73
'Most of us (teachers) learned to comment the same way that we learned
to teach: "by first surviving and then imitating the responses of teachers to our own work"' (1995:225).
Tutor B stated that the purposes were to 'justify marks given. indicate areas that need improvement and correct incorrect submissions'; and Tutor E stated: 'to show a rational connection between the student's work a.nd the mark received'. This focus on justifying grades is disappointing. suggesting that they see their purpose as mainly evaluative or judging. Therefore they are more likely to limit their responses to purely 'text-based' comments and miss the broader writing issues (Berger, 2000:76). These perceptions are likely to cause the tutor to adopt a 'gatekeeping' role (Purves, 1984:260).
Evaluative responses are more appropriate in an assessment of a final draft.
as they do not aim to engage the writer in ongoing revision.
Tutor C also emphasised negative critique in answering: 'correcting mistakes, refining writing styles', and Tutor D stated: 'to inform as to whether they need to make changes, correct spelling and grammar errors, polish arguments'.
These views appear to move toward seeing their role as diagnosing the students' errors and difficulties, regarding themselves as 'experts' or 'more experienced readers/critics' who are reading to improve the writer (Berger.
2000:75).
Almost predictably, the emphasis in the responses of Tutors A and F reflect a view that suggests 'coaching' the student writer. Tutor F states: 'Feedback that balances praise and criticism is useful in that it provides encouragement without completely demotivating them (students). It is beneficial in that it guides students and clearly indicates to them what is expected of them, where they went wrong and most important, how they can improve'. Tutor A comments: 'It helps writers improve their work and draws attention to their mistakes so that they can improve their writing skills'.
In question 7, tutors were asked what they had anticipated would be difficult about giving feedback. Their answers vary quite considerably and reveal underlying personal assumptions about the task. Some tutors expressed anxiety about their abilities: '1 am unsure how to give feedback as I had never received any feedback on my work' (Tutor C), 'I thought it would be very difficult to balance praise and criticism where I could find nothing to praise.
Fortunately, though, this wasn't a major problem in practice. The other problem I anticipated and actually experienced was in how directive I should be in providing feedback without spoon-feeding students'.
Even the legal writing experts in Enquist's study (1999: 1159-62) are divided on the extent to which a teacher should revise and edit student writing. While some believe that giving examples, and showing the student how to edit her sentences was valuable, others preferred a more limited version of editing, characterised as: 'guidance is great; doing the student's work is not'. A third group stated that editing or revising is too time-consuming, shifts the
responsibility for doing the writer's work onto the teacher, and is not helpful or effective (1999:1161).
Anxiety about students' responses to her feedback comments was expressed by Tutor D (the only tutor whose comments on the first sample were found to be unjustifiably effusive): 'whether students would take comments personally.
I was worried if they would get antagonistic- but actually they appreciate being told where they went wrong'. Tutor F also was concerned about 'ha~ing to make constructive recommendations as the students are first years and will remember the advice' - a comment that resonates with Jones's view of needing to make effective comments that 'serve the writer for the long term' (Enquist, 1 999:1147). Tutor B stated her concern in commenting on 'good scripts, where there are no errors or omissions'- an unheard of category in student writing!
Questions 8 asked respondents whether they thought that they were able to achieve the purposes or goals of feedback that they had stated previously, and this was followed by question 9, which asked how they were able to do
so, or why this was not possible.
Tutor C identified one-on-one writing conferences as the means through which she was best able to achieve the goals of feedback, which she had stated. Tutor D and Tutor B mentioned affective, personal issues: 'gain the respect of students - maintain the confidence of students, balance criticism with praise so that you don't "put them down" constantly' (Tutor D). This accords with an insightful comment made by Beaven that written responses should be based on a notion of:
'establishing a climate of trust, in which students feel free to
explore" .without fear that their thoughts will be attacked' (as cited in Lindemann, 1982:224).
Tutor B commented: 'knowing them personally, knowing their patterns of attendance', thereby suggesting that she responds to the writing behaviour, personalities and individual problems of the student writers.
In response to this question Tutors A, E and F described the styles, techniques or processes that they had developed to help them achieve their goals in giving feedback. Tutor A described how through 'giving clear and concise feedback', her students were 'receptive to the balance of positive and negative' feedback; Tutor E explained her technique of writing 'short points on scripts, and then setting out at the end exactly what was good, bad or needs to be improved'; and Tutor F found that 'giving very extensive feedback, finding the positive in every piece of work, making no negative comments unless she could suggest an improvement'; forming 'most feedback into questions, she intended to guide her students in the right direction, and not
"spoon-feed" them', Tutor F's mention of this fear of being too directive twice
suggests it was a real concern for her. 'Modelling' is not a teaching method that law students generally would be familiar with, and this possibly explains
75
the tutor's reluctance to be too explicit in providing guidance to a student writer.