Writing In the Disciplines (WID): Responding to Student Writing
Through revision, students grow as writers and explore disciplinary content more deeply.
Individual Conferences
1. Ask students to come prepared with answers to specific, analytical questions about their drafts.
2. Ask students to describe their drafts for you:
a. Try to ensure they’re doing most the talking.
b. Ask them to post-outline, either beforehand or live, with you:
i. post-outline: for each paragraph, underline or note in margin the main idea/s, plus
how those ideas function or relate to the thesis (i.e., background, textual support,
data analysis, counter-argument). See Hubbuch p. 162.
ii. compare what they’ve written with the prompt/assignment and their sources.
c. Ask readerly questions.
d. Be descriptive and detailed—describe the writers’ ideas; point to details that work or that
confuse you.
3. See Bean 304~311; Hedengren 72~79; Gottschalk & Hjortshoj 60~61, 68~69; Hubbuch 162.
Comments on Drafts
1. Comments are characterized by curiosity and questioning:
a. Refer to elements in the prompt/assignment.
b. Point out inconsistencies and logical connections.
c. Be readerly and descriptive.
i. Avoid universal evaluation, i.e., “good,” “bad,” “fine.”
ii. Offer specific, readerly reactions:
1. “It seems your paper is trying to do this: ...”
2. “I am confused about ... because of ... in the previous paragraph.”
3. “Here are three ideas for restructuring: ...”
2. Use a pencil or Track Changes, or type and print out a note.
a. All of these allow you to revise comments as you’re thinking, as well as signal that you’re
commenting, not grading.
3. Use marginal and end-notes.
a. Avoid writing on or between sentences.
b. End-note: no false praise. Open with strengths, but be specific. Close with offer: “Come
see me if ...”
4. Can comment on specific elements (such as only the introduction or only citations) per draft.
5. Returning drafts quickly is helpful.
6. Assessing drafts: use a points scale for completion of particular elements. See Bean 142.
7. For next draft, include a reflection on how incorporated or why dismissed the feedback of peers
and/or professor.
8. See Bean 142, 312~329; Hedengren 93~97; Gottschalk & Hjortshoj 48~59, 70~71; Kellogg and
Whiteford.
CWAC, Kramer, Spring 2014
writing = critical thinking
1
Rubrics for Final Papers
1. Students seem to object less to rubric-based grades.
2. Mark phrases in rubric that describe elements of the paper, step back, consider where your marks
mostly fall and which elements matter most for this assignment, and assign the grade.
3. Write an overall note to accompany the rubric:
a. Make this brief.
b. List grammatical errors, particularly those that interfere with meaning.
4. Give students the rubric as soon as you assign the paper, or include with syllabus.
5. However, if students can revise paper again, use this for readerly feedback, as on drafts.
6. Voice-grading, by Rebecca Carroll.
7. Low-stakes toward mastery – less weight on earlier-semester grades, by Annalee Lamoreaux.
8. Ask students to apply your comments to next essay.
9. End of semester, build in a revision week – can revise any/all papers, by Annalee.
10. See Bean 271~289; Hedengren 103-111.
Encourage Improvement in Grammar
1. Share with each student the types of errors s/he is making. Options:
a. Use a rubric:
i. Composition rubric’s bottom two rows
ii. Your own, just for grammar
b. Create an errors chart and mark the ones each writer makes.
c. Assign a grammar handbook, particularly the Little Brown, and refer students to sections
of the book.
2. Require students to find and fix the errors you list.
3. Your job – your unique gift:
a. No: teach sentence-level issues.
b. Yes: hold writers accountable
c. Yes: give them strategies to analyze their own work
4. Remember that grammar/structure can become chaotic when struggling with ideas/new content.
5. Remember that cognitively, language development occurs earlier in life.
6. Avoid letting sentence-level worries hamper idea development:
a. Grammar is best addressed at the near-final draft stage.
b. Or, use an early, low-stress assignment to identify each student’s typical errors and ask that
students revise only for those sentence-level issues.
