Challenges of Written Response to Student Writing: Praise, Over-Commenting and Appropriation Cvetka Sokolov Teachers’ marginal and end comments are an essential part of teaching and evaluating students’ written work. However, the method can backfire when teachers resort to insincere formulaic praise, fall into the trap of over-commenting, and lose sight of the actual author of the text, appropriating it in the process. The challenges of providing effective written feedback require an examination of students’ attitudes toward it, both to reassure teachers that they are doing better than they think they are, but also to make them aware that there is much room for improvement. For one thing, the remaining weaknesses can be addressed in systematic teacher training on written feedback, which has been lacking. Second, these same teachers should then teach their students how to interpret marginal and final comments and use them to revise their work. The article reviews the research to date in this area and presents a case study that sheds more light on the topic, making it clear that more systematic and holistic research and training would be needed in this area. 1. Introduction Written feedback on student work represents one of the most challenging and valuable forms of teacher feedback on student written performance and covers an impressive range of instructional goals. Aside from motivating students to revise their drafts by showing interest in what they are communicating through writing, giving detailed information about the strengths and weaknesses of their work provides writing instruction tailored to each particular student’s specific needs. In addition, since the teacher also functions as a reader, students are encouraged to engage in AAA - Arbeiten aus Anglistik und Amerikanistik Band 47 · Heft 1 Gunter Narr Verlag Tübingen DOI 10.24053/ AAA-2022-0006 Cvetka Sokolov 126 dialogue with their reader/ teacher (cf. Kang & Dykema 2017), developing awareness of the importance and value of reader feedback, an indispensable tool for improving one’s writing in all situational contexts, not just ‘at school’. “Appropriate feedback helps students develop sufficient insights into their own learning and become self-critical, self-reflective, and selfdirected” (Ruiz-Primo & Li 2013: 220). Teachers who provide marginal and end comments on students’ written work can take more time to think about what they are commenting on and in what way than when they provide off-the-cuff feedback on their students’ oral performance. Similarly, students have more time to think about their writing teachers’ suggestions for improvement and possible ways to use them in their next drafts or/ and in their further writing, hopefully utilizing them in other courses and in ‘real life’ as well (cf. Butt 2010: 76; Sommers 1982: 333). The formative nature of the type of assessment, which goes far beyond justifying numerical or letter grades, is another feature that makes it indispensable. Or does it? Research on the effectiveness of feedback reveals that “only half of the revisions in response to (substantive teachers’ comments on drafts) could be considered as improvements and a third actually made matters worse” (Hyland & Hyland 2006: 3; cf. Bowden 2018). Oh dear. Why is that? Of course, the method can backfire if not used appropriately. Overly directive, disrespectful or even hostile comments, failing to balance criticism with praise and leave sufficient room for dialogue and negotiation, are bound to seriously damage students’ confidence, motivation and “capacity to think” (Treglia 2019: 1298). Another pitfall is that the teacher takes on the role of author of the text by over-commenting, which can lead to “appropriating the text” (Knoblauch & Brannon 1984), undermining the reliability and validity of the assessment of the final revised product: to what extent is it still a reliable reflection of an individual student’s knowledge and effort? (cf. Cushing Weigle 2002: 216; Sokolov 2014: 140). Moreover, it is likely to reduce the effect of individual instruction by overburdening and demotivating the student (cf. Raimes 1983: 141; Sommers 2013: 4; Spandel & Stiggins 1990: 87). So are overly generic vague statements (Butt 2010: 76; Clark & Ivanič 1997: 234; Raimes 1983: 143; Spandel & Stiggins 1990: 84-85; Treglia 2019: 119) and those that lack clarity about which weaknesses in the text need to be addressed first (Center 2020; Sommers 2013: 18). Moreover, teachers tend to be discouraged from providing time-consuming individualised feedback beyond occasional vague and formulaic phrases and the assignment of letter or number grades. One teacher quoted in Ivana Cindrić and Snježana Pavić’s (2017: 93) article on typical feedback from Croatian primary language teachers says: “I don’t want to use stock Challenges of Written Response to Student Writing 127 phrases, but thinking of different feedback for 30-40 students in 3-5 different courses during one teaching module just feels beyond me.” The lack of immediate feedback on students’ attitudes to this arduous method of teaching and assessing student writing is also unhelpful. Would they even read the comments and think about them in depth if they were not asked to reflect on them and base their revisions on them? There are young writers who do give the impression of only skimming the comments (if at all), an impression supported by research that “suggests that students rarely ‘take in’ the written comments teachers add to their work” (Butt 2010: 75; cf. Ruiz-Primo & Li 2013: 225). If this is so, why bother at all? Are writing teachers not just wasting their time, then? If teaching involves leaps of faith, responding is one of the greatest leaps because we have so little direct evidence of what students actually do with our comments, or why they find some useful and others not. (…) After spending long nights and weekends with students’ drafts, I watch students walk out of the classroom, sometimes glancing at my comments, but most often not. I wonder if these comments will go unread and unused, and I wonder what happens between drafts, between the moments when drafts are handed back and when students submit their revisions (Sommers 2013: x-xi; cf. Carless 2020: 3; Gravett 2020: 152; Lindeman et al. 2018: 592; Spandel & Stiggins 1990: 84; Treglia 2019: 124). Clearly, we need more information about students’ general attitudes toward written comments from their writing teachers and about their influence on the development of learning writers. Originally neglected by researchers, students’ responses to teachers’ written feedback have recently received more attention. This paper reviews the main research findings to date, which confirm that both training in giving and using written feedback and more systematic and holistic research would be needed to promote feedback literacy. As Lynn Goldstein (2001: 77) points out, “Without examining the same questions with comparable research methodology across different contexts, it is difficult to create a comprehensive picture of the relationship between teacher-written commentary and student revision” (cf. Ruiz-Primo & Li 2013: 224). Nevertheless, the findings so far provide valuable insights and much food for thought. A short case study conducted in three groups of university students educated in a cultural context where the method has a short tradition and has attracted little research interest, is intended as a modest contribution to the effort. Cvetka Sokolov 128 2. Challenges of written response to student writing 2.1. Praise: Can it be trusted? All guidelines for responding to student work point to the importance of praise. Positive evaluations that open end comments on student work have been recognized as a “generic convention of including positive evaluations in end comments even when the student’s paper is poor. These evaluations of topic could also provide encouragement for revision efforts” (Smith 1997: 255; cf. Spandel & Stiggins 1990: 87). Praise, as a counterbalance to criticism, is thought to prevent or at least mitigate demotivation. It is more likely that the entire feedback will be received positively if a positive tone is established at the very beginning (cf. Raimes 1983: 143; Treglia 2009: 128). On the other hand, the impact of