Suddenly Sommers
The heart of the Sommers article "responding to student writing" was, for me, her statement that "teachers' comments can take attention away from their own purposes in writing a particular text and focus that attentuion on the teachers' purpose in commenting." My reaction to her statement is two fold, partially in agreement with her basic theoretical premise here, but also, in disagreement with the unstated assumption that lurks behind this statement.
One, I agree that in responding to our students' papers, at any stage in the writing process, even during class discussion over assignment "expectations", during prewriting, whether in conferences, or on drafts and graded essays, the difficulty and danger is often manuevering around taking control of the students text. I usually try and frame my responses by asking, what did you mean or what were you trying to say here... something along those lines. And, for the most part, it works. But...
Two, and here's where I disagree with Sommers. Part of the student's "purpose" in writing in a composition class is pleasing the teacher. End of story. I doubt, no matter how interesting their papers may end up being, or how revelatory the excercise, that many of them had a burning desire to explore adver-gaming, etc., ad infinitum before I told them to do it for their paper assignments. That being the case, to completely ignore what I want is also irresponsible because that IS part of their purpose in communicating. Its a fine line, and a tough one to navigate, but, as usual, I don't like theorists who don't problematize their theories in pragmatic ways. Pragmatism is THE underlying theory of composition. What works, works. Great if we're using differing theories to get us closer to a global scheme that works best, most often, but we must always be on the lookout for anyone making these kinds of claims, regardless of intention, for the hidden assumptions that may complicate them once implemented into classroom practice.