Writing. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Elbow, Peter. (2000). Getting Along
Without Grades – and Getting Along With Them Too. Everyone Can Write – Essays Toward a Hopeful Theory of Writing and
Teaching Writing. New York: Oxford University Press.
Elbow, Peter. (2000). High Stakes and Low
Stakes in Assigning and Responding to Writing. Everyone Can Write – Essays Toward a Hopeful Theory of Writing and
Teaching Writing. New York: Oxford University Press.
Elbow, Peter. (2000). Using the Collage
for Collaborative Writing. Everyone Can
Write – Essays Toward a Hopeful Theory of Writing and Teaching Writing. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Gunn, Cindy, and John Raven. (2005).
Evaluating teacher feedback in writing classes. Academic Exchange Quarterly Summer, 265-273.
Konold, Kathryn, Konold, Kyle, &
Miller, Susan. (2004). Using teacher feedback to enhance student learning. Teaching Exceptional Children, 36.6,
64-69.
Petit, Angela, & Soto, Edna. Already
Experts: Showing student how much they know about writing and reading arguments. Journal of Adolescent & Adult
Literacy, 45.8, 674-682.
Romano, Tom. (2000). Blending Genre, Altering Style: Writing Multigenre Papers.
Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Publishers.
Scott, Alex. (2007). Essay writing for everyone: an investigation
into different methods used to teach Year 9 to write an essay. Teaching History 123, 11-16.
Silver, R., & Lee, S. (2007). What
does it take to make a change? Teacher feedback and student revisions. English Teaching, 6(1), 25.
Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G.
(2010). Learners’ processing, uptake, and retention of corrective feedback on
writing. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 32(2), 303-334.
Stuart, Moira K. (2002). Improve your
students’ writing with a class magazine. American
Language Institute, 474 367, 1-5.
Witte, Shelbie. (2007). “That’s online
writing, not boring school writing”: Writing with blogs and the Talkback
Project. International Reading
Association, 10.1598, 92-96.
Yangin Eksi, Gonca. (2012). Peer review
versus teacher feedback in process writing: how effective?" International Journal of Applied
Educational Studies 13.1, 33-47.
Zemelman, S., Daniels, H., & Hyde, A.
(2005). Best practice for teaching and learning in America’s schools. Best Practice, 3, 78-105.