positive comments is reduced or lost altogether if they are given in a predictable, formulaic manner, only to “follow the generic rule, perhaps even expressing insincere or exaggerated praise in order to fulfil expectations (Smith 1997: 260-261)”. It is therefore very important that teachers are honest in their praise and support their evaluation of the quality of students’ writing with text-specific comments (cf. Spandel & Stiggins 1990: 87), even when praising a fresh supporting point, a distinctive voice, a creative way of expressing an idea, and the like. False complements are bound to be seen through by students, which can lead to a loss of confidence that also negatively affects students’ attitudes toward other, more realistic comments on their work. Bruce Randel and Tedra Clark (2013: 148) point out that the common vagueness of praise (or criticism) can be avoided if instructors keep standards and learning objectives in mind when providing feedback. This task-oriented emphasis is advantageous over nonspecific evaluation (e.g., praise or criticism) or normative comparisons because it helps students become aware of misconceptions or gaps between desired goals and current knowledge, understanding, and skills and then helps guide students through the process of obtaining those goals. 2.2. Over-commenting: Less is more The chapter on teachers’ marginal comments referring to specific elements of student essays in The St Martin’s Guide to Teaching Writing (Glenn & Goldthwaite 2014) highlights the importance of a limited number of comments. If you write a response to every feature of an essay (from punctuation and usage to logic and style), you will put in a tremendous amount of work and your students are likely to be put off. For many good reasons, students tend to believe Challenges of Written Response to Student Writing 129 that the more a teacher comments on their work (even when the commentary is in the form of praise), the worse the work is. So consider three or four marginal comments per page an upper limit, at least for substantive comments. (Glenn & Goldthwaite 2014: 134) Apart from undermining motivation and self-confidence (cf. Spandel & Stiggins 1990: 87), trying to teach too many lessons at once simply leads to cognitive overload, which means that the student learns less than they could if given a manageable amount of feedback - another reason why experts in writing instruction advise teachers against pointing out more than “one or two major problems and maybe one minor one” (Curzan & Damour 2011: 133; cf. Center for T and L; Cohen & Cavalcanti 1990: 175, Farthman & Whalley 1990: 179; Sokolov 2002: 164-165) when giving a general end comment on the essay as a whole. One of the major challenges of responding is that there are an infinite number of lessons we might want our comments to teach, but a finite number of lessons students can learn in writing and revising a single paper. (…) Teach one lesson at a time. Reading an entire draft, quickly, before commenting may actually save time. Ask: What single lesson (or two) do I want to teach here? And how will my comments teach this lesson? (Sommers 2013: 4, 44; cf. Raimes 1983: 143) Furthermore, teachers over-commenting in an early draft fail to take the characteristics of the writing process into account by giving the message that surface errors and other weaknesses in an early draft have to be mended at all costs although parts of the text still have to be restructured and developed further, or may even be discarded in the subsequent draft(s). In such cases, “students are commanded to edit and develop at the same time” (Sommers 2014: 335). What is more, the editing and proofreading are often taken over by teachers themselves; instead, “(focusing) on one significant usage problem at a time” by pointing it out (and, possibly but not necessarily, correcting it) once and expecting the student to fix it in other parts of the text on their own would be not only enough but also preferable (Curzan & Damour 2011: 132; cf. Sommers 2013: 27). 2.3. Appropriating the text: Who is actually the author? The tendency to over-comment brings with it another drawback, that of “appropriating the text” (Knoblauch & Brannon 1984; cf. Glenn & Goldthwaite 2014: 136; Hyland & Hyland 2006: 2, 12; Leki 1990: 64; Sokolov 2002: 162; Sommers 1982: 334; Straub 1996: 223-224; Spencer 1998: 71-75). “Generally speaking, the more comments a teacher makes on a piece of writing, the more controlling he or she will likely be” (Straub 1996: 233). Cvetka Sokolov 130 Most students inevitably adapt their writing to what they think the teacher wants them to do - even more so if the teacher does not frame his or her comments in a way that shows respect for what the developing writers want to express and in what way, and is not open to dialogue promoting the learners’ autonomy and authority as writers (cf. Bowden 2018; Sommers 2013: 4; Scrocco 2012; Straub 1996: 246). In other words, “students adapt their papers in accordance with the theoretical biases they have identified in a specific teacher/ reader”. (Spencer 1998: 56; cf. Bowden 2018; Clark & Ivanič 1997: 164; Elbow 1973 & 1981; Fanselow 1987: 461; Sokolov 2013: 46-47). Teachers’ theoretical knowledge, experience and the nature of their position of power make their comments “evaluative and authoritative” (Straub 1996: 247), even when they praise the strengths of a piece of writing: Praise comments are less controlling than criticism or commands because they place the teacher in the role of an appreciative reader or satisfied critic and obviate the need for revision. Nevertheless, they underscore the teacher’s values and agendas and exert a certain degree of control over the way the student views the text before her and the way she likely looks at subsequent writing (Straub 1996: 234). Since the ultimate goal of writing instruction is to help students develop into independent writers, writing teachers should do their best to reduce “the constraints of unequal teacher-student power relationships” by finding ways to encourage students to respond to their comments. This is about creating a respectful and trusting learning environment that encourages dialogue with novice writers (Kang & Dykema 2017: 248; cf. Tierney 2013: 138). Such an approach uncovers instances where writing teachers fail to understand their students’ arguments, admittedly sometimes due to young writers’ awkward ways of communicating their ideas but also due to teachers’ misinterpretation of them (cf. Clark & Ivanič 1997: 180). Unfortunately, there are teachers who are not open enough to invite students to negotiate their ideas for improvement with them. Instead of acknowledging that “in addition to being recipients of feedback, the students have a role as partners in each of the formative feedback activities” (Ruiz-Primo & Li 2013: 220), they see no harm in using “intellectual violence” against students who express “inappropriate” ideas or resort to genres clashing with the conventions of academic writing, such as “religious discourse” (Ringer 2017: 630), for example, or simply with the writing instructor’s worldview/ opinion on controversial topics (cf. Sokolov: 2002). Challenges of Written Response to Student Writing 131 3.1. Research Review 3.1.1. Students’ General Attitude Most of the research results show a positive attitude of students towards their writing teachers’ written comments. Early researchers in the field (Cohen & Cavalcani 1990; Fathman & Whalley 1990; Ferris 1995; Lynch & Klemans 1978; Radecki & Swales 1988: 357; Straub 1997) report students’ appreciation of teachers’ written responses, although some miss praise (Cohen & Cavalcanti 1990: 174), comments on the content of their papers (Cohen & Cavalcanti 1990: 165), and more personal reader responses (Cohen & Cavalcanti 1990: 167). However, the drawbacks of teachers’ individual commenting styles do not detract from the value of the method when used thoughtfully. Nancy Sommers (2013: xii-xiii) and her colleagues, who studied the response of 400 students to teachers’ written comments on their written work during their studies from 1997 to 2001, established that students, as learning writers, found teachers’ written feedback to be immensely important. “What became clear from students’ testimonials