Lauren Shively

Many students are highly intimidated at the prospect of giving and getting feedback on their writing. Writing is deeply personal and learning to be comfortable sharing it takes some getting used to. By relating the process of writing, peer-review, and feedback to conversation, students may come to see it at less daunting. Unsurprisingly, this is not exactly a new idea. I plan to walk through each of these categories and introduce existing work in this vein, and make a further point about the importance of writing and conversation.

First, an aside: speech and writing are different in some vital ways, and I do not mean to imply otherwise. Spoken language is naturally ingrained in human development and ephemeral, while written language is unnatural and transcends time and space by creating a message which can be revisited. These are just a few ways.

When writing scholarly work, we ‘enter the conversation’ by responding to what others have written on a topic. By drawing out the connections between different texts, we help authors ‘speak to one another.’ We contribute by expanding on subjects they have already ‘discussed.’ This language of conversation is commonplace in academic writing. This conflation of writing and speech happens almost subconsciously, at least partially because “No matter how isolated a writer may seem […] she is always drawing upon the ideas and experiences of countless others” (Roozen 17). Roozen continues that, regardless of what we may pretend, “writing can never be anything but a social and rhetorical act” (18) as we engage with others’ ideas. Conversation is just one way to think about the social nature of writing, but the one we’re focusing on here.

In terms of the composition classroom, several scholars have connected writing and conversation. One is Art Young, who asserts that “One of the most important uses for writing in education settings is as a tool for learning and for classroom conversation. When writing is used this way […] the emphasis is on writing as conversation, speculation, and problem solving” (27). It is important that he notes writing as a “tool,” a technology, that is not intuitive. This attitude towards writing as exploratory rather than automatic can encourage students to develop a healthier relationship with it. Young suggests activities which emphasize “writing-to-learn” this mindset of writing as a process, an art, a skill that can be improved upon. He is also focused on un-graded writing, but I think this perspective may be extended to graded writing as well. The lens of conversation does not take much explaining when it comes to peer review. Peer review in the classroom is notoriously tricky to get right, but when it clicks, it enables writers to sharpen their thoughts by talking about them. In his recent book, Teaching Mindful Writers, Brain Jackson reiterates the social nature of writing and the role that conversation plays: “scholars conclude that effective PR [peer review] creates an interactive class environment, with peer-to-peer shop talk reinforcing the fact that writing is a ‘deeply social, necessarily flexible act’ (DiPardo and Freedman 1988, 143)” (195). Part of training students to engage in effective peer review is to train them in effective conversation skills in general. Just like integrating quotes into writing, effective conversation connects the dots between speakers.

At the next level, feedback from instructors, Jackson adds, “There is no learning without feedback” (175). This applies to both verbal and written comments. He gives specific advice in terms of feedback, noting to be careful with directives because students will often avoid doing any other, more abstract revisions. It is with professors in particular that the ‘conversation’ analogy can be useful. Aside from heeding the format and tone of feedback, professors can introduce their feedback as continuing the conversation the student was having in the paper to begin with. This maintains continuity through each step of the process and diminishes anxiety about a disparity in knowledge; in this instance, professor and student are two scholars, with varying experience, yes, but somewhat leveled by their roles of author and reader. Patricia Bizzell discusses the difficulties facing first-year composition teachers from the perspective of discourse. Toeing the line between maintaining the status quo of “correct, intelligent, stylish” writing (106) via their feedback while trying to redefine good writing less prescriptively. Her work, though published nearly three decades ago and recording her experience up to that point, echoes conversations being had about composition today.

Eventually, students graduate and leave behind their composition classes. Essays become business reports, peers become coworkers, and instructors become supervisors, but conversation remains integral to the writing process. It is an oft-cited fact that strong writing distinguishes an individual in the workplace. However, according to a 2016 survey by Ortiz et al., it seems that oral communication skills such as using proper grammar and engaging in conversation are increasingly valuable to employers. Composition classrooms, then, are uniquely situated to prepare students for success not only throughout their academic careers, but though their professional careers as well. By helping students shift their mindsets to see the writing process as reciprocal like conversation, both skillsets might be improved and prepare them as professionals.

Bizzell, Patricia. “College Composition: Initiation Into the Academic Discourse Community.” Academic Discourse and Critical Consciousness, University of Pittsburgh Press, 1992, pp. 105–28. JSTOR, JSTOR, doi:10.2307/j.ctt7zwb7k.8.

Jackson, Brian. “Responding to Mindful Writers.” Teaching Mindful Writers, University Press of Colorado, 2020, pp. 175–86. JSTOR, JSTOR, doi:10.2307/j.ctv11sn6hn.24.

—. “Peer Feedback.” Teaching Mindful Writers, University Press of Colorado, 2020, pp. 195–202. JSTOR, JSTOR, doi:10.2307/j.ctv11sn6hn.26.

Ortiz, Lorelei A., et al. “Employer Perceptions of Oral Communication Competencies Most Valued in New Hires as a Factor in Company Success.” Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, vol. 79, no. 3, SAGE Publications Inc, Sept. 2016, pp. 317–30. SAGE Journals, doi:10.1177/2329490615624108.

Roozen, Kevin. “Writing Is A Social and Rhetorical Activity.” Naming What We Know: Threshold Concepts of Writing Studies, by Linda Adler-Kassner and Elizabeth A. Wardle, Utah State University Press, 2016, pp. 17–19.

Young, Art. “Mentoring, Modeling, Monitoring, Motivating: Response to Students’ Ungraded Writing as Academic Conversation.” New Directions for Teaching and Learning, vol. 1997, no. 69, 1997, pp. 27–39. Wiley Online Library, doi:10.1002/tl.6903.