Curt's reflective response on error correction debate

Ken Hyland’s book Second Language Writing (2003) discusses various attributes and some potentially troublesome aspects of each form of teacher written feedback. I find in my own teaching experiences that I tend to rely more heavily on the rubric in written form of feedback as a method of structuring the objectivity of evaluation; the students have clear access to the rubric well in advance of the writing assignment. Rubrics have long been a staple within the K-12 educational pedagogical curriculum and instructional model both in the United States as well as in many nations abroad. They are very adaptable to the assessment needs of classroom teachers, district requirements, and state standards. My favorite attribute of using well formulated rubrics is that they provide clearer communication as to what the teacher expectations are before rather than after the fact, grade. I have found that the use of rubrics help the English 101 students in their transition into college because they are so adapted to them during their K-12 educational experiences. However, in problematizing the use of rubrics, I have found that rubrics that are poorly or haphazardly made as well as good rubrics that are somehow misapplied can be troublesome for both teachers and students. This is why I customize each rubric to fit the evaluative criteria of larger projects. As I explain the rubric for a given project, I check for student understanding and even at times have invited some input on a particular project from students which in turn requires adjustments to the rubric. In fact, I had adjusted my power point presentation rubric due in part to both adaptions to the text used, Grassroots Writing Research Journal and some student input. The rubric itself is posted in the digital reserve. Another problem is the over reliance on the use of rubrics on the part of the teacher as well as an overdependence on their availability on the part of the student. Rubrics became popular near the dawn of the Industrial Age as an attempt to adapt education to rigors of regularity and even conformity of industrial employment. This regularity comes at the expense of creativity and originality on the part of the students. So in balance, I present the smaller assignments without a rubric, but still with expressed expectations so the students can still understand the expectations and still feel safe to experiment with its forms and/or content a little. Rubrics are interesting in that a teacher can utilize and problematize them at the same time. Verbal feedback in the form of teacher-student conferencing was also discussed by Hyland. I use this interactive form of one to feedback on individual specifics as well as some classroom interactive commentary on the more generalized trends that are occurring in student work. Both the positive and critical elements of the feedback are constructively framed in a here is how it is working well and how to fix what is not working. I have positive responses from students since they want to know how to succeed within the parameters of each project and paper. Hyland states, “The most successful conferences are those in which students are active participants, asking questions, clarifying meaning, and discussing their papers rather than passively accepting advice” (Hyland, 2003: 192). This is perhaps one of the cornerstones of the educational process itself. However, Hyland raises a valid point that can problematize teacher-student interactions with a particular concern with second language students. Hyland states in the following: “While learners have the opportunity to get individual attention and fully discuss their writing face-to-face with their teacher, second language students are not always in a good position to make the most of this. Conferences differ considerably from the typical classroom situation, and some students may lack the experience, interactive abilities, or aural comprehension skills to benefit. Some learners have cultural inhibitions about engaging informally with authority figures, let alone questioning them (Goldstein and Conrad, 1990), and this can result in students passively incorporating the teacher’s suggestions into their work without thought” (Hyland, 2003, 193). Again, the teacher needs to tailor the form of conferences to fit the functionality that the conferences are to serve. For example, specific project conferences differ from midterm or final course conferences, both of which needs to be thoughtfully planned. The third broad area that Hyland discusses in chapter seven is the use of peer review. In examining the use of peer review, a sense of evenly distributed student cohesiveness within the classroom is a prerequisite for its effective use beyond the most superficial of levels. In L2 classrooms, this interactive approach can seem to be so alien of pedagogy that the problems generated will outweigh the possible benefits. I have used this approach sparingly because even when students embrace it, they still tend to focus on surface level forms with generalized statements. To teach students how to go beyond that, the peer review skills become the content of the class displacing time needed for the subject content. In many cases, students resist the acceptance of the use of peer review. The use of classroom peer review certainly has it merits beyond the workshop types of classes of the creative humanities curriculum, but such a type of peer interaction can be problematized in so many ways, including a cultural resistance of second language learners. Teaching experiences in working with key critical issues within the context of English as a second language writing class are shared by Dana Ferris in his article, “Myth 5: Students must learn to correct all their writing errors” (Ferris, 2008: 90-114). Farris outlines a “what we can do” list that truly makes sense quite often for the English as a first language writers as well as a definite list to consider while teaching English as a second language classes. In all, Ferris concludes that good effective writing takes time and it should be valued enough to prompt one to take time for it, and this includes the editing as well. Both the writing and revision processes should be allocated a greater amount of time resources and utilize proofreading strategies as well. Ferris even suggests allowing others to proofread their work as assistance to their own proofreading as having another of eyes reading the text for a first time. Ferris brings in applicable writing and editing strategies and presents them in a clear manner that can be effectively used in a variety of writing instructional situations. Both authors have brought teaching strategies that are helpful in teaching a skill that is notoriously difficult for many teachers to teach and most students to learn.