The Rhetoric of Verbal Commentary on Student Compositions
A colleague of mine says, “Teaching isn’t a job until I start grading papers.” It does seem that we have a full-time job teaching students and a part-time job grading their papers. I’ve been teaching freshman and upper-class composition and literature courses for 13 years, and I still find the prospect of grading papers challenging yet more manageable as the years progress.
We’ve all been there. Grading our way through a pile of papers while cycling through the stages of grief that Elisabeth Kubler Ross, the Swiss psychiatrist, introduced in her landmark book, On Death and Dying. To illustrate, I’ll start with (1) denial: they could not have done this poorly, they must have had other work to complete, they didn’t understand the assignment; (2) anger: I know I taught these skills, how to write a thesis statement, and write ideas coherently; if they’d only internalize what I taught!; (3) bargaining: well, upon a second read, they did cite sources correctly and included sufficient examples; (4) depression: teaching writing is a long, reinforced process, and I’m not entirely satisfied with these papers, but they show some progress; and (5) acceptance: there is a mix of grades, but some achieved at least B+ and A-, so the assignment can be done. I know it can. Acceptance. Of the need, the process, the negotiation between teacher and student; the outcome of student’s thinking and learning. That complicated process that is quite necessary in the English classroom for many reasons, including the need to raise rhetorical awareness in student writing.
When I was a graduate student in English Education at the University of Maryland, my advisor Dr. Joseph McCaleb, suggested I return to teaching English in the high school classroom to gain more direct experience. At the time, I was a graduate assistant who visited schools in Howard, Prince George’s, Montgomery counties to observe pre-service teachers in their first experiences at the head of the classroom. They had taken a “Teaching Writing “ course and were prepared with theories and guided practice, but now they faced the daunting task of grading papers from students in several classes. Listening to their concerns while simultaneously experiencing my own as I graded sophomore literary papers on Wuthering Heights and MacBeth, I decided upon a dissertation topic. Born right there at my dining table in the graduate student house in Bethesda, MD, the weekend after a student indignantly asked, “Why did you write Polish” on my paper when I meant “polish” or revise, my topic, was pragmatic and reflective of my interest in the intersection of pedagogy and rhetoric. I sought to examine perceptions, that is, the way a teacher and students negotiate meaning within the rhetorical situation of a response process in composition courses. I wanted to better understand the matches and mismatches between English instructor’s intentions and students’ perceptions in this negotiation process.
Through their verbal and written exchanges, they negotiate meaning, or bargain with the goal of a mutual understanding, which is crucial in the writing process because it allows “writers and readers to exchange information about intentions and effect, so they can negotiate ways to align [their] understandings” (Knoblauch and Brannon 157). This process takes place silently when instructors write and students read comments or aloud in informal or formal conferences. To address advancement in the student writing process, I argue that the negotiation process is most effectively realized aloud to prevent the development of a meta-language of their unspoken intentions and perceptions about ways that students can write responsively to their audiences.
I’ll discuss the topic from a holistic stance first, then discuss my dissertation research insofar that it set the stage for a recent pilot research study that I lead in my World Literature classes this semester.
From ancient times, English educators have been concerned with providing appropriate responses to students’ written compositions within given criteria. Prior to 100 A.D., Quintilian (IV.8.12) commented that “some portions of the [student’s] work must be praised, others tolerated, and others altered.” The complexity of commentary is rooted in decisions about how much of the students’ work to praise, to tolerate, and to alter (or suggest improvements). Early composition researchers undoubtedly wrestled with suggestions such as Quintilian’s as they conducted studies to determine which type of comments supported or critiqued students’ writing. Writing instructors have generally used the “time-honored practice” of commentary with an assumption that student writing will improve as a result. Moreover, Quintilian adhered to his principles of classroom correction that students should be shown their faults in their writing, but should also be praised for what they have accomplished (Murphy). When responding to students’ work, via speaking or writing, Quintilian recommended that instructors “ask frequent questions…and test the critical powers of his class” (II.13.17). Suggesting that writing instructors challenge their pupils, Quintilian noted an early stage that teachers play a role as masters to apprentices who need guidance to advance and raise rhetorical awareness in their writing.
