"The Will to Revise: Commenting, Revision, and Motivation in College Students"

About the Author

Elizabeth Bracey is a second-year graduate student in the English program at Seton Hall University in South Orange, New Jersey. She earned her BA in forensic psychology from John Jay College of Criminal Justice where she began working as a tutor at the college’s writing center. She continues to work with John Jay College students to improve their writing and their approaches to revision.

Contents

Introduction

Literature Review

Methodology

Results

Discussion

Works Cited 

Results

Although students were initially categorized into grammar motivated/unmotivated or content motivated/unmotivated groups and their revisions were assessed and grouped as well, it quickly became apparent that the previously established groups were irrelevant since students consistently indicated that professor preference dictated the focus of their revisions.

Initially, of the 22 students surveyed, 13 (59%) were placed into the “grammar motivated” group since they indicated that they visited the writing center because they knew they needed help with their grammar, and it was their primary concern. However, when the students’ emphasis on grammar was explored during interviews, they reported that grammar issues were primary motivators for their visiting the writing center and their revisions on their papers because their professors were “very focused on grammar.” These students continued to attend appointments, but they often blatantly refused to address more comprehensive comments that were given to them because of their preoccupation with grammar correction. In light of this, students remained less motivated to perform more comprehensive revisions on their works because their professors seemed more concerned about sentence-level errors than about overall content.

Students who were recommended to the writing center and who reported that they would not otherwise have attended if they had not been recommended were placed in two “unmotivated” groups. Four (18%) students were placed into the “grammar unmotivated” category based on their reports that they were primarily concerned with grammar and had been recommended to the writing center. When the students were asked about their motivation to seek help for grammar issues, the students explained that their professors’ comments indicated the need to address grammar.  In particular, these students’ professors’ comments were limited to “grammar” and “awk” above sentences with which they were unsatisfied. Interestingly, students from these groups acknowledged that the reflective style of comments provided by the tutor helped them to see where they “needed work” on content clarity; however, the students’ drafts rarely addressed any comments that were not directly related to grammar. Again, the students’ primary concerns were to address the issues of importance as indicated by their professors’ comments regardless of the need for any other type of correction. In one instance, a student whose works contained significant errors in content, structure, and reasoning indicated that her professor “only [wanted her] to work on her grammar.” This student as well as the other four students who were initially placed into the grammar unmotivated group presented works with more serious problems in their writing but were motivated only to pay attention to grammar errors because their professors’ comments and grading indicated that grammar was the primary concern.

Interestingly, students who were initially placed into the "content unmotivated" group based on their concern for “whether or not their argument made sense” also expressed that they were motivated by instructor comments indicating that they need to work on the logic or coherence of their arguments. Similar to students whose primary concern was grammar, students who expressed that they were concerned about content were less likely to address grammar concerns since their primary focus was the content of the paper. An examination of the comments given to these students by their professors revealed that the comments were much more comprehensive than those of students in the “grammar motivated/unmotivated” groups. Particularly, the style of commenting seemed identical to Anson’s reflective style of commenting. Professors made observations about flaws in logic and problems with structure and gave suggestions to students about how to fix these problems. As a result, students were primarily concerned with “whether or not [they were] answering the question” that the professor had asked. The same was found to be true for students who were originally placed into the content motivated group since they expressed that they were interested in improving their content based on their professors’ critiques and comments regarding it.

While students focused on the concerns that they felt were necessary based on their professor’s comments, 86% of students reported in pre-session surveys that they were concerned with both grammar and content in their own revisions. However, conversations with students revealed that their concerns related directly to the preference indicated by the instructor’s comments and did not address the students’ self-reported concerns. Therefore, students disregarded their preferences for revision in favor of what they perceived the professor to prefer based on the professor’s comments. If the tutor’s comments did not match the perceived preference of the professor, students asked the tutor to focus only on what they felt best matched their professor’s preference. The implication of these findings is that students’ primary concern in paper writing is the preference or perceived preference of the professor. Students may, therefore, be unmotivated to address issues beyond what they perceive to be the greatest determinant of success in a paper.

Regarding success, when students were asked about their goals for revision, 100% of students indicated that they wanted “a good grade.” Students did not indicate that they wanted to improve their grammar or the coherence of their prose. In each case, the student specified that grades were the primary concern and thus were the students’ primary motivation for coming to tutoring, whether they were recommended by a professor or not.  Because students whose professors indicated a need for the student to address content knew that their professors would be evaluating their organization, argumentation, and other global level elements of their writing, the students’  particular preference was comprehensive commenting because “the professor really [wanted] the argument to be clear.” Similarly, students who were motivated by grammar concerns stated that their professors were “really tough graders on grammar,” so grammar became their primary concern. These results continue to support that motivation is generated by the professor’s primary focus in his/her commenting since adherence to the professor’s preferences will result in a high grade.

Largely, the results of this study support the results of previous research. However, there was a particular deviation from earlier results in motivation based on major or “future self” and the importance of writing in later career endeavors. Of the 22 students surveyed, ten (45%) were public administration students who indicated that writing would be extremely important in their careers. The remaining 12 (60%) students were psychology, humanities, and criminal justice students, all of whom, with one exception, reported that writing was extremely important in their careers. However, regardless of the students’ understanding of the importance of writing in their careers, students’ work and the effort they were willing to expend on it did not correlate with their statements. Students remained primarily motivated by the desires of the professor, which often did not seem to be understood as having a clear argument or concentrating on content. The researcher’s expectation was that students who felt writing was integral to their careers would be motivated to address both global and sentence-level elements of their writing. However, students’ concerns were overwhelmingly contingent upon their professors’ requirements or perceived desires and the grades that the student would earn as a result.