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

by Elizabeth Bracey | Xchanges 9.1

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 because their professors were “very focused on grammar.” These students continued to attend appointments, but they often blatantly refused to address more comprehensive comments given to them because of their preoccupation with grammar correction.

Students who were recommended to the writing center and who reported that they would not otherwise have attended were placed in two “unmotivated” groups. Four (18%) students were placed into the “grammar unmotivated” category. 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.

Interestingly, students who were initially placed into the “content unmotivated” group also expressed that they were motivated by instructor comments indicating that they need to work on the logic or coherence of their arguments. 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 — in fact, they appeared identical to Anson’s reflective style of commenting. As a result, students were primarily concerned with “whether or not [they were] answering the question” that the professor had asked.

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. 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.

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, 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.

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. 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.