Teachers use many different types of marking styles and comments when they mark a paper. The variety and use of these styles and comments can make understanding a paper very confusing for a student that has several different teachers and courses. Even within a discipline there is no one set of rules or standards for marking a paper. While the type of course can determine the values that a paper is marked on, the comments that a teacher gives have no such boundaries.
The comments that a teacher gives determines the future work of a student. If one item in particular is paid attention to then the student will probably concentrate on that problem for the next paper. If a problem is not noted then the student will miss out on having a chance to fix the problem in later papers. Knowing how teachers use comments and the format that they are used in can provide a student with an invaluable tool. A tool that can allow the student to decipher the ideas that the teacher is trying to put across.
According to Nancy Sommers, in her article "Responding to Student Writing," "commenting on student writing is the most widely used method for responding to student papers." As such, this paper is going to look at what a student and teachers have to say about the comments put onto papers. This will help show just what the two views are on the subject and the feelings that surround it. The breakdown of teacher comments into how, why and where they are used should help students understand the comment system that teachers use and what they really mean when they write something. This will all be compared with what other experts in the field have said about this topic.
The literature and research available on the topic of teacher comments on student papers at the university level is mostly directed to the educator, in the form of advice, who is giving the comments. This literature offered an effective contrast to our own research because we evaluated teacher comments, not as the person attempting to give helpful comments, but as the student receiving the comments. In our research we attempted to find patterns in teacher comments made on numerous English papers at different levels of a university education. Our objective was to discover whether teacher expectations were reflected in the comments they made on student papers. The most relevant article we found was "Teacher’s Rhetorical Comments on Student Papers," by Robert Connors and Andrea Lunsford, because its purpose was the same as ours; to discover patterns in teacher comments. Unfortunately, their study did not separate papers into different levels (first to fourth year in a university education) as ours did, but we still arrived at some similar conclusions. The other articles we examined, "Responding to Student Writing," by Nancy Sommers, and "Students’ Reactions to Teacher Comments: An Exploratory Study," by Richard Straub, are written as advice to teachers. These articles suggest which teacher comments students find most useful. It is interesting to note the number of comments made on our sample of student papers, especially at the first year level, that would be classified as not helpful according to Straub’s article.
In their article, "Teacher’s Rhetorical Comments on Student Papers," Robert Connors and Andrea Lunsford provide a history of the use of teacher comments on student papers. Before the 1950s, the response a teacher would make to student paper involved correcting errors, possibly editing, and then assigning the paper a grade. In 1951, Jeffery Fleece suggested that teachers consider themselves to be a real audience to student papers and "should react to the content in some way, to guarantee the student’s continued confidence in his interest" (203). By the mid-1950s, the expectation that teachers adopt the role of "real" audience to their students’ papers, and respond to essays with long personal comments, was becoming expected.
In 1991, Connors and Lunsford, along with twenty-six experienced writing teachers, examined a collection of 3000 student papers with the intention of evaluating the teacher comments made on the papers. Their study was particularly interested in examining "global comments," which were defined as "general evaluative comments found at the end or the beginning of papers" (206). The study also included margin comments that were not related to formal or mechanical problems. The study was not interested in examining comments, margin or final, that dealt with formal error, such as grammar, punctuation, spelling, syntax, etc. What the study was interested in examining was comments that addressed rhetoric structure, general success, development of writing, "mastery of conventional generic language, and other large-scale issues" (206). In other words, what did teachers have to say in response to the content of the student paper, or the formal and mechanical errors that specifically had to do with the way the paper was written. The numerical results of the study were summarized and recorded on a table (appendix A).
Connors and Lunsford discovered that comments have "certain patterns and genres that they tend to fall into" (210). The most common pattern found in global comments, 42% of all terminal and initial comments, were comments that began with something positive, and then ended with something negative. The next most common pattern found, 23% of comments, were comments that began by critiquing some part of the student’s writing and then made positive comments dealing with the effective aspects of the paper. The least common method of teacher commenting, only 9% of all terminal and initial comments involved pure praise and positive comments. These comments were almost completely exclusive to A-level papers.
