Complexity

The section of the case study that most resonated with me centered on how second language learners increase complexity in their clauses and writing. Severino and Prim write, “Complexity often involves more risk-taking and therefore the possibility of making more errors in sentence structure, which are usually counted both by researchers and teachers as grammar errors” (161). My sense is that more and more teachers of composition and rhetoric courses understand that it is more important to attend to global rather than local issues. Ideally, this approach liberates language learners to experiment and take those risks necessary for complexity building. I do wonder, though, how we can communicate to instructors in other fields that this is the best pedagogical approach. There are certainly instances (some recounted in the case study even) in which writing centers/tutors find themselves working toward opposite aims from those of instructors (who overemphasize local issues). It seems vital to me that we close this gap as much as possible.

In teaching Interpretation of Literature, I have long struggled with how to best assist language learners in this regard. My impulse is to not even comment on or mark grammatical errors in these students’ papers unless the errors make comprehension impossible (or seriously impede it). I have had international students, though, who really want feedback on their grammar. I’ve tried to accommodate them by marking only a couple of particular grammatical issues per paper. In this regard, I found the grid of “comment types” on pages 154 and 155 incredibly helpful. It helped me reflect on what types of comments best encourage intellectual autonomy within the student while also offering them a helping hand in getting there. I’m trying to incorporate “Question” comments and sometimes “options” to help push my students to be more agential. I am also trying to train myself to do this verbally with my writing center tutees.