Sunday, November 18, 2007
Dr. Chris Anson on Oral Commentary and YackPack
Dr. Chris Anson is a University Distinguished Professor and Director of the Campus Writing and Speaking Program at North Carolina State University. He was also interim director of NCSU’s Ph.D. Program in Communication, Rhetoric, and Digital Media in 2005-2006. Once I discovered he was using a web-based tool, YackPack, to give his students oral commentary, I wanted to know more. Web 2.0 tools have great potential for teaching, but before I experiment I like knowing what others have found. Fortunately, Dr. Anson agreed to be interviewed about oral commentary and YackPack. Because oral commentary can provide meaningful and effective feedback in an efficient fashion, adjuncts should consider using it with their current feedback methods. But, as Dr. Anson indicates, it is a tool new adjuncts should use after they have practiced and developed their skills.
Do you use oral commentary more than written commentary?
I use them about equally. I save oral commentary for higher-stakes papers and projects but I typically write comments on lower-stakes, less formal, overnight papers, reading responses, learning logs, and the like. Oral commentary allows me to say far more about a student’s work than I can (or would) in writing. (If we were to transcribe five minutes of talk into writing, we’d have pages of text, compared with a few notes in the margins and a quickly penned final comment in writing.) It allows me to “give voice” to my comments, talk in a more personable, approachable way to students, and offer more advice than I can in writing. For novice writers—that is, when writing is the main focus—I can read sentences aloud or give a better explanation of my reading experience. Oral commentary allows something more like a conference, albeit one-way, and I believe that students listen to and take note of oral comments more than they do written marginal and end comments. I’ve written a couple of pieces explaining and justifying the method:
Anson, Chris M. “Talking About Text: The Use of Recorded Commentary in Response to Student Writing.” A Sourcebook on Responding to Student Writing. Ed. Richard Straub. Norwood, NJ: Hampton, 2000. 165-174.
Anson, Chris M. “In Your Own Voice: Using Recorded Commentary to Respond to Writing.” Assigning and Responding to Writing in the Disciplines. Ed. Peter Elbow and Mary Deane Sorcinelli. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1997. 105-113.
Anson, Chris M. “Responding to Writing.” Twelve Readers Reading: Responding to College Student Writing. Richard E. Straub and Ronald F. Lunsford. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton, 1995.
How do you think oral commentary can specifically benefit a new instructor—especially an adjunct?
It might benefit novice teachers, but I say this with a bit of caution. Although talking to students, even into a tape recorder, usually pushes us toward a friendlier and more student-centered style than written commentary does (which tends to display our prowess as writers and take on a more formal style), it doesn’t guarantee this. Sarcasm, excessive criticism, certain attitudinal problems—all can exist in oral commentary and maybe even be more obvious, so it may help very new teachers to get some orientation and practice first. More experienced teachers might benefit from a reduction in workload, but that will come from practice using the method, which tends to be time-consuming at first, until one develops strategies for focusing comments without sounding perfunctory.
What steps do you suggest that newbies go through in order to become more comfortable with giving oral commentary?
First, they need to choose the hardware. Cassette tapes are obsolete. Digital tape recorders can work but there can be serious problems conveying the files electronically (they take a lot of memory, for one thing, and it’s almost always the case that some students can’t open or download the files). It’s also time-consuming to convert files into formats that can be sent electronically, and it’s often necessary to compress the files—yet another step. New Web 2.0 technologies, however, are solving this problem. I use YackPack to do my comments; this is an email-based system but the oral recordings are held at a server. Classes can be set up as “yackpacks” and individual students can receive private commentary or a teacher can talk to the entire class. Students get an email announcing that a yack has arrived and then go to the Web site to listen to the comments. There is a six minute limit on each yack, which turns out to be a good “timekeeper” for teachers concerned about workload issues. If they need more time they can always record a second or third yack for a particular student. Almost all computers have built-in speakers but not all computers have built-in microphones, so sometimes this can be a problem. Microphones are really cheap. Most computers have jacks that allow headphones to be plugged in, and most students will already have headphones for their iPods or other devices. But all this hardware needs to be set up early in the course.
