| Written commentary has been a focus of study in composition journals for decades. But never has a systematic, theory-based, reflective method for examining written commentary been introduced to the field of composition studies. This dissertation introduces such a method and advances arguments supporting its pragmatic value.; Based on the concept of "Reflexis" (a mingling of reflection and practice), this dissertation provides a method for instructors to uncover, abandon, reorganize, improve and/or confirm existing cognitive schemes for providing feedback to writers. Three reflective models based on current composition theory are used to demonstrate this method: (1) Revision Responsibility; (2) Shared Criteria for Assessing Student Writing; and (3) Degrees of Control.; A demonstration, analysis and explanation of each reflective model show how the systematic examination of written commentary can (1) illuminate emerging commenting patterns; (2) help instructors become more aware of the ways in which their commenting strategies align (and do not align) with current writing instruction theories; (3) help instructors analyze, evaluate, integrate, and improve their written commentary; and (4) help instructors establish clearer goals for written commentary. These demonstrations show how systematic examination of written commentary can enable writing instructors to better understand theories that inhabit their commenting strategies.; In addition to demonstrating the efficacy of each reflective model, this dissertation also provides step-by-step guidelines to help teacher-researchers (1) develop new reflective models based on existing writing instruction theories; and (2) systematically examine their written commentary.; Finally, this dissertation refines the scope of the reflective models by presenting additional opportunities for their use: model building, self-study, and faculty training workshops. |