Connors and Lunsford’s study found that the majority of teacher comments were in two general areas. The first, and most common, type of comment was response about the effectiveness, or lack, of supporting details, evidence, and/or examples. The second type of teacher comments focused on overall paper organization and thematic coherence. Comments about the purpose of the essay and comments that mentioned tone or voice were rare in this study.
The study found that out of the comments that focused on mechanical and formal errors, the most commonly noted feature was sentence structure, followed by paragraph structure, and finally, general paper format.
In general, this study did not find a decisive pattern to teacher comments on student papers at the university level. The results showed that teachers varied in length, style of commenting (order of positive and negative remarks), and what individual teachers felt was important to address in the comments. However, the study was able to offer numerical data that which showed the patterns of the majority of teachers.
In her article, "Responding to Student Writing," Nancy Sommers addresses the purpose of teacher comments on student papers. She states that "commenting on student writing is the most widely used method for responding to student papers [and] it is the least understood" (148). Comments communicate to the student what needs to be revised or changed in their writing for the next draft or paper. Sommers believes that the absence of comments sends the message to students that they do not need to revise their text because their meaning has been communicated effectively to the audience.
Sommers points out problems that may result from teacher comments on student papers. First, she states that students may make changes to their paper that they do not feel are necessary, simply because they are suggested by the teacher. This may result in a paper that is not composed of the student’s words, but rather states what the teacher is asking the student to say.
Sommers also suggests that the wording used in teachers’ comments is not always clear; the student can not always separate what the most important problem in his/her paper is from the less important problems in the paper. When a student receives the comment, "Check your commas and semi-colons and think more about what you are thinking about" (151), how does he/she know where the most important error is in their paper? This particular teacher comment places grammatical errors on the same level as the purpose of the paper.
Sommers also states that another problem with teacher comments on student papers "is that most teachers’ comments are not text-specific and could be interchanged, rubber-stamped, from text to text" (152). These comments are vague and, Sommers suggests, not especially useful to students. In order for a comment to be useful, it must be specific to the text it is dealing with.
Sommers concludes by stating that, for the most part, "teachers do not respond to student writing with the kind of thoughtful commentary which will help students to engage with the issues they are writing about or which will help them think about their purposes and goals in writing a specific text" (154). Teachers should not comment with the intention of fixing a student’s writing, but rather with the goal of helping the student clarify their own ideas and convey these ideas in a coherent manner.
Richard Straub, in his article, "Students’ Reactions to Teacher Comments: An Exploratory Study," addresses "which comments students find most useful and why" (91) in regards to teachers’ comments on student papers. To answer this question, Straub makes use of three claims proposed by various researchers who have studied student reactions to teacher comments: (1) students do read and make use of teacher comments, (2) students realize that there are different kinds of comments and find some more helpful than others, and (3) comments that are specific to the student’s particular piece of writing, and demonstrate teacher involvement in what the paper has to say, are appreciated by students.
Straub’s research shows that students prefer that teacher comments be explicitly expressed. Students do not want to question what the teacher is actually saying and, therefore, clarity in commenting is preferred. It has been demonstrated through various studies that students do not find "traditional teacher responses" (94), such as editing symbols, abbreviations, cryptic marks and comments ("Frag," "not clear," "tighten"), helpful in their writing. Students want comments to be clear and specific.
Students agree that two types of comments are helpful: (1) comments that suggest ways of making improvements, and (2) comments that explain why something is good or bad in their writing. Studies have also shown that students use and appreciate comments that tell them what they have done well. Students also expect, through teacher comments, to be told what needs improvement in their writing.
Straub’s research found that, although students seemed to appreciate comments on all areas of their writing, "they were sensitive about comments on the quality of there ideas and resisted comments that [dealt] with matters that [went] beyond the scope of the ideas that they [had] on the page" (111). A student’s ideas in a paper often represent their own personal involvement in the essay topic. To correct a student’s ideas would be equivalent to removing them from the paper. Returning to Sommers’ ideas, the paper would be composed of ideas that the teacher had, rather than the ideas of the student.
In general, Straub found that the most helpful teacher comments made on student papers took on the form of advice and explanation. Clarity and specificity were important to students, as was the impression that the comments were offered as help, and not as directions.
