Students' Reactions to Teacher Comments: An Exploratory Study

Students' Reactions to Teacher Comments: An Exploratory StudyAuthor(s): Richard StraubSource: Research in the Teaching of English, Vol. 31, No. 1 (Feb., 1997), pp. 91-119Published by: National Council of Teachers of EnglishStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40171265 .

Accessed: 25/09/2013 00:55

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

National Council of Teachers of English is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toResearch in the Teaching of English.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.111.121.42 on Wed, 25 Sep 2013 00:55:15 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ncte

http://www.jstor.org/stable/40171265?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Students' Reactions to Teacher Comments: An Exploratory Study

Richard Straub Florida State University

Current scholarship indicates that most writing students read and make use of teachers' written comments on their drafts and find some types of comments more

helpful than others. But the research is unclear about which comments students

find most useful and why. This article presents the results of a survey of 142 first- year college writing students' perceptions about teacher comments on a writing sample. A 40-item questionnaire was used to investigate students' reactions to three variables of teacher response: focus, specificity, and mode. The survey found that these college students seemed equally interested in getting responses on global matters of content, purpose, and organization as on local matters of sentence structure, wording, and correctness, but were wary of negative comments about ideas

they had already expressed in their text. It also found that these students favored detailed commentary with specific and elaborated comments, but they did not like comments that sought to control their writing or that failed to provide helpful criticism for improving the writing. They most preferred comments that provided advice, employed open questions, or included explanations that guided revision.

For all practical purposes, commenting on student essays might just be an exercise in futility. Either students do not read the comments or they read them and do not attempt to implement suggestions and correct errors. (Marzano & Arthur, 1977, p. 11) We have scarcely a shred of empirical evidence to show that students typically even comprehend our responses to their writing, let alone use them purposefully to modify their practice. (Knoblauch & Brannon, 1981, p. 1) For it seems, paradoxically enough, that although commenting on student writing is the most widely used method for responding to student writing, it is the least understood. We do not know in any definitive way what constitutes thoughtful commentary or what effect, if any, our comments have on helping our students become more effective writers. (Sommers, 1982, p. 148)

Since these and many another sobering report questioning the use- fulness of teacher commentary, researchers seem to have become more focused in their study of response. Foregoing the difficult task of dem- onstrating the effects of teacher comments on improvement in student writing, they have taken up more immediate and accessible studies. They have developed theories about which kinds of comments are most helpful. They have analyzed how teachers read and respond to student writing. They have studied ways that students process comments and

Research in the Teaching of English, Vol. 31, No. 1, February 1997 91



92 Research in the Teaching of English, 31, February 1997

how they use them to make changes in their writing. And they have solicited, through self-report surveys, students' own perceptions toward teacher comments - whether they find teachers' comments useful and, if so, which types they find most and least helpful. A theory of response is emerging, and research in composition is beginning to show what teachers have long suspected, hoped, or assumed: that students read and make use of teacher comments and that well-designed teacher comments can help students develop as writers. While it is not clear just how much teacher commentary helps improve student writing, there is a growing sense that commenting is useful and that some comments are more helpful than others. This essay reviews the research on how students respond to different types of teacher comments and presents the results of a questionnaire conducted to investigate how first-year college students react to teacher comments.

Background

Since the watershed works of Sommers (1982) and Brannon and Knob- lauch (1982), research into teacher response has been developing a set of guidelines for thoughtful teacher commentary. Teachers, this research indicates, should expand the roles they assume when they comment on student writing, should move beyond the conventional roles of examiner, critic, and judge, and should take on the roles of reader, coach, mentor, fellow inquirer, and guide (Fuller, 1987; Hodges, 1992; Horvath, 1984; Knoblauch & Brannon, 1984; Moxley, 1992; Probst, 1989; Straub 1995a; Straub & Lunsford 1995). They should see their comments as a conversation, a give-and-take dialogue with the student, not as an occasion to edit or correct a paper (Anson, 1989; Danis, 1987; Fuller, 1988; Straub 1995a). Looking beyond the formal text, they should consider the writing in relation to the larger context of writing - the type of writing, the au- dience and purpose, and the conventions of the writer's community (An- son, 1982; Baumlin & Baumlin, 1989; Fuller, 1987; Straub & Lunsford, 1995). They should focus on the writer's evolving meanings, lead students back into the chaos of revision, and gear their comments to the stage of drafting, first addressing large-scale issues of content, focus, organization, and purpose and only later dealing more fully with surface features (Krest, 1988; Onore, 1989; Sommers, 1982; Straub & Lunsford, 1995). Instead of covering all that might be said about a piece of writing, they should concentrate on only two or three concerns at a time (Fuller, 1987; Moxley, 1989; Straub & Lunsford, 1995). They should write out their responses in full statements and text-specific comments, using the words from the student's writing to instantiate their views and provide intrinsic authority to their comments (Greenhalgh, 1992; Hayes & Daiker, 1984; Sommers, 1982; Straub, 1995a, Ziv, 1984). And, perhaps most im-



Students' Reactions 93

portantly, teachers should monitor the control their comments exert over student writing. They should not make comments that harshly critique the text or foist their expectations on student writing; they should look to make comments that play back their reading of the text, offer praise, ask questions, and provide guidance, explanations, and instruction (Daiker, 1989; Elbow & Belanoff, 1989; Knoblauch & Brannon, 1984; Mox- ley, 1989; Straub 1995b, Straub & Lunsford 1995).

These, then, are the principles that teachers and researchers have iden- tified as the foundation of effective response. But what do students think? How do they perceive teacher comments? Researchers who have studied student reactions to teacher comments seem to agree about at least three claims. First, students do read and make use of teacher comments (Beach, 1979; Burkland & Grimm, 1984, Lynch & Kleman, 1978). Second, students are able to discriminate among different kinds of comments and find some more helpful than others (Land & Evans, 1987; Odell, 1989). Third, students appreciate comments that reflect the teacher's involvement in what they say and engage them in an exchange about the writing (Beach, 1989; Land & Evans, 1987; Sitko, 1992). But while the research is beginning to show that students agree that some kinds of comments are preferable to others, it is far from clear which comments they find most useful or why.

Focus

What areas of writing do students want teachers to address in their comments? Do they appreciate the new emphasis on the overall shape and meaning of their writing? Do they value comments on surface features? Studies investigating students' reactions yield mixed results about the focus of teacher comments. Some studies suggest students appreciate genuine responses to their subject matter, though perhaps not to their ideas about it (Beach, 1989), while others suggest that students do not appreciate comments on the content of their writing (Lynch & Kleman, 1987). Some indicate that students are interested in getting responses on other global matters such as development and organization (Burkland & Grimm, 1984; Dohrer, 1991; Ziv, 1984). Reed and Burton (1985), however, found that 88% of their students felt their writing "should be evaluated for both content and grammar" (p. 73). But, the research as a whole suggests that students have mixed views about comments on local matters of sentence structure, wording, and correctness (Burkland & Grimm, 1986; Hayes & Daiker, 1984; Lynch & Kleman, 1978).

These various, and sometimes conflicting, findings leave open a number of questions about students' reactions to differing focuses of commentary:

• Do students prefer comments on global matters, local matters, or both?




• Do they appreciate comments on the content of their writing? Or do they resist comments that criticize, counter, or call for changes in their ideas?

• Do they appreciate comments on the organization and development of the ideas they already have on the page?

• Do they prefer comments on some local matters more than others?

