Summary findings from "Responding to Student Writing: Strategies
for Success."
In both sessions, we had great conversations about the theory and practice
of responding to student papers. I want to take a moment here to remind
you of some of the practical strategies that came up in our conversations
(with thanks to Roy Andrews who e-mailed me his impressions and ideas):
-
Requiring students to pass
in a brief statement of intended process for revising with a draft.
Response then can be focused on evaluating the intended process, which
might be less time consuming than trying to write comments that stimulate
or engineer revisions.
-
Similarly, the idea for the
following strategy emerged: A professor responds thoroughly and in
detail to Paper #1 for a course, then students hand in Paper #2 with
a statement (like the one mentioned above) in which s/he writes about
what s/he learned from the feedback on paper #1 AND addresses how
s/he USED what was learned to make Paper #2 a stronger paper. It's
almost like Paper #1 is a draft for Paper #2. In evaluating, assessing
and responding to paper #2, the professor can measure intent against
effect, in the context of what the student says s/he has learned.
Very process-friendly, but you don't need multiple drafts, just multiple
papers. Hopefully someone will try this and get back to me on how
it worked.
-
The use of author's notes in
which students help lay out the agenda for response, which will help
a professor prioritize their time in responding (I hope to have a
piece on using author's notes ready for the next Out of WAC newsletter.)
-
From Roy: There's a famous
article by Brannon and Knoblauch that basically recommends asking
the student writer to state their intent with their draft and then
the responder (professor) merely shares the effect on him or her.
Knoblauch, who is a psychologist, found that when reported effect
varied from the author's stated intent then a powerful motivation
to revise arose in the student writer. Limiting response to reporting
effect is generally a big time saver.
-
Responding to students' abstracts
or summaries of proposed papers and/or first pages only saves time
and is very useful to the writer. If folks are interested, we could
get together a workshop where we tried this out. Let me know.
-
From Roy: I frequently encourage
faculty members to not spend [so much] time correcting and editing,
(only mark a page, if any at all) but to make a single sentence endnote
telling the student of the problem and that their solution is to visit
the writing center. With an unmarked paper and an endnote indicating
the problem, I can work with the student at developing his or her
editing skills, some of which is about developing the eye to find
errors. If the professor has already found and marked all the errors,
the student loses the opportunity to develop his or her editing skills.
-
From Roy: I can do checks in
the margin (each check indicates a surface error in a line) without
disruption to my reading for content. I think others can do this to
(not sure). Checks in the margin leave much of the eye search and
correction to students. Also, checks in the margin give an objective
measure of the surface level problem and are a way to measure improvement.
(I have a short article on file about this.)
It should be clear (we can always use reminders) that the University
Writing Center is an important ally in responding to student writing.
We can also be good allies for one another by staying in touch and sharing
strategies that work for us, asking questions, and re-energizing our
own practices.