grade six teachers’ responses to narrative and persuasive ...€¦ · web viewhome sweet home...

Grade Six Teachers’ Feedback on Girls’ and Boys’ Narrative and Persuasive Writing

Abstract

This study extends previous work examining teachers’ written feedback on students’

writing from postsecondary into elementary contexts. The objective was to determine the

influence of genre and gender on teachers’ written feedback to sixth-grade authors of narrative

and persuasive writing. We considered the quantity of comments and corrections, as well as the

focus and mode of comments written by 108 teachers on four pieces of writing composed by two

students.

There were significant differences between comments directed to the two types of

writing. Process, conventions, artistic style, and format were the focus of significantly greater

numbers of comments directed to narrative writing than to persuasive writing. In contrast,

meaning, organization, effort, and ideology were emphasized to a greater degree when teachers

responded to persuasive writing than to narrative writing.

There were also gender differences: Teachers tended to indicate and make greater

numbers of corrections on writing attributed to boys, and to provide more criticisms and

lessons, explanations and suggestions when the work was attributed to a male writer. Female

teachers focused on conventions and organization in contrast to male teachers’ tendency to

focus more on artistic style. In addition, female teachers generally wrote greater numbers of

comments and tended to indicate and make more corrections than did male teachers. Our

findings indicated a correlation between convention errors and the number and types of

comments, as well as teachers’ reluctance to engage with the ideologies in students’ writing.

Sixth-Grade Teachers’ Written Comments 2

Commenting on student writing is a widely used method for responding to student

writing. With the intent of helping students to become “questioning readers” who “evaluate what

they have written and develop control over their writing” (Sommers, 1982, p. 148), teachers

spend long hours writing comments to student writers and making corrections to the students’

written texts. Recognizing the important contribution of teachers’ written feedback to students’

developing writing competence, extensive research has been conducted in this area. This paper

furthers existing work by examining sixth-grade teachers’ written comments to papers attributed

to female and male writers of narrative and persuasive writing. Previous research, conducted

primarily at the post-secondary level, examined how teachers read and responded to student

writing, made suggestions for the kinds of comments that are most helpful to students, and

determined how students used the comments to revise their writing.

Yet, it cannot be assumed that the findings of previous research are readily generalized to

elementary teachers and their classroom contexts. The types of feedback that are useful to

college students may not be appropriate when responding to elementary students’ writing.

Because elementary students are in the beginning stages of their development as writers, the

elements of writing that elementary teachers emphasize in their instruction and assessment are

necessarily different from those highlighted by college teachers. Furthermore, elementary

teachers’ feedback influences the skills, attitudes and perspectives on what constitutes good

writing that elementary students carry into their post secondary courses and beyond into their

work lives. As such, the research reported in this paper contributes to the field by examining the

responses of elementary school teachers to student writing.

In addition, this research brings new understandings to questions of gender and genre in

student writing. These questions arise from writing assessment studies, such as that conducted by


Peterson (2001), in which sixth-grade teachers scored narrative writing significantly higher than

persuasive writing. The significance of the present study is also indicated in research examining

developmental characteristics of elementary students’ narrative and informational writing

(Chapman, 1994; Donovan, 2001; Kamberelis, 1999). These studies showed that the genre

knowledge that primary students demonstrated in their writing was related to their exposure to

various types of text and depended on the discursive needs that they attempted to satisfy through

their writing. Added to the students’ lack of exposure to informational texts is teachers’ paucity

of knowledge about children’s genre development. Donovan (2001) claimed that most teachers

“are still left to fall back on their implicit knowledge or on pre-established forms, rather than

being able to draw on an understanding of the elements that must be learned and on a general

sense of how that learning occurs” (p. 396). There has been little research on teachers’

instructional practices supporting students’ informational writing development, particularly at the

intermediate level, to back up Donovan’s claim, however (Tower, 2003).

Our research also addresses questions about gender differences that arise from the results

of national, state and provincial tests. In Canada, Great Britain and the United States, there are

consistent patterns showing girls outperforming boys in large-scale evaluations of elementary

students’ writing (Council of Ministers of Education in Canada, 1998; EQAO, 2000b; Office of

Educational Research and Improvement, 1995; Ohio Department of Education, 2000). Our study

examines gender differences in teachers’ written comments in an effort to understand this

persistent trend. It adds to existing research by extending the study of teachers’ written feedback

on student writing to the elementary level and by examining gender and genre patterns in the

feedback. Specifically, the study addresses these research questions:


1. How are the indicated corrections and the foci and modes of sixth-grade teachers’

written feedback on student writing similar and different when directed to two types of writing:

narrative and persuasive?

2. What are the similarities and differences in the feedback applied to writing attributed

to male and female sixth-grade writers?

3. What are the similarities and differences between female and male teachers’ feedback

on persuasive and narrative writing attributed to female and male student writers?

Our paper begins with a review of the relevant literature in three areas: teachers’ written

feedback, elementary students’ genre development, and gender issues in writing assessment.

Following a description of the methods, we report our analysis of the written feedback of 108

sixth-grade teachers in terms of the many significant differences we found in the comments

directed to the two types of writing, and the gender trends that were evident in the comments.

We conclude with a summary of key findings in terms of genre and the gender, followed by a

discussion of the implications for research arising from the study’s findings and limitations.

