This week, I had a conversation with Maya about our workload and our experiences in our classes. I genuinely enjoy the readings for this course, as they focus on writing and how to improve students’ work. As a teacher, I find a natural interest in these topics and feel that I can actually implement the strategies discussed. Here are my thoughts on this week’s enjoyable readings.

Bean

• “”The writing teacher’s ministry is not just to the words but to the person who wrote the words.” (Zinsser 48) I value this quotation because all of us as teachers, late at night, having read whole stacks of student essays, sometimes forget the human being who wrote the words that currently frustrate us.” (pg.317) This brings up such an important point. Personally, I always consider the student when grading, and I feel a lot of teachers do as well. However, the reality is that this can bode well or poorly for students. “Good” students receive more leniency, while “bad” students have no wiggle room.
• “The best kind of commentary enhances the writer’s feeling of dignity.” (pg.317) I believe this is a great mindset that all educators should adopt. Writing is a crucial skill, and it’s important that we provide students with the confidence they need to succeed in the world.
• “When a teacher wrote, “You haven’t really thought this through,” students reacted this way…When a teacher wrote, “Try harder!” students reacted this way…” (pg.319) These are such mean and presumptuous comments. We have no idea how students are processing information, so the idea of trying harder and them not thinking things through is really problematic for me. (Though I understand how, sometimes, as teachers, one may feel this way about their students’ work.)
• “Zull’s point is that fear, anxiety, or anger blocks meaningful learning, which is associated with pleasure.” (pg.320) This is such an important consideration for teachers. Understanding the mental stress that can be present, we must work toward alleviating it, as those feelings can stay with students throughout their writing careers.
• “To promote meaningful learning, Zull argues, teachers should build on student successes, evoking feelings of hope and confidence rather than failure-the same point made by Spandel and Stiggins.” (pg.320) I agree, but it leaves me with the question: How do we address their areas for improvement or mistakes? Is “mistakes” even the right term, or should we use “learning opportunities”? This has left me questioning the best approach for execution.
• “The students in Smith’s study overwhelmingly preferred the mitigated version that mixed positive and negative elements.” (pg. 320) So, is it safe to say that the compliment sandwich is the way to go?
• “To improve our techniques for commenting on our students’ papers, then, we need to remember our purpose, which is not to point out everything wrong with the paper but to facilitate improvement.” (pg.321) Again, I think this is a great framework, but it’s easier said than done.
• “At this stage, (where our role is judge) we uphold the standards of our profession, giving high marks only to those essays that meet the criteria we have set. It is possible, of course, to do both simultaneously.” (pg. 321) We need to be judges and hold students to the standards we’ve established, while also being compassionate and allowing for the gray areas that reflect their individuality and feelings. I think it can be challenging to find that balance in practice.
• “The second strategy, which is my favorite method, is to allow rewrites after I return the “finished” papers.” (pg.321) I agree; students should always be given the option to rewrite. I want to see what they can do on their own and act only as a guiding light—like when you go through a haunted house and the workers are there but don’t speak, simply ensuring you stay on the right path. I don’t want to scare them or overwhelm them with feedback; I just want to guide them in the right direction. We can discuss things on the other side.
• “Because not all students will choose to rewrite, this method is less time-consuming for me, and the quality of the writing I initially receive is higher. By allowing rewrites, I can gear all my comments toward revision yet also feel comfortable applying rigorous grading standards, because I know that students can rewrite.” (pg.321) I completely agree. Not everyone will take advantage of a rewrite, which allows me to spend more time on those who do. I can also stand firm on my expectations and standards. For those who choose not to rewrite, I hope they pay attention during our lessons so they can earn a desirable grade the first time and avoid feeling pressured into a rewrite. (Of course, we want students to revise, but I’m being realistic.)
• “You think of limiting your comments to the two or three things that the writer should work on for the next draft rather than commenting copiously on everything. You think of reading for ideas rather than for errors. My recommendation is to limit your comments to only two or three of the questions and to proceed to lower-order concerns only after a draft is reasonably successful at the higher levels.” (pg.322) Two truths can exist. I believe students should be corrected on grammar, punctuation, and similar issues, but it’s equally important to address the content of their work. I also agree that it’s important to provide students with a manageable amount of prompting so they can genuinely improve their work. Two or three items is reasonable, but it really depends on the level and the specific students you’re teaching.
• “If the draft doesn’t follow the assignment, there is no purpose in commenting further. I generally return such a draft unmarked and ungraded.” (pg.323) Unless this is submitted as their final work, I agree. It’s pointless to nitpick every detail if I’m going to prompt them to redo the entire piece.
• “To use the language of Flower (1979), such a draft is “writer-based” rather than “reader-based”; that is, the draft follows the order of the writer’s discovery process rather than a revised order that meets the reader’s needs.” (pg.323) This is a great concept, but it’s difficult to achieve when students don’t like school and may not be interested in the topic. It’s challenging for students to be “writer-based” when there’s no connection beyond obligation. In their minds, they’re only writing for the reader, a.k.a. the teacher.
• “The thesis is the new infonnation presented in the paper. The old information is the question that the thesis addresses.” (pg.328) I love this framework!
• “This philosophy follows Haswell’s practice of “minimal marking” (1983), in which teachers don’t mark student errors but require them to find and correct their own errors. The teacher tells a student that his or her paper is marred by sentence errors and that the student’s grade will be either reduced or unrecorded until most of the errors are found and corrected.” (pg.330) This is great, but what if they’re unable to find any, let alone all of the corrections? Grammar can be challenging, and many students genuinely miss common, small mistakes. (Don’t get me started on spelling!)
• “The beauty of this policy, from a teacher’s perspective, is that abandoning the role of proofreader and line editor saves substantial marking time.” (pg. 330) I always hate the idea of cutting corners because it’s time-consuming. We’re teachers, and if we need to spend more time helping students learn from their mistakes, then so be it. I know it’s easier said than done, but come on.
• “More importantly, it trains students to develop new editing habits for eliminating their own, careless errors.” (pg.330) It definitely has the potential to help students build positive habits, but there should be a balance. I think we should give them the opportunity to identify their mistakes, then swoop in to show and explain the corrections and what went wrong.
• “In addition, every teacher has pet peeves about style, so you might as well make yours known to students and note them on drafts when they start to annoy you.” (pg.332) This makes me think of my time teaching sixth grade. The students were pretty awful writers, except for their content. They were often clueless about formatting and very basic standards in writing. This led me to teach a lesson on the basics, such as indenting, font choice, font size, etc.
• “The strategy I recommend is to follow a three-step template: (1) strengths, (2) summary of a limited number of problems, and (3) recommendations for revision.” (pg.334) These are solid steps for providing feedback.

