1. Responding to Student Writing What Theory and Research Tell Us

2. Response to student writing is Dependent on our context, temperament, and mood Dependent on our knowledge of different students and their writing Widely varied in method, style, and focus A good place to reflect on our values and work as teachers

3. Responding as an interested reader keeps responsibility with the writer. When we rewrite or “fix” the text, we ask the student to relinquish responsibility for it (Brannon and Knoblauch; Sommers). A collaborative approach in which the teacher responds to drafts as an interested reader encourages students to realize their own purposes and to retain responsibility for their development as writers.

4. Encouraging revision enhances learning. “Responses to student writing prove most beneficial when each text is itself conceived as a work in progress amenable to revision” (Horvath). “Formative” evaluation treats the text as a draft to be revised, offering suggestions, questions, reminders, and assignments, placing learning with the student.

5. Revisers are better writers. Research shows that students who revise produce better work than nonrevisers. A willingness to revise and the nature and extent of revision distinguish skilled from unskilled writers (Beach; Bridwell; Faigley and Witte; Murray; Sommers; Stallard).

6. Limiting and sequencing responses supports learning. Sequencing responses from large-scale to surface feature problems allows students to improve their writing by working through a series of manageable tasks (Flower and Hayes; Sommers).

7. Praise reduces writing apprehension. Praise allows student to experience success with writing. Gee found that students who received no comments or only criticism – developed significantly more negative attitudes toward writing than those who received only praise. – wrote significantly shorter papers after four weeks.

8. How we respond to errors requires conscious reflection. We notice and mark errors to varying degrees depending on – textual and contextual factors, – inherited practices, – personal standards, – beliefs about the expectations of other faculty or future employers, and – a host of other factors.

9. How we respond to errors requires conscious reflection. Practices range from minimal marking to extensive correction.

10. Questions for reflection on errors: How much does error stand out in our own usual reading of a student’s text? Of all the possible errors to identify, why these? Of all the ways in which to identify or respond to errors, why this way? Of the stages during the writing process when error could play a role, why at this point? Is the response designed simply to identify the error, or to help the student fix or investigate it? (Anson)

11. Modes of response (Straub) Corrections: e.g., adding “recreational” in front of “drugs.” Commands: “Stick with the third person – don’t get into your own experience.” Advice: “I’d consider starting the essay here.” Or “Maybe it would help to just talk out those ideas or make some sort of list.”

12. Modes of response Evaluation: “It seems to me you don’t go far enough into this point.” Closed questions: “Which drugs did you have in mind?” Such questions indirectly ask the student to consider certain revisions. Open questions: “What other things would you consider dangerous to society? Should they be illegal?” Such questions allow the student more room to figure things out on her own.

13. Modes of response Reflections (we become a sounding board): – “Your first argument deals with the financial reasons for legalizing drugs.” (interpretive) – “In academic writing, the trick is to express your opinion with authority.” (instructional) – “I think I’m following your point, but I’m having to do a lot of filling in.” (reader response)

14. Modes of response Praise – According to Paul Diederich, ETS, “Noticing and praising whatever a student does well improves writing more than any kind or amount of correction … it is especially important for the less able writers who need all the encouragement they can get” (qtd. in Daiker). – Yet studies consistently show that our criticism far outweighs our praise.

15. Examples of praise “Your thesis is interesting and clear.” “There is much that is strong here; your sense of detail is good and your ideas are insightful.” “Your paper is well organized, with some nice paragraph transitions.” “Effective closing image – good.” “You have a vigorous and full vocabulary.”

16. Response strategies from the experts 1. Create an informal, spoken voice, using everyday language. 2. Tie your comments back to the student’s own language on the page, in text-specific comments. 3. Focus on the writer’s evolving meanings and play back their way of understanding the text.

17. Response strategies from the experts 4.Make critical comments, but cast them in the larger context of help or guidance. 5.Provide direction for the student’s revision, but don’t take control over the writing or establish a strict agenda for that revision. 6.Elaborate on the key statements of your response.

18. The bottom line: “Comments that recognize the integrity of the student as a learning writer and that look to engage him in substantive revision are better than those that do not” (Straub).