|
|
Collaborative Practices
|
References for FeedbackSome of the following sources can also be found through the The Bedford Bibliography for Teachers of Basic Writing. For further resources, visit CompPile and use these search terms (without the quotation marks): “basic,” “response,” and “commenting.” (See search tips in CompPile for ways to focus searches.) Bartholomae, David. “The Study of Error.” College Composition and Communication 31.3 (1980): 253–269.
Boehnlein, James M. “Explicit Teaching and the Developmental Writing Course.” Conference on College Composition and Communication. Washington, DC. 23–25 Mar. 1995. ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 384 902.
This paper explains how it is necessary to respond with explicit teaching methods and constant feedback to help developmental writers accomplish their writing goals. Such feedback, Boehnlein mentions, is a way to keep students on task throughout the writing process. Briggs, Lynn and Ann Watts Pailloitet. “A Story About Grammar and Power.” Journal of Basic Writing 16.2 (1997): 46–59.
Cohen, Andrew D. “Error Correction and The Training of Language Teachers.” The Modern Language Journal 59.8 (1975): 414–422.
Conely, James. “A Class Exercise in Proofreading: Getting Students to Read What They Write.” Annual Meeting of the College English Association. Pittsburgh, PA. 27–29 Mar. 1992. ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 350 613.
This paper explains a method for implementing peer review in the classroom to give students ownership over their papers. The author explains how this strategy works in his classroom and how it affects his students writing skills. Connors, Robert J. “Mechanical Correctness as a Focus in Composition Instruction.” College Composition and Communication 36.1 (1985): 61–72.
Connors, Robert J. and Andrea Lunsford. “Frequency of Formal Errors in Current College Writing, or Ma and Pa Kettle Do Research.” College Composition and Communication 39.4 (1988): 395–409.
Connors, Robert J. and Andrea Lunsford. “Teachers’ Rhetorical Comments on Student Papers.” College Composition and Communication 44.2 (1993): 200–23.
These authors take a large scale look at the commenting strategies of teachers and analyze the trends among them. These trends indicate that instructors easily fall into the trap of responding as authority figures rather than readers of their students’ papers. Dickinson, Patricia F. “Feedback That Works: Using the Computer to Respond.” Annual National Basic Writing Conference. College Park. 8–10 Oct. 1992. ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED
Dickinson refers to how her technique of giving computer-aided feedback to students helped her respond in a more conversational style to her students. She recommends that other instructors experiment with online commenting in order to manage the paper load they face. Fife, Jane M. and Peggy O’Neill. “Moving beyond the Written Comment: Narrowing the Gap between Response Practice and Research.” College Composition and Communication 53.2 (2001): 300–21.
This article explores the ways in which teachers respond to student writing, how their responses affect student writing, and in turn how students influence the ways in which teachers respond. Exploring these relationships gives readers ways to think about their own practices of commenting in the classroom. Gray, Loretta S. and Paula Heuser. “Nonacademic Professionals’ Perception of Usage Errors.” Journal of Basic Writing 22.1 (2003): 50–64.
Hairston, Maxine. “Not All Errors are Created Equal: Nonacademic Readers in the Professions Respond to Lapses in Usage.” College English 43 (1981): 794–806.
Harris, Jeanette. “Proofreading: A Reading/Writing Skill.” College Composition and Communication 38.4 (1987): 464–466.
Hartwell, Patrick. “Grammar, Grammars and the Teaching of Grammar.” College English 47 (1985): 105–127.
Haswell, Richard H. “Minimal Marking.” College English 45 (1983): 600–604.
Hester, Vicki. “Responding to Student Writing: Locating Our Theory/Practice among Communities.” Conference on College Composition and Communication. Denver. 14–17 Mar. 2001. ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 451 539.
This paper explains how instructors view their feedback methods as having conversations with their students about their papers. After drawing from several panel discussions that have explored this method of feedback, the author concludes that instructors need to consider the contexts of their classrooms and assignments before implementing these strategies for themselves. Hillocks, George Jr. and Michael W. Smith. “Grammars and Literacy Learning.” Handbook of Research on Teaching the English Language Arts. Ed. James Flood, et al. 2nd Ed. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Associates, 2003. 721–737.
Horner, Bruce. “Rethinking the ‘Sociality’ of Error: Teaching Editing as Negotiation.” Rhetoric Review 11.1 (1992): 172–99.
The author explains that only looking at errors as the result of social and cultural differences limits the ways in which instructors teach editing practices in the classroom. Horner believes that teaching editing as negotiation through small group conferences and classroom discussions alleviates situating students as powerless against the academic standards of grammar. Hunt, Alan J. “Taped Comments and Student Writing” Teaching English in the Two-Year College 16.4 (1989): 269–73.
Hunt explains how the use of taping comments to give audio feedback on student work aids in helping instructors save time during feedback. He also feels that giving students audio feedback makes them take a more independent approach to revising their papers. Kenkel, James and Robert Yates. “A Developmental Perspective on the Relationship Between Grammar and Text.” Journal of Basic Writing 22.1 (2003): 35–49.
Madraso, Jan. “Proofreading: The Skill We’ve Neglected to Teach.” The English Journal 82.2 (1993): 32–41.
Newman, Judith M. “Online: Improvising with a Word Processor.” Language Arts 64.1 (1987): 110–115.
Newman, Michael. “Correctness and its Conceptions: The Meaning of Language Form for Basic Writers.” Journal of Basic Writing 15.1 (1996): 23–39.
Noguchi, Rei R. Grammar and the Teaching of Writing: Limits and Possibilities. Urbana: National Council of Teachers of English, 1991.
Otte, George. “Computer-Adjusted Errors and Expectations.” Journal of Basic Writing 10.2 (1991): 71–86.
Rose, Mike. “When Faculty Talk about Writing.” College English 41 (1979): 272–279.
Rosen, Lois Matz. “Developing Correctness in Student Writing: Alternatives to the Error Hunt.” The English Journal 76.3 (1987): 62–69.
Shaughnessy, Mina P. Errors and Expectations: A Guide for the Teacher of Basic Writing. New York: Oxford UP, 1977.
Straub, Richard. “The Concept of Control in Teacher Response: Defining the Varieties of Directive and Facilitative Commentary.” College Composition and Communication 47.2 (1996): 223–51.
This article explores the nature of instructor feedback and explains how instructors should questions their practices of responding to student writing. Straub poses a series of questions to help instructors evaluate their practices. One such question asks, “What kind of comments will be best for this student, with this paper, at this time?” (247). Straub, Richard. “Teacher Response as Conversation: More than Casual Talk, and Exploration.” Rhetoric Review 14.2 (1996): 374–99.
Straub explains that teachers need to learn how to talk with their students rather than to their students during the writing process. He offers several guidelines throughout the article for teachers to consider as they incorporate conversational response in their classrooms. Thomas, P.L. “The Struggle Itself: Teaching Writing as We Know We Should.” The English Journal 90.1 (2000): 39–45.
Weaver, Constance. “Teaching Grammar in the Context of Writing.” The English Journal 85.7 (1996): 15–24.
Williams, Joseph M. “The Phenomenology of Error.” College Composition and Communication 32.2 (1981): 152–168.
BestPractices-ProvidingFeedback
|