Audio commentary question
I mentioned a couple of weeks ago that I'm experimenting with providing audio commentary on students' drafts this quarter. For their first project, I responded with both extensive written commentary and fairly-extensive audio commentary. It took a lot of time, but I wanted students to experience both forms of response.
For their second project, I gave them this option: either written commentary alone, or audio with minimal written commentary. Out of two classes, only four students chose the first option. So I'm thinking they really like the audio.
One glitch, though: I was talking to a senior colleague about the whole audio thing, and she didn't seem to be too keen on it. Her main objection was what she called "a literacy issue"--she said that students should have to get used to reading/interpreting instructors' written comments on their writing.
Hmmm. Does this colleague just have a very limited, print-centric conception of literacy? Or is she just anti-technology? Or does she have a point?
posted by Deb @ 11:48 AM
16 comments
16 Comments:
Not that I have any particular citation in mind, but my impression of the literature on commenting is that students don't necessarily make much of written comments: seems like the key thing is to find strategies that get them writing and thinking. It doesn't make sense (with all due respect to sr colleague) to treat comments as a genre that need to be learned.
Oh, well-said, Susan! Thank you!
Hmm. I think this is tricky because I do agree that students must learn to read and interpret comments; after all, reading and responding to data is what college writing is about. And I believe that the problems many students suffer from are a direct result of the audio and video method of receiving information (and often in a fragmented way).
On the other hand, I think it's important to reach the students in whatever avenue you can.
Michelle
For what it's worth, I think that the value of using audio comments will be in getting the students to slow down and engage in their writing. It will be interesting to hear how you feel their writing practices have changed by the end of the semester.
I'm not certain that the teacher's comments on papers is a place to worry about literacy, and I say that somewhat humorously, knowing that my handwriting is just awful. It's just that more and more, I've been taken with the idea of finding ways for the students to engage with their own text beyond the cursory proofing. I suppose I should toddle off to my own blog and write about it.
If comments and our own written reaction to students are not a place to be concerned about literacy, I'm not sure where it is. Perhaps a better definition of "literacy" may be needed.
To me, it means, be literate. Be fluent in reading basic language. I'm interested in communicating and finding ways to reach students, but I am not interested in providing crutches.
Michelle
I don't view trying to reach students in whatever they are reachable as providing crutches. In fact, to me, that's a sign of a very astute teacher. What's the difference between having one-on-one consultations with students either in class or in office hours and providing audio comments to them to respond to their writing?
Deb, when the semester is over and you have time to breath, would you write some more about this? I'm curious about exactly how much time it took for you to do each paper, what kinds of comments you made, and how the technique has affected overall drafting habits.
Joanna--Sure, I'd be glad to do that!
Michelle and Ing--The crutch thing is interesting, because I suspect that's exactly what my senior colleague was thinking: that I'm somehow making it too easy for students when I respond orally instead of in writing. I don't know, though. Some fine teachers I know respond *only* through conferences, and, as Ing says, the audio comments seem like an extension of a conference.
Another thing: Sometimes I worry that students aren't even reading my written comments anyway! Are students more likely to listen instead? I'm not sure--I should ask them!
I'd be interested in knowing how your tone of voice affects their reactions.
Yes, good point, Joanna. I've had students post reactions to the audio commentary on our class discussion board. Many of them mentioned that they liked being able to "hear a real voice." One student said she didn't realize how good her paper was until she listened to my response (even though she'd *read* my response first!).
I think you should respond in whatever way you think is best for your students. Since teachers' comments are likely to vary (as a genre) from discipline to discipline and even class to class, it isn't necessarily a genre that can be learned all at once anyway.
Does it take longer to record the comments? I had a colleague who used to do this on tape, and she said she spent half an hour to forty minutes per paper by recording the comments.
Undine--When I first started doing the audio, it *did* take longer--mainly because I was still typing a lot of my comments too. (Just couldn't help it, for some reason.)
Now I'm not typing nearly as much--just making shorthand notes to myself on a separate sheet of paper, which I then refer to when I do the recording. It's going faster this way, even slightly faster than when I did typed comments alone.
I feel like I'm breaking into a private teacher's conference, but here is a student's perspective. I have not had a teacher provide audio comments before. It has been a very positive experience. I now look at my writing in a different way (and appreciate the writing process more). I wish more teachers had a passion for the subject they taught and tried to pass that passion on like Deb has.
I don't think there is a right or wrong. I think that teachers make stuff work. The teacher who says recording isn't the way to go is really saying, "I don't want to make recording work." This is a huge revelation for me as an English teacher. The teacher likes what she likes; then she makes it work. That is not right or wrong. If you make it work, it's right. When considering right or wrong one should always keep this "truth" in mind. There are probably general principles that are being applied when things work (the teacher cares about the students, the student get lots or practice and feedback etc, but otherwise anything goes.
These students have plenty of teachers who only leave written comments so I feel their learning of written critique is not in jeopardy.
The audio commenting appeals to the auditory learner while your choice of audio/written comments doesn't cut off the visual learners. Auditory learners often fall behind since they struggle with any reading material as well as any feedback. To combat this, teachers sometimes ask students to meet with them to go over the paper. Your solution is the same, just recorded.
Interpretting critique through aural devices is hardly taught in undergrad, but it is expected to be mastered by grad school when students are required to answer to a board or oral exam.
Your colleague certainly has a point: your students need to able to read, including criticism on their own work. What your colleague didn't say was what you were teaching your students also needs to be learned, and often isn't taught.
Hey, where are you? You haven't posted in a long time. Is everything ok?
Post a Comment
<< Home