Ideas in Practice: Developmental Writers' Attitudes toward Audio and Written Feedback

Writing instructors are well aware of the benefits of individualized instruction in helping students overcome problems inherent in their essays (Carnicelli, 1980; Sweeney, 1999). To that end, some developmental writing teachers devote an enormous amount of time meeting with students in face-to-face conferences or tutoring sessions. More frequently, though, writing instructors offer students individualized instruction in the form of handwritten margin and endnotes on their essays. Despite the potential benefits of this commentary method, many writing instructors know the frustrations of handwritten notes that go unread or are misinterpreted or ignored by students during the revision process (Burkland & Grimm, 1986; Sommers, 1999; Sperling & Freedman, 1987). Even if the notes are read, interpreted correctly, and attended to in revision, some developmental writers could fail to internalize the commentary in ways that allow them to incorporate new techniques or writing suggestions into drafts of subsequent papers.Participants in this pilot study are basic writers in a developmental composition class. The qualitative study examines student perceptions about and effectiveness of audio commentary, a method whereby the instructor provides students with recorded, verbal feedback regarding strengths and weaknesses in their writing.Related LiteratureAlthough audio commentary has been employed by a limited number of composition instructors for several years, there is not an extensive body of literature on the method nor has large-scale research been previously conducted on its use in developmental writing classes. Nevertheless, several important articles regarding its use in college composition classes provide developmental educators with some insight into the potential usefulness or shortcomings of the method when used with basic writers.In his case study of one college composition student's drafts and revisions, Sommers (1989) examines the use of audio commentary on student writing, focusing primarily on the ways the method benefits instructors. By analyzing his response to a series of papers and the students' subsequent revisions, the author argues compellingly that "tape-recorded comments" allow instructors to offer "individualized instruction" (p. 71) in more detail than handwritten commentary. Sommers reports in this article, however, that students' attitudes toward the method have not yet been studied.Sommers (2002) continues his investigation into the ways audio commentary promotes effective teaching and writing. In part, he asserts that the method heightens students' awareness of the reader (in this case the instructor) in ways that written comments do not. With audio commentary, he contends,Students thus not only engage in an act of "reading" their reader's response but also engage in a dialogue with that reader, with their own texts, with themselves. They may still end up with a draft that has scribbles all over it, but the scribbles are in their own handwriting, the product of their own interpretation of what they have heard, (p. 185)Audio commentary may be especially useful in 2-year college composition classes where the student population could potentially include writers at the highest and lowest ends of the skills level spectrum (Mellen & Sommers, 2003). The method offers writers a "safety barrier.that provide [s] a safer distance for students to hear critiques of their work" (p. 37). Although there can be significant differences between developmental writers and college composition students-even those at 2-year, open-admission colleges-there are similarities that make the technique particularly relevant to developmental educators.Anson (1997; 1999) argues that, in his experience, the use of audio commentary helped him to achieve a "social dimension.that had been less present in my short, often corrective written remarks," thus making his commentary more personal and less abrasive to the student. …