I'm rather torn about positive vs. negative comments. As a student, I became accustomed to reading marginal notes that were few in number, brief and primarily negative (pointing out things that were wrong with grammar, punctuation, etc). The end comments, however, were almost always really positive and were occasionally as brief as, "great paper" or the like.
I had one professor, though, who always made it a point to show us what was good as well as bad. She would put checkmarks in the the margins (what I imagined to be like a nod) and write brief comments like, "nice point," etc. When she returned our papers, she explained that she obviously couldn't mark everything that went well, but that she tried to point out some of the things that struck her as she read the paper. Furthermore, she asked that we reread the entire paper so that we could get a feel for her comments in context. All in all, I thank her more than anyone else for helping me progress as a writer (I took 3 classes with her).
Yet, in spite of my benefit from positive comments, I'm not sure I agree with Bean's suggestion that we should "limit" our comments to discussing "two or three things." If the paper needs serious work on many things, do you think it is better to just say so? I mean, imagine if the student corrects those things and then expects to do really well, only to find out that there are another 5 or 6 things that you couldn't mention in your comments. While I recognize that there will be progress in that the student will have improved something, isn't that rather doing the student a disservice? Is it more discouraging to have negative comments fed to you little by little, every time you think you've fixed the problems or to know right off the bat what is wrong and be forced to do a lot of work at once? Is this the sort of case where we should just rip the band-aid off quickly, so to speak? Obviously there are clear things that will need to be tackled first before others can be addressed (HOCs vs LOCs) but isn't it encouraging mediocrity to only address a few of the problems at once without even mentioning the other problems that need to be fixed to make it a great paper?
Incidentally, I'm just trying to think through my own beliefs about this issue. I'm curious what you all think about this issue.
--Bri
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I think Bean suggests that instructors address only two or three issues with students' papers through written comments because he knows that writing all over a student’s paper is time-consuming for the instructor and discouraging for the student. Instead, I suggest that if a student needs serious work on his or her paper, then the instructor should encourage him or her to meet with the instructor or make an appointment with a tutor at the writing lab. Don't feel too boxed in, thinking you should only address a few issues. Write about some things and talk about others.
I agree with Andrew on this point. I think it is okay to mention that there are major issues which need to be addressed in a redraft, discussing 2 or so on the paper. The conference could then be used for further explanation. I think the reason Bean suggests focusing on 2 or 3 is simply because not only are extensive notes time consuming for the instructor, they are overwhelming for students. Getting them started on a couple of points and then addressing the others will hopefully ease them into the revision even if you are upfront in the comments stating that more will obviously need to be addressed. It is a kind of prioritizing.
Post a Comment