In more modern times, studies have centered on the discourse of teacher commentary rather than the rhetorical forces that influence the ways that they and their students communicate about writing. In his study of teachers’ written commentary, Zellermayer (1989) argued that “the meaning of teachers’ feedback—like the meaning of all other human utterance—depends very much on how its intentions are perceived by its audience, the students” (154). Students still need the external perspective of readers to determine if their intended meaning has been communicated and to learn how to assess their own writing critically (Beach). In most writing classes, instructors serve as external readers and use their commentary to communicate the extent to which students have presented their arguments for their audience (teachers, peers, or others outside of the class) effectively. Without comments, students may assume their writing has communicated their meaning and not perceive a need for revision to achieve “reader-based prose” (Flower 237).
When assessing compositions, the traditional expectations are such that instructors decipher the meaning behind students’ written words, then write a sampling of recommendations, editorial comments, critiques, and praise; and students read the comments on their compositions and comprehend their instructors’ intentions behind the commentary. However, studies on commentary have shown measures for understanding the purposes and effects of commentary (Beach, 1979; Ziv, 1982; Hillocks, 1986; Sommers, 1982; Straub and Lunsford, 1995; Smith, 1997), but still more research is necessary to gain insight into students’ perspectives of verbal and written comments.
My research seeks to understand the broader rhetorical context in which comments function. If instructors’ commentary, the problem is rooted in their competing perceptions, intentions, and values. Bitzer, in his argument about the rhetorical situation, asserts: “discourse is rhetorical insofar as it functions (or seeks to function) as a fitting response to a situation which needs and invites it” (8). Commentary is a response to a situation (student writing) that needs and invites feedback.
Using Bitzer’s (1967) construction of the rhetorical situation. I appropriated the elements of exigency, audience, and constraints as a framework for a rhetorical analysis of my recent research on commentary. My research sought to answer the questions:
• What role does exigency play in students comprehension of their professor’s verbal commentary?
• What role does audience ( targeted group beyond the classroom as primary audience; instructor as secondary audience) play in this rhetorical situation?
• Which constraints surround this rhetorical situation?
Bitzer defined “exigence” as an “imperfection marked by urgency; it is a defect, an obstacle, something waiting to be done, a thing which is other than it should be” (8);
In this case, the commentary was not necessarily an “urgency,” nor a “defect,” but a “something” that awaited students’ perceptions (or, in some instances, misperceptions). Bitzer defined “audience” as “persons capable of being influenced by discourse and of being mediators of change” (8). In the course, I teach students to select a primary audience beyond the classroom, that is, educated individuals who are familiar with the classics, but who need a refresher and are intrigued by analysis; students direct their writing to their primary audiences. As their professor, I serve as a secondary audience, that is, an invested individual who, through verbal commentary in draft conferences, can influence the discourse and serve as a mediator of change or revision. Bitzer defined constraints as “persons, events, objects, and relations that have the power to constrain decision and action needed to modify the exigence” (8). In the study, the constraints included myself who served as the secondary audience, and, of course, the responder and the evaluator who made decisions about points of emphasis (commendations and recommendations) and the guidelines of the writing assignment; and the deadlines. Student perceptions also serve as constraints because they have the power to constrain decision and action about ways to understand the comments and which to use (or not) in their revisions.
Bitzer argued that “a work is rhetorical because it is a response to a situation of a certain kind” (3). A rhetorical situation is, thus, a natural context that gives rise to verbal and nonverbal responses imposed by the situation. My recent study on verbal commentary examined a special rhetorical situation between myself and 49 juniors and seniors in a Humanities in World Literature class. Student drafts incited their professor’s verbal and written response. For students’ drafts and their response to the both the venue and content of the audio file. My study examines the commentary from students’ perspectives.
To further understanding, my method was a three-month case study of seniors in an elective course, Advanced Composition, in a public high school in a suburb of Baltimore, MD; the study was designed to answer the question:
How do we lessen the dissonance between a teacher’s intentions and students’ perceptions (of those intentions) during the response process by examining certain types of comments that center on rhetorical situations constructed by the students?
My data consisted of: observations of instruction and conferences; surveys, transcripts of audio-taped interview protocols and oral conferences, 27 drafts (3 per student on same topic; ex. a student chose to inform a group of modern Labor Leaders in a persuasive essay about the significant role that Eugene Debs played in the Labor Movement) and Verbal and Written Commentary taxonomies (coded for types of responses: ex. PA for primary audience and S for surface conventions) in which students reported their reasons why they were willing or unwilling to address their teacher’s verbal and written comments in their subsequent revision. A sample taxonomy follows:
Student: Abigail
Teacher’s Intentions: Mrs. Garvey: “Since she says it’s for her peers, write for them.”
