English+431+Mentor+Page

-Dillon Schrock [| Patterns of Teacher Response to Student Writing in a Multiple-Draft Composition Classroom: Is Content Feedback Followed by Form Feedback the Best Method?] This article regarding changes is student form/content seemed to say some interesting things about student writing. Not being from the field myself, its difficult for me to be certain that there is still a debate about the issue the article addresses, but it makes sense to me that there might be some controversy over this issue. In his article, Ashwell addresses the question of whether the order in which students receive feedback on content and form makes a difference in their progression as writers. In this study, ESL students were put in 4 groups. Each group went through 3 successive drafts which were collected and compared. The first group received content feedback first, followed by form feedback in accordance with current education theory. The second recieved the opposite; from feeback, then content feedback. The third recieved a mixture form and content feedback at the same time. The forth group was a control group and recieved no feedback at all and was simply asked to rewrite the paper for each draft. The results were surprising and seemed to upset the conventional theory that content feedback should be given before form feedback. There was only a marginal difference between the first and second groups with a slightly higher level of improvment in the third group demonstrating that, while niether content before form nor form before content was superior, it was possible that a mixture of the two at the same time might be more beneficial. As expected the fourth group did not progress. In fact their work regressed a small amount on average. This should serve to underline the usefulness of instructor feedback.

-Dillon Schrock [|Comparing Student and Teacher Responses to Written Work] Nat Caulk’s article is not specifically about how an instructor should respond to student work, but she makes what I found to be some very useful generalized comments about what a response to student work should look like. She uses her format for what makes a good response to argue that, while peer response can be helpful, it is no substitute for instructor’s feedback. Comments in response to student work should be general, she says. They should not simply give students answers or fixes, but should lead them down the path to a more organized and coherent paper while forcing them to think critically about their own work and about the subject. Student’s responses lack this generality and tend to give students specific fixes for the inconsistencies in their work. She also says that student responses can, on occasion, be harmful by giving advice that is clearly not to the benefit of the student’s learning or the work itself.

-Dillon Schrock [|A Stranger in Strange Lands: A College Student Writing across the Curriculum] In this fascinating study, Lucille McCarthy followed a student named (for the purposes of the research at least) Dave over a semester and cataloged his experiences in 3 classes (those being poetry, biology, and freshman composition) in order to analyze the progression of his writing skills in each. The article deals with many aspects of the instruction in these classes, but I will focus my reflection to her section regarding the instructors' responses to Dave's writing. (starting at about page 250) McCarthy explains in great detail the various styles of student response that these three instructors had and how those methods seemed to effect Dave’s progression as a legitimate writer in these disciplines. Overall, she seems to think that Dr. Forson, the poetry instructor, had a particularly ineffectual method of responding to student work. She says that he very clearly defines his perceived role as the authority in the way he critiques work. He uses words like “correcting” in reference to what he is doing to Dave’s work, as opposed to “response” or “critique” perhaps. He also uses his written responses as his primary method of feedback to his students which serves against the interest of contextualization, as we shall see in Dr. Kelly’s (biology) and Dr. Carter’s (freshman comp) classes. Dr. Kelly, McCarthy says, uses very little written feedback. His responses are short and, from Dave’s perspective at least, put himself on equal terms with his students. In interview, Dave apparently had a blurred distinction between Dr. Kelly’s oral and written feedback. McCarthy sees this as a sign of a high level of contextualization in the classroom which adds to Dave’s understanding of what is expected of him in terms of written work. Dr. Carter requires students to come into his office to speak with him at least once. This opens up an additional resource that Dave, as a freshman/newcomer, was unfamiliar and uncomfortable with in the past. McCarthy views this as furthering the goal of contextualization of expectations and adding to Dave’s understanding by expanding his resources. McCarthy also addresses the issue of “model texts” and their effects of Dave. Dr. Forson’s model text which was produced by the instructor himself, is of very little use to Dave in that it did not seem to supply him with any context that he felt he could transfer over to his own work. However, the models supplied by Dr. Kelly and Dr. Carter which consisted of work by other students, both exemplary and flawed, did seem to give Dave useful perspective and context that he was able to apply to his own work. Over all, the results of McCarthy’s research seem to indicate that contextualization extends to responding to student work as an important factor in the development of writing. In addition, fostering a relationship that is egalitarian as possible or at least that allows students to feel comfortable entering a dialogue with instructors seems like a positive influence on the development of writing skills. Another problem that McCarthy addresses but admits may have no solution, is that of consistency in response format. The format of response to student work varies not only from discipline to discipline, but also from instructor to instructor. But, its possible that, due to the differences between disciplines, this cannot be helped.

[|Global Perspective on Responding to Student Writing]Marion Chase-KLeeves - **Book citation:** Katie Wood Ray. The Writing Workshop: working through the hards parts.
 * Takemi Iwasawa**

The teacher response practices that I choose to cover are similar to my previous posting on conferring with students. However this time, I choose a chapter out of a book titled, The Writing Workshop written by Katie Ray. This book is a guide to support elementary school teachers on how to teach children on the art of writing. Specifically the book introduces pedagogies such as writers’ workshops to raise skills, attitudes, concepts and knowledge that are related to writing. According to Ray, conferencing is one of the stages that teachers use to “teach” these complex and multilayered writing topics. However in conferencing, writing skills are taught specifically to what the teacher determines important to that specific child after the student and the teacher confers. Hence, there is a writing curriculum that is catered to the child’s needs. However, the interesting thing that Ray mentions is that without teacher’s sufficient knowledge about writing, or as she refers to as “fistful knowledge”, the teacher will not be able to identify writing content that is truly “engaging, significant challenging and relevant” for that child. Because so much of the decision process of what will be taught is on the spot, Ray claims that as teachers “we need fistful of knowledge about all kinds of things that the students will be engaged in while in their writing workshops”. Inferences can be made that as teachers we need to increase our expertise as writers. Without that we will not be able to determine what needs to be taught to the students. She claims that some of things we need to develop as writers are the following: 1) Living the life of a writer, keeping a writing notebook and choosing writing projects to pursue: 2) Planning for published pieces of writing; collecting and developing ideas; being aware of genre, structure, purpose, audience and so on 3) Drafting pieces of writing 4) Revising writing and crafting writing for an audience 5) Getting and giving responses to writing 6) Editing, proofreading and knowing conventions of grammar and usage 7) Publishing.
 * __CONFERING: The Essential Teaching Act__**

So part of our decision about what to teach is made based on what we know and part of our decision about what to teach comes four thinking about the student with whom we are conferring. As we can observe from the list above, there is a broad selection of knowledge attached to writing. What caught my attention to the list is that Ray doesn’t fail to neglect the idea of grammar and writing conventions. There seems to be a schema connection within me that writing convention and grammar are usually taught through worksheets and rote learning. It has bluntly forced me to view these concepts as unimportant since I have never been used in a significant situation. However, how meaningful would these skills be if it was taught in context and for a purpose? The students will treat skills and as a tool to complete their task. The essence of conference comes from the idea that it is an individualized instruction. Hence the decision process of what needs to be taught has to be __primarily__ catered to the students. As decision makers to what the student will be learning, Ray suggest asking series of questions: · Q. What would help most at this time? · Q. What would bring quick success? · Q. what would be a stretch, a risk or a challenge? · Q. What is not likely to come up in whole class instruction? · Q. Is this something I need to reteach or extend? · Q. What is the balance of curriculum I have offered this student? · Q. What kind of teaching would this student like me to offer?

These questions can help us decide, and from all we know, what one thing to teach a student in this conference. Hence you can imagine how daunting the decision process can be when we have to decide all that in a two to seven minute conference. However Ray motivates us that its natural that we feel that way in the initial stages of conferencing. She advises us that its okay to stop a student’s talking and ask, “would you give me a just a minute to think before” before you begin your teaching (167). Reading this article, it felt good knowing that it’s okay that as a future teacher and a current mentor, to not know everything there is to know about writing. And that writing is something that you as a person have to experience and learn in an ongoing manner.

Marion Chase-Kleeves Robert A. Cote. Peer Collaboration in the ESL Writing Classroom: A Literature Synthesis. [|http://www.u.arizona.edu/~rcote/SLAT596O/Term%20Paper.pdf] This article is more of a review of the literature about ESL writing and peer review. The review includes studies of classroom social interaction, acquisition of writing skills through peer interaction, the success and failures of this interaction. He cites Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development, interaction, and Second Language Acquisition theory where collaboration between learners creates an environment conducive to learning. He includes studies of peer interaction where students discuss successes and failures with peer correction. Cultural respect, empathy, and negotiation ideas facilitate the process of peer review(9). When one group of ESL writers dominates the others the process is not productive. Heterogeneous groups were less productive because they fell into the use of their own language and made L1 to L2 transfer errors. Another study found that pre-training of peer reviewers leads to better revisions and improved writing quality. Mixing of Native Speakers of English with Non Native Speakers was not as successful because the NNS did not respond well to criticism and did not want to correct NS.

