Final Analysis
When looking at what made the final cut, some patterns start to emerge. It is easy to remember what the instructor pointed out in her conferences (format, ethos, writing), but it is a slightly more difficult task to uncover where suggestions were taken to heart or abandoned by each student. I was not going to hound the students to find out either, and, instead, I only have copies of the drafts they submitted to be graded and two responses to email interviews. Despite this limited scope, I still feel some important aspects concerning how students respond to feedback can be concluded.
During the teacher conferences, the instructor pointed out to most of the students that they needed to be more discerning when they considered what information needed to be included in a particular paragraph. While sitting in on the conferences, this theme tended to dominate the conversation, even for those writers who had improved their writing throughout the semester. Keeping single ideas in each paragraph was stressed more than other points of revision. The students whose copies I have perused certainly picked up on this, developing their paragraphs according to a one-idea-per-paragraph paradigm.
Based on Jacob’s final draft, it is evident that he spent time considering how he could implement this seemingly crucial idea the instructor suggested to him. His two introductory paragraphs set up his thesis nicely, but then, as if scared he might drift internally within the following paragraphs, he noticeably shortened the lengthier passages found in his previous draft. Instead of a paragraph that is fourteen, fifteen, and seventeen sentences long, Jacob employs shorter paragraphs with concise, clear definitions of his intended topics to be covered. His paragraphs now range between being four, five, and six short sentences in length. At times, though, the paragraphs of his previous draft were on the verge of drifting off topic, becoming too wordy, and obscuring his points. Not any more, though. His new, shorter paragraphs read almost like bullet points. Jacob had little trouble figuring out and internalizing what he felt he could control.
Jacob, of course, was not alone. Angie’s draft displays some similar paragraph considerations. Even though the draft she brought to her teacher conference was incomplete in comparison to others’ drafts, the changes that are evident point towards her determination to stick to this simple concept. The expansion of the body of her essay shows her determination to ensure each paragraph encompasses only one topic. The three paragraphs she chose to add to her essay encompass single points of emphasis, and the lengthier paragraph she added, though it could easily have been made into two paragraphs, was still focused on a single topic.
Those who did take the instructor's advice into account when revising did tend to focus on this specific point. The instructor suggested to her students numerous times to consider more thoroughly their ethos, but, on the final drafts, this advice was not heeded as readily. Jaron still found it difficult to connect his personal observations and ideas to the critical work of others. He had done the research, but it was still insufficiently used as a means of establishing his ethos on the topic of children and discipline. Erich still had trouble effectively utilizing his references. Though he regularly cited those on his reference list throughout his paper, he still had trouble explaining for readers what particular quotes meant to his topic.
All this seems to beg a very important question: why would students focus on this particular feedback topic? To answer this, we need to consider the project as a whole. The assignment itself is listed as a position paper on the course website, which signals to the students the onset of a crucial step towards understanding effective, more complex college writing. The position paper must utilize outside sources. The position paper must include library research. The position paper must tackle a controversial topic. While the requirements themselves are valuable tools for explaining what a position paper entails, the intimidation factor is high. The students, as evidenced by their peer-review session, feel a certain pressure to tear each other’s drafts apart, meaning they feel they must produce a flawless draft. Even though all of the suggestions given to them would improve their paper, the students seemed to focus on what they felt they could do well: editing and paragraphing. This might be attributed to the fact that these two revisionary practices require relatively low levels of cognitive processing in comparison to the other revisionary tactics the instructor urged her students to do. Creating an authorial ethos is complicated, requiring a balance between offering thoughtful opinions and supporting details from critical sources. This balance has no formula, and its subjective nature forces students to consider, propose, and analyze a multitude of possibilities.
In comparison, the tactics the students did focus on require less subjective responses. Deciding if a paragraph stays on topic is easier, and the role of the author appears more cut and dry to the students. I should definitely point out that the final drafts did, with varying degress of success, accomplish the goals of argumentation, but the revision processes tended to focus on what the students felt they could definitely control. At this stage of their college careers, the students were confident in their ability to consistently edit their writing for technical mistakes, which is the most objective part of writing in general. For the most part, the group of students I observed did show such an ability to technically edit their drafts, which also extended to their works cited pages (for the most part), and, after receiving the instructor's advice at the one-on-one conferences, the students felt like they could also ensure their paragraphs only covered one topic. Stretched for time, the students addressed the topics they felt they could execute, which, inevitably, excluded many of the points the instructor emphasized throughout the process. Revision, for these students was the sum of perceived ability and time.
