Learning Log Entry #6

While reading Sommers’ (1982) article I thought about the habits I have when assessing students’ compositions. I often correct mechanics, spelling, and grammar and then make a comment about the student changing the entire sentence or develop the paragraph more thoroughly. As discussed in the article, teachers’ comments are often times interpreted as mechanics are more important than meaning.

After reading this article, I realized when I instruct my students to fix mechanics, grammar, and spelling, I send the message that the meaning is subsequent to mechanics. I have thought about this over the years, as I sit and grade paper after paper repeatedly making the same comments. I would often imagine my students working to fix the all mechanical, spelling, grammatical, and stylistic errors in their compositions, and thinking, “Huh? Now I have to rewrite that entire paragraph.” I now realize how wrong this was to do to my students. I was sending the wrong message, encouraging them to edit, then revise. I shouldn’t wonder why my struggling writers were more resistant to writing!!

As discussed in Sommers’ (1982) article, teachers’ comments on students’ compositions need to be written in a manner that prompts students “back into the chaos, back to the point where they are shaping and restructuring their meaning” (p. 154). I now understand the importance of allowing students to work through their first and second drafts, focusing solely on what meaning and message they want to convey. In the future, I will use comments that instruct students to fix organizational problems, clarify the purpose, or mark confusing parts.

Sommers’ (1982) discussed the amount of time teachers spend commenting on student compositions. As I thought about the amount of time spent, I believe teachers feel compelled to respond to their students’ written work. I then asked myself, “Why are teachers spending all this time when they are doing it wrong?” When completing the revision step of the writing process, teachers should only focus on revising-not editing. As discussed in Sommer’s article, this is where a lot of the confusion happens between students and teachers. If teachers followed the correct process, the amount of comments needed on each student’s papers would be reduced. When students are focused on purpose and meaning while revising instead of mechanics, their writing will be more powerful and easier to edit. Editing should be the last thing students are concerned with. If all teachers taught writing in this manner and followed the correct procedure, I think the amount of time commenting would be reduced immensely. Assessing student work should focus on the message first and mechanics second.
           
While reading chapter 4 in Tompkins (2008) on assessing student work, I thought about the organization needed to track each student’s progress. Of the assessment tools discussed in Tompkins, I think anecdotal records are the most time consuming but offer so much data and historical information on the students’ progress. I also think implementing writing process checklist for students, as discussed in Tompkins, would also cut down on the amount of comments needed on students’ compositions. Primary trait scoring guides are also useful tools for assessing students’ progress and focuses student attention on the most important part of writing, the overall meaning.

While sitting down to write this blog, I was interrupted by my stepson and asked to correct an essay on why he thinks education is important. I resisted the urge to read it and correct the errors I saw. I asked him, “Did you read it aloud to be sure it says what you want it to.” He proudly returned a few minutes later and told me it was perfect and sent the message he wanted. I told him to read it aloud to me. He found a few errors while reading aloud and corrected them. There was still some work to do on the overall message and meaning of the piece but as he went off to take a shower, I resisted the temptation to fix the spelling, mechanical, and stylistic mistakes that were glaring at me. I thought to myself, “Now, Liz, this is just what you are reading and blogging about. Don’t do it!!!”  We worked more on the overall message and purpose before working on the mechanical, spelling, and grammatical errors. Editing in this manner seemed less arduous then when we edit the typical pieces he composes.


Sommers, N. (1982).  Responding to student writing. College Composition and
Communication, 33(2), 148-156.