= Marion C-K 10-25 Changing Lives: Teaching English and Literature to ESL Students = This article is instructional for grading ESL papers. For each technique used to write a paper four things are addressed: the technique is and how it is used, the strengths, limitations, and overall evaluation/recommendation and why. Compositions are scored using holistic, analytical and primary trait techniques. Each of these scoring methods is explained, researched and criticized. The way a paper is scored depends upon the background of the person scoring the paper so they give more instructions on how to grade papers more reliably by establishing criteria, setting standards for judging the quality of writing, readers selected from a common background, train readers to be making assessments, read composition by more than one reader, monitor readers evaluation papers. The different scales and measures are discussed fully but the approach to the student is not mentioned very much. Only one time does the article mention how the student is to be considered in giving an understandable assignment. Issues of validity, credibility, objectivity and appropriateness for L2 learners. Perkins doesn’t say anything about commentary that might help ESL students so this article title is misleading for the most part. I assumed that it was more helpful in approaches to helping ESL students understand the process, procedures and mechanics of writing a composition paper in English. What it really does is argue different aspects of assessing English papers. Almost nothing is said about ESL students.
 * Gisela Ernst-Slavit, Monica Moore and Carol Maloney
 * [|Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy], Vol. 46, No. 2 (Oct., 2002), pp. 116-128
 * Published by: [|International Reading Association]

= __Marion__ Chase-KLeeves  = = __Writing in North American Higher Education: A Primer for International Students__ = . [] This article is written for the ESL student as a resource for different writing skills, genre, grammar, and other information. There are writing strategies like Rhetorical writing, and writing form research. The reasons for using these strategies are also given such as what is expected in higher level university classes. For instance, quoting from research is better than writing off the top of your head or from “what’s in your head” as they say in the article. The use of APA and MLA source citations is explained and examples are given. Students are warned that plagiarism is easily detected. The article explains what is expected from the student in the way of directness or using clear speech to deal with the issue of the text. They also tell the student to be insightful and precise with the use of first, second and third person pronouns like I, we and you. This article even gives advice for using Microsoft Word or other computer based word processing programs. This resource is very helpful with writing and language resources that can be accessed as needed with a click of the mouse. A handy grammar menu is part of the resource as well as instructions for writing for different audiences. As a teacher this is also a great resource to have for writing instruction and for resources.

Grace Armstrong [|This article]by Rick VanDeWeghe is actually about how to teach high school students how to improve at peer response. I found it really helpful because it breaks down the different types of response and how they are helpful or not helpful. It goes over the common problems that students have with peer response. I think that both high school and college freshmen have the same problems with peer response because the habits are often not broken in high school. It is tempting for students to put "Great Job!" and fix some spelling errors. This is not helpful peer response and will not improve the piece of writing in a significant way. The responses that are helpful tend to be about the ideas and organization of the paper and less about the wording and grammar. The article goes on to say that just because a student is a good writer does not mean that they will be good at peer response. The teacher should teach peer response as if it is a skill separate from writing a paper. Showing examples of good peer response and telling the students to help each other with the content of the paper and not the spelling or grammar are important ways to improve their peer responses. This article mirrored what we are doing with the freshman right now. I thought it was really interesting that something meant for high school teachers and students was so applicable to college level writing.

My next article is [|Improving Student Peer Feedback] by Linda B. Nilson. This article is about teaching college students how to write better peer feedback. It focuses on the emotional quality of peer feedback and how this keeps students from writing good feedback. Students generally do not want to write bad comments on another student's essay for a few reasons: they might lower the other student's grade, they might raise the standard the teacher is looking for if they give good feedback, and they are afraid that if they criticize someone that there will be retribution. Nilson finds that this problem can be solved by peer response questions that call for neutral peer response that identifies parts of the essay in question and does not require harsh judgement. Basically, if the student does not have to say that an essay is good or bad then they cannot get in trouble. If the student has a hard time finding the essential parts of the essay that they are now called to look for then the author of the essay knows that they need to make their essay clearer. I think that Nilson really gets the big problems with peer response at their source. If students are being lazy in their responses or they just don't want to put anything negative in their response then the questions need to force attention to the essay and the questions need to avoid emotional responses. It is much better to use questions that require a longer and more complex answer and are about identification instead of judgement. I think that the freshman in 130 have been encouraged to respond this way and this has helped improve their peer response. Some students are still giving the peer response equivalent of a hug but I do think that everyone gets something out of peer response. Nilson does think that peer response can be helpful if the right questions are asked and if the peer response is graded and therefore important. Her article does a great job of outlining the problems with students, problems with the current questions, and the solution of good questions that garner better feedback.

My last article is [|What I Wish I Had Known About Peer Response Groups But Didn't] by Ronald Barron. This is another article about peer response meant for teachers of an earlier age group. The first article I posted was for high school English teachers and this article seems directed at middle school teachers. I think this article is helpful because it is about an earlier age group. Peer response does not change that much from the point at which students start doing it. Many of the techniques Barron writes about are techniques used in college English comp courses or could be beneficial to these higher learning courses. He focuses primarily on teaching the students how to write good responses through modeling, adjusting the peer responses norms to get better response, and learning how to teach peer response through trial and error. Each class will be different so being flexible and seeing what does and does not work is important. The part of the article that I found most applicable to college English comp was teaching the students how to give good feedback through modeling. I feel that doing more of this could really help our students. We show them examples of good papers but we could also pass out good responses. I find that students get into bad peer response habits and going back to the beginning could be really helpful. Barron encourages the use of an early draft of the teacher's writing as a way to teach better peer response. The teacher gives their work for response from the students in their peer groups and then goes over the helpful and unhelpful response with the whole class. Barron also encourages techniques that we already use in the 130 jumbo. The students are in small groups, they go over multiple drafts of a paper before it is turned in for a grade, and they are encouraged to show the author how to improve the paper, not just how it is a good or bad paper. This article was helpful in that it went over the basics of teaching peer response that sometimes get lost over the semester.

====Samantha Cary Responding to Student Writing by Vivian Zamel The article is fairly old, from 1985, but I feel like it summarizes my experience with writing and the feed back I would receive on it while in high school. There was an investigation done on how teachers responded to their students' work. The investigation revealed that teachers were responding to the students' work like it was a final draft, when it was only a draft. It goes on to say that responses to a draft that are responded to like it was a final draft gives students a very limited and limiting notion of writing, and fail to provide the students with the understanding that writing involves producing a text that evolves over time. I feel like that this article is describing what is still going on in English classes today. In my senior year in high school, we had a research paper that was written throughout the year. We had several rough drafts and several final drafts due during the year and at the end we turned in the whole thing and had to do a presentation for 10 min. When turning the rough drafts, they were treated more like a final draft; we were told they would be graded harder because of all the feedback we would receive (grammar, format, etc.) would make it easier for us to write our final draft and it really wouldn't be our own work like the first draft. After attending college for a year and learning about drafting and revising, I look back and realize that the approach the English teachers took is not right, and is not affective to the students. The article also mentions that teachers take on an authoritative role and apply uniform, inflexible standards to students writings. In result, the responses to the writings are to the extent to which they conform to or deviate from the standards. Students then feel like what they have to say is not as important as what their teachers wanted them to say. I think this relates to our posts that we have due. You give us questions to answer, but then you go on to tell us that they are a guide and if we have something else to talk about, then go ahead. I think that gives a student confidence and a feeling of ownership in their own writing. I think this article helps us to realize that the way you respond to students writings is important and does has an effect on the students. We should not treat a rough draft like a final draft, we should be encouraging ideas and helping to expand their research. I found the article helpful because I was able to look at my past experiences with writing and compare it to my current experiences and be able to analyze the differences that responses do make.====

====Samantha Cary [|"Is Anybody Listening?": Responding to Student Writing], by Michael Robertson (Article 2)====

In the article, Michael reviews the way that he had been responding to his students work. His responses had been focusing on the technical side, and not on the content. He say’s that this may not seem odd to most of the readers because this is how most people respond to student writing. Then he compares this type of response on paper to a conversation between two people. He is telling his friend about a snorkeling trip he took to the coast, and at the end of the story when he is waiting for a response, all his friend does is criticizes the way he talks. That doesn’t seem normal to me, so why should it be normal when we are responding to student writing? Shouldn’t their also be a conversation taking place their also? He goes on to say that when we shift from our roles as friend to a commenter on a students writing, we suddenly forget the basic truths of human communication. He also says that commenter’s often ignore //what// is being said and instead focuses on //how// it is being said. I agree with this article, and think it would benefit the student more if we focus on the ideas and content of the paper instead of the technical side.

Samantha Cary Talking Back to Students: Responding to Student Writing by Margaret Treece Metzger (Article 3) In the article, Metzger uses her experiences as a student who has received comments on papers to shape who she was as a teacher. As a student, she hated receiving comments on technical errors and never had any feedback regarding content. She admits she is a bad speller, and feels like she doesn’t need to be reminded all the time. When she becomes a teacher, the only way she knows how to respond to student writing is by pointing out the technical errors. Then she received the best advice from another English teacher at the school, "What you should do on student papers is just chat with the kids. Pretend you're in a conversation and just write down what you would say to them if they were reading their papers aloud. And tell them how you react to their writing" (Metzger 2). From that point she had to rethink and re-teach herself how to respond to her students papers. It was a process, but from other sources and feedback from her students, she learned what works for her and what produces the best results from her students. What she came up with in the end is too write responding comments in the margin of the paper and then write the critical comment at the end. The critical comment at the end is around 5 sentences in length and consists of a summary of the content of the paper, previous work (if you can see an improvement) and then the dreaded critique. For the critique, she found that it is best to focus on one main problem that you noticed in the paper, or a pattern from previous papers. I think this article is a great help because she first gives her perspective as a student receiving comments and then as a teacher giving the comments. I like the idea of writing the responding comments in the margins and leaving the critiquing for the end.

Mark Smith Like many (I assume) of the mentors in this project, this marks the first time I have been called upon to respond to student writing in a "teacherish" capacity. The only precursor to this business in my experience is a bit of peer-review here and there, a task which carries a different tone despite the somewhat informal attitudes of our 431-130p project. So when I approached the wikispace assignment I decided to look for some learned advice on the subject of providing //helpful// responses to student writing. I ended up on the UCLA website and a nice easy to read article about common mistakes and pitfalls in the area of responding to student writing, and strategies for providing more helpful and productive commentary. [|The article]is arranged slightly strangely, you click nice colorful buttons to move back and forth through the pages -my link here goes to the page I found most helpful- but the ideas in it are based on sound principles and echo the concepts proposed in last monday's 431 class. One of the main similarities is the proposal that one should respond to student writing by addressing the larger conceptual issues of the document, and worry less about nit-picky type things like simple spelling errors etc. So if you're like me and were instinctually inclined to go right after spelling and grammar issues with fiendish intensity, I recomend this article for a bit of perspective about providing a response that is productive, constructive and helpful to the student's process.

