Rachel Moyer

SWAP
Dr. Sherry
08 December, 2014
Path 2 Question: How can a teacher design and implement assignments that encourage students
to meet standardized criteria but avoid formulaic writing?
Red pen here; red pen there; red pen everywhere! Oh, what a familiar jingle this can be
for both students and teachers. All too often is a red pen and a ton of corrective marks, declaring
such things as the misspelling of words, improper formatting, fragmented sentences, and
grammatical errors, associated with English teachers. Students quiver in fear of our deadly
blood-colored pens as these weapons of destruction murder all hints of student creativity in the
honor of rigid standards. Some teachers have gotten wise and, in a cleverly plotted attempt to
trick students, have switched to some more pleasant shades of blue pens, but our students cannot
be that easily outwitted! Our wonderful, bright, fantastic students recognize that these blue pens
draw the same lines as the red ones. The lines, which are guided by standardized criteria, often
cause students to write in a formulaic fashion. I wonder, how might educators fight back against
such conformity while still meeting standardized criteria? The answer, as I have discovered, is
not all that simple, and its complexity can be seen within my exploration of this topic.
In my first steps of this investigation, I collected the works of fifth grade students at a
local field experience placement where I both observed and taught. The pieces I collected are
Personal Narrative essays, in which the students were asked to reflect on something that they had
done in the summertime. This was a preliminary essay to judge where the students were as far as

Commented [RCM1]: This paper is far from a typical

essay required in most education courses. Instead, it is more
of a reflection and a search to find an answer to a difficult
problem. Therefore, I do not compose it in the same
manner as I would other persuasive-like papers. I pose a
question and spend well-over five paragraphs exploring the
different possibilities surrounding and factors affecting the
question, and then draw my own conclusions. Therefore,
since I have a different composing process, I am
demonstrating my understanding of NCTE/NCATE standard
3.4 (know different composing processes).

their writing skills were concerned and what areas needed to be worked on in the future. As I
read the papers, I had noticed some patterns were arising. I am not aware if the students were
told certain lines to use in their paragraphs or not, but many students had used I am going to tell
you about in their introductions. (Sound the formula writing alarm!) As I continued reading, I
also noticed that students were spot on about the idea of the events being chronological, but
many students seemed to have trouble focusing on one event. Many of the students papers
expressed several things they had done throughout summer, not just one. Another pattern I
noticed is that the students grammar and spelling were a bit all over the map. The final, and
most important, pattern that stood out to me was that these students had wonderful ideas and
content in their pieces! How could I possibly prepare such a personal assignment and then
critique it without stifling the students ideas?
After gathering these opening thoughts, I headed to seek guidance from others
experiences on preparing and critiquing student writing. Two teachers examples at which I
looked, OMalleys and Webers, really shed some light on what once had been a very dismal
scene. Right away, I noticed something that I liked about OMalleys implementation of a
Personal Narrative assignment. She had students create multiple drafts and showed her students
that writing and revision is an ongoing process. Revising allows students to look at their work
multiple times and evaluate if the moves they make in their piece are the most effective. I also
liked that she posed her comments as guiding questions rather than statements directly stating
what the students needed to do. As Freedman puts it in his piece Response to Student Writing,
Successful teachers provide plentiful guidance but resist taking over the writing of their
students (160). OMalley throws out the hint to guide students thinking and then, lets it up to
them to come up with their own conclusions. Giving students this freedom helps to break that

idea of formulaic writing. She still is implementing standards and guiding her questions toward
the achievement of those goals, but allows the student to forge their own unique path to get there.
However, there were some aspects of OMalleys methods that I think increased the formula
aspect of her students pieces. If you observe the example she created for the students and the
actual pieces that the students composed, there is a definite correlation between the way she
formatted her example and the way in which the students wrote theirs. It seemed as if the
students took her example and modeled their papers exactly after it. Now, I am unsure of what
type of format guidelines were given to the students, but one of the features I noticed was
replicated was the students opening hook. Their hooks were identical to that of OMalleys, and
I was not and still am not sure why. If you want to break away from formulaic writing and have
an assignment that students actually enjoy writing, then why would you have a standard sentence
everyone must use? In my opinion, the opening paragraph is the one place students can open up
and have a little bit of fun; it is where they draw the reader in and display some of their
personality!
Weber, on the other hand, takes a completely different approach to leads, and it sure pays
off as far as avoiding formulaic writing is concerned! Weber asks of his students to create five
different options for hooks. He then lets it up to the students to choose which will work best for
their assignments. When reading the students openings, it becomes clear to the reader that some
definite thought was put into creating a catchy opening, and not one that was mandated by
Weber. Another aspect of Webers practice that I thought was incredibly useful was his
insistence on conferencing with the students. In Milner and Milners piece Evaluating Writing,
it is said that, the most teachable writing moments occur in our discussions with individual
students as we struggle together over a composition (Milner and Milner, 383). Though peer

