Sommers Summary

            Nancy Sommers comments on the faults of teachers commenting in student writing throughout the article entitled “Responding to Student Writing”.  Summers argues that comments are important for the writer in order for them to understand flaws in their writing, and moments in which they did not adequately communicate their message with the reader. Without any comments the writer may overlook certain sentences that only make sense to the author, but not the audience. Sommers views how teachers critique student essays yet how these critiques are done in a counterproductive ways. She attempts to portray to the reader that the generic, widely accepted revision of essays should be replaced with one that does not affect the student’s writing progress.

            To show the reader the inadequacy in teacher revision, Sommers produced a study. In that study she viewed, together with her associates Lil Brannon and Cyril Knoblach, the comments on first and second drafts of 35 professors at New York University and University of Oklahoma who commented on the same set of three student essays. Additionally the research group interviewed a representative number of the teachers analyzed and their students. As a reference point Sommers utilized a student essay was written into the “writer’s workbench” computer program. The aforementioned detailed methodology births various issues and limitations. The 35 teachers analyzed may not be representative of the teacher population as a whole. Additionally, surveys/interviews often aren’t accurate due to the format questions were asked in, and the population interviewed these may distort the statistics.  Finally, the computer program doesn’t understand the topic and veracity of an essay’s arguments and only edits structure and grammar, limiting its critiquing purpose.

            Through the study Sommers concludes that teachers’ comments affect a student’s writing and purpose of writing. Teachers tend to appropriate an essay, meaning that they make it theirs inputting what they wish the text would say, imposing their beliefs instead of the student’s on the writing. Additionally teachers make general comments on structure and grammar; these are counter beneficiary to the purpose of revision. Such corrections tell a student that the draft is a final draft, and should only be fixed in grammar. These two flaws disown the essays content from the student and don’t allow for the clear presentation of his ideas.  Sommers conclude there should be a new way to evaluate student’s writing which comments on ideas not grammar. I agree with her, as many times teachers’ loose comments deviate my essays from the message they try to convey initially.  Utilizing a critique to ideas will allow me to better communicate my thoughts to the audience in any essay I create.