Hey Mark--what a great way to approach this assignment! I am so glad that you thought about this in terms of what would really help you now. Great link. kim

**--Article Two--**
[|Conducting Writing Assignments]by Richard Leahy: Leahy talks about different ways to collaborate with students throughout the writing assignment process. These collaborations begin as early as the development of the writing assignment itself. Leahy suggests that instructors show their students the assignment as a “draft” and invite them to comment on or constructively develop the assignment itself. The idea being that this will bolster their understand of, and connection to, the writing assignment. Leahy describes a related process for assessment, and intones that it should take place directly after the assignment drafting phase. Leahy describes the Primary Trait Analysis scale assessment technique and suggests that instructors develop this scale, which is basically a rubric based around a certain number (lets say four) of sections such as thesis, organization, whatever. Leahy suggests that this PTA scale be developed with student input and that clear examples of each level of achievement (weak, medium, strong) be developed clearly by instructors and students for future reference. Leahy described the way in which he, in his own class, split his students into four groups, one for each section of the PTA and had them draft weak, medium and strong examples. The idea here is that students arrive at a deeper understanding of how their papers will be assessed. Finally, Leah suggests that students turn in a “writer’s reflection” page with their papers, and that they may use this space to compare their papers to the PTA examples developed earlier and suggest what they believe to be a fair grade. I thought this dovetailed pretty well with the work in our 130P and 431 class. The writer’s reflection bit is very similar to the reflection assignment at the end of the 431 class, and student involvement in both the 130p and especially the 431 class processes seems to be fairly high. I think the idea of having students draft the grading scale is pretty brilliant, as it could eliminate a lot of confusion regarding what makes a “good” or “bad” paper. Of course depending on the maturity level of the class it could backfire a bit and end up as a waste of time, but those are the risks a new-age-thinker has to take. ps- I have no idea why this thing decided to do two different fonts. Must be the spirits of the Wiki.


 * --Article Three--**

Michael Robertson uses [|this] article to draw a comparison between casual conversation and the process of responding to student writing. He uses this comparison to illustrate the deficiencies of addressing local issues when providing useful feedback. This is an idea that meshes immediately with the local-vs-global concepts that we’ve been reading about in various assigned readings. Basically Robertson compares the process of focusing on local issues in a response to student writing to a hypothetical situation where one responds to a friendly conversation with a detailed critique of the person’s speaking ability. While this critique may have it’s place, it is not nearly as productive (or as positive) as a response to the global issues of the person’s conversations, that is to say the actual topic and ideas, and the same is true when responding to written assignments. Focusing too much on the technical aspects can draw attention away from the work that is being done with ideas, and also the student’s ability to form and shape coherent arguments.

What have I learned from the articles I wikiposted (new word)? Let’s break this down article by article. The first article I think was the most informative for me, mainly because it called on my exact natural tendency when faced with the need to respond to student writing; the local issue nitpick assault. This is the article that describes in detail the common pitfalls of responding to student writing, particularly the temptation to address spelling and grammatical issues because they are what you might call “easy targets”. When I read a student paper my first instinct is to go through it and call out all the spelling errors, all the grammatical errors and –especially- the errors in word choice/usage. However in this first article this process is addressed specifically as a “do-not.” So I guess the main lesson from this article for me was to focus on the global issues of argument construction, work with ideas and such, rather than going nuts on the local issues that are so prevalent in freshman comp. Article #2 was an almost complete diversion from the focus of article #1, and focused more on an experimental set of processes designed to invest the students deeper into their work. In this article Leahy describes ways in which the instructor can make the learning process more collaborative, vesting the students more in the process and thus, hopefully, improving the quality of their work. This article was a bit less of a learning experience for me because at this point in my academic career I am not in a position to be designing assignments, grading charts, etc (soon!) as Leahy describes in the article. So to address the “what have I learned” question here, I would say that I learned about a very interesting strategy for running a writing class, and I will be filing it away for future use. Another level of analysis would be to consider the effect that creating a student investment can have on the work/production/attitude/behavior of the students. In fact I may need to re-read this in connection with my research project, as I believe that Leahy comments on the effect that this arrangement of processes (i.e. collaborative vs one-sided) has on the students. Article #3 was basically another approach to the ideas in article #1, another entry in the local-vs-global debate. This particular article uses an intriguing metaphor in that it compares responding to student writing to a casual conversation, in order to illustrate the unhelpful and possibly detrimental effect of critiquing local issues instead of addressing global issues. Richardson compares the process of critiquing local issues to a person side-stepping the point of a conversation in order to criticize the speaker’s grammar or speech skills. In other words, the take away here is that by responding to local issues you, as a responder, are ignoring the real ideas that the author intends to discuss. Just like article #1, this spoke to me directly and I try to keep it in mind as I read these papers so replete with misapplied vocabulary words.
 * --Reflection--**

Tak. Iwasawa

[|The article]that I looked at was regarding assessment. According to the activity theory, we are no longer seeing literacy as an isolated discipline, but rather a tool to solve a given task. Hence, how will we assess on what the students have learnt? According to this article, there is a new notion of assessment known as //two stars and a wish//. This is uniquely catered towards nurturing students to make their own realistic goal on a given task and working towards it ( the wish). They will also list 2-3 stars that state, what skills and knowledge they are able to contribute within the task – the star. What is interesting here is that //prior// to solving that big question, the students and the teachers both discuss the types of criteria that is required to solve that big task. Hence, the students understand what the types of ‘success’ they are aiming for. Inferences can be made, that this can also be implemented for a type of skill that you are about to teach. For example, suppose the big task is to organize a carnival. Within the process of completing that task, we might have to write an invitation letter to the shops around the community. After observing samples on invitation letters, the students and the teacher can come up with types of success that make a good letter. Thereafter the student can choose a wish that they wish to apply. Actually what makes this article little confusing is if the students are using these wishes to navigate their types of achievements, wouldn’t it also relevant if they made these stars and wish //after// the task is completed- this will give the students the opportunity to reflect on attributes that they might be able to improve in the future.

Regardless if this assessment was made prior to solving the probelm, it will become and effective tool for students to understand what they are trying to achieve. They are incontrol of their learning, and can use it to reflect on their own and their peers learning. Additonally, depending on the standards that have been set by the student, the teacher can work together with the student to facilitate learning opportunities for that individual child to reach his/ her goal

Heres a sample what the assessment sheet might look like:

"Responding to Student Writing"
Chris Trudell

After reading Mark's post I wanted to read the article written by Nancy Sommers, "Responding to Student Writing". It was, without a doubt an interesting article. I couldn't help but think of past experiences of glaring at returned papers drenched in red ink. "Run On, wrong word, be clear, more specific, etc." The list went on and my blood pressure went higher (now I understand the red ink). I would look at my teacher's comments and fix exactly what they wrote. Yet, I would look at my paper and nothing really change. There was no inspiration for REVISION in my mind. Sommers takes on common mistakes made my teacher's way of responding to student writing. The article has a practical tone that directs a common sense approach to writing notes on a //students// text. Throughout the article there are several fine examples of papers that I deeply relate with. That hit my soul of why I want to be a teacher. There are comments made by the teacher that are not only vague but dismantle the //student's// curiosity in writing about the topic they chose. Sommer's states, "...teachers hold a license for vagueness while he student is commanded to be specific." Countless times I recall reading the words "be more specific" or "vague" and even "this is so vague its pointless." I would grind my teeth thinking, "Wait a minute teach', your comments are just as vague and unspecific as my run-on sentence and brilliant ideas/arguments." The article continues to underline how many teachers point out vagueness and areas that are not specific, without giving any offering of guidance or "strategies" to carry out the revision for the student. // __I have to share a passage:__ **"** **Teachers comments do not respond to student writing with the kind of thoughtful commentary which will help them think about their purpose and goals in writing a specific text."** **AND** **"** **Our [teachers] comments need to offer students revision tasks of a different order of complexity and sophistication from the ones that they themselves identify, by forcing students back into the chaos, back to the point where they are shaping and restructuring their meaning."**//

Sommer's notes that there should be revision strategies that are specific to each and every student's text. That these shouldn't be concrete-standard response for every student. The teacher should take an approach that intrigues the writer to re-identify with what they wrote, re-articulate their ideas, and then write again (regardless of sentence structure and comma usage). The issues of first drafts is important to Sommers. She states teachers often use "...rules for composing." as if, "...writing is following rules." She continues to explain that highlighting sentence structure issues, etc., in the early first drafts, where usually those problems do arise, can discourage students' //importance// in that early stage of their writing process. Usually students haven't even taken root in what they're writing about. Why in the world should we start editing and fine-tuning the paper?

She continues to explain how students should be encouraged by their teachers and not criticized on vagueness. Students should "take stock" in their writing/ideas. So, teachers can prompt questions - they as a reader had, teachers should be critical thinkers while reading a growing writer's work, and providing areas of advise for revising and developing their ideas. This makes me see all written work as never achieving a "final draft" - there never is a final draft because ideas can be re-identified and revised at any given time. The idea of "thoughtful commentary" is valuable to me. Teachers can take an approach as if they too are side by side with the student trying to understand their topic, their way of expressing ideas, and conveying what they think. As if they (the student and the teacher) are figuring-it-out together. The first draft if an opportunity for the teacher to engage with the student on their topic. The first draft can be a field to explore ideas that relate and new possibilities to express their point of view or research.

