ROL #3

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.

References

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.