The types of comments that teachers use when marking a paper can be broken down into four categories: Body, margin and end comments and a category called teacher preference. There are very few exceptions to how these groups are used.
Body comments are those comments that are found right within the body of the paper. Perhaps one of the most confusing types of comments teachers use. Teachers will use anything from checkmarks to underling to little scratch marks to try and put a point across. Generally the marks are denoting grammar problems. However, what the teacher is trying to say is not always made clear. As there is little space to write between the lines, teachers generally just make their mark or abbreviation and move on to the rest of the paper. This assumes that the student can read the teacher’s mind and determine what he or she did wrong; as in the following example.
The most numerous types of comments are the margin comments. The comments are the most wide-ranging and precise of the four types. These comments deal with the most items in the paper. Margin comments deal with problems in the argument, source problems, teacher compliments and, if the student is really lucky, grammar problems. Teachers feel free to scribble all over the margins of a paper pointing out the faults as they happen. This can be very useful for a student that goes back over the paper and reads the comments. Point by point, the student sees just where he or she went wrong and the teacher’s quick fix solution to it.
The comments that teachers put at the end of the paper read like an after action report. This is one of the first places that a student will generally flip to in order to find out their mark. As such this is where it would normally be expected that the teacher would put their most valuable comments. Knowing that the student will be looking at this point in the paper, it would only make sense to focus on this area to provide the most valuable insight into the student’s paper. This does not appear to be the case. Most of the comments that we looked at had short terse comments that spoke either very broadly about the paper as a whole, or talked about one very narrow point in the paper.
Out of these three types of marking areas that teachers use, only the margin comments have any real use for the student. The rest of the comments are just so much wasted space. But these are not the only methods that teachers use to mark their papers. One such difference would be Dr. Later. For her lower level courses she uses an evaluation sheet (see appendix B). She justifies the use of these sheets by saying that they help the student understand how the marks for the paper are broken down. This way the student understands exactly how she weights each individual component of the paper: grammar, paragraph transition, etc. Like end comments, this allows the teacher to give some more generalities about the paper as a whole. It also allows the teacher to comment on each component that she marks. While this method is does allow for greater comment on the paper, it also begs the question of how an idea that a student has put onto paper can be broken down into sub-components and marked. It seems to be contradictory to the whole idea of writing paper.
The comments that we looked at on the papers we collected were broken down into four categories: comments on argument or logic, grammar, sources and compliments to the student. In lower level papers it was found that comments on the logic of the paper and compliments to the student outweighed the other two categories. As can been seen in the graph below it appears that at the lower level teachers find it more important to work on the student’s ability to think logically and make sure that they receive encouragement for their efforts. This makes a certain amount of sense. At the early levels of university most students do not know how to form their own arguments. At the high school level it was more important for students to be able to regurgitate what their teachers taught them. At the university level students now have to think for themselves and back up what they have learned.
While learning how to make their own arguments, many students can become discouraged and without proper support may decide just to quit altogether. One only has to look at the fantastic drop-out rate after first and second years to see this born out. Granted, that there are many other reasons for student drop-out’s, but it can be assumed that poor morale may have something to do with it. Dr. Later tries to ensure that when she grades a paper that at least half of the comments that she makes are positive. Even if she has to go back over the paper again to find nice things to say.
As can be seen in the chart below, the ratio of comments changes at the upper level. The comments seem to balance out between logic, grammar and source comments. What changes drastically are the compliments. Compliments to student’s papers drops significantly at the upper level. Teachers appear to take a more balanced approach to what kinds of comments that they make. One reason for this is that teachers are no longer looking to improve students in any one area. Teachers expect that students have picked up enough knowledge and experience by this point that teachers no longer need to worry about any area specifically. While teachers may feel that they no longer need to work on the tools that they have given the students, they have forgotten that they may still need appropriate encouragement. Just because students have made it to the upper level does not mean that they have over come any anxiety that they may have had with their writing. It is still the teacher’s responsibility to ensure that the student knows when they have done something right, not just when they have done something wrong.