This is a great article, Chris. I'm glad you turned to Sommers. I often think that students need to first see their own purposes for writing before they can care about style or grammar in some ways. I also know that through revision many of the sentences will not even be in the next draft--you can spend a lot of time "fixing" a sentence that does not show up in the revision. So while I think I can point out grammar issues that are recurring, I certainly do not start there when I look at a draft. I'd like students to think about practices that are useful in their writing--the use of sources, making particular arguments, etc. Nice job with this post. Kim


 * Responding to Student Writing - ARTICLE #2" - - CHRIS TRUDELL**

=**Responding to Student Writing: The Consequences of Some Common Remarks**=

By: Patrick Sullivan

 * [|The English Journal], Vol. 75, No. 2 (Feb., 1986), pp. 51-53

"Good ideas but here is some trivial directions to keep you busy while you're in school." Some common mistakes are made when there is good intentions.

The article I read was [|“Responding to Student Writing - The Consequences of Some Common Remarks”]by Patrick Sullivan. The article is introduced with a generalization, a likely one, that many teachers tend to soften the remarks to writing, supporting their generalized ideas, highlighting mistakes that are easily corrected (grammatical). Students tend to take this advice as if they’re creating effective writing based on “a good idea” then its clearly introduced by fixing trivial details, rather than reinforcing ideas, making sound arguments, and supporting them with evidence and research. The writing, in my own assumption, becomes; “this was my idea” without any sort of development. The article continues to describe that many teachers have a hard time giving constructive criticism. Where they highlight areas that need improvement, saying good ideas, but not giving much advice in how to be more successful and critical as a writer.

The article continues to describe how teachers / tutors need to be more specific and careful in how ideas are praised. Sullivan then breaks his ideas of feedback in a few main ideas. Sullivan highlights many misconceptions beginning writers have - and encourages students to breakdown writing stereotypes that are commonly practiced. Here we can assume that teachers dictate what writing should or shouldn’t be, which limit’s the possibilities for the student’s writing. Sullivan introduces the ideas of repetition - where students tend to avoid all sorts of repetition, where in some cases it can reinforce their arguments or theories. Secondly, Sullivan explains vagueness very straight forward.

He explains, “Students whose writing is consistently vague need to go through their papers phrase by phrase with someone who can explain why a particular sentence or passage is not clear to the reader. Going over three or four vague phrases in detail trains students to be more critical readers of their writing.”

I feel that there could be more explanation for this idea. Each student would have to go over passages one on one. Which is possible - but takes a great deal of time - and which can learn a process of understanding their “..own language and start to think in terms of an audience…” (52). This is an idea that I agree with but is extremely specific to each individual student, and is a skill that is in constant “revision” as writers are constantly changing. I am not sure if a writers language is a constant thing. But I can understand the possibility.

Sullivan then continues to describe revision. Revision, being a unifying importance among all teachers, tends to be, for the student, a revision of grammatical errors, rather than a revision of content and organization (of ideas, etc.). As we have discussed in class many times, Sullivan agrees, that there needs to be a shift in revision of, “…mechanics to ideas development, organization, and critical thinking skills…” (53).

Finally, Sullivan discusses negative comments verses positive criticism. Many comments tend to point out what areas were done incorrectly, ineffectively, or not done at all. Where as, comments should be celebrating good uses of writing and encouraging that practice. That I agree with - at a high extent. Makes perfect sense: “Good job here, keep doing this.”


 * Response #3 -- Chris Trudell

Responding to Student Writing** Vivian Zamel

This is not a final draft – but is there such thing?
The introduction of Vivian Zamel’s “Responding to Student Writing” nails in a great point. “…teachers respond to most writing (students) as if it were a final daft, thus reinforcing an extremely constricted notion of composing.” Throughout the article, it speaks of the abstract and vague notes that teachers give on students’ work – causing students to have a hard time understanding and interpreting the meaning of their teacher’s notes and then what to do constructively with the notes. Zamel explains, “The marks and comments are often confusing, arbitrary, and inaccessible.” The article provides a detailed explanation as to the student’s perspective of responses that limit the development of writing. Like we have spoken in our class; writing, in all forms needs an understanding that, “it [writing] involves producing a text that evolves over time. Teachers therefore need to develop more appropriate responses for commenting on student writing. They need to facilitate revision by responding to writing as work in progress rather than judging it as a finished product.” This notion is the utmost importance in responses to student writing. Zamel highlights the importance of invested responses. Invested responses provide as Nancy Sommers explains, a motivation for revision - and elaboration of ideas. Where as many articles have discussed, responses can’t focus on the grammatical errors of rough drafts, they need to focus on the direction of ideas and clarity of those ideas. Most responding tends to be focused on the detailed structures of the writing and its trivial errors, rather than the overall direction of a premise and ideas. In one of Zamel’s studies she explains how ESL teachers’ responses tend to be like “language teachers rather than writing teachers; they attend primarily to the surface-level feathers of writing and seem to read and react to a text as a series of separate sentences or even clauses, rather than as a whole unit of discourse.” This notion, I believe, is what many teachers bring to a paper when they respond. They are trying to correct and tweak the language and tone of a student rather than motivating and tweaking the clarity of their use of language when expressing their ideas. Language teaching is encouraging better grammatical writing, where as teaching writing is encouraging elaborated ideas, detailed explanations, and the flow of ideas and perspectives. In that… there is no such things as a final draft. Ideas and revision of those ideas will come to every writer. Composition teachers should teach the power of revision of ideas, and perspectives, and research – where writers will learn how to better explain themselves through writing.

The Response Is Mightier Than The Sword -Reflection- Trudell What I have found to be an underlining tone in responding to students writing articles, and Zamel touches on this is that responses need to allocate a “funds of knowledge.” Where teachers inspire a sense of revision with their experience of writing and their access to multiple discourses. Feedback tends to be focused on the simple fixes that most individuals can correct, edit, and/or scrutinize. The main the difference between a composition teacher and any editor is the access the teacher provides for the writer in the light of revision. It is right there in word: REVISION: a revised form or version. Through our time in class, discussion of theories and the reading of articles, as well as the interaction with freshmen composition writing, my perspective of the composition teacher has been as a combination of researching assistant and something to the way of a “ideas motivator.” We have discussed the roles of authority, community, multiple discourses, and the art of writing itself, which has caused the meaning of writing and literacy to be reexamined (in my mind). The relationship of the teacher, the student, the classroom, and writing must come together in order for successful academic discourse. However, when looking directly at responding to student writing there is a great need for restructuring. Feedback/response from a teacher needs to embrace the language of the students and stray away from the standardized practice of grammatical “error” correction. These fixes can not be corrected through handing a paper back the student witnessing the “error.” Those fixes and grammatical “soundness” come in practice and witness/reading of other writing. The response from a writing teacher needs to be focused in a notion of “new form(s)” and “new versions.” Handed in papers need to drop the “rough draft” ~ “final draft” practice. Every form of writing, through time, is in a temporary draft, where revisions can always be made. The teacher then needs to build constructive and accessible responses. The students need to “feel” a sense of curiosity in the notes on their draft – the idea here being that a students asks themselves the question, “How can I elaborate this detail?” or “I can incorporate this example, and expand on these ideas, and finally make this claim.” Teachers then are playing a role of inspiring students to rethink their ideas, providing new examples, and places to build and expand their language through multiple discourses. I have learned from the articles I’ve read and from my own experience with poor feedback, is that response notes need to have encouragement. Once a student receives a paper that has single words, grammatical structure, and sentences crossed out - with side notes of “WHY IS THIS HERE?” …they loose interest in their initial ideas and feel less confident about their writing. Teacher feedback needs to encourage confidence in the students “written voice” and inspire a quest for more knowledge in their research or writing. However, I am not ignorant to the difficulties in ESL students – and the problems of students connecting with their text and what they want/need to write about. That is why the structure of the classroom and the curriculum need to embrace the constructive motivating attitude for students to find their passions in a variety of discourses. Writing should be the sharing of ideas and perspectives – not a standardized practice. I can not help but ignore the idea/fact that writing is an art. There is no wrong way to write – yet there is clearer ways to paint/write the perspective of an idea (a painter: greater access to paint, brushes, tools, etc. / the writer: examples, other writing, resources, research, etc). In conclusion, responding to student writing should encourage a progressive approach of new perspectives and open the door to multiple discourses.

<span style="color: #030303; font-family: 'Comic Sans MS',cursive;">Danielle Astengo [|Conducting Writing Assignments]Richard Leahy This article describes how the writing process should play out in a classroom. Leahy develops a 6-part strategy that encourages collaboration in writing. While most of the ideas in the article seemed pretty standard to me, he did have a few interesting points and at the end of the article there is a sample for paper evaluation which I thought might be helpful. I also noticed that most of what he said applies to the methods that we are using in 130P. Leahy says that the teacher, student, and writing center should work together on each writing assignment. He compares the teacher to an orchestra leader, whose responsibility is to guide the students and encourage the attitude that "we are in this together." This collaboration should begin with the developing of the assignment and should end in the grading and responding The first stage of the process is desiging the assingment. Leahy says that this should involve the students so that they will be more aware of what is expected of them and will understand the requirements better. Next is developing the grading criteria. In this section he introduces the PTA, or Primary Trait Analysis, which is a type of rubric. This should also be done in class as a group effort. In the next stage, composing the draft, the students work individually but this is where the writing center should be introduced. Next is the revision, which he claims to be the most important, and should include peer response and more trips to the writing center. After the revision, students should submit the finished paper with a "writer's reflection" and a possible justification of their expected grade based on the PTA scale. Finally, the process goes back to the teacher who should at least respond to the reflection and point out a few good and bad points.