Literature Review

Much of the literature on teachers’ response to student writing categorized teachers’

written comments, their use of praise, and students’ assessment of the usefulness of the feedback,

predominantly at the postsecondary level. We synthesize this large field, as well as the research

identifying differences between elementary students’ narrative and nonfiction writing that

informs our comparison of feedback directed to the two types of writing. Finally, because our


research questions address differences in female and male teachers’ feedback on writing

composed by a girl and a boy, we review the literature on gender issues in writing assessment.

Teachers’ Feedback on Student Writing

Our study aligns with a body of research that categorized teachers’ written feedback in an

attempt to understand what teachers identified for their students as elements of good writing and

teachers’ perceptions of their roles as readers and assessors of student writing. In the following

synthesis of the literature, we give greatest attention to a study that was conducted with

elementary teachers and to a study that delineated both the content and the function of teachers’

written feedback; two features that we determined were most appropriate for analyzing our data.

Searle and Dillon (1980) examined 135 pieces of students’ classroom writing on which

12 teachers of grades 4-6 had written their usual comments. They found that teachers responded

to a much greater extent to the form of the writing than to its content. Almost all teachers tried

to correct all of the convention errors (spelling, language usage, punctuation). The researchers

concluded that teachers saw writing “as a practice in mastering forms of writing, beginning with

a master of mechanics and developing a mastery of large structures. . . The message about

language which seemed to be communicated was that it doesn’t matter what you say; what

matters is how you say it” (p. 239-240). This study did not consider the influence of the type of

writing, nor the gender of the teachers and the student writers in its conclusions. Because Searle

and Dillon dichotomized the teachers’ comments in terms of their content, but not their function,

their findings contribute to our understanding of teachers’ perceptions of good writing, but not to

teachers’ views of their contributions to students’ writing development through their assessment.


Researchers who classified postsecondary teachers’ comments on student writing found

“an accepted, albeit unwritten canon for commenting on student texts” (Sommers, 1982, p. 153).

In these studies, teachers highlighted three features in their written feedback: those arising from

the conventions of writing, those related to the use of register in a particular field, and those

related to the students’ grasp of the subject (Anson, 1989; Connors & Lunsford, 1993; Freedman,

1979; Sommers, 1982).

The frequency of teachers’ use of praise was examined by many researchers who felt that

praise was motivational and helped to temper students’ apprehension about writing (Bardine,

Bardine & Deegan, 2000; Connors & Lunsford, 1993; Straub, 2000). In Connors and Lunsford’s

(1993) study, teachers gave negative comments with more than twice the frequency that they

gave positive comments. Positive comments tended to be the shortest and friendliest, often given

to papers with A-level grades. In Smith’s (1997) study, 80% of the judging comments were

positive, regardless of the grades that were assigned to the papers. Half the time, teachers used

references to “the paper” or “organization”, etc., lessening the impact of the evaluation because

the focus was not on the student. Teachers used “you” as the subject in 58% of the positively-

worded statements, showing, perhaps, a desire to heighten the praise and the student’s active role

in the achievement. Teachers wrote “There are” in 43% of negative evaluations of mechanics.

In their sample of 3000 papers that had been marked by college teachers, Connors and

Lunsford, (1993) found that 77% had global comments (general evaluative comments found at

the end or the beginning of the essays). Many teachers gave an initial critique of writing or

genre conventions and then moved into positive commentary on successful elements of the

writing. A number of teachers used comments in the margins to draw attention to specific

elements of the writing. Only one-quarter of the comments argued or refuted any content points


made in the paper. Teachers seemed “conditioned not to engage with student writing in personal

or polemical ways” (p. 215).

Straub (1997)’s study provided a useful protocol for analyzing our data. He analyzed the

focus and the mode (purpose) of the comments that first-year university students thought were

most helpful in their efforts to improve their writing. In terms of focus, students in this study felt

that comments providing suggestions for improving the organization and development of their

writing were helpful. They were wary about comments that questioned/criticized their ideas,

however. They appreciated the teachers getting involved with the subject and they preferred

specific, elaborated comments. In terms of mode, they preferred advisory comments, praise, and

open questions rather than closed questions and criticism. They appreciated being advised of

errors if they also received recommendations for improving their writing. Straub’s analysis

framework allowed him to draw conclusions about students’ perceptions of the roles that

teachers should take when responding to students’ writing, as well as the features that they felt

contributed significantly to good writing.

Genre Development in Elementary Classrooms

Early research on children’s writing development concluded that young children had a

natural ability for narrative writing, but that further maturation was required in order for their

informational writing abilities to be developed (Moffett, 1968, Britton, Burgess, Martin,

McLeod, & Rosen, 1975). Britton et al., for example, proposed that children first learned

narrative forms because stories were part of a child’s experience from a very early age. Indeed,

Egan (1988) asserted that children could only make sense of their experience through story.


Instructional implications arising from this research led to a proliferation of story reading and

writing in elementary and preschool classrooms.

Researchers examining the writing of older elementary children confirmed that the

children’s narrative writing development outstripped that of their competencies in writing

informational text (Kamberelis, 1999; Langer, 1985). These researchers questioned, however,

whether there were developmental explanations for these patterns, or whether the patterns

indicated the lack of experience in writing non-narrative in the early grades of their schooling.