Specificity Few research studies have directly examined how students react to different degrees of specificity, or explicitness, in teacher comments, although several have addressed the issue. Ziv's research (1984) reported case-study students "responded favorably to explicit cues" when the teacher "indicate[d] for the student exactly how he or she might revise a paper or point[ed] out a specific error" (p. 368). They responded less favorably to "implicit cues," to the teacher "call[ing] attention to a problem, suggesting] alternate directions for the student to pursue, or questioning] the student about what he or she ha[d] written" (p. 369). Although Ziv's categories seem to have as much to do with the form of comments as with the specificity of comments, her study clearly sug- gested that students preferred to have comments explicitly expressed. Hillocks (1982) found that brief comments (fewer than 10 words) worked as well as extended comments, but that longer comments worked well when they were accompanied by instruction related to their content.

Other studies have noted in no uncertain terms students' views toward a whole class of traditional teacher responses: editing symbols, abbreviations, cryptic marks, and comments cast in the specialized terms or codes of writing teachers (e.g., "Frag," "Not clear," "Tighten," "Gen- eralization"). The message from these studies is clear: Students resound- ingly do not find these comments helpful (Hayes & Daiker, 1984; Dohrer, 1991; Land & Evans, 1987; Lynch & Kleman, 1978; Reed & Burton, 1985). They find it difficult to understand such commentary and consequently are put off by it. They want comments that are fully stated, clear, and specific. The question is, how specific and detailed do students want teacher comments to be?

Mode

According to the reviewed studies, students seem to agree about two types of comments they find helpful. First, they favor comments that suggest ways of making improvements (Reed & Burton, 1985; Ziv, 1984). Second, students favor comments that explain why something is good or bad about their writing (Beach, 1989; Land & Evans, 1987; Lynch & Kle- man, 1978).1 As Land and Evans put it: "One message was strong - students wanted reasons" (p. 114).

More than any other variable, researchers have sought to determine how students react to criticism and praise. They have come up with a




tangle of conflicting and inconclusive results. A number of studies have found that students find useful and appreciate comments that point to what they have done well (Beach, 1989; Daiker, 1989; Dragga, 1988; Gee, 1972; Hayes & Daiker, 1984; Reed & Burton, 1985). Hayes and Daiker (1984) reported:

Indeed, we cannot overstate how highly students value positive comments and how clearly they remember them from draft to draft. During 16 hours of taping [of student protocols], not one student indicated that positive comments - even single words of praise such as good or nice - were not useful. If our study has confirmed any single principle of response, it is that positive reinforcement is the most important tool in an enlightened composition classroom. Teachers should give at least as much effort to praising good writing as to marking errors, suggesting improvements, or any other kind of commentary/' (p. 4)

Other studies have found that students have mixed feelings about praise (Beach, 1989; Burkland & Grimm, 1986; Land & Evans, 1987). As Burk- land and Grimm note, students "are not telling us that they don't like praise, but that they have trouble seeing it as 'useful' "

(p. 14). These and other studies indicate that students would find praise more helpful if it were more specific. Similarly, while some studies indicate that students react strongly against commentary that identifies only what is wrong with their writing (Barnes, 1985; Beach, 1989), others have found that students appreciate criticism and see a mixture of criticism and praise as most helpful (Burkland & Grimm, 1984; Land & Evans, 1987). If students are not pleased with praise alone, they are looking for something beyond simple criticism.

Researchers have also begun to investigate the ways students interpret other, less conventional kinds of comments. Beach (1989) found that students are ambivalent about the use of questions and interpretive para- phrase. Yet Sitko (1992) reported that students found useful comments that simply indicated where readers had trouble following the writing.

In short, while the research suggests a certain consensus about students' reactions to some types of teachers' responses, it has left a majority of issues unresolved:

• How do students respond to directive commentary - responses that present direct criticisms of their writing or authoritatively call on them to make changes in their texts?

• Do students find suggestions among the most useful types of commentary? If so, why?

• Do students prefer criticism or praise or some mixture of the two? Do they find laudatory comments that are specific or elaborated more helpful than simple praise?

• What kinds of questions do students find most useful? Do they view questions any differently from other types of comments?




• Do students find comments that summarize the text or play back how a reader experiences, understands, and reacts to their writing helpful?

Problems with Existing Studies on Student Reactions

The mercurial nature of the subject is part of what is behind the confusion about students' reactions to teacher comments. It is difficult to pin down differences in teacher comments and, in turn, determine how one element of commentary, and not another, has affected students. It is also difficult to distinguish the effects of comments alone from the effects of the classroom context and the larger institutional setting. But a more immediate source of confusion has been the design and methods of studies. One problem has been that researchers have not gone to sufficient length in shaping their classifications of comments. Many categories found in the research are broad or undefined: criticism versus praise, corrective comments versus laudatory comments, questions that imply teacher expectations versus questions that show the teacher's engage- ment with the writing. When researchers reported that students did not mind "critical" commentary, what specific kinds of comments were they referring to? Types of comments have also been grouped together indis- criminately, with no apparent theoretical basis. Comments that make suggestions have been grouped with comments that point to some problem or make some correction. There has been no distinction between direct criticism and indirect criticism, between one type of question and another, or between comments that tell the student to make a change and those that suggest some change.

Many researchers have not used particular comments in their studies, but only labels for general types of commentary. In many projects students were asked to indicate their preferences for abstract categories of comments without sample comments to provide some definition for the category. In other projects, even those where students were given actual comments, the researchers reported their findings only in broad cate- gorical terms, without sharply defining the boundaries between categories.

Less often, but still too often, researchers have studied only different kinds of traditional, authoritarian commentary or have stacked the deck against critical comments, presenting the majority of their sample criticisms in standard forms - in abbreviations, single words, and cryptic phrases, or in the authoritarian phrases of a critic or judge (e.g., Poor word choice, State your thesis, Needs to be organized better). Much of the research has dealt disproportionately with surface features of writing and with the relative effects of criticism and praise. Only a few studies have investigated the best comments by the best teachers using contem- porary approaches to teaching writing.




The Present Study

The present study investigated how one group of students - freshman college writers, at a large state university, in a writing program allowing flexibility in classroom instruction - reacted to different types of commentary. Data for the study were gathered from 172 students who responded to a 40-item questionnaire about their preferences for a range of teacher comments. The comments were selected from responses that 20 different teachers had made on a sample student paper - a first draft of an argumentative essay.2 (See Appendix A.) Over half of the comments were made by recognized teachers and researchers whose work is informed by current theory.3

Method

Students were asked to read the essay and then respond to the questionnaire. They were to assume that they were getting the draft back with teacher comments and were going to do a revision. They were told: "You know that the paper is rough and that you're going to need to do substantial revision. What kind of comments would you prefer?" They were asked to indicate their preference for each comment, using a four- point scale: definitely prefer, prefer, do not prefer, definitely do not prefer. To get a sense of the reasoning behind their preferences, students were asked on 10 items to explain the reasons for their choices, getting as detailed as they could. (For the full questionnaire, see Appendix B.) One hundred and forty-two students completed the survey.4

The questionnaire was designed to investigate students' reactions to three variables of teacher response: the focus/ specificity, and the mode of teacher comments. Thirty-four teacher comments dealt with global matters of content and organization; 6 dealt with local matters of sentence structure, wording, and correctness. Twelve teacher comments were presented in general or abbreviated terms; 18 were presented in more explicit ways, referring to particular passages in the student's text, using specific language, or elaborating the comment in some way.

To avoid some of the pitfalls of earlier studies and examine more precisely the ways that teachers frame their comments, I used a detailed system for classifying different modes of commentary. I was interested in determining the extent to which these students preferred comments cast in different forms. I was also interested in investigating the extent to which they would connect their preferences (either intuitively or more consciously) to the form of the comment and its implicit degree of control. Would the students prefer types of commentary that assert greater or lesser control over their writing or, alternately, that provide more or less direction for revision? Fifteen comments were presented in strong




authoritative modes, where the teacher made a criticism of the writing or used a command to request some change. Three comments offered praise for the student's writing. Eleven comments were presented in the more moderate forms of qualified evaluations, reader responses, and advice. Ten comments were framed as questions, some open, some closed. Four items presented explanations and examples, using a follow-up comment to go back over the ground of an earlier or more general comment to explain or illustrate it.