7. See Bean 66~86 & 330~333; Gottschalk & Hjortshoj 86~103; Lunsford.
Using Assessment as Teaching Tools During Class
for drafts or short assignments
1. Norming session:
a. Ask students to analyze drafts using the rubric, then exchange papers and do the same—
similar to the norming sessions we all have done ourselves, with peers.
b. Could be individually, in small groups, or as a class.
CWAC, Kramer, Spring 2014
writing = critical thinking
2
2. Models feedback:
a. Display on screen a couple/few student drafts and lead the class in analyzing them.
i. Choose drafts that characterize recurring issues/beauties you saw in the drafts.
ii. Could use drafts from previous classes.
iii. Could use your own writing—showing that all writers struggle.
iv. Could ask the writer of exemplary paper if you can use it as a model during
conferences.
b. Tell them to fix their own drafts with these issues in mind.
i. This gives students more ownership over analyzing and fixing their writing.
ii. This keeps you from having to make repeated comments on several students’
drafts.
iii. Your time investment: skimming all the drafts and selecting common issues and
good models to use in class.
iv. For the next or final draft, part of the grade is based on these issues.
3. Return drafts with your comments; give students time to begin revising; walk around and answer
questions.
4. Toward end of term, ask students to bring in all their work with comments from you and peers and
write an analytical reflection about themselves as writers/scholars and what they will be working
on through the rest of this term and beyond.
a. Assign points for revision, evident draft to draft, that is substantive and that addresses
specific elements.
5. See Bean 292, 313; Gottschalk & Hjortshoj 72.
Further Reference
Beaufort, Anne. College Writing and Beyond: A New Framework for University Writing Instruction.
Logan, UT: Utah State UP, 2007. Print.
Bean, John C. Engaging Ideas: The Professor’s Guide to Integrating Writing, Critical Thinking, and
Active Learning in the Classroom. 2nd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2011. Print. Note: esp.
Chapters 14, 15, 16, & p. 6~86, 196~201.
Gottschalk, Karen, and Keith Hjortshoj. The Elements of Teaching Writing: A Resource for Instructors in
All Disciplines. Boston: Bedford St. Martin’s, 2004. Print. Note: esp. Chapters 3, 4, 6.
Hedengren, Beth Finch. A TA’s Guide to Teaching Writing in all Disciplines. Boston: Bedford St.
Martin’s, 2004. Print. Note: esp. Chapters 5, 10, 11, 13.
Hesse, Doug. Writing Beyond Writing Classes. University of Denver Writing Program, 2010. Web.
Hodgens, Cristin. “Comments Through a Student’s Eyes.” Harvard Writing Project Bulletin Special
Issue: Responding to Student Writing. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 2001. 3. Web.
Hubbuch, Susan M. Writing Research Papers Across the Curriculum. 5th ed. Boston: Wadsworth, 2005.
Print.
Kellogg, Ronald T., and Alison P. Whiteford. “Training Advanced Writing Skills: The Case for
Deliberate Practice.” Educational Psychologist. 44:4(2009). 250-266. Print.
Lehrer, Jonah. “GroupThink: The Brainstorming Myth.” The New Yorker. Jan. 30, 2012. Web.
Lunsford, Andrea. From Theory to Practice: A Selection of Essays. 3rd ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s,
2009. Print.
University of Delaware Writing Center. “How to Avoid the Paper Trap: Managing the Paper Load.”
WAC Clearinghouse, 2004. Web.
Across the drafts: students and teachers talk about feedback; Shaped by writing, the undergraduate
experience. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Expository Writing Program, 2005. Video.
The information on this handout came from too many sources to recall,
CWAC, Kramer, Spring 2014
writing = critical thinking
3
including conversations among faculty of Saint Mary’s College of California.
CWAC, Kramer, Spring 2014
writing = critical thinking
4