is that teachers’ comments play a much larger role than we might expect from scribbled words in the margins or at the end of a draft” (xiii). More recent studies confirm the early research in this area. The conclusion arrived at by Ken Hyland and Fiona Hyland (2006: 3), which states that “ESL students value teacher written feedback greatly and constantly rate it more highly than alternative forms, such as peer feedback and oral feedback in writing conferences”, has since been confirmed by other researchers. For example, Carolyn Calhoon-Dillahunt and Dodie Forrest (2013: 233) found that “the developmental writers (they) surveyed (...) read and valued teacher comments and found ‘suggestions/ constructive criticism’ to be the most helpful”, meaning that they not only read it (96.5 percent) but also used it (93 percent) (2013: 235). Admittedly, the results become less encouraging when one considers that “students only used global commentary about half the time” when it came to “the textual reality of their revisions” (240). Nonetheless, positive attitudes toward written feedback should not be underestimated as a prerequisite for good use of teacher feedback. Heartening results can be observed in the study by Darsle Bowden (2018): “Students welcomed comments; they were eager to figure out what to do with them, and most students were especially grateful for substantive comments”. Similarly, Maria Ornella Treglia (2019: 218) observed in her study that 97% of participants indicated that teacher comments were helpful. The participants in Bruce Ballenger and Kelly Myers’s (2019) research into “The Emotional Work of Revision”, which included 17 undergraduate writing majors, MA English language students, and MFA students in creative writing programmes, expressed a deep understanding of the need to revise their early drafts and used their teachers’/ readers’ suggestions for Cvetka Sokolov 132 improvement, but they also “reported that they were rarely taught revision strategies and felt unprepared for the actual work of revision”, which led to their negative emotional reactions. Another reason for their revisionrelated frustration was the vulnerability created by sharing their imperfect drafts with others, often exposing their most personal views and feelings. “This exposure creates dissonance between (the) intellectual understanding of revision theory and the emotional experience of sharing unfinished work” (Ballenger & Myers 2019: 599-601). 3.1.2. The Role of Praise Despite the general consensus among experts in writing instruction that it is just as important to comment on the strengths of student work as it is to point out what needs improvement, not all research on student attitudes toward praise confirms their appreciation for positive teacher comments. Participants in the study by Calhoon-Dillahunt and Forrest (2013) expressed their need to be praised, but in their view, praise seemed to serve more as a relationship builder with their instructor, a self-esteem booster (‘It made me feel more confident about my writing’; ‘I felt a sense of accomplishment’), or a motivator (‘It made me want to keep writing’) than a tool to help students improve their written products (Calhoon-Dillahunt & Forrest 2013: 234; cf. Burkland & Grimm 1984: 12). Since self-confidence and motivation are crucial, praise does have a positive effect on student achievement; research findings reported by Treglia (2019: 122) “leave no doubt that teacher feedback is more effective when embedded in words of encouragement” (cf. Spandel & Stiggins 1990: 87). Not surprisingly, they appreciate praise more when teachers personalise their encouragement (Treglia 2019: 125). 3.1.3. The Number of Comments and Substantive Comments Experts agree that commenting on every weakness and error is not only unnecessary but even harmful, however, “there is a tendency among teachers, particularly when dealing with written tasks, that they should inform students (highlight or underline) of everything that is not correct in the text” (Cindrić & Pavić 2017: 94). The majority feel that if they do not do this, they are not doing their job properly. “After all, as writing teachers we are trained to recognize and remedy such errors” (Sommers 2013: 32; cf. Spandel & Stiggins 1990: 90). If they did not, many teachers also fear that their students would be led to believe that there were no weaknesses in the work other than those actually marked by the teacher or, conversely, that they would feel insecure about the quality of their essays - are they Challenges of Written Response to Student Writing 133 good enough to be commented on at all? One teacher expresses this concern by saying, “I worry they are going to think either nothing is wrong or everything is wrong” (Treglia 2019: 123). In addition, teachers are under pressure from their students’ expectations: the latter usually express a desire for more rather than less correction and suggestions for improvement (cf. Bowden 2018; Calhoon-Dillahunt & Forrest 2013: 242; Leki 1990: 62; Sommers 2013: 32). Also, teachers tend to believe that their numerous and detailed comments show their interest in and appreciation of their students’ work and ideas (cf. Center 2020). For many students, however, it is probably the other way around, as Maxine Hairston points out (1986: 121): “Teachers who habitually try to mark every error in a paper (...) may wind up unintentionally giving their students a very negative message: that they really do not care what students say, they only care that they say it correctly.” To make matters worse, some teachers even interfere with their students’ perfectly acceptable writing style, justifying this with the aim of helping novice writers to make their expression “less awkward”/ ”more pleasing”, when in fact they have fallen victim to the bias of their personal taste (see, for example, Stritar & Može 2012: 101). Understandably, it is difficult to resist students’ insistence on having every error and every other aspect of their writing that needs improvement identified, pointed out, and corrected. After all, much of the research suggests that students generally feel that substantive comments help them develop as writers and critical thinkers (Calhoon-Dillahunt & Forrest 2013: 242), and encourage them to try harder and go deeper in revising their work, which was confirmed by the study of Joel Wingard and Angela Geosits (2014: 7-8 ): “The most interesting finding is the evident correlation between the prevalence of deep (i.e., substantive rather than surface matters) comments provided by instructors and the prevalence of deep revisions” (cf. Bowden 2018). In fact, the majority of students seem to cope quite well with teacher feedback on their written assignments. Few (first-year college) students indicated that they felt overwhelmed by corrections, even the student (…) who received 48 corrections on his draft. One student did say that she was aghast when she saw the number of comments (this included in-draft and marginal) - that is, until she started reading them (Bowden 2018). 3.1.3. Authorship Most students trust their teachers as experts and do not mind rewriting their work according to their suggestions for improvement (Cohen & Cavalcanti 1990: 155; cf. Bowden 2018), although they “sometimes perceive Cvetka Sokolov 134 teacher feedback to be controlling or regulating their voice as (authors)” (Kang & Dykema 2017: 248). Indeed, there are students who dislike being bossed around in relation to their writing, as in the study of students’ response to teacher comments by Calhoon-Dillahunt and Forrest (2013: 234): “I find that directions telling me how to change my writing are the least helpful because they take away my freedom in my own writing” (cf. Cohen & Cavalcanti 1990: 168). The research suggests that some students felt so strongly about their voice that they “expressed unwillingness to surrender the content of their paper to the teacher. They spoke of resenting the teachers’ suggestions that the content of a paper was weak, immature, or superficial; they expressed hostility to the idea that someone else had the right to put a grade on their thoughts” (Leki 1990: 62; cf. Lynch & Klemans 1978: 170; Sperling & Freedman 1987: 357). Who can blame them? Of course, writing instructors should and do encourage students to write about what they think is important, and to develop their own voice. Clearly, aligning with their teachers’ preferences and even values does not help achieve this goal, whereas sharing and negotiating intended meaning with them does. However, Calhoom-Dillahunt and Forrest (2013: 242) state in their research “that students do not intuitively see marginal comments as ‘conversation’ on the page”, which is confirmed by Lindenman et al.’s (2018: 592) study. 