This system of classification assumes that teacher response is, like all writing, a social action, taking place within a proscribed relationship between teacher and student. It assumes that teacher comments are marked by gestures of expectation and control, and that these gestures are tacit in the ways the comments are written on the page. The way a teacher frames a comment implicitly establishes some relationship with the student and exerts some degree of control over the student's writing choices.

The most controlling types of commentary are those that are framed as corrections, criticisms, and commands:

• [The teacher adds "recreational" before the word "drugs" in the student's sentence in order to clarify the meaning.] (correction)

• These arguments are not convincing, (evaluation; item 17) • Explain why drugs are wrong, (command; item 15)

Qualified evaluations and advice, through the use of qualifiers and the conditional mode, temper the teacher's authority and imply somewhat less control:

• I find the statements that we all know drugs are wrong less than convincing, (qualified evaluation; item 35)

• Your paper might be clearer if you state, point by point, your opponent's view, as clearly and objectively as you can. (advice; item 11)

Praise is less controlling than criticism or commands because it does not call for or imply any changes, but it underscores the teacher's values and agendas, thereby exerting a certain degree of control over how the student views the writing.

Comments that raise questions or present nonevaluative statements about the writing tend to be less controlling than authoritative modes of commentary. Closed questions, which usually imply an evaluation or indirectly call on the student to consider certain revisions, are typically less controlling than criticisms, imperatives, and advice, but they are more controlling than open questions which allow the student to figure things out on her own:

• Have you proved the "wrongness" of drugs just by saying that they are? (closed question; item 19)




• What is it that you want me most to know about your position on LeMoult's article (open question; item 3)

The least controlling types of commentary are interpretations, reader responses, lessons, and explanations:

• Your first argument deals with the financial reasons for legalizing drugs, (interpretive)

• I can tell you feel very strongly about the subject, (reader response; item 27)

• In academic writing, the trick is to express your opinion with authority, (instructional; item 4)

• [Your paper might be clearer if you state, point by point, your opponent's view, as clearly and objectively as you can.] Then you can deal with each of his arguments and show the weaknesses in his position, (explanatory; item 24)

Because there exists a power mismatch between teacher and students, all teacher comments exert control over student writing. Some comments, however, exert greater control or provide a clearer sense of direction than others. The question is, how much direction or control do students prefer in teacher commentary?

Modes of response are based on two complementary assumptions. First, the form of a comment strongly influences how the comment func- tions and what it comes to mean. Second, any analysis of how comments function must go beyond their superficial grammatical form. Consider the following comments, for example:

Omit this paragraph. You might consider omitting this paragraph. I wonder what you gain by having this paragraph in here.

These three comments might contain the same intention - to request that the paragraph be removed. But that does not mean they are the same speech act or are synonymous. There is a change in meaning - and in the relationship established between teacher and student - when the comment changes from an imperative to some declarative statement and from one type of declarative statement to another. The form of a comment makes a difference in meaning. At the same time, it is not enough to analyze the outward form of comments. Some statements are more controlling than other statements, some questions are more controlling than other questions, and some questions are more controlling than some statements. Any analysis of comments must go beyond the superficial grammatical form and consider the voice and content of the comment and other formal markers that instantiate various relationships between teacher and student. The use of the conditional mood in the comment "You might consider omitting this paragraph" gives the writer leeway in deciding whether to take up the comment and marks it as a piece of advice. In the comment "I wonder what you gain by having this para-




graph in here/' the use of "I wonder" and the absence of any reference to what the writer should or might do constructs the comment as a reader response - a comment that offers the teacher's experience as a reader, not the judgment of a critic or the directive of an editor. In this way, the proposed modes of commentary seek to provide ways of char- acterizing the different images teachers create for themselves through their comments, construable from the words on the page and the different degrees of control these comments imply.

In actual practice the meaning of a comment is influenced by the teacher's persona, the ongoing relationship established between teacher and student, and the larger classroom setting. But it is no less the case that the meaning of a comment is largely determined by the way the comment is presented on the page. In fact, it is arguable that, during the time the student reads a set of comments, the image of the teacher that comes off the page becomes the teacher for that student and has an immediate impact on what those comments come to mean. This study assumes that there is something to be gained by a close examination of the ways teachers frame their comments and, in doing so, create themselves on the page. It is an initial attempt to understand, from an a-contextual perspective, how students seem to value different kinds of teacher comments. I took it up in spite of its obvious limitations because it could offer provisional insights into how students seem to react to various kinds of comments and provide a foundation for further studies.

Results

The results of this study indicated that the students were quite adept at making distinctions among different types of comments and, as in Odell's (1989) and Sitko's (1992) studies, had sound, clearly articulated reasons for the comments they deemed most useful. Overall, they seemed to be influenced far less by the focus of teacher comments than by the degree of specificity of the comments and the modes of commentary.

Focus

Students in the survey did not prefer comments on global matters of ideas, development, and organization more than comments on local matters of wording, sentence structure, and correctness. They seemed equally interested in getting responses on both, a finding which confirms the observations of Reed and Burton (1985). On the \-A scale, the global comments were rated the same as local comments: 2.2. Within these two broad groups, however, the students showed a greater preference for some types of comments than others. They clearly appreciated comments on organization and development, corroborating the reports of Dohrer




(1991) and Burkland and Grimm (1986). Both types of comments earned a rating of 1.9, the best among the focuses of commentary.

Not surprisingly, the students were wary about comments on their ideas, but they were especially wary about comments that looked neg- atively on or somehow worked against the ideas that were already down on the page. Unlike the students in Lynch and Kleman's study (1978), students in this project did not look unfavorably on all comments about their content but only those that countered the students' ideas and (as they may have seen it) tried to foist the teacher's views on the writing. As a group, they gave comments that acknowledged the ideas on the page a favorable rating of 2.0, among them the following:

Good - you've defined the particular issues with which you do not agree and summarized the author's argument, (item 23) In the last paragraph, you say that "LeMoult's points are good and true but I believe he is approaching the subject in the wrong manner." What of LeMoult's points are "good and true"? How is he "approaching the subject"? Why is he approaching the problem "in the wrong manner"? (item 38)

As one student explaining his response to item 38 put it: "It's taking the author's idea and trying to develop it, not change it." By contrast, they gave comments that worked against their ideas a 2.6. The following comments in particular were rated poorly:

I don't think we'll get anywhere with the circular argument that drug use is criminal and should not be legalized, (item 13) These arguments are not convincing, (item 17) You've missed his point, (item 18)

The students seemed genuinely appreciative, as in Beach's study (1989), when a comment made it clear that the teacher got involved with the subject through their writing. According to one student who was responding to a well-developed advisory comment, "This comment shows the teacher really had to think about what was written and didn't just jot down a few spelling errors."

Students' responses to the few items directed to local concerns indicated that they were amenable to receiving comments on sentence structure and matters of correctness, as Lynch and Kleman (1978) report. The students seemed decidedly less favorable toward comments on wording, as in Hayes and Daiker's (1984) study. Perhaps whereas they saw judg- ments about grammar and sentence structure as matters of right and wrong, they saw comments asking for a reconsideration of word choice as reflecting the idiosyncratic preferences of the teacher. Because the questionnaire did not ask students to indicate the reasoning behind their preferences on any items dealing with local matters, no further examination of student choices about the focus of comments was possible.