How do you advise new instructors to remain focused and efficient while giving feedback instead of wandering off and spending a lot of time on numerous issues?
I personally like to add a few unrelated comments, perhaps about something the student did well in class or on a previous paper, something coming up, or some detail that allows my commentary to begin in a more socially grounded way. But I do get quickly to the business at hand. I suggest using a timekeeper—turn on a digital counter on the computer, keep a watch on the desk, etc. YackPack forces teachers to limit commentary to six minutes. I also suggest reading a paper in full beforehand, and making a few marginal notes (in shorthand, for oneself) before recording.
What kind of response from peers and students have you received using YackPack and other online technology?
Overwhelmingly positive. However, I’ve heard two concerns from other teachers: first, some students are not good “aurally.” They need to see text next to text: a written comment that points to a bit of their writing, for example. I solve this problem by getting students to concentrate on a specific place in their paper, which I admonish them to have next to them as they turn on my voice: “OK, take a look at the second line in your third paragraph, the one that begins, ‘Earlier in the 20th century . . . .’” Or, “Find the sentence on page three, the fourth line down, that starts ‘With all the attention to global warming . . . .’ Got it? OK, I’m going to read this a couple of times slowly and I want you to hear what happens to me when I get to that comma about halfway through. Here goes. ‘With all the attention . . . .’”
Some people are also concerned about the “message” we send students if we ask them to write and then talk to them about their writing instead of write to them about it. I don’t share that concern. My students know that I write for dozens of hours a week (just as I am doing right now); I don’t need to “prove” to them that I care about written text. I explain that the method allows me to tell them far more about their writing than I could if I wrote to them, in less time, and that works for me because I’m an extremely busy person. They understand. Also, I direct a cross-curricular faculty-development program that focuses on both writing and speaking. I’d be the last person to privilege one medium over the other; rather, the choice of medium depends on one’s goals.
Would you suggest that new teachers leap right in, or is there a process leading up to the effective use of online tools like YackPack?
I have run some workshops on the use of oral commentary. Typically I ask the participants to read drafts of three fully contextualized student papers and jot down some thoughts about these drafts, either as first drafts or as final drafts submitted for grading. I then create groups of three. Each person chooses one of the three papers to comment on. They then have five minutes to talk to the imagined student, as if recording their commentary, in front of the other two members. Afterwards, the three group members discuss and critique the teacher’s oral commentary. The members take turns doing their commentary and getting feedback on it, and then we regroup and talk about the entire experience, teasing out some general principles for effective oral feedback.
For someone who doesn’t have access to this kind of faculty development, I’d recommend creating a teaching circle with a couple of peers and doing it on their own. In the absence of this possibility, I’d suggest practicing with YackPack by recording a few minutes of commentary to themselves, sending it, and then listening to it as if they were the student opening it up on their browser. They should practice with a few papers, then give it a shot on something relatively informal in an actual class. They should explain to students that they’re experimenting with the method, and then ask the students for feedback: what did they like or dislike about the method? What would they suggest for its future use? And so on.
Any final thoughts or comments about oral commentary?
Eventually I’d like to include video as well, perhaps a PIP box in the upper corner of the screen. Video conferencing is already possible using systems like Skype, but they are mostly live. It’s more difficult to record an audio-visual commentary and send it for future viewing (and most available methods are not private, e.g., YouTube). Password-protected podcasts might work, but again, the conversion technology is cumbersome. The best system would be one that allows for a live image of the paper with markup technology (similar to what can be done with an electronic pen on computer tablets), plus recorded voice and a digital video image. This would allow students to see their paper and listen to commentary about it while watching an electronic pen reference certain parts of the paper, show the process of revision or editing, and so on.