Chapman’s (1994) research indicated that the latter is the more likely explanation. She found

that young children integrated exposition, description and narrative into their writing, although

not with the conscious awareness of adult writers. Similarly, kindergarten children in Pappas’s

(1993) research on the elements of genre used in their pretend readings of narrative and

informational texts exhibited their knowledge of features of both types of text. Correlating

elementary students’ relatively lower competence in informational writing with the lack of

opportunity to write in genres other than narrative, researchers in this field proposed that

elementary teachers must begin to assign more informational writing in their classrooms.

Donovan (2001) attributed students’ difficulties in developing control of genres to the

knowledge of children’s writing development that underpins writing instruction. In her study of

students’ narrative and informational writing in grades K-5, the level of sophistication of

students’ writing did not increase substantially after second grade. Donovan explained her

findings in this way: “without a developmental understanding of all of the components of

writing, teachers must simply rely on what they think makes writing better” (p. 439). In her

view, educators need to know more about the development of children’s genre knowledge and

about how they use this knowledge to write in a variety of contexts. Our study contributes to the


field through identifying the features of two genres, narrative and persuasive writing, that sixth-

grade teachers highlight in their feedback to students on their writing.

Gender Influences on Teachers’ Assessment of Student Writing

Previous research studies of grade 6 teachers’ writing assessment (Peterson, 1998) and

grades 3, 6 and 9 teachers (Bainbridge, Peterson & Sumner, 1998) showed that teachers’

assessments of the quality of the writing were often influenced by their perceptions of the

writer’s gender. There were no consistent gender patterns in teachers’ scoring of five narrative

papers written by students at the grade level they taught, but there were significant differences in

the scores for one sixth-grade paper. Teachers who thought the writer was a girl scored the

writing significantly higher than those who thought the writer was a boy. In their identification

of gender markers in student writing, teachers explained that girls used more descriptive words

and phrases, more detail, wider vocabulary, and correct mechanics to a greater degree than boys

did (Peterson, 1998). In the present study, we move beyond teachers’ scoring and identification

of gender markers to their written feedback to writers identified as girls or boys.

Research examining secondary and post secondary teachers’ evaluation of student writing

indicated a privileging of the linear, impersonal style traditionally attributed to men’s persuasive

writing over the contextual and committed style typically attributed to women’s persuasive

writing (Barnes, 1990; Haswell & Haswell, 1995; Roulis, 1995). When Barnes (1990) and

Roulis (1995) asked postsecondary writing instructors to comment on essays written by male and

female students, female teachers wrote more comments than male teachers did. In Barnes’

(1990) study, when the author was a male, female teachers requested information four times

more often than male teachers, but equally often for female authors. Male teachers asked for


more information from writers in Roulis’s (1995) study. In both studies, male teachers were

critical of emotional writing, particularly that written by female writers. Female teachers tended

to be more focused on language, mechanics and form. Furthering this body of research, in the

present study we compare and contrast the types of written feedback that female and male

teachers provide to sixth-grade writers identified as girls or boys by the researchers.

Methods

Procedure

We recruited sixth-grade teachers in schools from 17 public and Catholic school districts

in the Canadian province of Ontario. After contacting principals to explain the project and to

request the names of grade six teachers in their school, we telephoned teachers from each school,

inviting their participation in the study. We sent packages containing the two narrative and two

persuasive papers and a feedback form that had space for teachers’ comments to the students. We

asked teachers to identify their sex, to indicate the number of years they had taught, and to mark

or comment on the papers as they would had a student in their own class submitted the writing to

them. The overall response rate was 52%. Of the 108 participants, 76 were female (70.4%) and

32 were male (29.6%). Almost a third (29.6%) had taught for less than five years, 39.8% had

taught between five and 15 years, and 30.6% had taught for 15 years or more.

We assigned pseudonyms to the writers of each paper. Half of the participating teachers

received a set of papers in which Melissa had written the soccer story and Andrew had written

the environmental story. The other half of the teachers received surveys in which the two names


had been reversed. Similarly, half of the teachers received surveys in which Jeremy had written

“Home Sweet Home First Nations” and Kathryn had written “Native Case” and vice versa.

Materials: Writing Samples

Two narrative papers and two persuasive papers served as the sample materials for this

study. We selected papers from the assigned writing of sixth-grade students in one elementary

classroom of 22 students. To ensure that the 108 teachers participating in the study would accept

that a girl or a boy could have written the four papers, we asked 11 classroom teachers to read

the narrative and persuasive papers from the selected grade six class and to guess the gender of

the writers. The two narrative papers we included in the study were the ones for which most

teachers showed great uncertainty in identifying the writer’s gender and/or for which there were

very mixed perceptions of the writer’s gender. We then added the persuasive writing samples

from the same two students to our research sample because the 11 teachers found it difficult to

determine the gender of the writers of all of the persuasive papers. We selected a paper of each

type written by the same boy and the same girl in order to compare the scores and evaluative

comments given to two types of writing composed by one student. Although we did not edit the

papers, we did have them type-written to control for the influence of girls’ and boys’ handwriting

styles and the neatness of the writing on teachers’ assessment.

The narratives were about a dream and the persuasive papers considered the ongoing

value of the Reserve system for First Nations people in Canada. The girl’s untitled narrative is

about a dream in which the first person narrator plays on a school soccer team in a metal

uniform. The inevitable injuries that result convince the coach that new uniforms are in order.

Her persuasive paper is entitled, “Home Sweet Home First Nations.” The boy’s narrative,


entitled “The Dream,” is about a group of children who win environmental awards on the last

day of school. The next day they clean up a polluted creek, restoring the habitat of a family of

ducks. His persuasive paper is entitled, “Native Case.” The students’ writing is found in the

Appendix.

