Changing the rhetoric of failure in writing classrooms: An investigation of teachers' responses to first-year writing students

For this dissertation I analyzed tapes of teacher-assisted response and corresponding student drafts and revisions to analyze how those teachers had helped their students revise. Transcriptions of the tapings were annotated according to types of comments the teachers had made, and those were recorded on an analysis chart. A separate table recorded the students' macrostructural and microstructural revisions as they were guided by the taped teacher response. Unexpected findings: praise can destroy the student's creative process of writing; teachers treated students drafts as final products even though they understood that it was bad pedagogy--they took control of their students' papers, dictating corrections. Seven guidelines for being more facilitative as a responder are offered: (1) ASK QUESTIONS--do not give orders (because questions are revision-inspiring and allow the reader to be the audience, not the director of the writing; (2) DO NOT EDIT SENTENCE ERRORS (editing stops the rethinking and composing process, treating the writing as a product); (3) TALK ABOUT THE BIG PICTURE (especially about the global structure and organization--adding explanations, dialogue, reasons, examples, moving, developing, expanding on ideas); (4) BE A READER FIRST, NOT AN EDITOR (jump into the composing process with the student and be a co-creator; encourage the craftsmanship, do not just judge the writing as a finished product); (5) DO NOT OVERPRAISE (do not praise mediocre work just to bolster egos; praise only what they have done well, something they can then use a model replicate in the future); (6) QUALIFY NEGATIVE COMMENTS (when the teacher comment was too negative the student gave up); and (7) KNOW YOUR OWN RESPONSE MODE (using the analysis chart teachers should become familiar with their own responding habits). It is suggested that these guidelines be used not just for teacher-assisted revision but also for peer revision and on-line assessment of writing. In the future, similar studies should consider differences in gender and ethnicity.