Teacher’s Verbal Comments: “I don’t think high school students are going to relate to it very well unless you add some things in there to appeal to a high-school audience”
Student’s Perceptions of Teacher’s Comments: “The sentences and vocabulary are on a simple level, rather than what would be used for older students.”
A matched understanding.
Findings included:
*Mismatched perceptions of value of the writing assignment; last one of the year, Mrs. Garvey allowed students to construct their own rhetorical situations (ex. yet 56% said they were completing the assignment to fulfill class expectations, and all students placed emphasis on achieving grades.
*Audience: Mrs. Garvey and her students exhibited different perceptions about writing for a primary audience, 56% perceived teacher as primary audience; 44% perceived teacher as secondary audience. Students needed a clearer understanding of their audiences, direction toward outside audiences, and emphasize audience in the teacher’s comments.
*Exigency played a key role in students’ perceptions of Mrs. Garvey’s intentions behind her verbal and written commentary. Since the exigency was potent, that is, students presumed Mrs. Garvey’s ethos, evidenced by their choosing an elective class for which she was teaching, allowed her to make comments useful to their writing—to which they paid attention.
*Constraints: Teacher’s commentary (choices) and student perceptions of the commentary. Students perceived their teacher’s intentions behind her verbal commentary more often than they perceived her intentions behind her written commentary. Specifically, they perceived 50 of 75 or 67% of her intentions behind written comments; and 59 of 79, or 80%, of her verbal comments. 13% higher for verbal commentary. Notably, students received written comments after they had received her verbal comments, which may have influenced the results. When presented with these findings, Mrs. Garvey said that she “could tell a lot more than she could write.” When speaking to her students, Mrs. Garvey had the added benefit of using her voice tone, eye contact, gestures, and posture to reinforce her words. She also conveyed a high sense of exigency by making more explicit comments in her comments, showing her value of the assignment, and fostering an environment in which 67% of her students Thus, a teacher’s verbal and nonverbal behavior are intertwined to influence students’ comprehension of the comments.
Findings/Study #1:
Students’ Perceptions of Teachers’ Commentary
Following responses in ranking order (most to least frequent) from surveys at end of study:
• Why are students willing to address their teacher’s written comments on their essays?
They perceive…
an improvement in grammar/punctuation is possible
an improvement in the content
a relevancy to their purpose for writing
the ethos of instructor as an advisor of writing
• Why are students unwilling to address their teacher’s written comments on their essays?
They perceive or possess…
• a loyalty to a former instructor’s advice
• strong ownership in their words and ideas
• a contradiction in their own background knowledge
• an irrelevancy to their purposes for writing
• Why are students more willing to address their teacher’s verbal comments (than written comments) about their essays?
They perceive…
an improvement in content is possible
a relevancy to their purpose for writing
the ethos of instructor as an advisor of writing
a higher grade if they take the instructor’s advice
an improvement in grammar/punctuation is possible
• Why are students unwilling to address their teacher’s verbal comments (than written comments) about their essays?
They perceive or possess…
• a strong ownership in their words and expression
• an irrelevancy to their purposes
• grammar/punctuation issues as irrelevant
Several factors in students’ thinking have the power to constrain the decisions and actions needed to modify the instructor’s commentary that they can address in their revisions. In short, if students perceived the comments were valid, relevant, and sensible, they were willing to address the comments in their revisions. If they perceived the comments as irrelevant, unworthy, or imposing, they were unwilling to address the comments in their revisions. Their reasons were, in fact, constraints that governed their “decisions and actions needed to modify the exigence” (Bitzer 8), that is, the instructor’s commentary. Their reasons reflected their perceptions.
Fast forward to 2012. Still, I was perplexed by the process. As a supervisor of eight English faculty, I see the time invested in commentary and decided to bring forth my dissertation study in a more formal way by conducting a pilot research study in my World Literature classes.
Who? 49 junior and senior political science majors who are required to take this Humanities in World Literature course; the focus in classics, humanity and conflict: Greek, Roman, and Other classical literature: The Iliad, The Aeneid, Joseph Campbell’s The Hero with A Thousand Faces, and other myths.