Data Analysis

We tallied all the corrections that teachers made on the students’ writing, as well

as the corrections that they indicated should be made. In addition, we counted the

number of comments that each teacher wrote to each student.

We analyzed all of the comments twice using categories from a previous study

(Straub, 1997, p. 98-99): focus and mode. Each comment was first analyzed in terms of

its focus: meaning (comments referred to issues of communication and its clarity),

conventions, organization, artistic style, effort, process, ideology, and formatting. We

then categorized all the comments in terms of the following modes: correction and

criticism, command, closed question, praise, open-ended question, reader response, and

lesson, explanation or suggestion. Although Straub’s classification scheme was used to

determine the types of comments that postsecondary students found most helpful, we

used it to classify teachers’ comments because it was the most comprehensive of all the

schemes previously used—focusing on the content and the function of the teachers’

comments. In addition, Straub’s focus categories matched most closely the provincial

writing assessment criteria that teachers in Ontario use in their classrooms, so it contained

terms that Ontario teachers were likely to use.


All comments were grouped according to the sex of the teacher writing the comment, the

indicated gender of the student writer to which the comment was directed, and the type of

writing—narrative or persuasive. Throughout the analysis process, we worked independently

and then compared our analyses, clarifying rationales for particular categorizations when

disagreements arose until we reached consensus. We coded the comments in terms of the

identified gender of the writers to which the comments were directed and the type of writing,

calculating percentages of comments directed to writers identified as girls and those identified as

boys for each of the pieces of writing.

We then used a two-way ANOVA by teacher gender and ascribed student gender. To

pursue our question about teachers' different responses to narrative and persuasive writing, we

collapsed the variables for the two papers within each genre. We used paired-sample t-tests to

compare the variables describing teachers' marking of narrative and persuasive texts. Our results

of the t-tests are reported using Wilcoxin z scores.

Results

As indicated in tables 1-5, there were numerous significant differences in the feedback

that teachers directed to the two types of papers, narrative and persuasive and some gender

patterns in the feedback. We report our findings using our three analysis categories: (1)

numbers of comments and corrections indicated and made, (2) focus of comments and, (3) mode

of comments. Within these three categories, we identify significant genre and gender differences

and trends.


Number of Comments and Corrections Indicated and Made

Genre differences

The number of corrections indicated and made by teachers was significantly higher for

the narrative papers than for the persuasive papers: (Wilcoxon z=8.30, p<.001 for the number of

corrections indicated and z=7.80, p<.001 for number of corrections made.) The Soccer story

contained many more convention errors than the other papers, so this finding is not surprising.

Gender differences

There was a pattern of teachers making greater numbers of corrections on the two

persuasive papers and the Soccer story when boys were identified as the authors. With a few

exceptions, female teachers indicated and made more corrections than male teachers made on the

student papers. Female teachers generally provided greater numbers of comments to writers,

regardless of their identified gender, than did male teachers.

_____________________

Insert Tables 1 and 2 about here

______________________

Focus of the Comments

Overall, teachers wrote the most comments about the meanings communicated in the

narrative and persuasive writing and the fewest comments about formatting for the persuasive

papers and about ideology for the narratives. Significant gender interactions occurred in

comments written to authors of the Ducks story in three categories and for the Home Sweet Home

persuasive paper in two categories. In addition, significant differences occurred in all focus


categories when the comments written for narrative and persuasive papers were compared.

Table 3 shows the average number of comments within each focus category written by female

and male teachers to writers identified as girls and boys. Table 5 highlights the significant

differences within the focus and mode categories.

________________________________

Insert Tables 3 and 5 about here

_______________________________

Genre differences – greater numbers of comments for narrative papers

The narrative papers received significantly more conventions comments than the

persuasive papers [z=5.67, p<.001]. Most frequently, teachers wrote the following comments

related to students’ use of writing conventions: “Keep consistent verb tense,” “Proper use of

quotation marks,” and “This is not a sentence.”

Narrative papers received significantly more process comments than persuasive papers

did [z=6.29, p<.001]. Teachers’ most frequently-written process comments were: “Read your

work out loud to yourself to assist with editing,” “Planning should also be an important part of

the narrative story process” and “Use a dictionary to check your spelling.”

The number of comments regarding formatting was very small. Writers of the narrative

papers received significantly more formatting comments than did writers of the persuasive

papers [z=2.38, p<.05]. The Soccer story received the greatest number of formatting comments,

as teachers wrote: “Incorporate header into the body of the story,” “good use of bold,” and “try

to link paragraphs together instead of subheading.”


Genre differences – greater numbers of comments for persuasive papers

Persuasive papers received significantly more meaning-focused comments than narrative

papers [z=3.22, p<.001]. The most frequently-written comments about meaning were: “Does this

support your position?” and “What do you mean?” Other comments included: “How do you

know this?” and “Your ideas need further development as many details are left out.”

After meaning, artistic style was the focus of the greatest number of comments. The

narratives received significantly greater numbers of comments about the writer’s artistic style

(z=2.20, p<.05). The most frequently-written comments were: “Inappropriate language” [for the

student’s word, “sucks”] and “Be positive!”

