|
Articles Conference Reviews |
2007F24GlennonF.24: “We Two—You, Me Talk on This Page: How Non-Traditional Students Respond to Teacher Comments” Carolyn Calhoon-Dillahunt and Dodie Forrest, colleagues at Yakima Valley Community College, presented their study that examines various ways basic writing students respond to teacher feedback, emotionally and rhetorically, and the role teacher feedback plays in students’ developing the sense of self as writers. The presenters begin by citing Nancy Sommers as the inspiration for their study, which examines the question, “How does feedback shape student writing?” They quote Sommers’ conclusion from the Harvard Study of Undergraduate Writing that feedback on writing “contributed, more than any other single factor, to students’ sense of academic belonging or alienation.” Other sources of inspiration they cite include the work of Richard Straub and Elizabeth Hodges. Next, Calhoon-Dillahunt and Forrest explain most of the students at Yakima Valley place into developmental writing courses; therefore, early expectations for their study include the notions that basic writers
Phase one of this study works with students in the second semester of a two-semester developmental writing sequence and examines forth-six (46) students’ drafts with instructor comments along with the versions in which revisions have been made, making for a total sample size of ninety-two (92) writing samples. In addition, Calhoon-Dillahunt and Forrest administer pre- and post-course questionnaires, have students react to and reflect on feedback, look at all the students’ drafts and revisions, and conduct interviews with twenty-five percent (25%) of participating students. According to the presenters, two findings emerge from the initial questionnaires: 1) students find suggestions and constructive criticism the most valuable forms of instructor feedback; 2) students like and appreciate praise, but they do not find this type of feedback to be helpful in revising their writing. Additionally, surveys administered after 10 weeks in the course reveal that students find corrections to be less helpful and have more appreciation for end comments. Also, the researchers note at this point that fewer students interpret an abundance of comments as evidence that the writing is poor. According to Calhoon-Dillahunt and Forrest, the kinds of comments students find most unhelpful are those reliant on instructor use of jargon (e.g. words or phrases such as polish, develop, tweak this, flesh out, think about, analyze.) Similar comments and questions also unhelpful include “Is this relevant?” “Use your own words,” and “Dig deeper.” Further, the use of symbols or underlining, personal reactions and rhetorical questions (“So?”) are not perceived as helpful by students in this study. Students do seem to understand what to do when an instructor notes to add more details or explain something more, however. Calhoon-Dillahunt and Forrest also look closely at the revisions students make after receiving instructor feedback. One finding of note is the tendency to spend more time responding to editing and marginal comments as opposed to holistic and end comments. Phase two of the study asks students why they have made the changes they made. In these versions of the students’ writing, all revisions were labeled and explained by the students as being the result of one of the following: instructor comment, personal decision, writing center work, or peer feedback. Most students find it quite difficult to explain why they make the changes they do in their writing, according to Calhoon-Dillahunt and Forrest. Interestingly, students often attribute revision choices to their own personal decisions, even when an instructor had specifically recommended changes. Lastly, the presenters offer conclusions from this study they believe to be applicable to the practice of teaching basic writing:
Overall, the presentation of this study was well-organized and clear. The questions that inspired the study as well as the questions raised by the findings all seem significant to our work as responders to student writing. This seemed to be a very time-consuming study, especially the detailed analysis of individual revisions, and perhaps the most significant findings did not come from that work, but from the more easily administered surveys and questionnaires. Finally, this study begs the question if the response of these basic writers to instructor feedback is in any way different from that of students in other research studies, particularly those who have not been labeled in this way. Comments? |