3.2. A Case Study 3.2.1. Basic Data and Methodology The aim of the case study, conducted in the spring semester of 2019/ 20 and the winter semester of 2020/ 21, was to gain insight into the attitudes of three groups of Slovene students towards written responses to their writing, to determine the extent to which they overlap with trends in other cultures, to at least partially fill the research gap in this area in Slovenia, and to stimulate further and more extensive research on this method in the Slovene educational context. While Slovene researchers Karmen Pižorn (2013, 2014), Gabrijela Petra Nagode and Mojca Juriševič (2014) have conducted some research on written corrective feedback, their focus was limited to grammar/ error correction. Since teachers’ written response to students’ writing is meant to stimulate deep revision, which is to be distinguished from mere editing (cf. Ballenger & Myers 2019: 609), research on feedback focusing on the content and coherence of students’ essays is of utmost importance in the Slovene educational context. The participant sample included 40 first-year students BA, who took a two-semester course in practical English classes (Language in Use I) in 2019/ 20 and 2020/ 21, and 5 first-year students MA in the 2019/ 20 Challenges of Written Response to Student Writing 135 teacher training programme, all studying English at the Department of English, Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana. The research was conducted using the survey method based on a questionnaire 1 consisting of a series of 26 statements for the students of BA and 37 statements for the students of MA, who were additionally asked to answer 11 questions regarding their future work as teachers. The students had been given two versions of their marked paragraphs/ essays before completing the questionnaire: one with more detailed comments from their teacher, the author of this paper, the other with fewer and less detailed comments. 2 They were asked to look at both and indicate, using a Likert scale, the extent to which they agreed with each of the given statements (1 - strongly disagree, 2 - disagree, 3 - undecided, 4 - agree, 5 - strongly agree). The statements focused on the participants’ general attitudes toward teacher comments, the importance of praise, the amount and volume of comments, and the appropriation of their text by the teacher. They were also invited to add their own comments if they wished. The main limitations of the study are a small sample of students who participated in the survey and the fact that the researcher was involved in the study. As the research findings do not provide statistically representative results, no conclusions can be drawn that are relevant to a broader Slovene context of the situation, let alone wider contexts. However, this is also true of many other studies - in the words by Lynn Goldstein (2001: 77), “Without examining the same questions with comparable research methodology across different contexts, it is difficult to create a comprehensive picture of the relationship between teacher-written commentary and student revision” (cf. Ruiz-Primo & Li 2013: 224). In other words, largescale research in this particular area is too fragmented to draw generally reliable and applicable conclusions. Another drawback of the present study is the possibility that students’ responses were influenced by the fact that the same teacher who commented on their papers also analysed their responses to the questionnaire statements. On the other hand, a researcher who collects data in the authentic work environment gains a more nuanced insight (Vogrinc 2008: 49). Moreover, although a case study focuses on a single case, it sheds light on characteristics of other similar cases in the field it studies (Richards 2011: 209; cf. Vogrinc 2008: 76-77; Weir & Roberts 1994: 62), which means that it provides food for thought that goes beyond an individual teacher’s experience and need for self-reflection. Finally, survey statements are bound to simplify research topics. For example, asking students to decide whether or not they approve of extensive commentary does not take into account the specific characteristics of such commentary. This inevitably distorts the research findings to some 1 See Appendix 2 2 See Appendix 1. Cvetka Sokolov 136 extent. This drawback is illustrated by the following comment from a student at MA (2019/ 20) 3 : I don’t think that longer comments are inherently good or bad - it all depends on the quality of the specific comment in question. A long comment, if structured well, can provide depth and support to the suggestions and/ or criticisms it presents. On the other hand, undue verbosity can prove frustrating and discombobulating for the reader. A student thinking along these lines will have a hard time responding to statements that ignore the complexity addressed in the quote, because none of the choices given quite fit the fact that “circumstances alter cases”. Therefore, they are likely to choose “undecided”. It would be inaccurate to claim that the response sheds no light on their attitudes towards teacher comments, but the measurement tool used is rather imprecise. That is why, respondents were also given the opportunity to provide detailed comments. 3.2.2. Results and discussion 3.2.2.1. The respondents’ general attitude to teachers’ comments All the participants in the case study agreed that the teachers’ comments were useful and only one of them (2%) said that they did not pay much attention to them. Similarly, only one student remained undecided as to whether teachers should also justify their numerical grades through narrative feedback. The majority of students (73%) would not be happy with end comments and numerical marks only, let alone receiving numerical marks that were not supplemented by written feedback - indeed, all of them expected teachers to comment at least briefly on their work. I really dislike getting only a grade with just a short comment or no comment at all, which has unfortunately happened many times. Especially with essays, it is impossible to know how to correct something, if you do not get a more elaborate comment on it (especially when it comes to coherence and content). Getting no feedback is much worse than getting negative feedback (MA student 2019/ 20). Not surprisingly, all students who participated in the teacher training programme plan to provide written feedback to their students once they become teachers. The research findings confirm the findings discussed in 3.1.1. of this paper - students expect and value their teachers’ marginal and end comments. Nonetheless, many teachers, including experts in the field (e.g. Sommers 2013: x-xi; Lindenman et al. 2018: 592; Spandel & Stiggins 1990: 84; Treglia 2019: 124) have doubted whether students really value and use the 3 For authenticity, students’ comments have not been edited. Challenges of Written Response to Student Writing 137 tedious and time-consuming work invested in marginal and end comments. Terglia (2019: 124) quotes a teacher who participated in her research as saying, “I tell them, I spend hours reading your papers. I really want you to read them ... but who knows, do they look at them? ” When we ask them about it, they assure us that they do. If we still feel they don’t get enough out of the method, perhaps we should rethink the way we make marginal and end-comments: are they clear and specific enough to be helpful? Why not check with a colleague? “Teachers do not usually receive formal training in commenting and rarely share their written comments with each other” (Smith 1997: 249). There is certainly room for improvement in this regard. Another relevant question is whether we have taught our students how to interpret and use our recommendations. As the