The educators that were interviewed for the purpose of this study put forth some insight and expectations into the way they mark upper and lower level students. The professors that we interviewed were: Dr. Will Garrett-Petts, Dr. Genevieve Later, and Dr. Peter Murphy. One of the major issues that we found pertinent to our study, was the importance of grammar in an English paper. From all the educator’s interviewed, they all seemed to have the same basic opinion about grammar; the importance of grammar differs from a lower level paper to an upper level paper. The general consensus is that English University professors feel that grammar is something that should have been taught before the student enters university. Dr. Garrett-Petts states that grammar is something that is useful as a back up or for international students, but there is no evidence that it is useful to be taught at this level. Knowing about, is not always knowing how. Dr. Later expects that grammar should have been learned before having reached the university level. She admits that while she doesn’t teach grammar, she believes that 90% of the other first year professors do teach grammar. The reason that she does not teach grammar is because it doesn’t necessarily help the writing. She wants students to look at the big picture, the paper as a whole, and how it develops. Unless a grammar problem is constantly reoccurring, then she won't bother marking for it.
In contrast to this theory, Dr. Garrett-Petts says, that writing is a developmental skill, and it is not something that can be taught. He states that grammar does not necessarily improve with direct instruction. When consistent feedback is given, the student will slowly learn from his/her mistakes and develop his/her own writing skills based on practice. Dr. Murphy is not obsessive when it comes to grammar, but it will effect a student’s grade if there are many mistakes. As Dr. Later does, he takes a holistic approach when marking a paper, focussing more on grammar for the lower level students.
We found that the use of checkmarks was fairly consistent when looking at a variety of different marking patterns. Dr. Garrett-Petts uses checkmarks as a form of acknowledgement. If something makes sense and is solidly constructed, he will use a checkmark and sometimes a double checkmark. Check marks also signify a response that is taking place at that moment in the paper. The use of checkmarks in a paper is something that Dr. Later does not use. She would like to use checkmarks, but is afraid that students may misunderstand what she means when she uses them. The same thing can be said about underlining. Dr. Later believes underlining to be a lazy way of marking which can be misleading. She admits that she used underlining to help her keep track of the flow of the argument, but finds that it often confuses students. Dr. Murphy often finds that he uses checkmarks as a way of saying, "good point". He feels it adds to the comment, but does not want the student to misinterpret the checkmark as a grade tally. In other words, the number of checkmarks a student receives does not add up to their grade on the paper.
We also noted a significant difference between margin comments and end comments. Dr. Garrett-Petts believes that margin comments are a reaction to the work in progress and are associated with particular problems related to the work. Normally he doesn’t draw attention to an error if it happens once, but if the error is consistent throughout the paper, it is noted in the margin. This signifies that it is an error that really needs attention and feedback.
In making comments about the paper, Dr. Later has four possible areas for making comments: In the body of the paper, in the margins, at the conclusion of the paper or on one of her evaluation sheets (see appendix B). Body comments are often used if there is a trend happening in the paper, such as continuing misuse of colons or other things. Margin comments are used to talk about issues or topics raised in the paper. End comments are used, by Dr. Later, to sum up what she has said about the paper as a whole. She also deals with any outstanding problems at this point. The grading worksheet (refer to appendix B), is intended to show what exactly went wrong and where the student lost marks in a way that a student can understand. She has not had any complaints about this method, but admits that it has its faults. Dr. Later feels that it is impossible to break a paper down into neat little categories that can be easily marked. By using these categories, the value of the paper is deformed. While she does believe that this method helps more than it harms, she does not use it at the upper level because she feels that students at that level can understand where she is deducting marks from without the sheet.
Dr. Murphy’s response was very similar to those of the other professors interviewed. He believes that margin comments are used as a reaction to the work in progress. He sees the paper as a living entity; therefore the reactions should be traced and recorded as the reader responds to the material. He also feels that margin comments are a way to engage the ideas as they develop. The final comment is simply a way of pulling all of the comments together and summing them up into a short paragraph.