Specificity Students responded to the specificity of comments in ways that are en- tirely consistent with research and theory. The more specific and elaborate the comments, the more students preferred them. Clarity was a given; students did not respond favorably to any comment that they saw as unclear, vague, or difficult to understand. The 12 most general comments on the survey, which averaged 6 words per item, received an overall rating of 2.5. Many students were baffled or put off by these comments, as indicated by their written responses to items 1 and 8, which call on the student to do more than "just generalize" and to "tighten up" the writing:

Too common on papers. Teachers always write this. They should be more specific, (item 1) We've been told this since 8th grade. The problem must be stated more in depth - it's a generalization, (item 1) What evidence and facts? Don't generalize your comments either, (item 1)

Tightened up? The teacher should be more specific. This does not tell me anything, (item 8) What do you mean by tightened up - if you want us to explain and be specific, you must be also, (item 8)

The students preferred comments that addressed specific matters on their writing in specific ways. The 9 items that were specific but unelaborated (averaging 19 words per item) were rated at 2.3, among them the following comments:

You must show, in more specific terms, exactly what damage society suffers from drug users, (item 7) Are there other things that are bad for the body that most members of society do not consider wrong? (item 12)

Far and away, these students most preferred - and enthusiastically expressed their appreciation for - comments that were specific and elaborate. The 9 most detailed comments in the study were rated at 1.8. Six of these comments were among the 9 comments students most preferred in the survey as a whole, including the following:

Perhaps there is something that you could use to your advantage in the behavior of other sorts of addicts: smokers, gamblers, shoppers? (item 20) Your paper might be clearer if you state, point by point, your opponent's view, as clearly and objectively as you can. Then you can deal with each of his arguments and show the weaknesses in his position, (item 24) In your next draft try to focus on developing more convincing arguments against legalized drugs. For instance, what can you do to show how drugs like marijuana and cocaine would be more dangerous if they were legal and therefore more available? (item 40)




These findings corroborate Ziv's claims (1984) about students' preferences for explicit comments and the conclusions of Hayes and Daiker (1984) about students' preferences for longer, text-specific, thoughtful commentary. They also confirm the speculations of Sommers (1982) and others who call on teachers to write out their comments fully. The students seemed to be indicating quite clearly that they want comments that they can understand and that point specifically to issues in their writing.

Mode

Across the items on the survey, the students seemed sensitive to the different modes of comments - as indicated both by the striking patterns in their rating of comments and in their written responses to the 10 survey items calling for explanations for their ratings. Three-fourths of the students noted in their follow-up remarks that their preferences were influenced by how a comment was presented or how it made the teacher come across as a responder. One-fourth made specific reference to the way the comment was formed in at least 4 of the 10 items in which they were asked to explain their preferences. They spoke of how some comments sounded helpful and encouraging, while other comments sounded harsh and critical. They noted how some comments made the teacher come across as thoughtful and caring and how others made the teacher come across as judgmental or sarcastic. They indicated that some comments helped the writer develop ideas and that others forced the teacher's views on the writer. Some students were able to make even finer distinctions, distinguishing between comments that offer "suggestions" and those that "tell the student what to do" and between comments that only note that something is wrong and those that let the writer know how the writing can be improved.

As Table 1 indicates, a direct connection appeared between student preferences and the modes of commentary. Students did not like comments, on the one hand, that took control of their writing or, on the other, that failed to provide constructive criticism or ways to improve the writing. They preferred and found most useful comments framed in moderate modes - comments that provided direction, did not insist on a certain path for revision, and came across to them as helpful. They did not prefer - and in many cases balked at - comments framed in highly directive modes, responses that stated in no uncertain terms how the writing should be done and that pushed the teacher's views on the writer. What follows is an examination of student reactions to the various modes of teacher commentary.

Criticism The students least preferred the types of comments that they were, iron- ically, probably most familiar with - criticisms. Four of the 5 comments




Table 1 Students' Ratings of Various Modes of Commentary

Mode Total Criticism

item: 05 13 17 18 25 30 35 10 32 average: 2.6 3.1 3.0 3.2 2.8 2.2 2.4 2.5 2.5 2.70

Praise item: 39 23 27 average: 1.8 1.7 2.2 1.93

Imperative item: 01 07 08 09 15 22 29 33 34 average: 2.1 1.7 2.6 2.3 2.1 3.1 2.1 2.0 2.5 2.28

Advisory item: 02 11 16 20 24 31 36 40 average: 2.1 2.1 1.6 1.8 1.4 2.1 1.6 1.3 1.76

Closed Question item: 06 14 19 26 37 average: 2.2 2.3 2.1 2.6 2.05 2.24

Open Question item: 03 12 21 28 38 average: 2.5 2.2 2.0 2.2 1.5 2.08

Note: 4-point scale, with 1 = "definitely prefer/' 4 = "definitely do not prefer/'

they rated as the least preferable in the study were terse, negative evaluations:

You've missed his point, (item 18: rated 3.2) I don't think we'll get anywhere with the circular argument that drug use is criminal and should not be legalized, (item 13: rated 3.1) These arguments are not convincing, (item 17: rated 3) Not so. See above, (item 25: rated 2.8)

These students were not against having problems in their writing pointed out; they were against having them pointed out in highly judgmental ways. They felt that there were better ways to present these responses. As one student put it, "I prefer comments that don't necessarily come right out and say it is bad, but objectively try to give advice to the writer."

The students viewed qualified evaluations and reader responses in slightly more favorable terms:

There's nothing wrong with you picking on part of his argument (legalizing) and ignoring the other part ("let's just think about it") - but the effect




is somehow to make it seem as though you are having a closed mind and saying "Let's not even think about it." (item 10: rated 2.5) I hear LeMoult saying something different - that drugs are so dangerous to society largely because laws make them illegal, (item 32: rated 2.5) I find the statements that we all know drugs are wrong less than convincing, (item 35: rated 2.4)

A number of students seemed to prefer these qualified comments, where the teacher filters her responses through her subjectivity as a reader, to straight criticisms. They felt these comments had a softer tone, and they appreciated the way the comments offered an individual reader's perspective on the writing:

The reader stresses that this is his opinion, [item 35] Gives a viewpoint he/she should consider - it doesn't tell how to write the paper, [item 35] The teacher points out a possible problem in reader interpretation and does it in a polite way. [item 10] A writer may not view his paper as another person does, and by using this comment, the instructor shows the writer how others may view his paper, [item 10]

But a number of students still felt the comments were more critical than

necessary: I don't like the way it is stated. It sounds extremely too critical, [item 35]

Maybe this comment is true but the teacher doesn't need to say "less than convincing." Don't slam the student, [item 35] Good comment, but it's somewhat harsh, [item 10]

Though I agree with the teacher I don't think this is a helpful statement to the writer. It seems condescending. [10]

A number of students also had trouble in item 10 with the way they saw the teacher taking control over the student's writing:

The teacher wants the paper to go his/her way. This statement shows me that the teacher won't let a student write about his own views. This comment isn't necessary. It is the teacher's personal comment and not one that benefits the student's paper.

They also indicated that they had trouble with the way comment 37 - "Do we? All drugs?" - hinged on what they saw as the teacher's opinion:

It's just the teacher's opinion, this is not a helpful comment. The paper isn't about the teachers opinion but of the students. We should work with the students opinion, after all its his paper.

These reactions indicate that these students did not necessarily see qualified comments in ways that the teachers may have intended - as state-




merits that are admittedly subjective, the responses of a teacher in the role of a reader more than that of critic or judge.

Imperatives The students had mixed reactions to another form of traditional response: imperative comments that call on them to make some change in the writing. On the one hand, they recognized that the comments pointed out problems that needed to be addressed. As one student explained in response to item 1: "Even though it's telling him [or] her how to write the paper, it's basic info that would make the paper more effective." On the other hand, they did not like the harshness of the commands, as the following students noted, again in explaining their reactions to item 1:

The teacher is too harsh in getting her point across. The teacher is being abrupt. The student would think she is terribly wrong.

