English 5508 - Teaching Composition
The Zen of Response
Jason Hudson
Dr. T--
English 5505
October 14, 2002
In the essay entitled "Reflective Reading: Developing Thoughtful Ways to Respond to Students' Writing" Chris Anson explored several different responses to an emotionally stirring yet mechanically weak student essay. He then focuses on the different methods of reflection that take place in the teacher's mind during the period between reading a paper and writing a response.
One of my concerns as a future writing teacher is that my responses will be subject to my "mood, context, or knowledge of specific students and their writing" (McDonald 375). I know there have been occasions when I have read something that I thought was wonderful. I came back to the same text later in the week and realized problems I hadnt seem before. If I were to respond to the text on the first reading, how beneficial would my comments be? Should I work toward a more uniform system of response? Or do I allow for these external variables to influence how I treat each paper?
After reading Anson's essay, I am more conscious of the tendency to allow external variables influence my state of mind. Since a rigid system of response doesn't seem to be the answer, I feel inclined to let the words on the page dictate how I respond to each paper, striving to treat each assignment as an isolated situation. For instance, Anson mentions the tendency to allow "one paper in a group of essays [to] influence [...] subsequent judgments" (386). Instead, I would like to respond as if every student were the only one in the class. Unfortunately, I see this as an unrealistic goal. I will probably settle for some sort of middle ground between "mass-production" and "only-child" response, whatever that may be.
In light of the Anson essay, I understand more deeply just how subjective response can be. Anson mentions this fact as a catalyst for wanting to formulate a sort of system for uniformity in response. However, such a desire does not bring about an easy solution. Indeed, "it seems problematic to develop a unified set of practices for responding to a students' writing" (375). After all, response strategies must be as varied as students' needs numerous. The question becomes, "Can I effectively apply appropriate criticism to bring about constructive change in a students paper?"
One way Anson suggests this type of question to be answered is to tap into some sort of "higher consciousness" (375). My best judgment tells me that this is more that some spooky eastern mystic practice. There is little doubt that this context would decrease subjective response. Instead, Anson is saying, instead, that having a keen awareness of our propensity to allow context to influence our response will enable us to adapt our responses to specific situations (375).
Anson suggests that teachers can diminish the chances that their circumstances will affect the student's grade by splitting "their response process into different readings" (385). A "first reading" can be done anywhere, and is useful to get a holistic idea of the student's contribution. A "second reading" should be done without distraction and should accompany thoughtful response.
Thoughtful response is the key to improvement in student work. My favorite point made in the essay shows how teachers say more by writing less. Anson makes it clear that the reader must give considerable time reflecting on a student's work before writing any comments for the student to consider.
The introduction of Anson's essay begins with a simple statement: "Writers improve by being read" (374). Anson's meaning comes in the following sentence when he says that a writer's development is attributed to other people's response to their work. Since the purpose of the essay is to convey the importance of thoughtful response to students' work, a good basis for arguing Anson's point is to show the importance of response. Anson gives examples of several types of response to a particular student's submission: an account of his horrific childhood experience in communist Cambodia.
Anson talks about specific standards that come with any given discipline. When "student enter an academic discipline [...], they may not be familiar with these norms" (381). It does not follow that these norms should be bypassed under any circumstances. Yet one response to the Cambodian student's essay indicates that to clean up the errors would be to Anglicize it. So, if an essay is emotionally charged and foreign, the teacher should dismiss mechanics and usage? I think not. Although I agree that do bombard the foreign student with grammatical rules would do more harm than good, a proper response might be to show the student what works in the paper. Then, by pen-pointing areas that are strong, a teacher can move into areas that could use improvement. Further, there is always cause for a teacher to express the parts of the paper that were confusing or needed more information to clarify them.