student responses suggest, failure to address teacher commentary is most likely a result of the analytical challenges the tasks entail rather than lack of interest in feedback. This points to the usefulness of dedicating class time to discuss the revision process and focus on those types of revision requests that students either fail to address or do a poor job (Treglia 2019: 124). Heather Lindenman, Martin Camper, Lindsay Dunne Jacoby and Jessica Enoch (2018: 592) recommend the method of students writing “reflectionsin-action” (585) on their teachers’ comments to facilitate students’ understanding of them. In addition, such “reflective memos” provide the teacher with valuable information about the students’ interpretation of the written feedback and reveal the areas that are difficult to understand and would require more attention, as well as weaknesses in the teacher’s comments such as vagueness, lack of clarity, and the like. Importantly, they make clear the extent to which students view their teacher’s comments as “an invitation to reconsider their previous writing choices and to decide on their own how to carry out their revisions” (593) and the extent to which they view them as instructions to follow (595). Of course, “for comments to become feedback, students need to be prompted to act upon them” (Carless 2020: 7) without unconditionally accepting their teachers’ suggestions. Writing instructors need to “understand how students engage with and learn from feedback and what skills they require to do this” (Gravett 2020: 152) in order to help them develop feedback literacy. 3.2.2.2. Praise and Criticism It is encouraging that 93% of the questionnaire participants felt that their teachers’ marginal and end comments were friendly and well-meaning with only 1 participant stating that this was not the case, and 2 remaining undecided. 80% of the students also thought that, generally, teachers struck a good balance between positive and negative comments. 7% of students disagreed and 13% had difficulty deciding. 22% of respondents could not Cvetka Sokolov 138 clearly say whether teachers’ comments were generally too kind and considerate, while 4% felt that they were. The comments that accompanied the respondents’ answers were similar to those found in other research in this area. Students appreciated the reassurance “(that they) didn’t do everything wrong” and found the “lack of positive comments (to be) discouraging” (cf. Treglia 2019: 122). On the other hand, they do not want to be “lied to” by teachers who praise them (cf. Smith 1997: 260-61) when they need direct and honest advice on how to improve their writing (BA student 2019/ 20). Another BA student (2019/ 20) stated that the right balance between praise and criticism triggered her motivation to revise. “After reading the comments, I feel the urge to sit down and rewrite my paper on the spot” (cf. Calhoon-Dillahunt & Forrest 2013: 234). 5 out of 5 students studying to become teachers at the Department of English at the Faculty of Arts in Ljubljana agree that both positive comments and suggestions for improvement are necessary (MA students 2019/ 20). On the other hand, only one is sure that they will formulate their comments thoughtfully, while the rest cannot decide which approach they will take when they become teachers. Understandably so. Still, their responses give me pause. After all, they are still students who are also exposed to insensitive feedback they sometimes receive from their teachers. 3.2.2.3. More or Fewer Comments? The survey results confirm what other researchers have already pointed out: the majority of students prefer more comments to fewer comments (cf. Bowden 2018; Calhoon-Dillahunt & Forrest 2013: 242; Leki 1990: 62; Sommers 2013: 32): 96% believe they learn more when they receive more comments (cf. Calhoon-Dillahunt & Forrest 2013: 242; Wingard & Geosits 2014: 7-8). “I prefer the version with lots of comments because the one with fewer comments makes me think my writing is better than it is, and then I can’t improve it” (BA student 2019/ 20). In the words of a MA student (2019/ 20), a future teacher, “I prefer detailed comments because I learn the most from them. I take them as a chance to improve my writing next time, which also motivates me”. In addition, 83% of respondents understand the numerical grade better when it is supplemented by more (detailed) comments, and 73% find more (detailed) comments more useful in revising their papers. “Fewer and shorter comments make it harder to tackle the revision; they offer little guidance and leave the students to interpret the corrections in their own way; if the interpretation is wrong, this just prolongs the revision process” (BA student 2019/ 20). It is not surprising, then, that fewer comments do not lead students to believe that their writing is good. “Fewer and less detailed comments do Challenges of Written Response to Student Writing 139 not equate to better work, even though it may appear that the work contains fewer mistakes” (BA student 2019/ 20). Nevertheless, 18% of the respondents think that fewer comments could be more helpful in revising, 9% are sure about it. In the words of a BA student (2019/ 20), “I like elaborate comments more, but I think fewer and less detailed comments are sometimes easier to interpret. They mainly focus on one main point per paragraph, and are therefore easier to handle”. However, it is also true that more extensive comments become more manageable once the student sets out to revise: “Although elaborate comments can sometimes be difficult to grasp, their value shows once you begin to revise the essay. I think that a thorough explanation of mistakes is very beneficial, even if it requires more attention from the student” (MA student 2019/ 20; cf. Bowden 2018). Finally, students’ responses substantiate teachers’ fears that they will be perceived by students as indifferent or even lazy if they do not grade papers thoroughly and comment on every possible aspect of the paper and every mistake (cf. Center 2020): only 38% of respondents think that this is not the case, while 40% suspect that it might be, and 22% are convinced that the statement is true. The following observation from a student at MA (2019/ 20) reinforces the idea: “More comments and detailed comments make me feel that the teacher cares about my progress and not just my grade.” How can a teacher confronted with the data resist the temptation to over-comment on their students’ writing? 3 out of 5 prospective teachers from the survey think they can, 1 cannot tell yet, and 1 has no intention of even trying. Despite the latter, no respondent seems to categorically reject the decision to comment less: 4 think they might limit the number of comments so as not to overwhelm their students, while 2 might do so so as not to overwhelm themselves. 3.2.2.4. Teachers’ Interference with Students’ Ideas When I discuss their written work with students who are still struggling with their writing skills, I am occasionally asked, “Could you tell me what exactly you want me to do? ” Naturally, I am not thrilled with the question and its implication, but students adjusting their writing to meet their writing instructors’ expectations once they have determined what the teachers (do not) approve of in their essays is understandably part of their survival kit. The survey results confirm that 58% of the students who responded to the questionnaire do just that, 27% are not sure, and only 15%, or 7 out of 45 students, stick to their ways. Of course, we want students to write about what they think is important, not what we do, and to develop their own voice. We want them to become “successful substantive revisers (who) treat their teachers’ commentary as a metacognitive tool to determine what Cvetka Sokolov 140 issues they might address, and they see themselves in a position to prioritise some comments over others, to agree or disagree, and to speak back to their instructors” (Lindenman et al. 2018: 594). Obviously, adopting teacher commentary as direction (Lindenman et al. 2018: 504) and conforming to teachers’ preferences or even values does not contribute to achieving this goal. Therefore, the survey’s affirmation that students recognize the benefits of teacher feedback - 100% of respondents