The persuasive papers received significantly greater numbers of comments with an

organization focus than did the narrative papers [z=2.79, p<.01]. Most often, teachers wrote to

students about the organization of their writing using these phrases: “You must keep one idea in

each paragraph,” “solid progression of ideas,” and “Your opening needs a lot of work.” In

addition, teachers wrote significantly more effort-related comments, such as “Well done” and

“Good job,” to writers of the persuasive papers (z=2.04, p<.05).

Ideology as a focus of teacher comments was practically non-existent for the narrative

papers, in spite of the environmental message within the Ducks narrative. There were

significantly more ideology-focused comments for the persuasive papers [z=5.58, p<.001], but

the commentary rates were low. Comments tended to take these forms: “They had problems

before the Europeans arrived – just different ones,” “demonstrates your awareness and sensitivity

towards the environment,” “Is it fair to speak for all First Nations People as one,” and “You’re

stereotyping.”


Gender differences

For the Ducks story, male teachers wrote significantly fewer meaning-focused comments

than did the female teachers: [F(1,102)=4.53, p<.05]. When the writer was identified as a girl,

teachers gave more comments related to meaning with the exception of the Soccer story, where

the male teachers wrote more meaning comments when the writer was identified as a boy. The

Ducks story elicited significantly greater numbers of organization-related comments from female

teachers than it did from male teachers, particularly when the writer was identified as a boy: [F

(1,104)=2.28, p <.05].

The Soccer story, with a much greater number of convention errors than any of the other

papers, received more comments about conventions from female teachers whether it was

attributed to a female or male writer. For the Ducks story, the number of conventions-related

comments written by female teachers was significantly higher than that of male teachers. The

number of comments that male teachers addressed to writers identified as boys was lower than

those written to writers identified as girls. Female teachers wrote significantly fewer comments

about conventions to writers identified as girls: [F(1,102)=4.23, p<.05]. This example of same

sex appreciation is reversed in the Home Sweet Home persuasive paper. When attributed to a

boy writer, this paper received more comments about writing conventions from male teachers.

The number of conventions-related comments written to writers identified as boys by male

teachers was significantly higher than those written to writers identified as girls: [F(1,99)=6.99,

p<.01]. This is an example of same sex appreciation, as female teachers wrote slightly more

conventions comments to writers identified as girls.

There were no gender patterns in teachers’ writing of comments within the Effort

category. Another example of same sex appreciation occurred in the comments written to


writers of the Home Sweet Home persuasive paper. Writers identified as girls received

significantly more effort-related comments from female teachers and writers identified as boys

received significantly more effort-related comments from male teachers [F(1, 99)=4.71, p<.05].

Male teachers wrote more comments with an artistic style focus than did female teachers

to writers of the persuasive papers. They also wrote more comments regarding students’ writing

processes than did female teachers, with one exception in the numbers of comments directed to

Andrew as the identified writer of the Soccer story. In contrast, female teachers’ comments to

writers of the narratives focussed on organization more than male teachers’ comments did except

in the numbers of comments directed to the Soccer story when a girl was the identified writer.

Mode of Comments

Teachers’ comments served a number of functions; to correct, criticize, command, ask

questions, provide an emotional (reader) response, or to explain, suggest or teach. Table 4

shows the frequencies of comments that we identified with each mode. With the greatest

frequency, teachers wrote comments that corrected or criticized students’ writing. The mode that

teachers used least in their feedback on the student writing was reader response.

Genre differences – greater numbers of comments for narrative papers

Authors of narrative papers received significantly more suggestions, explanations or

lessons than did authors of persuasive papers (z=2.98, p<.01). Such comments often took these

forms: “Remember that when you write dialogue you must identify the speaker each time the

speaker changes,” “To improve, use evidence from textbooks or newspapers to support your


arguments,” and “You have two very different ideas here. Perhaps the second sentence could be

incorporated into the next paragraph.”

The narrative papers received greater numbers of criticisms and corrections, and

commands, mostly related to the great number of convention errors in the Soccer paper. Typical

comments of this mode were “obviously a very rough draft that needs to be corrected” and “no

apparent plan or purpose.” Teachers also wrote more commands to authors of the narratives than

to authors of the persuasive papers. The command comments that teachers used most frequently

were: “Rethink your ending,” “Be more specific,” and “Proof read and edit for spelling and

grammar errors.”

Teachers wrote few reader responses for any of the papers, although the rate was

marginally higher for the narrative papers than for the persuasive ones. Responses in this

category were dominated by “I liked …” kinds of comments such as : “I like the way introduced

your characters,” “I thought you showed a strong commitment to this issue” and “I enjoyed

reading your story.”

Genre differences – greater numbers of comments for persuasive papers

The persuasive papers garnered significantly more praise then the narratives (z=2.56,

p<.01). Most frequently, praise took these forms: “Your story is funny” and “An interesting story

idea.”

Teachers wrote very few closed questions. They asked the persuasive papers’ writers

more open and closed questions than they asked narrative papers’ writers. Typical open-ended

questions were “What is the point of having the armor?” and “What does this mean?” Closed


questions most frequently took these forms: “Is this a new paragraph?” and “Did you hand this in

as a good copy?”

Gender differences

Writers identified as boys received significantly more corrections and criticisms on their

Native Case persuasive paper than did writers identified as girls [F(1, 96)=4.25, p<.05],

particularly from male teachers. For each of the four papers, male teachers wrote more

correction and criticism comments to writers identified as boys.