The problem that I have with this article after reading what I just wrote is the assumption that the teacher and students are willing to spend this much time on a writing assignment, both in and out of class. In a class like English 130P this works because that is the main object of the class, but in any other GE or upper division course I doubt the instructor would dedicate this much time to the process. Perhaps the goal of Freshman comp then is to get students into a good habit of allowing plenty of time for writing and revising and introduce them to tools such as the writing center...

Danielle Astengo [|"Everybody Has Their Own Ideas": Responding to Cliche in Student Writing]Dawn Skorczewski This is a long article but I chose it for a few particular reasons and it raises issues that I think are relevant and important to 431 and our 130P workshops. To begin with, I chose it because she sites Bartholomae and challenges his idea that cliché, or as he calls them the “commonplace,” is a result of deficiencies in student writing and because she uses //Rereading America// in her writing classes, the same text I used in my Rhetoric and Writing Studies (freshman comp) class at SDSU. In Dawn’s article she seeks to understand students’ frequent use of clichés in a class that studies institutional power, multiple identities, and situated knowledge. How can a student write for pages about such complex issues and then negate what they said with a simple cliché? She cites Bartholomae and his claim that clichés represent a world that makes sense as opposed to the confusing language of the university, but argues that it is more complex than this. She points out that in their papers, students will try to use a critical voice but that they can’t sustain it for very long. Thus, students aren’t “outsiders” or “insiders,” but they are complex individuals with multiple literacies they go back and forth between (Szwed, anyone?). Dawn says that teachers need to pay attention to clichés and the meanings behind their usage beyond seeing them as examples of naivety or complacency because they can reveal much about a student. In fact, she explains that in her annoyance at finding clichés in student writing she often replies with her own clichés; either the student is mimicking the ideology of the dominant culture or questioning it. However, she says that students might just be trying to make sense of what it means to have an identity in multicultural America. Here she brings up an interesting distinction I feel compelled to address: The distinction between the testimonial “I” and autobiographical “I,” and how the testimonial “I” can be translated into “I who is a we” and, conversely, in the cliché it is “we who is an I.” So when Dawn sees the common cliché, “Everybody can achieve the American dream,” she interprets this as a student who is holding on to the dream because he/she needs to believe that their education will help them succeed in a world with dwindling opportunities, not one who is hastily wrapping up their paper. I know this is getting long, but she also said some interesting things about the teacher’s role in a classroom. Dawn says that teachers might instinctively respond to clichés with their own clichés because in our society students are seen as “makers of errors” that need to be corrected by teachers and Bartholomae’s simplification of the problem of clichés is perpetuating this cycle. While there was a lot of jargon in this article about contact zones and safe houses, it’s important to note that both students and teachers have their respective safe zones, the latter being the academic world where critical thought is a resistance to authority figures. I think this means that teachers shouldn’t act like they know it all and need to try to understand where the student is coming from… ask yourself , “What are the unstated ‘rules’ of my pedagogy, and how do they influence my ability to recognize what my students are trying to say? ”

Danielle Astengo =[yes&term=games&term=classroom&list=hide&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoAdvancedResults%3Fhp%3D25%26la%3D%26wc%3Don%26gw%3Djtx%26jcpsi%3D1%26artsi%3D1%26q0%3Dclassroom%26f0%3Dall%26c0%3DAND%26q1%3Dgames%26f1%3Dall%26c1%3DAND%26sd%3D%26ed%3D%26jo%3D%26si%3D26%26jtxsi%3D26&item=42&ttl=19548&returnArticleService=showArticle&cookieSet=1|"Classroom Games and Simulations"] D. R. Cruickshank and Ross Telfer= This article defines the difference between academic and nonacademic games, and simulation and non-simulation games. The authors provide a brief history of classroom games and list advantages and disadvantages of classroom games. While it is a rather old article (published in 1980), it gave me a few helpful definitions that I will be able to apply to my research. The authors define games as "contests in which both players and opponents operate under rules to gain a specified objective" (Cruickshank and Telfer, 75). Simulations are, of course, "products that result when one creates the appearance or effect of something else" (75). In the realm of academic games, there are simulated games and non-simulated games. In a simulation, students (players) are given an environment in which to play, "giving them an insight into the object system or process simulated" (76). Upon reading this, I was immediately reminded of endless hours spent playing Oregon Trail. In a non-simulation game a player solves problems in a subject by using principles of that subject, such as crosswords or multiplication tables.According to Cruickshank and Telfer, the first learning game is at least 1500 years old, originating in India with the game of Chess.Some of the advantages of simulation games are: guaranteed experience amongst students, increased ability to solve problems independently, a responsive environment, they are psychologically engaging (players make decisions and are forced to live with it), they are safe and fun. A few disadvantages: teachers are unfamiliar and hesitant, they require a lot of time, games can be more peripheral than critical to what must be learned, they are less available, expensive, noisy, and some students can be left out. Note that most of those problems are due to institutional complaints, not students.Cruickshank and Telfer point out that playing games are only intended to complement and not replace other methods of teaching (78).Their analysis of existing research on pupil learning, knowledge, intellectual skills, attitudes, interest, and feelings of efficacy were rather inconclusive. This is where I will need to do my own research. However, they did point out that the application of games are limited in certain subjects, such as writing, but they can improve student involvement, attitutudes towards school, and community building. [|Classroom Games and Simulations]. D. R. Cruickshank, Ross Telfer. // [|Theory into Practice] //, Vol. 19, No. 1, Teaching Methods: Designs for Learning (Winter, 1980), pp. 75-80. Published by: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates (Taylor & Francis Group). Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1476290Danielle Astengo[|Talking Back: Responding to Student Writing] Margaret Treece Metzger
 * [|The English Journal], Vol. 71, No. 1 (Jan., 1982), pp. 39-42
 * Published by: National Council of Teachers of English

This article offers some interesting tips for responding to student writing. Metzger is a high school English teacher, but the problems and suggestions she offers are mostly universal. I appreciated this article because she addresses the amount of time that a thorough response requires and takes into account that teachers have lives too. She says that after years of proofreading comments she became frustrated at seeing no results and at the suggestion of a coworker started to write “Responding Comments,” that address larger issues such as organization and clarity. She found that “after only a few months of responding comments, students wrote and rewrote and rewrote. Proofreading became a by-product of Responding Comments because when students became invested in their papers, they willingly proofread their final drafts” (40). The students, she says, don’t want errors to subtract from what they are trying to say. This is a nice theory but based on what I’ve seen so far (which isn’t much), it’s unlikely to be consistent. Metzger goes on to point out three problems in responding to student writing: untangling errors (that seem interwoven) and seeing patterns, seeing improvement throughout the semester (rather than in retrospect at the end of semesters), and having a systematic and efficient method to responding to errors. I think our methods in 130P have addressed each of these problems. For example, I have been reading several assignments from the same authors and it’s allowed me to see patterns in their mistakes. Also, the way the assignments have been building off one another highlights their improvement (or lack thereof) almost weekly. I like the specific comments Metzger makes for commenting on common errors. Keeping efficiency in mind, she says that comments need to not necessarily be profound, but honest. Try to avoid using the dreaded “but” as the beginning of your last comment. And I like the analogy she uses that there are “infinite symptoms” in student writing but “finite diseases” (41). Finally, she gives a list of 15 stock comments for common errors which are actually really constructive and really clever. She does address mechanical issues, but doesn’t focus on them. Here are a few examples: “There are 5 cliches in this paper. Find them, note what they mean, and return it to me with your final draft.” “I found at least 10 topics in this paper. That’s enough for the rest of the year. Because you are trying to cover so much, you are forced to be superficial and frustrate the reader (me). Just when I got really interested, you switched to another topic. Pick your favorite and make it the focus of the paper.” “I got mixed up in the middle. Rewrite for clarity.”

Joseph Imhoff—Wiki post 1—“Responding to Student Writing” by Lee Odell, College Composition and Communication, Vol. 24, No. 5 (Dec., 1973), pp.394-400, National council of teachers of English. (JSTOR) I have mixed feelings about this article because it mostly addresses college entry level student writing responses from the more traditional “general writing proficiency” standpoint. That being said, I also found Russell-esque ideas within the article as well. In essence the Odell sees his role as a writing instructor to highlight the good aspects he sees in student’s papers and to build on them. He emphasizes that while we need to be positive when assisting students in their writing we also must be critical. We need to show them where to improve what they already are starting to do. Odell also goes into a little of what Russell was taking about in the article we read in endorsing the study of rhetoric with a ‘building blocks of argument’ (my parenthetical quotation marks) type of attitude. What made this article particularly approachable and also very concrete was the real student writing examples that Odell gives throughout the article. In doing this the reader is really allowed to see the type of advice Odell would give to the respective students based on the each students work.