The students seemed more receptive to imperative comments when they were presented precisely and specifically - and, perhaps as a result, came across more positively. Although a number of students found the response in item 1 - "Don't just generalize. Support your ideas with evidence and facts" - "harsh" and "abrupt," more were satisfied to have a valid problem pointed out to them clearly and directly. As one student put it: "This helps say what is wrong exactly. The first half of the sentence by itself would be a '4'." Only three of the imperative comments received poor ratings - and these were probably rated poorly because they are stated in terms that are not only vague but also blunt and critical:

Your second argument. Now develop this one. (item 34: rated 2.6) [Good material - ] but it needs to be tightened up. (item 8: rated 2.6) You need to tighten up your thinking as well as your expression, (item 22: rated 3.1)

More likely than not, the ubiquitous teacher term "tighten" did not make the last two comments any more appealing. As one student put it, "What the hell does 'tightened up' mean? The comment is a good one, but it is very very unclear and helpless."

Praise

The students responded favorably to praise. The two comments that offered positive evaluations were among the most favored in the study. They preferred praise accompanied by an explanation of what the teacher saw as good (item 23) slightly more than the simple, unelaborated evaluation "Good" (item 39). These students were not particular about where they found praise - they appreciated it wherever it turned up. Although they did not appreciate item 8 as a whole, they did respond




well to the simple laudatory comment that leads into the call for revision: "Good material - but it needs to be tightened up." Students who rated the response favorably explained their reasoning this way:

It offers positive approval, but also gives positive motivation. Gives positive comment first and then offers a bit of advice to help the paper. Lets me know they like the idea I'm presenting, but I need to rework it.

The students were lukewarm about positive evaluations cast in the form of reader responses. They rated item 27 - "I can tell you feel very strongly about the subject" - less favorably than straight praise, perhaps because it praises the writing only indirectly. The students seemed to want to know when they were doing something well in their writing. As Gee (1972), Dragga (1988), Hayes and Daiker (1984), and Daiker (1989) have observed, many may even be hungry for praise.5

Advice Hands down, the students most preferred comments presented as advice and comments that offered explanations. As a group, the 8 advisory comments averaged 1.7 on the four-point scale, easily the best score in the study.6 Five of the comments in the category (items 16, 20, 24, 36, 40) were among the 9 items that were the most preferred across the survey. They saw advisory comments as positive and helpful - the comments of an encouraging teacher or guide rather than the marks of a critic. As they noted in explaining their reactions to item 2 ("In your next draft try to focus on developing more convincing arguments against legalized drugs"):

It identifies the problem in a way that makes the teacher seem like they care. Offered help for the next draft, not putting down.

They also saw the advice presented in item 2 as preferable to the imperative presented in item 1 because it was more positive:

This is a better approach than the previous statement. It's just plain advice to help. This is a more positive statement that gives the writer options of what to change.

They were unanimous in seeing the same strengths in item 16. Some appreciated the helpfulness of the comment:

Gotta like the help! This is very helpful advice. The writer now knows how to approach the next draft. Very helpful - shows the writer what it is they are lacking and helps them by triggering the ideas.




Others liked the way the advice established a softer tone than directive modes of commentary and left them in greater control of their writing:

Suggestions are given instead of gripes. The teacher gave a sound suggestion that would probably be very helpful without criticizing the author in any capacity. It'll help them think more and write the paper better. They don't tell him/her how to write it.

May offer some ideas and material, but this comment is an "offered suggestion," not a command.

Some appreciated the response because, beyond the suggestion, it provided detailed help:

Gives examples on how to make the paper better. Teachers are for guidance in the subject, not to rip everything apart. This tells me how to support my thesis rather than saying I'm not sup- porting it. The detail is what is important. [I give it a T] because it gives the student ideas to explore. The teacher could have just said the first part [before "like cigarettes"] which would have been no help.

One student summed up her sense of all that is good about this comment in a word: "Perfect."

Tellingly, the comments that fared best with students were those that offered advice, followed up this advice with an example or explanation, and worked with the ideas the student already had down on the page,7 as in the following comments, which received the best ratings in the study, 1.4 and 1.3:

Your paper might be clearer if you state, point by point, your opponent's view, as clearly and objectively as you can. Then you can deal with each of his arguments and show the weaknesses in his position, (item 24) In your next draft try to focus on developing more convincing arguments against legalized drugs. For instance, what can you do to show how drugs like marijuana and cocaine would be more dangerous if they were legal and therefore more available? (item 40)

Every comment framed as advice in the study was met favorably. None was rated over 2.1, the average for the 40 items on the survey.8

Explanations The students gave the four responses with added examples and explanations (items 20, 23, 24, and 40) a rating of 1.56, better than any other type of commentary in the study. Just how much students appreciated such explanatory comments is further indicated by how they reacted to items 11 and 24. Both responses offered the same advice, but while one made the suggestion and stopped, the other went on to offer an explanation for the advice:




Your paper might be clearer if you state, point by point, your opponent's view, as clearly and objectively as you can. (item 11) Your paper might be clearer if you state, point by point, your opponent's view, as clearly and objectively as you can. Then you can deal with each of his arguments and show the weaknesses in his position, (item 24)

The students appreciated both responses, but they overwhelmingly preferred item 24 (1.4), rating it almost a full point better than item 11 (2.1). They obviously responded strongly to the added explanation for the sug- gested change, probably because it made the comment clearer, or tem- pered the authority behind the comment by indicating why such a change would be good, or both.

Questions These students were generally receptive to questions, but they were par- ticularly receptive to open questions. They seemed to appreciate the free- dom and control over their writing that comments framed as questions offered. They appreciated questions that offered direction or help more than comments that implicitly criticized their writing or challenged them to make revisions. The average rating for open questions was 2.08, the third-most preferred mode of commentary in the study behind advice (1.76) and explanations (1.56). The average rating for closed questions was considerably less favorable: 2.24, only a notch better than imperative comments.

The students responded especially enthusiastically to open questions that were elaborated and tried to lead students to develop the ideas they already had on the page:

How can you explain and support these views so they will be more convincing to readers of the publication? (item 21) In the last paragraph, you say that "LeMoult's points are good and true but I believe he is approaching the subject in the wrong manner/' What of LeMoult's points are "good and true"? How is he "approaching the subject"? Why is he approaching the problem "in the wrong manner"? (item 38)

They liked item 21 because it offered direction even as it allowed them to decide which changes, if any, were to be made:

The question allows the writer to come up with ideas of his own, without being backed into a corner by a specific suggestion. Leaves the writer open to answer and think about what he/she has written. Poses a challenge to correct the paper. Very constructive. The teacher is trying to help without giving the information to you.

Those who did not like this question said they wanted more direction and a clearer sense of what the teacher wanted:

Leaves you in the air about what the teacher wants.




Could you say it another way? More explicitly perhaps? I'd rather be given suggestions.

Item 38, the most detailed open question in the study, was their favorite comment in the form of a question and the third-most preferred comment on the overall survey, earning a rating of 1.5. They appreciated the specificity of the comment as well as the open-ended approach provided by the questions, as the following reactions suggest:

This makes the writer examine themselves without the teacher having to tell them what is wrong. The writer can answer these questions - see for himself if the paper makes sense. These questions that the reader poses leave the writer to reflect and then creatively and uniquely fill in missing sections. Very detailed, gives writer sense teacher really read it and was therefore interested. Specific places to look, not generalities.

The students were less enthusiastic about, but still were favorable toward, comments 12 and 28, which were shorter and more general:

Are there other things that are bad for the body that most members of society do not consider wrong? Is this important to your argument?