Teachers frequently wrote explanations and suggestions, and provided short written

lessons on particular elements of the writing. After corrections and criticisms, this category of

comments appeared most frequently. Female and male teachers gave more explanations,

suggestions and lessons to writers identified as boys than to writers identified as girls on all

papers. This gender difference was significant for the Soccer story: [F(1,102)=7.92, p<.05].

The numbers of comments praising students’ writing showed same sex depreciation.

Female teachers gave more praise to writers identified as boys for all four papers and male

teachers tended to give more praise to writers identified as girls. For the Home Sweet Home

persuasive paper, the differences were significant: F(1, 100)=6.13, p<.05.

There were gender patterns, as well. Papers attributed to male writers received more

commands from male and female teachers for all papers except the Soccer story, where male

teachers wrote more commands when the writer was identified as a girl. With one exception,

female teachers wrote more open-ended questions when writers were identified as girls. Male

teachers wrote more reader response comments to writers identified as girls than to writers

identified as boys for all papers.


________________________________

Insert Table 4 about here

_______________________________

Key Findings, Limitations, and Implications

We found significant differences in the number of errors identified and corrected in all

of the focus categories and in two of the mode categories when conducting t-tests of the types

of comments directed toward narrative and persuasive writing. Although we found few

significant differences in the comparison of numbers of comments written by female and male

teachers to writers identified as girls or boys, we found some interesting gender trends. These

results provide some insight into the gender and genre questions outlined earlier.

Key Findings

Genre differences.

Teachers’ perceptions of “good writing” as applied to narrative writing were different

from those applied to persuasive writing. Process, conventions, artistic style, and format were

the focus of significantly greater numbers of comments directed to narrative writing than to

persuasive writing. As explained later in the Limitations section, the abundance of process and

conventions comments may have been affected by the large number of convention errors in the

Soccer story so these results may be somewhat skewed. In contrast, meaning, organization,

effort, and ideology were emphasized to a greater degree when teachers responded to

persuasive writing than to narrative writing. These emphases, particularly the organization and


ideology foci, are consistent with the communicative, rhetorical and structural demands of

persuasive writing (Kamberelis, 1999).

The mode of the commands did not vary as greatly in comments directed to the two

types of writing. Teachers’ significantly greater use of praise for the persuasive papers and of

suggestions, lessons and explanations for the narrative papers could be attributed to the

imbalance of convention errors in the one narrative paper, as readily as it could be attributed to

the differences in genre. The influence of the convention errors extended to the number of

errors identified and corrected, as the numbers were significantly greater for narrative papers

than for persuasive papers.

Gender differences in comments directed to writers identified as boys or girls

Although there were few significant differences in the comment modes when compared

by the perceived gender of the students, there were trends in the data. Teachers’ perceptions of

girls as better writers than boys (Peterson, 1998) correlated with teachers’ tendencies in the

present study to indicate and make greater numbers of corrections on writing attributed to boys,

to criticize, to give more lessons, suggestions and explanations and to issue more commands to

writers identified as boys. Male and female teachers may have noticed the errors in writing

attributed to boys more often because they were expecting to see them. Similarly, teachers may

have written more explanations, suggestions and lessons to writers identified as boys because

they felt that boys were more likely to need the additional support for their writing.

Gender differences: Teachers

Female and male teachers highlighted different features of students’ writing in their

comments. Roulis’s (1995) finding that female teachers focused on conventions and


organization in contrast to male teachers’ tendency to focus more on artistic style was

consistent to some degree with our findings. In addition, as in Barnes’ (1990) and Roulis’s

(1995) study, female teachers generally wrote greater numbers of comments than did male

teachers. Female teachers tended to indicate and make more corrections than male teachers

made, as well.

In terms of teachers’ use of praise and criticism, there was a pattern of same-sex

depreciation, similar to that of previous research (Etaugh, Houtler, & Ptasnik, 1988; Haswell &

Haswell, 1996). Male teachers corrected and criticized writing attributed to boys to a greater

degree than that attributed to girls. They tended to praise writing attributed to girls more than

writing attributed to boys. In contrast, women praised writing attributed to boys more than they

praised writing attributed to girls.

Limitations

The paucity of information about the student writers and the restricted context for the

teachers’ assessments presented limitations to this study. The teachers participating in this

study were not the two students’ classroom teachers, so they did not know the students. They

also were not aware of the circumstances surrounding the students’ writing of each piece, nor

the authors’ intentions for the writing. A number of teachers asked the researchers if the Soccer

story really had been handed in to the teacher as a final draft, for example. In addition, teachers

were at a disadvantage because they did not have a real-life context for providing the feedback

—a perhaps unavoidable issue in any study as the special circumstances of a research study

inevitably create a false environment in which the participants act.


Teachers gave greater numbers of comments about conventions to writers of the

narratives than to writers of the persuasive papers. Because most of the process comments

referred to the need to edit or proofread, it is possible that the skewed number of convention

errors influenced this finding. In addition, the persuasive papers received significantly more

praise and significantly fewer suggestions, lessons and explanations than the narrative papers.

Teachers also wrote fewer corrections, criticisms and commands to writers of the persuasive

papers, which had fewer convention errors. In this respect, the anomalous number of errors in

this paper presents a limitation to our study. However, this anomaly in the sample papers also

points to the strong influence that convention errors have on teachers’ feedback.

