Improving Student Writing (a search by the University of Manitoba)

There are at least two very frustrating aspects of teaching students to write at the college level. First, many students arrive at university with poor basic writing skills. Second, no matter how much time professors spend marking and correcting student papers, very little improvement appears. The extensive research on teaching writing suggests some potential solutions to these commonly felt frustrations.

Research on student writing:

Research shows interesting similarities and differences between the practices of students and practices of expert writers. Students, for example, are taught a linear writing process: research, thesis statement, outline, writing, revision. Expert writers, on the other hand, tend to follow a more indirect or “recursive” process: research, potential thesis, more research, revised thesis, rough outline, writing, reoutline, research, rewriting, etc. Another major difference between students and experts is that experts are very familiar with the jargon and rhetoric of their special field of writing. Students, on the other hand, often jump between fields and frequently must learn new styles of writing. In their encounters with new rhetorical styles, students try, often unsuccessfully, to imitate the new style without full understanding. This imitative process can result in errors of grammar and organization. And yet, perhaps surprisingly, students are quite adept at correcting grammatical errors. Furthermore, students’ errors are similar in kind and number to those appearing in published works.

Why don’t students properly edit and revise their academic papers? One significant student difficulty is a poor understanding of the revision process. Revision, to many students, is editing: putting commas in better places, correcting spelling, finding a better (usually bigger) word, etc. Their misconception of “revision” is supported by comments that appear on returned papers correcting everything from grammatical constructions and spelling to the organization of the paper. The feedback, ironically, is often too thorough and overwhelms the students’ capacities to analyze and learn from the feedback. This effect occurs even if students receive the feedback on a “rough draft.” Numerous studies attest to the ineffectiveness of traditional commenting strategies.

For suggestions to improve student writing, refer to the Web site below.

• Extracted from Lawall, M. (1998 March). Improving Student Writing: Recommendations from Research. University Teaching Services Newsletter.
  <http://www.umanitoba.ca:80/UTS/newsletter/1998/march98/newsletter.html>