Commented [RCM2]: A course I took at BU was titled The

and Practice of Writing. In this class, we had wonderful
discussions, reflections, and debates about what makes for
good writing pedagogy. In this exploration of how to
respond to student work, I pulled from that previous theory
knowledge to make a solid point. By studying all of that
theory knowledge and implementing it here, I demonstrate
how I meet NCTE/NCATE standard 3.7 (know research
theory and findings in ELA).

conferencing with every single student can be incredibly challenging, it undoubtedly is worth it
and will help students improve their work and meet standards, all while showing them how to
stray away from clich writing. One thing that I did not find favorable in helping to meet
standards while avoiding formulas is the generic, undetailed comments Weber provides his
students. As Freedman so eloquently puts it, teachers [should] give students sufficient help
during the writing process to allow them to write better than the students themselves thought was
possible (161). Personally, I do not think generic comments are a form of sufficient help or
support. If students are asked to create original, non-formulaic, solid texts, then I think the
teachers who are asking these things of them should provide original, non-formulaic, solid
responses. Good, guiding, detailed comments help students to grow and leave less area for
confusion.
A final element that I thought both of these example teachers did well to promote nonformulaic writing was to hold all of their students to high standards. Freedman would applaud
their high expectations, and his approval becomes clear when he states, at no point in the
process do successful teachers accept less than what the student is capable of (160). I think that
communicating these high expectations and improving student confidence can best be done
through giving those solid, detailed responses that I mentioned earlier. If students know that a
teacher has confidence in them, they are likely to want to avoid letting the teacher down, and in
attempts of doing such, will strive to meet the standards in a personal and unique way.
With all of these aspects in mind, my last step was to review the students work with
which I originally started. Keeping in mind the concept of provoking students to find the right
answers instead of me telling them what to do, I posed most of my comments as questions. These
questions were specifically guided to help the students improve their work without listing

everything that needed to be done to get there. My comments were also very detailed. As I
mentioned previously, if I expect the students to use details and avoid formula clichs, then I
better use details and avoid formula clichs in my replies. Along with being very detailed, my
comments were very encouraging. The students had such great thoughts and content that if I
cluttered their papers emphasizing all of the grammatical errors, I would fear they would become
discouraged and stick to over-weighted conventions rather than content. One comment I made in
particular to the students was about their leads. It appeared that they too, like OMalleys
students, were given a sentence with which they were advised to start their stories. To combat
this obvious example of formulaic writing, I encouraged them by saying how awesome their
story sounded and continued on to ask if they could think of any ways to better draw their reader
in to the wonderful story. By asking them to think of multiple ways to draw their reader in, I
mimicked Webers method of showing his students that creativity can help students meet
standards. Though I do not have the fortune of meeting with these students again to discuss their
work, I comment on their work in a way that suggests we will be continuing to revise the pieces
in hopes of avoiding formulaic writing and aiding in the effectiveness of the Personal Narratives.
Overall, the combination of seeing what other people say about formulaic writing and
meeting standards has given me a lot to think about and has reiterated my concern of just how
challenging it is to complete this task. Completing this task takes a lot of time and practice, and it
is one about which teachers all have differing theories. However, no matter how dauntless the
task, I am prepared to set out to change the reputation of teachers and our red pens! (Perhaps, I
will use a purple pen!)

Works Cited
Freedman, Sarah Warshauer, and et al. Response to Student Writing. Urbana, IL: National
Council of Teachers of English, 1987. 160-161. Print.
Milner, Joseph, and Lucy Milner. Evaluating Writing. Handout. Bloomsburg Universitys
Theory and Practice of Writing. Bloomsburg, PA. n.d. Print.
SWAP, Student Writing Archive Project. N.p.,n.d. Web. 07 Dec. 2014.