Stefanie Volk

"Responding to Student Writing" Published by: [|Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL)]
 * Vivian Zamel
 * [|TESOL Quarterly], Vol. 19, No. 1 (Mar., 1985), pp. 79-101

In this article Zamel discusses the different approaches teachers take when responding to student writing. One of the approaches that she talks about is that teachers take on the need to be a mentor to the students. A problem with this is that the students end up wanting to write what their teachers want them to write instead of taking their own views on what they are writing. Another approach that teachers take is the need to emphasis an authoritative role. The problems that could occur are that teachers than look at the writing as a final product instead of a draft. Students could than become intimidated and not no where to go with their writing. Teachers should strive for guiding students in away that students feel comfortable with writing in their own context but fulfilling teacher requirements. Writing is a process that takes more than just one draft. Students need to feel comfortable in writing what they got out of whatever they are writing and teachers need to understand that student writing is all different. There needs to be a way to respond to writing in a way that is both constructive and yet still allows room for freedom of writing

Jachin Reilley

As I was quickly looking for an [|article], yes I did this late and I’m sorry for that, I found one that instantly stuck out mainly due to the first part of the abstract, “However, research finds that this type of feedback has question able validity, reliability, and accuracy, and instructors consider much of it too uncritical, superficial, vague, and content-focused, among other things.” I found this quote applicable due to its relevance to what we were discussing in class. When I look back on my own experiences critiquing other’s works I always wanted to give more positive than negative or even constructive critiques. Just as it says in the article I never wanted to be responsible for lower the grade of another, I didn’t want that kind of responsibility so I never owned the task I was given. This is even something that I struggle with while leading the 130 classes, I want to be way more positive and if I do find fault point out something trivial that doesn’t mater much and is easily corrected. The author points to 2 main problems that promote this type of behavior the students and the way in which they are required to respond. The author thinks a big problem is laziness, and lack of knowledge. I would say that the lack of knowledge is the big one, the author points out if student knew exactly what to do then they would do it or at least an approximation of it to get an acceptable grade. To fix this problem L. B. Nilson suggests a number of questions that are designed to make the student pay attention as well as give feedback. I’m not sure how much I like the idea of almost doing a mini summery of the paper as part of the feedback but what possible good side effect could be that by doing a summery, something usually only done of //Professional// works, the students may feel more validated in their own writing. Reading this article made me think about how I can give more helpful feedback not just how I can get students to give better feedback.

//Teaching ESL Composition: Purpose Process & Practice// by Dana Ferris & John Hedgcock -Teacher Response to Student Writing: Issues in Oral & Written Feedback
 * Haleja Muñoz – Teacher Response Practices** **(Wiki Article #1)**
 * Chapter 5** [|ESL Teacher Response Practices]

I don’t know if this was supposed to be formal…but I’m just going to stray away from that aspect and explain how I stumbled upon this. Ok…so with all the discussion about peer responses and trying to provide useful (not fancy or smart sounding) feedback for our section, it really got me thinking about what is useful feedback? And in this case what isn’t? So I definitely wanted to provide useful feedback…but felt that I needed to understand more about what that meant. So I decided to look up ‘teacher response practices’ on Google and see what I got…then I stumbled upon this particular book and in chapter 5 it analyses teachers responses to student writing both oral & written, which to me is really useful. It focuses on ESL teaching, (English as a Second Language…which is awesome since English is my 2nd language), but I feel like what is says can be applied to 130P. After viewing the 130P class as part of an activity system in which we (the mentors & professor) are kinds of tools for the students…well I figured the best kinds of tools need sharpening(food for thought), and what better way to do that then research and application. So that’s pretty much what happened…ok not on to the book.

Chapter 5 of this book addresses a lot of important questions about teacher feedback on student work, which can really help to shape the kind of feedback that the mentors can provide as the 130P students continue their research projects. I found it very interesting because it considers not only the kinds of feedback given to students, but also how it is given (oral vs. written), where it is written and even what it tends to focus on vs. what it should. It’s really helpful because it explains the typical forms that feedback takes on, (which I’m sure we are all very familiar with) where teacher’s focus on surface-level errors hoping that constant correction will lead the students to understand what they are doing wrong and avoid making the same mistakes. (Very unlike what Kim desires for us to do…so I felt it went right along what our class.)

The results presented in this book have been composed from a lot of different kinds of research and compiled into extensive analysis, which is important to me because I need a source that proves its validity. It’s really fascinating to read because it also addresses how very often feedback tends to reveal the kind of agenda (or requirements) that students should meet, which pushes students to think that the “Teacher’s Agenda” is more important than their own (sounds like what we read about authority). It also goes into the results of studies about “the effectiveness of teacher feedback,” and different methods that have proven very useful. This research has been very interesting and fun to read because it touches on methods that I am familiar with and provides a new perspective on the kind of feedback we give.

Article #1 Reflection: This article was really helpful in helping to view approaches to feedback, it consider the kind of feedback that teachers give to students and how effective it is. It also talks about the different ways in which feedback is given, which could be written or oral feedback to the students. What the article talks about is really relevant because it helps to consider the kind of feedback that you are giving (in this case us mentors giving to the 130P students). Addresses problems with written feedback and I found it to be really applicable. It follows along the lines of what Kim wants us to focus our feedback on, putting context above grammar and punctuation. I actually am really interested in this particular aspect of the article dealing with oral vs written feedback for students, the pros and cons, and knowing when to use each. In the workshops I started out using written mainly but I would talk to them about their research, but it was more like them talking, but now slowly I can see my feedback shifting to be less written and involving talking with them to work through their complicated ideas. I think that as a mentor you get an idea of when there's a need fore discussion about the feedback to help clarify things to them, but also to clarify some of their ideas so that i can better understand their how they view their research. I hope it proves useful to everyone else. -Haleja

[|Portfolios in Teaching] //The Scoring of Writing Portfolios: Phase// 2 by Edward M. White (Pg. 581-600) I was trying to find something interesting about the use of portfolios in teaching, which you don’t really see being used a lot. Maybe it’s just easier to grade essays or assignments as they are turned in rather than compiling a portfolio for each student and having to grade them all. I think that many of us have become accustomed to writing essays or doing assignments turning them in and soon enough knowing what our grade is…but this leads us to be focused much more on getting the assignment done well to get a good grades, the emphasis in on points that lead to passing a class. I think that with portfolios the students get to work through the process of revising and investing their time into assignments, but all the while can go back and reread or look over past work and perfect it, instead of the one shot deal of you turn it in and that’s your grade. I also think that a using portfolios really gives authority and creates a sense of ownership to the students because they have more control over their work, and keeping their work. So I found this interesting article about the use of portfolios. Quote: “The key principle behind portfolios is that students should be involved with reflection about and assessment of their own work.” This reminds me of the idea of ownership. The article provides look a view of portfolio theory of teaching rather than essay-testing theory as it calls it. It talks about the kinds of problems that portfolio use solves that are present in essay-testing, which mainly focus around the students being able to revise their assignments and addresses several strengths that the use of portfolios has brought to teaching. I really like that the focus and power is put into the students because they can revise their assignments and include reflections, but mainly through the use of portfolios the students have the authority to control what goes into the portfolio. He addresses the problems of scoring portfolios holistically as essays are often scored, which seems like the typical approach, and so he also provides solutions for problems that have arisen from the use of portfolios, such as a way of scoring portfolios. The use of portfolios is contrasted with the use of essay-testing which is problematic mainly due to the limitations, because in essay students are normally given one or two prompts from which they must write an essay using nothing more than their minds. Their only resources is their minds which is really limiting the capabilities of the students, and places the burden of shoving as much information into their memories as they can at least for the exam….because afterwards you can afford to forget a bunch of it…since the students never really learned it in the first place. I really feel like the use of portfolios really shifts the focus on teaching and grading. It’s a really interesting article I think, and its relevant to the freshman class because the portfolio theory is being used instead of the essay-testing theory.
 * Haleja Muñoz – Use of Portfolios (Wiki Article #2)**

Article #2 Reflection: This article I enjoyed reading the most out of the three it was really interesting, at first I didn’t think there was much to using portfolios, but seeing it contrasted with essay-testing it makes more sense to use portfolios in teaching. Portfolios when use correctly can put a lot of the authority back into the hands of the students because they are able to revise and reflect on their writings throughout each step of an assignment as well as while they put the portfolio together, the focus is taken off of points and grades. This article explains how beneficial the use of portfolios can be to students in helping them to develop a sense of ownership over their writing. I think this is totally applicable to the class because after the students are going to be putting their portfolios together and turning these in at the end of the class, I feel like I gained a better understanding of why portfolios use is preferred over essay-testing, and I really like the idea of putting the authority into the hands of the students because after all it is their work that they are putting into the portfolios and they are taking responsibility by actually looking at their work, reflecting on it, perfecting it, and feeling proud of all that they have accomplished. I'm exited to see it all come together especially now that i understand the method behind portfolios a lot better. -Haleja

[|Responding to Writing] //Responding to Student Writing// by Vivian Zamel (pp. 79-101)
 * Haleja Muñoz –**

In order to provide better feedback when responding to student writing I wanted to do look up more information on approaches that teachers have made and studies about these approaches to see what works and what doesn’t. In this article it talks about how often teachers responds to student writing like it is the final draft, instead of providing some corrections that can be made by the student for the next draft. Some teachers have he tendency to focus on grammatical errors and specific mistakes instead which lead students to correct their work, but do no provide support for much expansion or revision, or will overload the student with things that are wrong with their paper. This manner of responding to student work enforces the expectations of the teacher instead of helping students developing their writing, and become more experienced writers because they see to please the teacher. This relates back to the concept of authority being taken from the hands of the students, because they are taught to focus on details of the writing such as punctuation and grammar not the context. The article actually discusses how detrimental it is when teachers establish themselves as authorities over the students and their writing, by the ways in which they provide feedback. They address the problems with viewing student writing as text to be evaluated and disregarding the writer’s intentions and what they are attempting to communicate, for teachers to be able to give useful feedback to the students they must consider the point of view of the students, it addresses ways to give good responses to writing while still hinting at grammatical errors. The article focuses on the problems with the teacher responses style presented, and other practices that are more useful for the students to expand on their writing, the focus being on context. The article is really useful because its good to see what kind of practices do not work and why, so that we can catch ourselves if we are exerting these and figure out how to fix it, so that the students get good feedback about the work in progress which will deliver better final products.