Implications

The limitations of this study, a preliminary look at gender and genre influences on

teachers’ written feedback to student writers, indicate numerous avenues for further study. In

this research, there was a correlation between the number of convention errors and the focus

and mode of teachers’ feedback. These findings have turned our attention to new questions

about the influence of convention errors on teachers’ writing assessment. If conventions are

consciously or unconsciously given disproportionate weighting, it is important to investigate

ways to address the imbalance.

Although large numbers of teachers participated in this study, all that we know about the

teachers is whether they are male or female, their number of years teaching, and their

perceptions of the four samples of writing as demonstrated in their scores and feedback on the

writing. The research findings could be enriched with more information about the teachers’

views on writing and writing assessment, their perceptions of boys’ and girls’ writing, the types


of writing they assign, and their typical assessment and feedback practices. Future research

might provide teachers with information about the writing context and the student writers, as

well. It follows, also, that future research should examine the impact of the comments on

students’ self-efficacy as writers and on their future writing. Questions such as the following

might guide this research: (1) How do girls and boys interpret their teachers’ written feedback?

(2) How do students use the feedback in future writing? (3) What types of feedback do

students find helpful for various types of writing?

Future research should also explore the differential ways in which female and male

teachers respond to student writing. This study replicated Barnes’s (1990) and Roulis’s (1995)

findings that female teachers write more comments and make more corrections than male

teachers. It also replicated Haswell and Haswell’s (1996) same-sex depreciation patterns in

terms of the amount of praise and criticism that teachers give to students of their sex, although

we found evidence of same-sex appreciation in conventions and effort comments directed

toward one persuasive paper, as well. A deeper understanding of these ongoing patterns could

be the goal of further research.

Our research design did not allow us to examine teachers’ decision-making processes

while they assessed the writing and wrote comments. We do not know why the predominant

mode of the comments was corrections and criticisms, for example. Nor can we explain why

many teachers attempted to correct all convention errors in each of the student writing samples;

a finding also observed in Searle and Dillon’s (1980) research. An examination of teachers’

expectations for good writing of various types at their grade level, and what they see as their

role in responding to student writing is indicated. In addition, further research into the range of

genres students are expected to master, teacher expectations of student ability with various


genres, and how assessment practices vary across genres would add insight to our

understanding of writing assessment in elementary grades. Interviews with teachers to find out

what motivated their written comments, and “think-alouds” recorded while teachers respond to

student writing could provide a starting point for such research.

Although three of the four papers in the present study had strong ideological themes,

teachers’ engagement with the ideologies in their comments was minimal, replicating the

findings of Connors and Lunsford’s (1993) research with college instructors. In the two

persuasive papers, a few teachers identified problematic content regarding stereotypes about

First Nations people, but most teachers overlooked these issues. We wonder if teachers

commonly disengage from the ideological content of student writing in an attempt to avoid bias

in the subjective process of writing assessment. We speculate that, as teachers of young

writers, participants may have been intent on ensuring that students master the rudiments of

writing, prioritizing elements such as artistic style, organization, form, meaning, conventions,

and process over the ideological content of the writing, but there may be other explanations for

this pattern. These issues are central to teachers as they read their students’ writing and provide

feedback to students, and to researchers in the field of writing assessment.

Our study brings together issues of gender, genre and writing assessment in new ways.

Because of the study’s preliminary nature, its contributions to the field lie primarily in the

questions it raises. Issues of interest to educators and researchers who strive for gender equity

in writing instruction and assessment and for enhancing all students’ development as writers

across a broad range of genres stem from this study: (1) the need for teachers to examine their

responses to girls’ and boys’ writing, (2) the influence of convention errors on teachers’

responses to student writing, (3) the efficacy of correcting all errors in students writing, (4)


teachers’ expectations for students’ writing within various genres, and (5) teachers’ engagement

with the ideologies in students’ writing.


References

Anson, C. (1989). Response styles and ways of knowing. In C. Anson (Ed.), Writing and

response: Theory, practice, and research (pp. 332-366). Urbana, IL: National Council

of Teachers of English.

Bainbridge, J., Peterson, S., & Sumner, R. (1998). The influence of teachers’ perceptions of

gender on the evaluation of grades 3, 6 and 9 students’ narrative writing. Alberta

English, 36(1), 42-56

Bardine, B. A., Bardine, M. S., & Deegan, E. F. (2000). Beyond the red pen: Clarifying our

role in the response process. English Journal, 90(1), 94-101.

Barnes, L. (1990). Gender bias in teachers’ written comments. In S. L. Gabriel, & I. Smithson.

(Eds.), Gender in the classroom: Power and pedagogy (pp. 140-185). Chicago:

University of Illinois Press.

Britton, J., Burgess, T., Martin, N., McLeod, A., & Rosen, H. (1975). The development of

writing abilities, 11-18. London: Macmillan.

Chapman, M. (1994). The emergence of genres: Some findings from an examination of first-

grade writing. Written Communication, 11, 348-380.

Connors, R. J., & Lunsford, A. A. (1993). Teachers’ rhetorical comments on student papers.

College Composition and Communication, 44(2), 200-223.

Council of Ministers of Education, Canada. (1998). School achievement indicators program:

1998 reading and writing assessment. Toronto, ON: Author.

Donovan, C. A. (2001). Children’s development and control of written story and informational

genres: Insights from one elementary school. Research in the Teaching of English, 35, 394-

447.


Education Quality and Accountability Office. (2000b). Ontario provincial report on achievement.

Toronto: Author.

Egan, K. (1988). Primary understanding: Education in early childhood. New York:

Routledge.