Elbow

• “Evaluation requires going beyond a first response that may be nothing but a kind of ranking (“I like it” or “This is better than that”), and instead looking carefully enough at the performance or person to make distinctions between parts or features or criteria.” (pg.1) I like that it says the person and not just the performance. Taking the student into account is just as important and relevant to the work.
• “In short, the reliability in holistic scoring is not a measure of how texts are valued by real readers in natural settings, but only of how they are valued in artificial settings with imposed agreements.” (pg.2) Though I’m typically in favor of holistic scoring, I agree it doesn’t necessarily translate to the real world.
• “We can sometimes get agreement among readers from some subset, a particular community that has developed a strong set of common values, perhaps one English department or one writing program. But what is the value of such a rare agreement?” (pg.3) How widespread should agreement be, and what constitutes sufficient agreement? Is a department enough? A district? The state, since they create and grade standardized testing? Agreement is important for standardization and establishing clear boundaries, but who should set that standard?
• “Grades and holistic scores are nothing but points on a continuum from “yea” to “boo”–with no information or clues about the criteria behind these noises.” (pg.3) I agree; grading can be one-dimensional when it lacks context.
• “But oddly enough, many “A” students also end up doubting their true ability and feeling like frauds because they have sold out on their own judgment and simply given teachers whatever yields an A.” (pg.3) This just highlighted my imposter syndrome. It’s so true—being an “A” student can mean absolutely nothing in terms of confidence in one’s abilities.
• “It is plain that IQ scoring does not represent a commitment to looking carefully at peoples’ intelligence; when we do that, we see different and frequently uncorrelated kinds or dimensions of intelligence (Gardner).” (pg.4) I agree; IQ scores should be abolished.
• At this point, I’m left with the question of how all this can be applied in educational settings when you’re required to submit grades and numbers. This includes test scores, which can impact funding for the school.
• “Some students, in the absence of that crude gold star or black mark, may not try hard enough (though how hard is “enough”–and is it really our job to stimulate motivation artificially with grades–and is grading the best source of motivation?).” (pg.5) Again, the idea of trying harder is very problematic. We don’t know what students have on their plates, so instead of taking things at face value, it’s important that we communicate and address the root issues, rather than just treating the symptoms.
• “I taught for nine years at Evergreen State College, which uses only written evaluations.” (pg.5) Even though written evaluations are effective, they’re not realistic in overpopulated schools with underpaid and overworked teachers.
• I like his evaluation methods of utilizing portfolios and grids, similar to rubrics. I think grids clearly outline expectations, while portfolios help showcase the full scope of a student, rather than just grades and numbers.
• I appreciate that he addressed the limitations of evaluation.
• “I realize now what I’ve been unconsciously doing for a number of years: creating “evaluation-free zones.” (pg.10) It’s so important to provide students with the space to exist and be without the anxiety of being evaluated. Doing this will also help build their confidence, as they learn to trust their instincts.
• “Naturally, people get them mixed up: when they like something, they assume it’s good; when they hate it, they assume it’s bad.” (pg.13) It’s important to always be receptive and provide space for nuances. Just because you like something doesn’t mean it’s all good, and just because you dislike it doesn’t mean it’s all bad.