I was really encouraged by the focus on positive reinforcement in this week’s selection of Bean. While I don’t plan on sugarcoating the faults of a paper, I don’t want to overwhelm students with negative comments. We all know it’s important to point out mistakes and points for improvement, but a student often learns as much from what he/she does correctly as incorrectly. Bean’s framework of responding to rather than correcting papers was also heartening. It echoed the goals we have as Writing Lab tutors—to truly help and assist the student, rather than merely assigning a grade. I’ve never received extensive comments on a paper (well, until I received my first draft of seminar papers!), so Bean’s advice eased my fears of grading somewhat.

This approach to grading, one that looks for the “promise of a draft rather than its mistakes” (Bean 242) is something I’d like to discuss with my students. I think a discussion of my role as an instructor and writing guide might be a useful. It’s moving a little farther away from the intimidating, red pen aspect of teaching, which I think discourages students from approaching the instructor with problems, comments, or frustrations. Emphasizing this approach, moreover, might persuade students to try a bit harder and engage a little more with their work. I’ve seen many students in the Writing Lab who simply give up because they are irritated or stumped by a professor’s cryptic and sometimes bizarre comments. Most students simply do not respond well to abundant negativity, but some positive reinforcement might make the task seem more manageable.