said they trusted their teachers’ expertise - should be taken with a grain of salt. Unconditional trust is reflected in the following explanation by student BA (2019/ 20) as to why they prefer more detailed comments from their teachers: I very much prefer longer and more elaborate comments since I think they give the writer more information on what they can improve on and what specifically they did right and should be replicated in future papers. Unfortunately, the above quotation implies that this particular student is probably unable to take ownership of the text they have written, as they are unable to “(identify) the heuristic value of teacher commentary and (carry) out (their) revision” (Lindenman et al. 2018: 593). This does not mean that (all) students who accept teacher commentary as guidance find this approach to be a good one: 27% of respondents feel frustrated when they are expected to change their writing according to their teachers’ recommendations, 27% are undecided, and 46% indicate that they do not mind following their teachers’ marginal and end comments. Regardless of their students’ seemingly positive response to their feedback, teachers need to tread carefully and make sure they respect their students’ ideas. It is heartening that 89% of respondents feel they do, and only 11% are not quite sure, while none of the students perceive their teachers’ written comments as disrespectful. A word of warning, though: only 58% of respondents think that their teachers do not interfere too much with what they want to express and in what way; 20% remain undecided, and 22% feel that interference is excessive. This should give us pause for thought, especially as some students feel that most essays are (11%) or could be (13%) too personal to be graded (cf. Ballenger & Mayers 2019: 599-601). While the majority of respondents (76%) disagree, this does not necessarily mean that they find it easy to deal with feedback from their teachers. A student’s statement from BA (2019/ 20) illustrates this: It can be difficult to receive comments on your work, especially if the writing comes from a personal experience and you have some emotional attachment to it. Nevertheless, I think the comments on my paper were very helpful for understanding the grade I was given now and also for (hopefully) preventing me to make the same mistakes in the future. Challenges of Written Response to Student Writing 141 To continue on the bright side, teachers’ respect for their students’ ideas is reflected in the fact that 76% of respondents perceive them as being open to dialog about their students’ intended meaning, while the remaining 24% feel uncertain about this. It is likely that these are also the ones who would be more hesitant (18%) or would not approach their teachers at all (7%) to seek clarification if their intended meaning had been misinterpreted. Apart from not feeling confident enough to do so (which is not necessarily due to the attitude of their teachers), this can be attributed to their lack of awareness of this possibility. Calhoom-Dillahunt and Forrest (2013: 242) state in their research “that students do not intuitively see marginal comments as ‘conversation’ on the page”, which is confirmed by Lindenman et al.’s (2018: 592) study: “The majority of students (...) responded to teacher commentary as a set of directions to follow.” Apparently, “reading comments and using them to revise must be taught (...), like other aspects of the writing process” (Calhoom-Dillahunt & Forrest 2013: 242). David Carless (2020: 6) also points out that “the interplay between teacher and student feedback literacy” and “teachers (designing) opportunities for students to appreciate and use feedback” are essential to ensuring feedback literacy. Of course, the “conversation on page” can be extended to teacher-student one-on-one conferences. The statement below affirming the need for oral discussions about student performance and the feedback they receive was made by a BA student (2019/ 20): The only problem I may have with these comments is that sometimes the written word gets misunderstood and I am therefore of the opinion that these longer comments (or any criticism/ hints) should be accompanied with the spoken word, i.e. with a 1 on 1 talk. An opportunity to clarify possible misunderstandings and encourage students to voice any doubts or disagreements they may have with their teacher’s feedback means giving young writers back what is rightfully theirs - the ownership of their own work. It is also an opportunity to set a good example for future teachers. One of them says, “Students’ personal opinions and outlook on the topic of a piece of writing should be accepted and considered, even if they clash with the beliefs and expectations of the teachers” (MA student 2019/ 20). We must be on the right track by encouraging students’ engagement in an interactive feedback process and their self-awareness as independent writers “(who) are able to see and to believe in their own truth, (...) and (...) to say, ‘I will listen to you and weigh your opinion in balance with my own; but, ultimately, I will trust my own voice.’” (Spandel & Stiggins 1990: 112). Cvetka Sokolov 142 4. Conclusion Teachers’ marginal and end comments are an essential part of teaching and evaluating writing. Although teachers sometimes feel that students do not take their written feedback seriously enough, the case study presented in this article and general research have shown that, by and large, they do appreciate it. If it takes some time for their writing skills to improve noticeably, it is more because of the complexity of the writing process, which makes developing writing skills at least a long-term, if not lifelong, project, than because of their indifference to the time-consuming effort their teachers put into marginal and final comments. Moreover, prospective teachers should be trained in skills that have been largely neglected, namely how to make effective comments (Teglia 2019: 122) and how to teach students to use them wisely. To achieve long-term improvement in learning outcomes, feedback is needed that “(focuses) not only on reducing the difference between a current understanding or performance level and what is expected but also on improving students’ learning strategies, helping them to monitor their own learning, and strengthening their belief in their ability to improve and learn”, as Maria Araceli Ruiz-Primo and Min Li (2013: 220) point out. Giving and understanding such feedback should not be taken for granted - both need to be learned. “For progress to transpire, we need both teacher and student feedback literacy: the capacities to engineer and take advantage of feedback possibilities” (Carless 2020: 7). Research has shown that students are dissatisfied with formulaic, empty praise and expect their teachers to provide “specific, structured and argumentative comments that explain why something needs to be improved, as opposed to short, vague comments that leave (them) puzzling over what the teacher intended to address” (MA student 2019/ 20). However, this does not preclude genuine interest in what students have to say, nor sincere praise for what they are good at and the progress they have made. While our students did not seem as fragile as we imagined, many of them preferring suggestions and constructive criticism to praise, our comments do more than simply provide guidance for improvement; our comments can promote confidence and may even communicate to students that they ‘belong’ in college. Given the vulnerability of this student population, we instructors should choose our words thoughtfully (Calhoon-Dillahunt & Forrest 2013: 242). The majority perceive their writing instructors as well-meaning authorities in their field and feel that they can and should represent their own voice in writing when misunderstood (though some do not). One MA student (2019/ 20), a future teacher, sums this up aptly: Challenges of Written Response to Student Writing 143 Generally speaking, I trust my teachers’ abilities to assess my writing and provide valuable feedback. That being said, writing is such a complicated (and, to a large extent, subjective) process that certain suggestions for improvement will inevitably clash with a given student’s internal sense of style or personal expression. Because of this, I think it is imperative that students feel relaxed when discussing their style and ideas with their teachers, meaning that a good teacher should strive to cultivate a comfortable learning environment. The student continues: “Sadly, this is not something that all teachers are able to accomplish.” On the positive side, there are also those who “emphasize the importance of being proactive in the development of a constructive environment for assessment to be fair and support learning” (Tierney 2010 in Tierney 2013: 138). As giving feedback can also become very personal and emotional, common ground could be used by teachers to “(build) relationships with students through a shared recognition of the often emotive nature of feedback practices”, as Karen Gravett (2020: 154) notes, suggesting that sharing our own experiences of feedback with our students can help develop a dialogic approach to feedback. Such favourable conditions allow teachers and learners to determine together what kind of feedback works in their context of education. References Ballenger, Bruce & Kelly Myers (2019). “The Emotional Work of Revision”. College Composition and Communication 70 (4). 