Article #3 Reflection: This is another article on student writing which was pretty interesting as it addresses how a lot of teachers grade papers as if they are the final drafts even when they are not, and how skewed the focus of grading is on quality over context. It mainly focuses more on the problems of providing this kind of feedback, and how authority is explicitly placed on the teacher because they determine ultimately what is included and expected of the student’s writing. This doesn’t really allow room for growth and development of the student’s writing skills. It’s a good article that helps you consider the kind of feedback you are writing and giving to the students and if you are really giving them power over what they write or if you are enforcing your voice or ideas over theirs. It was interesting. -Haleja


 * "Responding to Student Writing - ARTICLE #2" - - CHRIS TRUDELL**

=Responding to Student Writing: The Consequences of Some Common Remarks=

By: Patrick Sullivan

 * [|The English Journal], Vol. 75, No. 2 (Feb., 1986), pp. 51-53

"Good ideas but here is some trivial directions to keep you busy while you're in school." Some common mistakes are made when there is good intentions.

The article I read was [|“Responding to Student Writing - The Consequences of Some Common Remarks”]by Patrick Sullivan. The article is introduced with a generalization, a likely one, that many teachers tend to soften the remarks to writing, supporting their generalized ideas, highlighting mistakes that are easily corrected (grammatical). Students tend to take this advice as if they’re creating effective writing based on “a good idea” then its clearly introduced by fixing trivial details, rather than reinforcing ideas, making sound arguments, and supporting them with evidence and research. The writing, in my own assumption, becomes; “this was my idea” without any sort of development. The article continues to describe that many teachers have a hard time giving constructive criticism. Where they highlight areas that need improvement, saying good ideas, but not giving much advice in how to be more successful and critical as a writer.

The article continues to describe how teachers / tutors need to be more specific and careful in how ideas are praised. Sullivan then breaks his ideas of feedback in a few main ideas. Sullivan highlights many misconceptions beginning writers have - and encourages students to breakdown writing stereotypes that are commonly practiced. Here we can assume that teachers dictate what writing should or shouldn’t be, which limit’s the possibilities for the student’s writing. Sullivan introduces the ideas of repetition - where students tend to avoid all sorts of repetition, where in some cases it can reinforce their arguments or theories. Secondly, Sullivan explains vagueness very straight forward.

He explains, “Students whose writing is consistently vague need to go through their papers phrase by phrase with someone who can explain why a particular sentence or passage is not clear to the reader. Going over three or four vague phrases in detail trains students to be more critical readers of their writing.”

I feel that there could be more explanation for this idea. Each student would have to go over passages one on one. Which is possible - but takes a great deal of time - and which can learn a process of understanding their “..own language and start to think in terms of an audience…” (52). This is an idea that I agree with but is extremely specific to each individual student, and is a skill that is in constant “revision” as writers are constantly changing. I am not sure if a writers language is a constant thing. But I can understand the possibility.

Sullivan then continues to describe revision. Revision, being a unifying importance among all teachers, tends to be, for the student, a revision of grammatical errors, rather than a revision of content and organization (of ideas, etc.). As we have discussed in class many times, Sullivan agrees, that there needs to be a shift in revision of, “…mechanics to ideas development, organization, and critical thinking skills…” (53).

Finally, Sullivan discusses negative comments verses positive criticism. Many comments tend to point out what areas were done incorrectly, ineffectively, or not done at all. Where as, comments should be celebrating good uses of writing and encouraging that practice. That I agree with - at a high extent. Makes perfect sense: “Good job here, keep doing this.”


 * "Responding to Student Writing - ARTICLE #2" - - Takemi I.**

=**"Writing Conferences" by Pearson Education**= =**[|Article Link]**=

In a children literature class that I took last semester we learned some strategies to improve reading comprehension. A textbook that guided us through the process of effective teaching methods was a booked written by Ellin Keene and Susan Zimmermann called “ Mosaic of Thought”. In this book the authors introduces variety of concepts and pedagogies, however a core activity that they encouraged teachers to use was a stategy instruction called conferring. After each key ideas had been initially modeled and practiced in a guided manner, the teacher and students conference the key ideas in a one to one manner during their independent reading. Individual conferences generally are short about 2- 5minutes. I had fell in love with this pedagogy and had always wondered if conferencing was also applicable in a writing situation.

According the teacher vision, a website ran by Pearson Publishing, it states that writing conference is in-fact at the heart of teaching writing. It is where students are able to practice attitudes, skills and concepts associated to a true writing. The primary purpose to writing conference is not only to exercise the complex skills involved in writing but to train students to think like real writers. Hence the goal is for students to be able to pose interesting questions to themselves that benefits them to produce “meaningful, accurate and clear writing”. In their article titled “Writing conferences”, some of the questions that real writers ask are “ What can I add?” “ Does this make sense?” “ How can I change this to make it better?” and “ What kinds of questions will the reader ask?”. In the article they cite Lucy Calkins, a current elementary teacher in New York. Clark states that in order for students to start asking themselves such questions, teachers need to ask these types of questions t model how good writers think. Hence, teacher -students, and peer conferences are the heart where this happens.

So how does conferring take place? According to the article, there are four guidelines that teachers should follow when conducting conferences with the students: 1) Find out how students feel about being asked to write. 2) Find out if students take risks as writers/ 3) Find out if students understand what writing is for. 4) Find out if students know how to improve their writing

Generally before conferencing, the class with the whole group will conduct a mini lesson on the kinds of questions and discussion that they want to encourage later in their individual conferences. Usually this is done by the teacher using a strategy called think aloud. This is where teachers model how good writers think in the writing process. Hence teachers do this by using their own writing pieces and merely talking out loud whatever they are thinking during the writing processes. Students hence learn to question the types of concerns in their own writing. During their independent writing activates, students will be working on variety of centers: some might be in their prewriting stages, while others might be at an editing stage, or a publishing stage. Teacher will initiate a conversation by asking series of questions to the student. Usually a good starting question is “ tell me what you have done so far” or “ tell me about your writing”. The conversation should be about listening/ questioning to the students rather than teachers talking/ advising. Specific questions that teachers may use are 1) What is happening in your story 2) How did you get that idea? 3) Will you put that information in your story? 4) Can you tell me more about? 5) When this happened, what do you remember most?

Rather than giving to much feedback, teachers are encouraged to provide “encouragement and leave each student with a direction, or particular issue to concentrate on, or strategy to try our “.

Jachin Reilley article #2

I’m not sure if this is what the assignment is for, but I thought I would look into something slightly different than the typical response to student writing. Being a psychology major I was interested to see what, if anything, psychology had to say about responding to writing or students. I used PsycINFO for the search and found one lone [|article]that somewhat relates. The article is a comparison of the “end of semester” evaluation versus a formative or “mid-semester” evaluation. This evaluation is from the students’ perspective of the class. Data, mostly survey questions, was collected from students in a business class. The data was collected 3 times, once at the beginning, middle, and end. The questions were about what the students’ expectation were and for the middle survey, what are some improvements that could be made. The data was analyzed and there is a lot more to read if you are interested. The main point is that, at least according to the author, this more iterative approach can help teachers better understand how their students are relating to the class and, if needed, change the class to improve the learning experience. While this may not really have much to do with how we respond to the students’ writing I think it could have some implication on how they are responding to us. It would be interesting to give a little survey in class or the workshops to see how the students feel we are doing and how we might improve our responses to them.

Risha... response to student writing--article #1

[|This article] provides a writing rubric with three authentic samples of uncorrected student drafts: an editorial, a poem and a narrative to help teacher easily assess writing skills and student work. The author creates ten checklist for editorial written adapting in a wide range of discourses, to start with audience awareness (who is the target or reader), statement of opinion ( clearly argue include supporting ideas) statement of purpose (be more specific about the purpose), lead (background), organization, choice of argument, supporting detail, conclusion, sentence variety and language choice. However, the author concludes that there is no one correct way to respond to student’s writing. “Teachers generally recognize that they may not be able to respond as fully as they like, and they also realize that overloading a student with comments may be counterproductive.” Thus, in responding, not all English teachers apply the same criteria for judging any piece of writing; rather, teachers usually establish their own routine to determine how they will feedback on students’ work focusing on what the student needs to concern and think of their improvement.

Risha Responding to Student Writing - ARTICLE #2

I chose [|the article]Teacher Response to Student Writing by Ferris and Hedgcock, addressed the concerns of teacher response in L2 writing. There is the issue about the role of the teacher: writing teachers see themselves as language teachers. One study by Zamel focusing on the error correction noted that “ESL writing teachers misread student texts, write contradictory comments, provide vague prescriptions…. the teachers overwhelmingly view themselves as language teacher rather than writing teachers. (p. 127) I think it is the common problem in both L1 and L2 composition; whether correcting grammar or not, the problem of the overlap between what we do as writing teachers and what we do as language teachers. Consider how the teacher works on their feedback in L2 composition, the authors suggest that the teacher should try to be flexible in his/her standard and selectively respond and establish priorities what the most important issues are rather than addressing all student problems, for example. Interestingly one study found that ESL students wish to receive feedback on grammar more than on content, but another noted that ESL students prefer each drafts focusing on different feedback such as the first draft focusing on content, the second one focusing on grammatical errors. After reading the article, I found that although L1 and L2 students are basically different in terms of language acquisition and cultural expectations, both L1 and L2 encounter the same problem regarding writing abilities; grammar and syntax which teachers have to come up with an effective method to meet their needs.

Risha ..... article #3

In order to help teachers response to student's writing effectively, Toby Fulwiler proposes the fascinating ideas from [|the article] " The argument for writing across

the curriculum." He addresses that first teachers need to understand the fact that " the act of composing a piece of writing is a complex intellectual process

...and people have trouble writing for a variety of reasons; no quick fixes will solve everybody's writing problem." In addition, there are several ideas that are

similar from what I was taught in 431 class: respond to the content first, not the surface or "mechanics", "be sure to comment as much on the 'more' as you

do the 'less.'", revise-edit and grade, comment specifically one or two problems only (helping them to know what to do next), fix by example only a page or two,

learn how to peer respond to become better in their own work and last but not least bring good and bad papers to discuss in the class.