During the teacher conferences, the instructor pointed out to most of the students that they needed to be more discerning when they considered what information needed to be included in a particular paragraph. While sitting in on the conferences, this theme tended to dominate the conversation, even for those writers who had improved their writing throughout the semester. Keeping single ideas in each paragraph was stressed more than other points of revision. The students whose copies I have perused certainly picked up on this, developing their paragraphs according to a one-idea-per-paragraph paradigm.
Based on Jacob’s final draft, it is evident that he spent time considering how he could implement this seemingly crucial idea the instructor suggested to him. His two introductory paragraphs set up his thesis nicely, but then, as if scared he might drift internally within the following paragraphs, he noticeably shortened the lengthier passages found in his previous draft. Instead of a paragraph that is fourteen, fifteen, and seventeen sentences long, Jacob employs shorter paragraphs with concise, clear definitions of his intended topics to be covered. His paragraphs now range between being four, five, and six short sentences in length. At times, though, the paragraphs of his previous draft were on the verge of drifting off topic, becoming too wordy, and obscuring his points. Not any more, though. His new, shorter paragraphs read almost like bullet points. Jacob had little trouble figuring out and internalizing what he felt he could control.
Jacob, of course, was not alone. Angie’s draft displays some similar paragraph considerations. Even though the draft she brought to her teacher conference was incomplete in comparison to others’ drafts, the changes that are evident point towards her determination to stick to this simple concept. The expansion of the body of her essay shows her determination to ensure each paragraph encompasses only one topic. The three paragraphs she chose to add to her essay encompass single points of emphasis, and the lengthier paragraph she added, though it could easily have been made into two paragraphs, was still focused on a single topic.
Those who did take the instructor's advice into account when revising did tend to focus on this specific point. The instructor suggested to her students numerous times to consider more thoroughly their ethos, but, on the final drafts, this advice was not heeded as readily. Jaron still found it difficult to connect his personal observations and ideas to the critical work of others. He had done the research, but it was still insufficiently used as a means of establishing his ethos on the topic of children and discipline. Erich still had trouble effectively utilizing his references. Though he regularly cited those on his reference list throughout his paper, he still had trouble explaining for readers what particular quotes meant to his topic.
All this seems to beg a very important question: why would students focus on this particular feedback topic? To answer this, we need to consider the project as a whole. The assignment itself is listed as a position paper on the course website, which signals to the students the onset of a crucial step towards understanding effective, more complex college writing. The position paper must utilize outside sources. The position paper must include library research. The position paper must tackle a controversial topic. While the requirements themselves are valuable tools for explaining what a position paper entails, the intimidation factor is high. The students, as evidenced by their peer-review session, feel a certain pressure to tear each other’s drafts apart, meaning they feel they must produce a flawless draft. Even though all of the suggestions given to them would improve their paper, the students seemed to focus on what they felt they could do well: editing and paragraphing. This might be attributed to the fact that these two revisionary practices require relatively low levels of cognitive processing in comparison to the other revisionary tactics the instructor urged her students to do. Creating an authorial ethos is complicated, requiring a balance between offering thoughtful opinions and supporting details from critical sources. This balance has no formula, and its subjective nature forces students to consider, propose, and analyze a multitude of possibilities.
In comparison, the tactics the students did focus on require less subjective responses. Deciding if a paragraph stays on topic is easier, and the role of the author appears more cut and dry to the students. I should definitely point out that the final drafts did, with varying degress of success, accomplish the goals of argumentation, but the revision processes tended to focus on what the students felt they could definitely control. At this stage of their college careers, the students were confident in their ability to consistently edit their writing for technical mistakes, which is the most objective part of writing in general. For the most part, the group of students I observed did show such an ability to technically edit their drafts, which also extended to their works cited pages (for the most part), and, after receiving the instructor's advice at the one-on-one conferences, the students felt like they could also ensure their paragraphs only covered one topic. Stretched for time, the students addressed the topics they felt they could execute, which, inevitably, excluded many of the points the instructor emphasized throughout the process. Revision, for these students was the sum of perceived ability and time.