The one open question they did not view favorably - "What is it that you want me most to know about your position on LeMoult's article, 'Legalize Drugs'?" - might be seen from their perspective as having two drawbacks. It is stated only in general terms, and it poses a problem for the student to work through on her own more than it helps or directs her to make improvements in the writing. They might have felt that the question was too open-ended.

The students gave closed questions a mixed review and finally preferred them only to criticism and commands. They were most receptive to closed questions that, even though they might have implied the teacher's criticism, seemed to offer help or direction more than simply con- fronting the student with a problem:

Do we? All drugs? (item 37; rated 2.05) Have you proved the "wrongness" of drugs just by saying they are? Is alcohol also "wrong"? (item 19; rated 2.1) Can you break up these sentences so I can follow your ideas more easily? (item 6; rated 2.2)

They were least receptive to comments that they saw as more critical than helpful:

Is this your only and most important argument? (item 14; rated 2.3) What, then, of alcohol and tobacco. They are "legal." Would you make use of them criminal? (item 26; rated 2.6)




Nevertheless, they still preferred comments in the form of questions more than straight criticisms. Thus, while many students found comment 26 as excessively harsh and critical, some said they found it useful and positive. The following sample reactions illustrate these mixed views:

The teacher sounds like he is attacking the student. The teacher should only suggest and make positive remarks that would help the paper. Sounds so sarcastic, the student would most definitely be offended. The teacher points out something that the writer may have not thought about but does not wrong her for not doing so. I like this because it helps you think more about revisions to be made without making you feel ignorant.

The students found questions most useful, then, when they provided a clear sense of direction for revision and left room for them to act on the comment on their own. They did not appreciate questions that were framed in harsh or critical ways or that implied some criticism of their writing.

Summary First and foremost, these students wanted comments that are clear and understandable and that, in their eyes, are valid and appropriate to their subject, point of view, and purpose. In explaining the reasoning behind their reactions, they consistently pointed to the clarity and validity of the comment. They balked at vague or generic comments.

The students indicated an overwhelming preference for comments that were specific. The more specific and elaborate, the more they liked them. It is safe to say that, in their eyes, if a comment is to be helpful, it must be stated clearly and specifically, in language that will connect them back to their writing.

They welcomed comments that pointed out problems and indicated ways to improve their writing. They generally did not mind being told what was wrong or not working in their writing - especially when the comment was presented in positive ways and cast in terms of guidance or help. In fact, they expected teacher comments to tell them how they had done on the writing and what they could do to improve it.

The students seemed to appreciate comments on all areas of their writing, but they were sensitive about comments on the quality of their ideas and resisted comments that deal with matters that go beyond the scope of the ideas they have on the page. They seemed to value comments on organization, development, and local matters of form and correctness. They seemed less likely to mind criticism when it dealt with local matters that could be easily fixed.

The students recognized differences in the ways comments are framed - and were aware of the attitudes, roles, and power relations ere-




ated by different modes of commentary. The way a comment was presented made a difference. They most favored comments in moderate modes, responses that offered help or direction but did not take control of the writing. Most of all, they appreciated comments in the form of advice and explanations. They liked all praise - even if it was only presented barely in the single-word comment "good" or presented in tan- dem with criticism. The best praise, as other researchers have indicated, was that which also provided reasons for something being good. Stu- dents also seemed to like comments in the form of open questions, especially when they were expressed in specific terms and presented in a helpful way. They did not appreciate straight or harsh evaluative comments - especially those dealing with content and those presented in general terms. They were able to detect subtle evaluations that were presented indirectly in reader-response comments, and preferred these modes slightly more than straight evaluations. They gave a mixed review to imperative comments and to closed questions. They appreciated comments that pointed to problems that needed to be addressed, but they did not like any comments that were presented in a harsh, judgmental, authoritative tone.

Overall, the students preferred comments that offered some direction for improvement but asserted only moderate control over the writing. They most preferred comments in the form of advice and explanations, since these comments typically are specific, offer direction for revision, and come across as help.

Conclusion

This study examined through a survey how one group of students - 142 first-year writers at a large state university - reacted to different types of teacher comments, especially different modes of commentary. The questionnaire comments were written by teachers and rated by students out- side an actual classroom setting. Further, they were presented individ- ually, in isolation, separated from other comments made by the same teacher. Students were given the student essay and the sampling of comments and were asked to indicate which comments they would prefer and not prefer if they had received them.

The study suggests that many students may have certain preferences for the way comments on papers are framed. It suggests that they may be more inclined to receive some types of comments than others - and be more likely to balk at, or have difficulty with, certain other types of response. It further suggests that teachers may want to consider how their comments are being received in relation to their intentions. The study's method assumed that the way the comments are presented on the page has an immediate and significant effect on the relationship es-




tablished between teacher and student and on how the student views the comments.

The study does not purport to suggest how all students or students in general perceive teacher comments - or even how students in other settings would view the same types of comments. No doubt, the particular context has an effect on how students view teacher response. In the full context of the classroom, the directive comments of one teacher may not be comparable to the directive comments of another teacher. Non- directive comments may be frustrating to one student, yet provide a helpful challenge to another. In some settings, with some teachers and students, the types of comments studied here may come across as more or less favorable, more or less controlling, more or less helpful. I do not see this kind of study as necessarily preferable to the contextual study of response in the complex social settings of actual classrooms. Nor do I see it as necessarily conflicting with these other kinds of inquiry. It is an alternative method of study. It presents preliminary findings about how one population of college students reacted to different types of response and looks to provide an impetus for further study. Future studies might take up any number of questions, such as how students react to comments made on their own writing in actual classroom settings, what views about effective commentary teachers and students share, on what issues they diverge,9 what differences there might be between native- born and foreign-born students, and how students react to comments when the issues of response are defined by the student, not decided simply by the teacher.

Ultimately, this research suggests that teachers think more fully about the kinds of comments they make on student writing, how those comments represent themselves and their students on the page, and how they will likely be received. If "successful" comments are, by definition, those that turn students back to their writing and lead them to make better informed choices as writers, we need to continue to investigate how students view different types of comments and how we can make responses that challenge and encourage them to work productively on their writing.

Notes

1. It is not always clear how these various researchers define "explanations'' and "suggestions." Lynch and Kleman (1978), for instance, seem to blur the distinction between comments that explain why something is wrong and those that indicate that something is wrong. Similarly, it is sometimes unclear whether a researcher is using the term "suggestion" to refer to any comments that point to some needed revision or, more specifically, to comments that advise students to make a change without necessarily expecting that change to be made. 2. The essay was written in response to the following assignment, in the middle

of a first-year writing course: Select from a journal, magazine, or newspaper a




recent article on an issue you are interested in, one that presents a view you disagree with or that you find some problem with. In an essay intended for the same publication, write a response to the article/' The essay appears in Twelve Readers Reading: Responding to College Student Writing, a study Lunsford and I (1995) conducted on the way 12 teacher-theorists respond to student writing. 3. These responses appeared in Twelve Readers Reading. The 12 readers are: Chris

Anson, Peter Elbow, Anne Gere, Glynda Hull, Richard Larson, Ben McClelland, Frank O'Hare, Jane Peterson, Donald Stewart, Patricia Stock, Tilly Warnock, and Edward White. 4. Students who were reluctant to complete the survey were encouraged not to

participate or simply to stop when they wanted. Thirty students were eliminated from the study either because they indicated they did not want to complete it or because they failed to respond to at least half of the items. 5. Perhaps after seeing only four laudatory comments in a 40-item survey (and

few laudatory responses in their classroom experience), these students were primed to respond favorably to any comments that offered praise. 6. In more practical terms, every difference of .5 between two comments means

that 60-70 students - half of the total respondents in the study - rated a comment one point higher or lower than the other. For example, the difference between the 2.6 rating on item 26 and the 2.1 rating on item 31 means that 62 students rated item 31 as more preferable by one point. A difference of a full rating (1.0) between two comments would mean that on average all students in the survey rated one comment a full point better than another. 7. Although students responded favorably to items 16 and 20, they may not

have responded to them quite as positively as they did to items 24 and 40 because both of the former suggestions delve into areas beyond those the writer herself has broached:

Before writing the next draft, you might try listing as many things you can think of that are legal and that are also dangerous - like cigarettes, firearms, skydiving, and over-the-counter drugs - and consider how these things are different from illegal drugs. Then choose the best arguments and work them into your essay, (item 16)

Perhaps there is something that you could use to your advantage in the behavior of other sorts of addicts: smokers, gamblers, shoppers, (item 20)

8. The extent of students' agreement about their strong preference for advice is indicated by the standard deviation on their ratings for the 8 advisory comments. It is .84, the lowest in the study, indicating only a minor variation in the students' preferences for items in the group. 9. As a group, the accomplished teachers whose work is analyzed in Twelve

Readers Reading seem to respond in ways that are not inconsistent with the students' preferences in this study. The 12 teachers balanced criticism and praise and made regular use of advice and explanatory comments. They also wrote out comments in full, text-specific statements and distributed their comments over the full range of focuses. But informal studies I have done of two other groups of teachers indicate that teachers and students may very well have different views about teacher comments. I asked a small group of experienced teachers at a recent composition conference and a small group of new teaching assistants to respond to a sampling of comments from the questionnaire in this study. Both groups rated the comments quite differently from the large student group in this study.




References

Anson, C. (1982). The artful art of evaluating writing. Journal of Teaching Writing, 1, 159-69.

Anson, C. (1989). Response styles and ways of knowing. In C. Anson (Ed.), Writ- ing and response: Theory, practice, research, (pp. 333-366). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Barnes, L.L. (1985, September). What do you want me to say? Basic writers' responses to written comments. Paper presented at the Basic Writing Confer- ence, St. Louis, Missouri. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 295150).

Baumlin, T.F., & Baumlin, J. (1989). Paper grading and the rhetorical stance. In B. Lawson, S. Ryan, & W. R. Winterowd, (Eds.), Encountering student texts: Interpretive issues in reading student writing (pp. 171-182). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Beach, R. (1979). The effects of between-draft teacher evaluation versus student self-evaluation on high school students' revising of rough drafts. Research in the Teaching of English. 13. 111-119.

Beach, R. (1989). Evaluating writing to learn: Responding to journals. In B. Law- son, S. Ryan, & W.R. Winterowd (Eds.), Encountering student texts: Interpretive issues in reading student writing (pp. 183-197). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Brannon, L., & Knoblauch, C.H. (1982). On students' rights to their own texts: A model of teacher response. College Composition and Communication, 32, 157- 166.

Burkland, J., & Grimm, N. (1984, March). Students' response to our response. Paper presented at the Conference on College Composition and Communi- cation, New York, NY.

Burkland, J., & Grimm, N. (1986). Motivating through responding. Journal of Teaching Writing, 5, 237-247.

Danis, M.F. (1987). The voice in the margins: Paper-marking as conversation. Freshman English News, 15, 18-20.

Daiker, D. (1989). Learning to praise. In C. Anson (Ed.), Writing and response: Theory, practice, research (pp. 103-113). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teach- ers of English.

Dohrer, G. (1991). Do teachers' comments on students' papers help? College Teach- ing, 39, 48-54.

Dragga, S. (1988). The effects of praiseworthy grading on students and teachers. Journal of Teaching Writing, 7, 41-50.

Elbow, P., & Belanoff, P. (1989). Sharing and responding. New York: Random House.

Fuller, D.C. (1987). Teacher commentary that communicates: Practicing what we preach in the writing class. Journal of Teaching Writing, 6, 307-317.

Fuller, D.C. (1988). A curious case of our responding habits: What do we respond to and why? Journal of Teaching Writing, 8, 88-96.

Gee, T. (1972). Students' responses to teacher comments. Research in the Teaching of English, 6, 212-219.

Greenhalgh, A.M. (1992). Voices in response: A postmodern reading of teacher response: College Composition and Communication, 43, 401-410.

Hayes, M., & Daiker, D. (1984). Using protocol analysis in evaluating responses to student writing. Freshman English News, 13, 1-5.




Hillocks, G. (1982). The interaction of instruction, teacher comment, and revision in teaching the composing process. Research in the Teaching of English, 16, 261- 277.

Hodges, E. (1992). The unheard voices of our responses to students' writing. Journal of Teaching Writing, 11, 203-217.

Horvath, B. (1984). The components of written response: A practical synthesis of current views. Rhetoric Review, 2, 136-156.

Knoblauch, C.H., & Brannon, L. (1981). Teacher commentary on student writing: The state of the art. Freshman English News, 10, 1-4.

Knoblauch, C.H., & Brannon, L. (1984). Rhetorical traditions and the teaching of writing. Upper Montclair, NT: Bovnton/Cook.

Krest, M. (1988). Monitoring student writing: How not to avoid the draft. Journal of Teaching Writing, 7, 27-39.

Land, R.E., & Evans, S. (1987). What our students taught us about paper marking. English Journal, 76, 113-116.

Lynch, C, & Kleman, P. (1978). Evaluating our evaluations. College English, 40, 166-180.

Marzano, R.J., & Arthur, S. (1977). Teacher comments on student essays: It doesn't matter what you say. Study at the University of Colorado, Denver. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 147 864).

Moxley, J. (1989). Responding to student writing: Goals, methods, alternatives. Freshman English News, 17, 3-11.

Moxley, J. (1992). Teachers' goals and methods of responding to student writing. Composition Studies, 20, 17-33.

Odell, L. (1989). Responding to responses: Good news, bad news, unanswered questions. In B. Lawson, S. Ryan, & W.R. Winterowd (Eds.), Encountering student texts: Interpretive issues in reading student writing (pp. 221-234). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Onore, C. (1989). The student, the teacher, and the text: Negotiating meanings through response and revision. In C. Anson (Ed.), Writing and response: Theory, practice, research (pp. 231-260). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Probst, R.E. (1989). Transactional theory and response to student writing. In C. Anson (Ed.), Writing and response: Theory, practice, research (pp. 68-79). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Reed, W.M., & Burton, J.K. (1985). Effective and ineffective evaluation of essays: Perceptions of college freshmen. Journal of Teaching Writing, 4, 270-282.

Sitko, B. (1992). Writers meet their readers in the classroom: Revising after feed- back. In M. Secor & D. Charney (Eds.), Constructing rhetorical education (pp. 278-293). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

Sommers, N. (1982). Responding to student writing. College Composition and Com- munication, 33, 148-156.

Straub, R. (1995a). Teacher response as conversation: More than casual talk, an exploration. Rhetoric Review, 14, 374-399.

Straub, R. (1995b). The concept of control in teacher response: Defining the va- rieties of "directive" and "facilitative" commentary. College Composition and Communication, 47, 223-251.

Straub, R., & Lunsford, R.F. (1995). Twelve readers reading: Responding to college student writing. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Ziv, N. (1984). The effect of teacher comments on the writing of four college freshmen. In R. Beach, & L. Bridwell, (Eds.), New directions in composition research (pp. 362-380). New York: Guilford.




Appendix A: Sample Essay

What If Drugs Were Legal? What if drugs were legal? Could you imagine what it would do to our society? Well according to John E. LeMoult, a lawyer with twenty years of experience on the subject, feels we should at least consider it. I would like to comment on his article "Legalize Drugs" in the June 15, 1984, issue of the New York Times. I disagree with LeMoult's idea of legalizing drugs to cut the cost of crime.

