Reading Response

Responses to Chi and Cobb articles:

One of the important finding was that in the drafting process, earlier drafts should focus on content while later drafts should address mechanical errors. It is very tempting to read a paper and immediately start marking it up, but it is sensical that it is a waste of time to work towards editing a text for mechanical errors if the content should be dramatically changed first.  When mechanics is addressed before content, a subliminal message is sent to students that the conceptual framework in the paper is solid. It would probably be helpful if students were explicitly told how you, as the instructor, plan to approach the drafting process, and examples of what students should be looking for should be provided.

Having students submit their text electronically can lead to a lot of positive things. I think including links in feedback to helpful sites could be very positive in that students have access to more information. However, providing links could also lead to instructor dependence much the same way that correcting every single grammar error for students does; students aren't responsible for learning how to find resources, which is a skill that needs to be taught just like the drafting process needs to be. Although, if the students are highly motivated, dependency may not become an issue.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that posing feedback in question form was cast in a negative light in our previous course when we were discussing the drafting process. . . I have found it to be valuable, but I guess this is an area where teachers disagree.