The use of positive and negative feedback are usually a concern for most university students. Dr. Garrett-Petts states that feedback is an invitation for the student to follow up on his/her progress. In many cases, not all feedback can be written on a student paper. Dr. Garrett-Petts admits that when he first started teaching, he spent a generous amount of time writing a fair number of comments and feedback on student papers. What he found was that the students were not reading all of his margin and end comments and in the end, it was a waste of time. He finds that it is more effective to for his feedback process to be supplemented by further discussion. In addition, a better teaching relationship is produced. While he admits that negative comments are not judgments, positive feedback is genuine that sometimes takes work, but most of the time it doesn’t.
Dr. Later is a teacher who has put much thought into the way that she marks and how it may effect students. She believes that critical comments should be three quarters positive and about one quarter negative. Although she admits that she is fairly evenly balanced in the way she marks; about fifty-fifty either way, it is easier for teachers to just mark things wrong than to worry about building up the student’s confidence. If Dr. Later feels that there is not enough positive feedback in a paper, she is willing to go back over a paper and find more positive things to say about the paper.
Dr. Murphy, like most professors, is also a teacher who invites the student to follow up on feedback, although he admits that not many do. His feedback tends to differ from lower level to upper level. In first and second year, the student is usually developing a pattern or style of writing. He tends to mark the student’s first paper generously, but he expects improvement on the following papers. Generally in third and fourth year, the student’s writing skills are under control and he starts to expect some critical thinking and argument to take place in the paper.
After comparing teacher comments on first and second year papers to third and fourth year papers, some interesting differences were noticed. Just as our research suggests, the first year papers, in particular, tend to focus on grammar and structure. These comments pertain to fragmented sentences, spelling, punctuation, etc. The comments on the first year papers did not give the student recommendations for improvement or suggestions. The third and fourth year comments, on the other hand, revealed comments pertaining to explanations, voice, style, interpretation, and specific suggestions.
A fourth year English major was also interviewed to see if her experience with teacher response differed between upper and lower level courses. From her experience, she found that first year professors are generally looking for grammar, the development of ideas, and they are more focussed on the structure of the paper. In third and fourth year, the focus was more on interpretation of ideas. The professor wants to see the student look at the subject from all angles and how the topic relates to what other authors and critics have said about the same topic. She finds that teacher comments are very helpful. She uses the comments on her first paper to improve on her next papers. She admits that she values the comments made on upper level papers more than she did her lower level papers. Comments that are not helpful are ones that are not legible and she finds it very frustrating when teachers do not expand on comments. The most common of these is the word "awkward". When this word is used beside a sentence or paragraph, it is very unclear to the student what is meant by it.
While she admits that some professors are not approachable, it is much easier to approach a professor in third and fourth year than it is in first or second year. She states that if a professor uses the word "awkward" on her paper, she will approach the professor and ask, "Why is this awkward"? This is something that she felt too intimidated to do in her first and second year at university. Incidentally, she found that the most constructive criticism is usually given on upper level papers. These comments indicate to the student how they can change or improve something to make the paper better. This relates to Straub’s research, which shows that students prefer that comments be explicitly expressed.
Sometimes, in lower level courses, the professor comments to the student how he/she can improve the paper, but they are not given the opportunity to do so. The student we interviewed states, that from her experience, many professors will allow the student to re-write a paper in third and fourth year if it is not done to their liking the first time. This gives the student an opportunity to improve his/her grade, and to improve his/her writing skills. This process often makes more sense to students because they are able to exercise their improved writing ability.
From the research that we have done and interviews that we have conducted, it is evident that university professors should have some standardization of marking relevant to each particular discipline. This standard style of marking should include comments that suggest ways of improvement, clarity, positive feedback, and constructive criticism. Students usually take teacher comments very seriously and they are found to be extremely helpful too.
We would also recommend that teachers focus less on formal or mechanical problems, such as grammar, and focus more on content and style of writing. We all agree that grammar and punctuation is something that improves with practice and unless mechanical errors become a repetitive problem, it should not be focused on as much, especially in first year studies. In fact, these problems are what our research suggests and we are sure that most students would agree with the recommendations that we have presented. Overall, students should come away with the knowledge necessary to cope with teacher comments and understand them better. This will allow students to get the most from teachers’ comments and hopefully teachers will learn just what it is that they put their students through when they write their comments.