Following with my theme of teacher commentary for this week’s reviews, I also studied Melanie Sperling’s article, “Constructing the Perspective of Teacher-as-Reader: A Framework for Studying Response to Student Writing.” Sperling’s goal is to begin understanding “what constitutes reader perspective for students learning to write and how such perspectives can get construed in a high school classroom” (176). The resulting research provides an introductory framework through which additional studies can focus their theories. Sperling labels five orientations characterizing the teacher’s perspective that her research indicates are a factor in teacher-student and reader-writer dynamics. While these orientations are identified independently, Sperling also indicates the connection between them as they are not mutually exclusive.
As a teacher reads and responds to a student essay, the Interpretative Orientation helps shape her commentary. Sperling found that one of two modes of thought fall under the Interpretative Orientation influence: the teacher responds to the work through the lens of “(a) her own world experience / text knowledge / inner feelings or (b) her sense of the writer’s world experience / text knowledge / inner feelings” (183). For example, when lens (a) is influencing the commentary, the teacher might write a statement that deals with her own interpretation of the text. If lens (b) is the influence, then she might write comments that express an understanding of the student’s thoughts or feelings, such as one teacher’s response of, “Great! You’re lucky!” to a student who expresses her close relationship with her parents.
The next influence on teacher commentary is Social Orientation. There are two social group perspectives from which she will write her commentary: (a) a peer or (b) as an expert / instructor / literary scholar (183). If the teacher writes a comment relating with the student on a topic, then the it falls under type (a). One example Sperling provides is the teacher commenting that she, too, was a “roller coaster junkie.” She makes no claim to having more knowledge on the subject than the student, unlike type (b) in which she will take on a didactic role.
The analytical or emotional nature of a comment demonstrates the influence of Cognitive / Emotive Orientation on the teacher’s response. The emotional response is connected to the example for type (b) of the Interpretive Orientation in that a response demonstrating “emotional immediacy” (184) may be an exclamatory remark such as “Great!” or “Yes!” An analytic response, naturally, occurs when the teacher maintains intellectual distance and questions the writer’s thought process, rhetoric, etc.
As the teacher evaluated the texts, she responded either negatively or positively, which falls under the Evaluative Orientation. Essentially, the teacher’s comments will imply, or even explicitly state, whether or not the student’s work accomplished the intended goals.
Finally, the Pedagogical Orientation occurs when the teacher attempts to teach by “(a) changing or correcting the writer’s ideas / text (language, structure), (b) expanding the writer’s ideas / text, or (c) supporting the writer’s ideas / text. Such teaching attempts occur regardless of which Evaluative Orientation type influenced the teacher’s notes. For example, a positive comment would act as positive reinforcement of a concept taught in a previous lesson while a negative comment would indicate a technical error or a misconception that the teacher must reteach and / or correct.
I found Sperling’s work to be interesting, and, as she suggests later in her article, I would assume the orientations to be universal. However, this study consists of one teacher and essays from only eight students. Educators would benefit from more thorough research. Sperling does go on to break down the commentary, focusing primarily on two students at opposite ends of the spectrum in terms of their work quality, and she suggests that the teacher modified her commentary type based off of her knowledge of her students’ needs and levels. Although interesting, the limited nature of the study (my opinion against which is more harshly slanted due to having read this article after the Connors and Lunsford study consisting of 300 teachers and 3,000 papers) and what I find to be a fairly obvious conclusion that teachers differentiate their instruction leaves this article wanting. Indeed, I do agree with Sperling that additional studies must be conducted.
I, too, would be interested in what this study would look like if it were replicated. Are there reactions to student work that aren't accounted for that you've experienced, for instance? I always sort of cringe at the mention of something being "universal," because it's a risky claim to make, especially if it's a claim made by a researcher whose study consisted of such a small sample, etc. I think this study is really interesting, too. I recommend Nikki Caswell's work; she did her dissertation on the emotional reactions teachers have while assessing their students' work, and her categories go beyond the "positive" and "negative" ranges that Sperling accounted for. Caswell was able to interpret as diverse emotions as fear and skepticism, joy and frustration, for instance.
ReplyDeleteHeather,
ReplyDeleteIt’s interesting that the underlying message in this article seems to imply that as instructors, we need to practice what we preach, and not lost awareness of the reciprocal nature of feedback. Students write for an audience, and we craft responses to them as our audience. Responding as another reader allows us to give a type of non-directive feedback that might go over a little better than the angry red pen. This also allows us to foster a closer writer-reader relationship without compromising our own authority or credibility. It’s important to remember that we don’t have to be completely critical of students—it helps to know that we’re enjoying their writing as well. I think that would give them more agency as writers and communicators. I’m not sure if you’re reading the Carmen Kynard article for this week’s review, but that one also provides insight on the value of the instructor as reader role. If you’re interested in this topic, I’d suggest a look at that one!