Responding to "Responding to Student Writing"

                Nancy Sommers analyzes the revision process teachers undertake when proofreading a students text in her article, “Responding to Student Writing.” According to research conducted by Sommers and her colleagues, Lil Brannon and Cyril Knoblach, a common malpractice for teachers is to establish criteria that inhibits the natural progression of ideas of the students in order to better assimilate faculty demands. This process can be described as appropriating and can lead to contradictory statements that confuse the sense of purpose of the writer.

                 Ideally, comments provided by teachers should be essential for the writer to understand gaps in his logic and subsequently reevaluate his expression of ideas; they should “Dramatize the presence of a reader” and offer assistance during a malleable window of the writing process. What Sommers discovered instead was that these comments were mostly made on behalf of grammar or structural mistakes and could easily be interchanged between papers. For the most part, they distract the writer from doing actual writing and hinder idea development. Generic comments also misplace the priority of writing by making the author focus on a minor issue like grammar over the meaning of the text.   

                Sommers argues against a variety of established norms when it comes to the way teachers revise a student’s paper. Her biggest complaints have to do with focusing on the individual parts of a text rather than as a unit of discourse. What Sommers suggests then, is for teachers to approach a text without bias and help students develop their argument rather than replace it. Her theories are particularly helpful not only for teachers grading papers but for students undergoing peer review. 

Sommers, Nancy. “Responding to Student Writing.” College Composition and Communication 33.2 (1982): 148-156. Web.