The reading this week in Bean was practical and useful. Like other students, I appreciate what he had to say about being positive with feedback, but honest. I also think his suggestions about giving comments that lead towards revision were helpful, especially since we are all emphasizing revision. His comments on how easily comments can be misinterpreted was sobering.
Bean's "hierarchy of questions," the distinguishing between "high-order concerns" and "lower order concerns" also solid helpful advice.
One point that he doesn't emphasize greatly (but does mention), is his preference to allow students to find their own grammar errors through somthing like minimal marking. Perhaps this could have been emphasized more as it seems an important point that might get lost in the mix.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I was also intrigued and surprised by Bean's comments regarding the student's misinterpretation of an instructor's notes. I didn't realize how specific and careful I will have to be when grading papers.
I think it's also important to remember that some of the terms we take for granted, even something as simple as 'thesis' or 'structure', may be a concept that the student doesn't quite grasp. I plan on defining these terms at the beginning. It might seem simplistic to some or most students, but I'm sure some will need such clarification.
I think it's nearly impossible, however, to be clear 100% of the time. To combat this sort of misinterpretation, I plan on arranging mandatory conferences for the first paper. I want to be very clear about what I expect from a student's paper and what my comments mean. I might arrange other mandatory conferences throughout the semester as well, at least once more with the final paper.
Post a Comment