Joseph Imhoff

431 Mentor Wiki post #2: "It's not the Culture of Poverty, It's the Poverty of Culture The Problem with Teacher Education" by <span style="font-family: Palatino-Roman,serif;">//**G**// <span style="font-family: Palatino-Roman,serif; font-size: 7pt;">//**LORIA**// <span style="font-family: Palatino-Roman,serif;">//**L**// <span style="font-family: Palatino-Roman,serif; font-size: 7pt;">//**ADSON**// <span style="font-family: Palatino-Roman,serif;">//**-B**// <span style="font-family: Palatino-Roman,serif; font-size: 7pt;">//**ILLINGS,**// <span style="font-family: Palatino-Roman,serif;">// University of Wisconsin–Madison //  citation below (found through JSTOR):
 * [|Anthropology & Education Quarterly], Vol. 37, No. 2 (Jun., 2006), pp. 104-109
 * Published by: [|Blackwell Publishing] on behalf of the [|American Anthropological Association]

<span style="display: block; font-family: Times New Roman,serif; text-align: left;">Here is the Pdf:Firstly I would like to say that I am certainly not pointing fingers here in choosing this article. I very much like English 431 and I do not necessarily think that this article applies directly to 431 but that being said it does bring up some interesting issues for anyone who has taken education classes before especially ones that put a focus on different cultures. Billings has both a background in education and anthropology. The article's main bent is getting teachers from white middle class backgrounds who are part of mainstream middle class culture to realize that they are not without culture. In teacher education programs the author points out that teachers from these backgrounds are not culture neutral as they often characterize themselves as being, but in fact that their beliefs and ideas are very much affected by cultural influences. Billings also points out that in many contexts "culture [...is used as] a catchall phrase that is often a proxy for race." Essentially Billings points out that culture has become in some contexts a safe way, a sanctioned, way to use racism as a way of explaining issues with students. This article is a quick read but is very rewarding even given its short length. Billings doesn't beat around the bush but gets directly at the heart of some important issues with regard to the conceptualization and use of 'culture' in an educational setting. She also gives interview examples that really let you see the problems contained within many seemingly commonly held beliefs about culture in context.

Wiki Post #3

Heidi Rogers <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 200%;">This article provides insight to factors that affect the successes of collaborative writing groups within 9th grade classrooms. Throughout our search for successful peer review practices, we have learned a lot of why we need to be effective student peers and what the outcomes of successful peer collaboration can lead to, but there seems to be lack of knowledge or description of //<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">how // to do this. This article focuses on coauthoring or collaborative learning/writing as the same entity and that it is vital to the success of a writer "because of our thoughts as dialogic as external speech, influenced by our cultural contexts and all of our language associations, coauthoring brings voice to thought that is dialogic to begin with" (335). This article walks you through methods used in the 9th grade classroom to effectively coherse collaborative learning.
 * =Collaborative Writing Interactions in One Ninth-Grade Classroom=
 * Helen Dale
 * [|The Journal of Educational Research], Vol. 87, No. 6 (Jul. - Aug., 1994), pp. 334-344
 * Published by: [|Heldref Publications]

mproving Student Peer Feedback [|College Teaching] [|Heldref Publications] Link: http://www.jstor.org.mantis.csuchico.edu/stable/3233467?&Search=yes&term=peer&term=student&term=Clarity&term=influence&term=writing&list=hide&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoAdvancedSearch%3Fq0%3DClarity%26f0%3Dall%26c0%3DAND%26q1%3Dstudent%2Bwriting%26f1%3Dall%26c1%3DAND%26q2%3Dpeer%2Binfluence%26f2%3Dall%26c2%3DAND%26q3%3D%26f3%3Dall%26wc%3Don%26Search%3DSearch%26sd%3D%26ed%3D%26la%3D%26jo%3D&item=9&ttl=1682&returnArticleService=showArticle
 * **Structured Peer Collaboration: Teaching Essay Revision to College Students Needing Writing Remediation**
 * Author(s): Kimberly Kinsler
 * Source: Cognition and Instruction, Vol. 7, No. 4 (1990), pp. 303-321
 * Published by: [|Lawrence Erlbaum Associates (Taylor & Francis Group)]
 * Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3233467

This article focuses on the roles student’s can play in helping each other in the revision phase of their papers. Use of peer collaboration helps the student’s, whose paper is under consideration, monitoring and reflection skills. Many students have a “lack of sense of reader audience” or in other words a lack of a flowing conversation to discover what it is they themselves understand, but do not describe in their paper. Kinsler describes that “without demands for content clarification, amplification, and defense of a topic” students will not/can not write a convincing paper. A collaborative process amongst students can teach learners a matacognitive process that is used by more successful learners. Peers can give feedback that is “less emotionally threatening than adult’s corrective advice” (305). This statement reminds me of Harris and community. Can student collaboration explain in the right words what a teacher cannot convincingly explain? This article goes on to give examples of collaborative work and results from such work. Based on college level writing.

Jachin Reilley post #3

The [|article] that I chose for this 3rd post was one that focused more on responding to ESL student writing. I chose this because it is something that I am particularly interested in, as I hope to be an ESL teacher at some point. This article is about the problem with “appropriation” of student writing. Another way to say this is the teacher taking too much arbitrary control of the paper and the students not being able to develop a voice or have authority in their writing. The author has been an ESL teacher for many years and at one point this idea of not “appropriating” the students writing came into vogue. So she stop commenting on the students papers, or did very little, because I was so focused on not taking over the paper or crush the creativity of the students. The problem she had was that the less she commented on the rough drafts the less improvement the students made and the more she felt like a fraud as a teacher. This led her to re-evaluate why she was doing what she was doing. She came to the conclusion that there is a balancing act, that while yes comments are arbitrary, but as long as you focus on things that are important, big ideas that may carry over, then comments are a great help. That is to say that do not focus on little things like a few grammar mistakes unless it is part of an overall problem that is present, or it severely impacts the readability of the writing. This is especially true for ESL learners, comments are often the only way that they will get feedback on their writing. Bosses or friends/coworkers/students will just give it back to them and say redo it, or they not even read what is written. So it is the teachers responsibility to guild them and give feed back. Another important aspect for ESL readers is that they are often in a separate community of discourse, so the teacher must act as a surrogate audience, and correct grammar mistakes. The struggle comes from how to bring the students from where they are, to the community of which they will eventually be a part of. What is the discourse like in the new community, what sorts of practices are sought after and desired, building this bridge is a complex idea but a doable one. So when it comes to appropriating, I do think that teachers need to make sure that the comments truly serve a purpose, there needs to be a concrete reason behind the comment, it can be as simple as “flow” or even “move this sentences to the preceding paragraph because it fits with the topic sentence.” This once again is especially important for ESL because the teacher is often the gateway to not only a new community but a new culture, so the teacher has to point out aspects of the writing that, while are adaptable, my be perceived in a negative fashion due to cultural differences. The giving feedback is very important to help the students grow and learn, it just needs to be done in a way that empowers them as writers while giving them the tools to be seen as competent in the world outside academia.

Jachin Reilley reflection I think I was able to learn quite a bit from the article that I looked up. The first article was mainly about basic responding to student writing and struggles that teachers and students face when trying to implement peer response. That main I idea that I was able to grab from this article was that it is difficult o stet up the right space for peer response to be effective. The students need to feel that what they have to say is important, and necessary. If the students don’t feel that they have to put effort into the response, they won’t, there needed to be a reward to overcome the problems. The second article was a bit different; I was looking for a psychological perspective. This led me to an article about how peers perceive the feedback given, and how they perceive the helpfulness of the class. What I learned from this article is that it is not only important to evaluate how the students are doing throughout the semester but also it is important to get some sort of evaluation from the students about how they feel the class is going and what they expect from the class. The third article was about helping ESL students. In this article the author discussed the issue with appropriation of student writing. I feel that this article had some of the same information that we have talked about in class. The point that I pulled out of this article was that when commenting of student writing, don’t focus all the little things but focus on important issues. When responding, pull out issues that will not only affect this paper (like spelling errors) but are writing issues in general (organization). When putting all these article together, to make helpful comments on student writing peer or teacher, the space and the discourse is very important. When students write peer response they need to feel empowered, that they have authority to give good feedback, and to be given enough incentive to make the students do the work. When they respond to writing they should be told what things are important to pay attention to. For the most part these ideas are the ideas that we have talked about in class.

Joseph Imhoff This article from JSTOR offers and extremely detailed study about the effectiveness of group writing critique at the elementary, middle school, and high school levels. The article has an interesting even helpful beginning that gives reasons for why group works for improving student writing is such a good idea. Unfortunately the article quickly becomes very bogged down with the data that was collected in the form of recordings from the various writing group discussions. The concluding section gives some interesting insight on how valuable the use of these groups can be in terms of students ability to think critically. Ultimately the article offers many good justifications for utilizing group writing critique sessions such as helping students understand the meaning of audience outside its direct connection between themselves and their teacher. Unfortunately the middle section containing copious amounts of data seems obsessed with a concept the authors create resembling meaning units.

Stefanie Volk

This article that I got from the library database talkes about ways in which to improve student writing as well as help teachers effectively respond to writing. The ways in which this article talks about improving student writing is by showing examples to them. A teacher could also create short writing assignments to get students warmed up to a bigger writing assignments. Creating a rubric for students to work off of is also a way to create criteria for students to work with. As a teacher there are several ways to go about responding to student writing. Creating a rubric is not only effective for students but it is for teachers as well. Another way to go about responding is having students give you two to three areas or questions that they had issues with for the draft that you could help them work on. Doing this gives students ownership to what they are writing. When responding to writing it is sometimes effective to respond as a reader and not as just the evaluator.