Ferguson 1
Jenny Ferguson
Dr. Tyrer
English 6380
22 October 2006
A Critique of “Improving Our Responses to Student Writing:
A Process-Oriented Approach”
In their article for The Allyn and Bacon Sourcebook for College Writing Teachers, Joanne
M. and Leonard A. Podis put forth their process-oriented approach to responding to
student writing. They warn against the use of more traditional comments from teachers
such as “awk!” and “frag.” and ask instead that teachers take a more “’deconstructionist’
approach” (Podis & Podis 366), enabling them to take apart their students’ papers and look
at their students’ underlying intentions, thus helping them in the revision process without
doing all the work for them or discouraging them with too many negative comments.
The Podises begin by introducing the findings of authors like Knoblauch and
Brannon and Nancy Sommers on the most common models for teachers’ comments. They
find that many teachers still use the more traditional method of product—rather than
process-oriented response and how more “’facilitative commentary’” (367) is needed as a
replacement. The Podises postulate that a more encouraging form of response would be far
more beneficial to students and that teachers need to look for rhetorical and structural
problems rather than just concentrating on the syntactic or grammatical errors. They call
for teachers to look at their students’ writing problems as keys to better understanding their
intentions, for both the teacher and the student. To detail the ways in which they have used
their method, the Podises decide to focus in on three specific problems they have found in
Ferguson 2
their students’ writing: “uncertainty of focus, plot summary in the critical essay, and lack
of attention to some aspect of the assignment” (371).
The Podises’ first example entails a student who started to address the writing
assignment, but then shifted away from his original purpose. The instructor, instead of
following a more traditional method of judging the paper disorganized, looked at the paper
as part of the process of discovery, a stepping stone to what the student was really
expressing. While not deeming the paper a finished product, the instructor assured the
student that his initial efforts were a good start. Because of her positive feedback, the
student was able to revise the paper into a much more organized draft with a clearer focus.
In their second example, the Podises focus on the weaknesses commonly found in
plot summaries of a critical essay on literature by students, a weakness usually deemed
“’writer-based’ prose” (369), prose in which writers borrow patterns and structures from
the material they read. Though the instructor’s initial reaction to his student’s work was
disparaging in its denouncement of plot summary substituted for interpretation, upon
speaking with the student he discovered that plot summary was an important step in her
invention process. Upon revising, the student was able to give a more critical reading to the
piece, something that would not have been possible had she not be allowed to address her
instructor and thus gain valuable feedback which she could use in revision.
The third example details a student who did not fulfill her assignment but was
allowed to revise after speaking to the instructor and finding a way to balance her two
seemingly divergent purposes. The Podises explain that when considering a paper that
does not fit the assignment, teachers must examine the student’s intention, whether they
genuinely misunderstood the instructions, or were inept, or were simply goofing off. In
Ferguson 3
this case, the student sought to please only one person as her audience (her interviewee)
while completely neglecting her original audience (her instructor). Because she was
allowed to discuss the difficulties she had in writing her paper, she was able to get helpful
feedback as to how she could accommodate both audiences and thus produce a better
paper.
Lastly, the Podises discuss other problems teachers may encounter when dealing
with student writing and how their process can help in these situations, such as the student
narrative, the student paper filled with generalities and “academese” (372), students too
concerned with the form of their assignment rather than what they have to say, digressions
in students’ writing, and, finally, repetitive ideas. They acknowledge that many teachers
have probably began to use such methods in their own teaching but that more instructors
need to adopt facilitative approaches to their own responses to student writing. They
believe that if instructors keep identifying such writing problems as they have detailed and
provide such responses as they have, teachers can begin to curb the use of “evaluative
response” (373).
While I find most of what the Podises say in response to process-oriented
commentary on student writing valuable and enlightening, I also find a few difficulties in
their concepts. I agree with giving the student comments which they can work with and
use to better their writing; however, I think too much coddling and hand-holding of
students can be detrimental. In their first example on the “’unreasonable assignment’”
(367), I agree that the student shouldn’t simply have been told that his paper lacked focus,
especially in “’mean-spirited’ marginal comments” (368), but nor should the student be told
that the paragraph is wonderful. Of course, this is not what the instructor in this case did,
Ferguson 4
but some of her response did seem as if she were cosseting the student too much. While
pointing out the beneficial lesson this paragraph taught the student, I think the instructor
should have also paid as much attention to the lack of focus instead of simply treating it as
a minor problem and, therefore, leaving the student to believe that such efforts (or lack
thereof) might be treated similarly in other classes. I think that instructors must be wary of
encouraging their students too much and thus inflating their opinion of their writing
abilities and leaving them an easy target for more blunt and less nice teachers.
Of course I’m not saying that students should be berated for every little mistake or
made to feel incompetent if they don’t get it right the first time, especially if they are able to
revise their work, but neither should they be told that their work is wonderful when it isn’t.
Giving a student too much false confidence is just as bad as nit-picking their work for every
little mistake and thus beating whatever little passion they had for writing out of them. We
must nurture our students, but we must also give them the strength and ability to stand on
their own and to take criticism when it inevitably comes.
Perhaps what is needed is a bit of both process-oriented as well as evaluative
commentary. Students need to know when they have done something wrong just as much
as they need encouragement when they’ve done something right. And while giving them
an opportunity to revise their work is a good thing, it can sometimes promote unrealistic
impressions that they will have similar chances throughout their academic careers and even
lives. However, “do-overs” are as infrequent in life as they are in traditional, productoriented writing assignments, so perhaps students should be taught that, while second
chances are sometimes possible, they should not be expected in every situation, nor in
every writing assignment.
Ferguson 5
Works Cited
Podis, Leonard A., and Joanne M. Podis. “Improving Our Responses to Student Writing: A
Process-Oriented Approach.” The Allyn and Bacon Sourcebook for College Writing
Teachers. Ed. James C. McDonald. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon, 2000.
366-73.