LeMoult's article was short and sweet. He gives the background of ~q the legalization of drugs. For example, the first antidrug laws of the United States were passed in 1914. The laws were put in effect because of the threat of the Chinese imagrants. In addition, he

28 explains how women were the first to use laudanun, an over the 6 counter drug, as a substitute for drinking; it was unacceptable for women to drink. By explaining this he made the reader feel that

8 society was the cause of women using the substitute, laudanun, for 23 drinking. LeMoult proceeded from there to explain how the money

to buy drugs comes from us as society. Since drug addicts turn to crime to get money we become a corrupt society. Due to this we «g spend unnecessary money protecting inocent citizens by means of law enforcment, jails, and ect. LeMoult says that if we legalize drugs that "Overnight the cost of law enforcement, courts, judges, jails and convict rehabilitation would be cut in half. The savings in tax would be more than $50 billion a year."

LeMoult might be correct by saying that our cost of living in so- «q ciety would be cut in half if drugs were legalized, however, he is justifying a wrong to save money. In my opinion legalizing drugs is

5 the easy man's way out. Just because crime is high due to the fact 1 2 that the cost of drugs is unbelievable it doesn't make legalizing them -j 7 37 right. We all know drugs are dangerous to the body and society

without any explanation, therefore, you shouldn't legalize something 1 that is dangerous.

14 My only and most important argument to LeMoult is the physical 25 harm it would bring by legalizing drugs. People abuse their right to I 34

use alcoholic beverages because they are legal. For example, LeMoult himself says the amount of drug addicts is small compared to alco- «« holies. Why? - of course it is because of the legalization of alcohol. When you make something legal it can and will be done with little hassel. Why allow something to be done with ease when it is wrong? g LeMoult's points are good and true but I believe he is approachin the subject in the wrong manner. Drugs are wrong, therefore, should 1 5 not be legal! 18

19

Note: The numbers in the margin of this essay key the 21 comments in the questionnaire in Appendix B to the passages in the student essay to which they refer. The rest of the comments on the questionnaire originally appeared in end notes or letters to the student.




Appendix B: Questionnaire for Students and the Average Score for Each Item

BACKGROUND: I have been conducting research for several years now on the ways teachers comment on their students' writing. Up to this point, I've been focusing on what teachers have to say about their commenting. Now I want to look at what students think about teacher comments. For this project, I'm partic- ularly interested in finding out which kinds of comments you prefer.

The comments listed below were taken from the responses that about 20 teachers made on the same student paper, a rough draft in which the writer argues against newspaper columnist John Lemoult's article calling for us to think about legalizing drugs like marijuana and cocaine. Let's assume you were getting this draft back with teacher comments and were going to do a revision. You know that the paper is rough and that you're going to need to do substantial revising. What kind of comments would you prefer?

Read the student essay, "What If Drugs Were Legal," and then respond to each of the 40 items below, beginning with the number you're assigned.

DIRECTIONS: Indicate your preference for each of the following comments by circling one of the descriptors. In your responses as a whole, try to distribute your scores across all four categories. On the 10 items that are marked with an asterisk, briefly explain the reason(s) for your choice.1

1. Don't just generalize. Support your ideas with evidence and facts. (2.1 )2 *EX- PLAIN:

2. In your next draft try to focus on developing more convincing arguments against legalized drugs. (2.1) "EXPLAIN:

3. What is it that you want me most to know about your position on LeMoult's article, "Legalize Drugs"? (2.5)

4. In academic writing, the trick is to express your opinion with authority - but to make sure your argument is more than just your opinion. (2.1)

5. Awk. [Next to the sentence "We all know drugs are dangerous . . . without any explanation/' which the teacher underlines.] (2.6)

6. Can you break up these sentences so I can follow your ideas more easily? (2.2) 7. You must show, in more specific terms, exactly what damage society suffers

from drug users. (1.7) 8. Good material- but it needs to be tightened up. (2.6) "EXPLAIN: 9. Don't use "my" or "you"; stick with the third person. (2.3)

10. There's nothing wrong with you picking on part of his argument (legalizing) and ignoring the other part ("let's just think about it") - but the effect is somehow to make it seem as though you are having a closed mind and saying "Let's not even think about it." (2.5) "EXPLAIN:

11. Your paper might be clearer if you state, point by point, your opponent's view, as clearly and objectively as you can. (2.1)

12. Are there other things that are bad for the body that most members of society do not consider wrong? (2.2)

13. I don't think we'll get anywhere with the circular argument that drug use is criminal and should not be legalized. (3.1)

14. Is this your only and most important argument? [Next to the sentence "My only and most important argument to LeMoult is the physical harm it would bring by legalizing drugs."] (2.3)

15. Explain why drugs are wrong. (2.1) 16. Before writing the next draft, you might try listing as many things you can




think of that are legal and that are also dangerous - like cigarettes, firearms, skydiving, and over-the-counter drugs - and consider how these things are different from illegal drugs. Then choose the best arguments and work them into your essay. (1.6) 'EXPLAIN:

17. These arguments are not convincing. (3) 18. You've missed his point. (3.2) 19. Have you proved the "wrongness" of drugs just by saying that they are? Is

alcohol also "wrong"? (2.1) 20. Perhaps there is something that you could use to your advantage in the

behavior of other sorts of addicts: smokers, gamblers, shoppers? (1.8) 21. How can you explain and support these views so they will be more con-

vincing to readers of the publication? (2) 'EXPLAIN: 22. You need to tighten up your thinking as well as your expression. (3.1) 23. Good - you've defined the particular issues with which you do not agree and

summarized the author's argument. (1.7) 24. Your paper might be clearer if you state, point by point, your opponent's

view, as clearly and objectively as you can. Then you can deal with each of his arguments and show the weaknesses in his position. (1.4)

25. Not so. See above. [Next to the sentence "My only and most important argument to LeMoult is the physical harm it would bring by legalizing drugs."] (2.8)

26. What, then, of alcohol and tobacco? They are "legal." Would you make use of them criminal? (2.6) 'EXPLAIN:

27. I can tell you feel very strongly about the subject. (2.2) 28. Is this important to your argument? (2.2) 29. Take another look at LeMoult, and at the idea of "harm." Check to see why

he puts forward his proposal. (2.1) 30. Comma splice. (2.2) 31. Try to refute his major points. (2.1) 32. I hear LeMoult saying something different - that drugs are so dangerous to

society largely because laws make them illegal. (2.5) 33. Combine these sentences. (2) 34. Your second argument. Now develop this one. (2.5) 'EXPLAIN: 35. I find the statements that we all know drugs are wrong less than convincing.

(2.4) 'EXPLAIN: 36. Be sure to put direct quotes in quotation marks. (1.6) 37. Do we? All drugs? [In response to the statement "We all know drugs are

dangerous to the body and society without any explanation."] (2.5) 38. In the last paragraph, you say that "LeMoulf s points are good and true but I

believe he is approaching the subject in the wrong manner." What of LeMoulf s points are "good and true"? How is he "approaching the subject"? Why is he approaching the problem "in the wrong manner"? (1.5) 'EXPLAIN:

39. Good. [Next to the sentence "For example, LeMoult himself says the amount of drug addicts is small compared to alcoholics."] (1.8)

40. In your next draft try to focus on developing more convincing arguments against legalized drugs. For instance, what can you do to show how drugs like marijuana and cocaine would be more dangerous if they were legal and therefore more available? (1.3)

Note 1: The descriptor choices, 1 -definitely prefer, 2-prefer, 3-do not prefer, 4- definitely do not prefer, appear after each question in the survey questionnaire. They have been removed from this Appendix to conserve space.

Note 2. The average score for each item is indicated in parentheses.



Documents

Students' Reactions to Teacher Comments: An Exploratory Study