What? First paper of the semester: Choose a prompt among eight—compare creation myths, same myth from Greek and Roman cultures; Universality of the Golden Rule among several religions, or other.
When? February, 2012
Where? Coast Guard Academy
Why? Further research; raise relevance of commentary
Benefit of using voice, tone, emphasis, and other; elaboration
p. 2, second paragraph
They wrote in a draft process and aprox. 60% of students met with me to discuss drafts during 2 ½ week period. Revision workshop in class. Once papers were collected, I announced to students that I would be taping my comments. Some seemed intrigued, others neutral, whereas others looked fearful. I read all papers first and wrote brief editorial comments on their conventions only. I bought a headset, downloaded WavePad Sound Editor from a site, then taped a 3-minute sample, sent to one student in class, and asked for her feedback: Could she hear me? Did she understand my comments? When she reported a success with the process, I proceeded to tape 49 “voice memos” on audio files that I compressed into zip drives and saved per student individually. (I had not returned their drafts at this point, but they could bring up them on their computers.) My protocol consisted of the following:
· Student’s name and Title of Paper
· Introduction of myself
· Commendations on content
· Recommendations on content:
o Thesis
o Introduction
o Development of thesis/conceptualizing topic
o Evidence
o Conclusion
Each audio-file spanned 3-4 minutes. The next class day, I issued a survey seeking their anonymous feedback:
Survey:
Verbal Commentary
Paper #1
Directions: After listening to the audio file, answer the following questions:
1. In which areas did I commend your writing?
2. In which areas did I recommend improvements in your writing? Reaction?
3. What is your reaction to receiving verbal commentary on your writing? How does your reaction compare to receiving written commentary on your writing?
4. Do you have any suggestions for improvement in the process? Expansion?
o 17/49 reported a volume problem
o 12/49 asked for grade at conclusion—did not like cliffhanger
o 3/49 prefer both written and verbal comments
5. Vote: yes or no—would you recommend the professor repeat this process (recording audio files filled with verbal commentary) for future writing assignments?
o 40/49 or 82% voted “yes”; 9/49 or 18% voted “no”
Sampling of students’ favorable comments:
o “More thorough—like listening to a game live rather after the fact”; more of an interactive form compared to written criticism”; “Like having a conversation.”
o “Liked it—sometimes not full effect of written comments; you don’t really know how to do for the next time.”
o “Geared towards me. I know my instructor read my paper completely and gave thought to it.”
o “At first, I was hesitant to listen to it out of fear that it be five minutes of hearing how bad of a writer I am, but when I listened to it, it was insightful to hear what you thought when you were grading it.”
o “I remember your comments much better than I would if it was only in writing”; “I am able to understand what you are thinking better”; “the comments stuck with me more.”
Sampling of students’ constructive criticism:
o “Oftentimes, I cannot read a teacher’s handwriting.”
o “I was slightly more nervous about it.”
o “While I understood generally what was good/bad in the audio, I didn’t know exactly where.”
o “Prefer written commentary because it is more permanent and remains with the paper”; “receiving handwritten comments is easier to go back and directly look at mistakes or compliments. I am a more visual learner.”
o “Try not to end on a cliffhanger statement that left me guessing how well I did.”
o “I think if people wanted clarifications on comments or more feedback, they would seek out the teacher, which also shows initiative rather than listening to an audio file.
In summary, favorable comments were relative to writing as a dialogue; thoroughness; matching tone with comments; individualized, and higher recall. Unfavorable were relative to sense of permanency, disconnect between problematic area in paper and comment; and process easier.
Verbal commentary raised the exigency in students’ perceptions of their professor’s intentions behind her verbal commentary. Overall, this was a productive exercise and worth repeating in a more formal research study.
Final Comments:
Comments should be…
o When possible, use verbal commentary
o Seek student feedback on comments to continue dialogue beyond returning papers; promote a two-way system.
• Instructive
• Underscore need for student ownership
• Focused on a few major problem areas
• Anchored near problem area
• Apparent in each major paragraph (“visit” each paragraph)
• 75% content: Content; 25 % Conventions
Flower (1993) argued, “writers negotiate meaning when they try to make their text respond to the rhetorical situation by finding the best path through it” (19). In these studies, the instructors persuaded several of her students via their commentary to find the “best path” by negotiating the meaning of comments and thus staying engaged in this critical process to advance their writing.