590-614. Baughan, Patrick (Ed.) (2020). On Your Marks: Learner-Focused Feedback Practices and Feedback Literacy. UK: AdvanceHE. Bowden, Darsle (2018). “Comments on Student Papers: Student Perspectives”. The Journal of Writing Assessment 11 (2). http: / / journalofwritingassessment.org/ article.php? article=121 [19 August 2020]. Brannon, Lil & Cyril H. Knoblauch (1982). “On Students’ Rights to Their Own Texts: A Model of Teacher Response”. College Composition and Communication 33 (2). 157-66. doi: 10.2307/ 357623. Burkland, Jill & Nancy Grimm (1984). “Students’ Response to Our Response”. A Conference Paper (35 th Conference on College Composition and Communication, New York). [online] https: / / files.eric.ed.gov/ fulltext/ ED245241.pdf August 2020]. Butt, Graham (2010). Making Assessment Matter. London & New York: Continuum. Calhoon-Dillahunt, Carolyn & Dodie Forrest (2013). “Conversing in Marginal Spaces: Developmental Writers’ Responses to Teacher Comments”. Teaching English in the Two-Year College 40 (3). 230-247. Carless, David (2020). “Introduction: learner-focused feedback practices and feedback literacy”. In: Patrick Baughan (Ed.). On Your Marks: Learner-Focused Feedback Practices and Feedback Literacy. UK: AdvanceHE. 5-9. Center for Teaching and Learning (2020). “Commenting on Student Writing”. St Louis: Washington University in St. Louis. [online] https: / / teachingcenter. wustl.edu/ resources/ writing-assignments-feedback/ commenting-on-studentwriting/ [17 August 2020]. Cvetka Sokolov 144 Cindrić, Ivana & Snježana Pavić (2017). “Tendencies and Characteristics of Feedback Given by Primary English Language Teachers in Croatia”. Elope 14 (2). 85- 102. Cohen, Andrew D. & Marilda C. Cavalcanti (1990). “Feedback on compositions: teacher and student verbal reports”. In: Barbara Kroll (Ed.). Second Language Writing: Research insights for the classroom. New York: Cambridge University Press. 155-177. Curzan, Anne & Liza Damour (2011). First Day to Final Grade. Third Edition. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan. Cushing Weigle, Sara (2002). Assessing Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Elbow, Peter (1973). Writing without Teachers. New York/ Oxford: Oxford University Press. Elbow, Peter (1981). Writing with Power: Techniques for Mastering the Writing Process. New York/ Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fanselow, John F. (1987). Breaking Rules: Generating and Exploring Alternatives in Language Teaching. New York/ London: Longman. Fathman, Ann K. & Elizabeth Whalley (1990). “Teacher Response to student writing: focus on form versus content.” In: Barbara Kroll (Ed.). Second Language Writing: Research insights for the classroom. New York: Cambridge University Press. 178-190. Ferris, Dana R. (1995). “Student Reactions to Teacher Response in Multiple-Draft Composition Classrooms”. TESOL Quarterly 29 (1). 33-53. doi: 10.2307/ 358 7804. Glenn, Cheryl & Melissa A. Goldthwaite ([1999] 2014). The St. Martin’s Guide to Teaching Writing. Boston/ New York: Bedford/ St. Martin’s. Goldstein, Lynn (2001). “For Kyla: What Does the Research Say About Responding to ESL Writers”. In: Tony Silva & Paul Kei Matsuda (Ed.). On Second Language Writing. Mahwah/ New Jersey/ London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 73-89. Gravett, Karen (2020). “Developing students’ feedback literacies”. In: Patrick Baughan (Ed.). On Your Marks: Learner-Focused Feedback Practices and Feedback Literacy. UK: AdvanceHE. 152-158. Hairston, Maxine (1986). “On Not Being a Composition Slave”. In: Charles W. Bridges (Ed.). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. 117-124. Hyland, Ken & Fiona Hyland (2006). “Contexts and issues in Feedback on L2 writing: An introduction.” In: Ken Hyland & Fiona Hyland. Feedback in Second Language Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1-20. Kang, Hee-Seung & Julie Dykema (2017). “Critical Discourse Analysis of Student Responses to Teacher Feedback on Student Writing”. Journal of Response to Writing 3 (2). 6-35. Leki, Ilona. 1990. “Coaching from the Margins”. In: Barbara Kroll (Ed.). Second Language Writing: Research insights for the classroom. New York: Cambridge University Press. 57-68. Lindenman, Heather, Martin Camper, Lindsay Dunne Jacoby & Jessica Enoch. (2018). “Revision and Reflection: A Study of (Dis)Connections between Writing Knowledge and Writing Practice”. College Composition and Communication 69 (4). 581-611. Lynch, Catherine & Patricia Klemans (1978). “Evaluating Our Evaluations”. College English 40 (2). 166-80. doi: 10.2307/ 375748. Nagode, Gabrijela Petra, Karmen Pižorn & Mojca Juriševič (2014). “The Role of Written Corrective Feedback”. ELOPE 11 (2). 89-98. Challenges of Written Response to Student Writing 145 Pižorn, Karmen (2013). “Učinki učiteljeve povratne korektive informacije pri razvijanju pisne zmožnosti v tujem jeziku”. In: Vineta Eržen (Ed.). Razvijanje in vrednotenje znanja v gimnazijski praksi. Ljubljana: Zavod RS za šolstvo. 63-76. Radecki, Patricia M. & John M. Swales (1988). “ESL Student Reaction to Written Comments on Their Written Work”. System 16 (3). 355-365. Raimes, Ann (1983). Techniques in Teaching Writing. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Randel, Bruce & Tedra Clark (2013). “Measuring Classroom Assessment Practices.” In: McMillan, James H (Ed.). Research on Classroom Assessment. Los Angeles & London: SAGE. 145-163. Richards, Keith (2011). “Case Study”. In: Eli Hinkel (Ed.). Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning. Second Edition. New York/ London: Routledge. 207-221. Ringer, Jeffrey M. (2017). “Working With(in) the Logic of the Jeremiad: Responding to the writing of Evangelical Christian Students”. College Composition and Communication 68 (4). 249-268. Ruiz-Primo, Araceli Maria & Min Li (2013). “Examining Formative Feedback in the Classroom Context: New Research Perspectives”. In: James H. McMillan (Ed.). Research on Classroom Assessment. Los Angeles/ London: SAGE. 215-222. Scrocco, D. L. A. (2012). “Do you care to add something? Articulating the student interlocutor’s voice in writing response dialogue”. Teaching English in the Two- Year College 39 (3). 274-292. Smith, Summer (1997). “The Genre of the End Comment: Conventions in Teacher Responses to Student Writing.” College Composition and Communication 48 (2). 249-268. doi: 10.2307/ 358669. Sokolov, Cvetka. (2002). “Interfering with your students’ opinion how far can/ should you go? ”. In: Mojca Belak (Ed.). Conference selections. Ljubljana: IATEFL. 42-45. Sokolov, Cvetka. (2002). “Učiteljev pisni odziv na pisni sestavek: komentarji na robu in na koncu spisa”. Vestnik 36 (1-2). 159-167. Sokolov, Cvetka (2013). Pomen standardizacije ocenjevanja pisni sestavkov pri poučevanju angleščine kot tujega jezika/ The Role of Standardization in Assessing Writing in Teaching English as a Foreign Language. Doktorska disertacija/ PhD Thesis. Ljubljana: Filozofska fakulteta. Sokolov, Cvetka (2014). “The Writing Process under Exam Conditions”. Arbeiten aus Anglistik und Amerikanistik 39 (2). 129-154. Sommers, Nancy ([1982] 2014). “Responding to Student Writing”. In: Cheryl Glenn/ Melissa A. Goldwaithe (Eds.). The St. Martin’s Guide to Teaching Writing. Boston/ New York: Bedford/ St. Martin’s. 333-341. Sommers, Nancy (2006). “Across the Drafts”. College Composition and Communication 58 (2). 248-257. Sommers, Nancy (2013). Responding to Student Writers. Boston/ New York: Bedford/ St. Martin’s. Spandel, Vicki & Richard J. Stiggins (1990). Creating Writers: Linking Assessment and Writing Instruction. New York/ London: Longman. Spencer, Brenda (1998). Responding to Student Writing: Strategies for a Distant-Teaching Context. PhD Thesis. University of South Africa. Straub, Richard (1996). “The Concept of Control in Teacher Response: Defining the Varieties of ‘Directive’ and ‘Facilitative’ Commentary”. College Composition and Communication 47 (2). 223-251. doi: 10.2307/ 358794. Cvetka Sokolov 146 Straub, Richard (1997). “Students’ Reactions to Teacher Comments: An Exploratory Study”. Research in the Teaching of English 31 (1). 91-119. Stritar, Mojca & Sara Može (2012). “Napake skladnje”. In: Iztok Kosem (Ed.). Analiza jezikovnih težav učencev: korpusni pristop. Ljubljana: Trojina zavod za uporabno slovenistiko. 36. Tierney, Robin D. (2010). Insights into fairness in classroom assessment: Experienced English teachers share their practical wisdom. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Ottawa, Canada. (UMI No. AAT NR69109). Tierney, Robin D. (2013). “Fairness in Classroom Assessment”. In: James H. McMillan (Ed.). Research on Classroom Assessment. Los Angeles/ London: SAGE. 125- 144. Vogrinc, Janez (2008). Kvalitativno raziskovanje na pedagoškem področju. Ljubljana: Pedagoška fakulteta. Weir, Cyril & Jon Roberts (1994). Evaluation in ELT. Oxford UK/ Cambridge USA: Blackwell. Wingard, Joel & Angela Geosits (2014). “Effective Comments and Revisions in Student Writing from WAC Courses: Across the Disciplines.” A Journal of Language, Learning and Academic Writing. [online] https: / / wac.colostate.edu/ docs/ atd/ articles/ wingard_geosits2014.pdf [8 September 2020]. Challenges of Written Response to Student Writing 147 Appendix 1. The Starting Point: Fewer and More Teacher’s Comments 1.1. A film review paragraph commented upon - fewer comments XY, this is a nice paragraph I enjoyed reading a lot. It is well-developed and thought-provoking. There is some undue repetition in it, tough, and some of the cohesive ties could be strengthened. The difference between its and it’s? Be consistent. CvS Cvetka Sokolov 148 1.2. A film review paragraph commented upon - more comments XY, this is a nice paragraph I enjoyed reading a lot. It is well-developed and thought-provoking. There is some undue repetition in it, though, and some of the cohesive ties could be strengthened. In addition, it could be split into two body paragraphs. The difference between its and it’s? Be consistent. Revise the use of commas in relative clauses. Some good vocabulary. CvS 2. Questionnaire Questionnaire on Marginal and End-of-Text Comments: How helpful are they? You have been given two versions of your graded essay: one with more detailed comments from your teacher, the other with fewer and less detailed comments. Please look at both and think about the following statements by marking the extent to which you (dis)agree with them (1 - strongly disagree, 2 - disagree, 3 - undecided, 4 - agree, 5 - strongly agree). Statements on teachers’ comments in general strongly disagree disagree undecided agree strongly agree I find teachers’ comments useful and can make good use of them. 1 2 3 4 5 I don’t pay much attention to teachers’ comments. 1 2 3 4 5 Challenges of Written Response to Student Writing 149 I expect my teacher to justify their grades. 1 2 3 4 5 I would be satisfied with just getting short end comments and the grades. 1 2 3 4 5 I would be satisfied with just getting impressionistic grades without any comments from my teacher. 1 2 3 4 5 I would like to receive suggestions for improvement from my peers from time to time. 1 2 3 4 5 Your comment: Statements on positive and negative teachers’ comments strongly disagree disagree undecided agree strongly agree Generally, teachers balance out positive and negative comments. 1 2 3 4 5 Generally, teachers’ comments are negative, mean and/ or rude. 1 2 3 4 5 Generally, teachers’ comments are kind and wellmeaning. 1 2 3 4 5 Generally, teachers’ comments are too kind and considerate. 1 2 3 4 5 Your comment: Statements on fewer and less detailed comments totally disagree disagree cannot decide agree entirely agree I prefer fewer comments because they make me feel my writing is OK. 1 2 3 4 5 I prefer fewer comments because they make me feel I am quite a good student. 1 2 3 4 5 I prefer fewer comments because they make the revision more manageable. 1 2 3 4 5 Cvetka Sokolov 150 I prefer less detailed and simple comments because they are easier to understand. 1 2 3 4 5 I dislike fewer and less detailed comments because I want to learn as much as I can. 1 2 3 4 5 I dislike fewer and less detailed comments because they don’t help me enough to understand my grade. 1 2 3 4 5 I dislike fewer and less detailed comments because they are not of much help with my revision. 1 2 3 4 5 I dislike fewer and less detailed comments because they make me feel that my teacher doesn’t care about my work (and/ or that they could be lazy). 1 2 3 4 5 Your comment: Statements on the extent of teachers’ interference with students’ ideas strongly disagree disagree cannot decide agree strongly agree I trust my teachers’ knowledge and their suggestions for improvement. 1 2 3 4 5 When I have worked out my writing teachers’ expectations, I adjust my writing to them. 1 2 3 4 5 Most teachers respect what I want to say. 1 2 3 4 5 If a teacher misinterprets my point(s), I let them know about it. 1 2 3 4 5 Most teachers are open to dialogue about my intended meaning. 1 2 3 4 5 Challenges of Written Response to Student Writing 151 Teachers’ comments interfere with I want to express and how I want to express it too much. 1 2 3 4 5 It is frustrating for me to have to change my writing according to my teachers’ ideas. 1 2 3 4 5 Most essays are too personal to be graded at all. 1 2 3 4 5 Your comment: A shift of perspective - you as a (future) teacher (MA students only) Please read the following statements and choose one of the answers. Of course, things may turn out differently when you actually start teaching and even more so when you have been teaching for a while. Nonetheless, the fact that you have studied for so long and plan to become an English teacher can help you predict the way you will handle your students' writing. 1. I will give my students verbal feedback on their essays because it is useful. Yes. No. I don’t know. 2. I will give my students verbal feedback on their essays because they have the right to grade justification. Yes. No. I don’t know. 3. I will make sure to comment on both the strengths and weaknesses of my students’ writing. Yes. No. I don’t know. 4. I will word my comments very carefully, avoiding straightforward formulations, so as not to demotivate my students. Yes. No. I don’t know. 5. I will restrict my comments to 3 positive and 3 negative comments so as not to overwhelm my students. Yes. No. I don’t know. Cvetka Sokolov 152 6. I will restrict my comments to 3 positive and 3 negative comments so as not to overburden myself with work. Yes. No. I don’t know. 7. I will not restrict the number of my comments and corrections because I think all mistakes need to be corrected. Yes. No. I don’t know. 8. I will give written feedback on a selected number of papers, for example on five random papers per assignment. Yes. No. I don’t know. 9. I will give written feedback on papers written by students who show genuine interest in my suggestions for improvement. Yes. No. I don’t know. 10. I will give my students no written feedback on their essays because this would be a waste of time - most of them are likely to ignore it. Yes. No. I don’t know. 11. I will give my students no written feedback on their essays because my job will require so much from me that I will lack time and energy for that. Yes. No. I don’t know Your comment: Cvetka Sokolov Department of English Faculty of Arts University of Ljubljana