Etaugh, C. B., Houtler, B., & Ptasnik, P. (1988). Evaluating competence of women and men:

Effects of experimenter gender and group gender composition. Psychology of Women

Quarterly, 12, 191-200.

Freedman, S. W. (1979). Why do teachers give the grades they do? College Composition and

Communication, 30, 161-164.

Haswell, R. H., & Haswell, J. T. (1996). Gender bias and critique of student writing.

Assessing Writing, 3, 31-83.

Kamberelis, G. (1999). Genre development and learning: Children writing stories, science

reports, and poems. Research in the Teaching of English, 33, 403-463.

Knudson, R. E. (1992). An analysis of persuasive discourse: Learning how to take a stand.

Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Reading Conference, San Antonio,

TX.

Languer, J. A. (1985). Children’s sense of genre: A study of performance on parallel reading and

writing tasks. Written Communication, 2(2), 157-187.

Moffett, J. (1968). Teaching the universe of discourse. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U. S. Department of Education. (1995).

Windows into the classroom: NAEP's 1992 writing portfolio study. Washington, DC:

Author.


Ohio Department of Education. (2000). Ohio sixth-grade proficiency test results: Gender and

ethnic March 2000 test administration. Columbus, OH: Author

Pappas, C. (1993). Is narrative “primary”? Some insights from kindergarteners’ pretend readings

of stories and information books. Journal of Reading Behavior, 25(1), 97-129.

Peterson, S. (1998). Evaluation and teachers’ perceptions of gender in sixth-grade student

writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 33(2), 181-208.

Peterson, S. (2001). Teachers’ assessment of girls’ and boys’ narrative and persuasive writing.

NRC Yearbook, 50, 483-494.

Roulis, E. (1995). Gendered voice in composing, gendered voice in evaluating: Gender and

the assessment of writing quality. In D. L. Rubin (Ed.), Composing social identity in

written language (pp. 151-183). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Searle, D., & Dillon, D. (1980). The message of marking: Teacher written responses to

student writing at intermediate grade levels. Research in the Teaching of English, 14,

233-242.

Smith, S. (1997). The genre of the end comment: Conventions in teacher responses to student

writing. College Composition and Communication, 48(2), 249-268.

Sommers, N. (1982). Responding to student writing. College Composition and

Communication, 33(2), 148-156.

Straub, R. (1997). Students’ reactions to teacher comments: An exploratory study. Research

in the Teaching of English, 31(1), 91-119.

Straub, R. (2000). The student, the text, and the classroom context: A case study of teacher

response. Assessing Writing, 7(1), 23-55.


Tower, C. (2003). Genre development and elementary students’ informational writing: A review

of the literature. Reading Research and Instruction, 42(4), 14-39.


Table 1: Comparison of Means of Comments by Type of Writing

Type of Comment Narrative Papers Standard Deviation Persuasive Papers Standard Deviation

Total numbers of comments 8.65 4.49 8.13 4.49

Greater numbers for Narrative Papers

Number of errors identified*

31.29 22.55 7.05 7.07

Number of errors corrected* 22.13 20.94 5.79 6.73

Conventions focus* 1.42 1.47 .54 .65

Process focus* .73 .65 .24 .39

Artistic style focus*** 1.94 1.50 1.61 1.22

Format focus*** .17 .35 .07 .25

Suggestions, lessons,

explanations mode**

1.81 1.31 1.43 1.33

Corrections/criticism mode 2.76 2.64 2.64 2.39

Command mode .97 1.05 .89 1.15

Response mode .28 .55 .22 .39


Greater numbers for

Persuasive Papers

Meaning focus*

1.99 1.83 2.63 2.17

Ideology focus* .06 .19 .55 .92

Organization focus** 1.31 1.22 1.67 1.28

Effort focus*** .14 .30 .21 .35

Praise mode** 1.70 1.45 2.02 1.50

Open questions mode .79 1.14 .85 1.23

Closed questions mode .33 .56 .43 .69

* p<.001

** p<.01

** *p<.05


Table 2: Tallies of Comments and Corrections By Identified Gender of Student Writer and Gender of Teacher Responder

Teacher

Gender

Soccer Story Ducks Story Native Case Persuasive

Home Sweet Home

Persuasive

Writer

Identified

as Male

Writer

Identified

as Female

Writer

Identified

as Male

Writer

Identified

as Female

Writer

Identified

as Male

Writer

Identified

as Female

Writer

Identified

as Male

Writer

Identified

as Female

Number of

Comments

Male 8.78 8.23 4.31 9.28 6.00 9.50 10.93 8.81

Female 10.10 9.15 7.06 8.44 6.08 6.94 8.88 9.76

Number of

corrections

indicated

Male 40.39 29.08 16.46 27.11 5.87 4.86 8.21 6.69

Female 46.85 31.88 19.35 26.56 6.54 5.63 8.22 8.43

Number of

corrections made

Male 25.83 18.85 13.62 21.28 5.00 3.71 6.07 4.94

Female 30.51 22.71 14.12 21.39 5.49 4.91 7.13 6.81


Table 3: Average Number of Focus Comments By Identified Gender of Student Writer and Gender of Teacher Responder

Teacher

Gender


Home Sweet Home

Persuasive

Writer

Identified

as Male

Writer

Identified

as Female

Writer

Identified

as Male

Writer

Identified

as Female

Writer

Identified

as Male

Writer

Identified

as Female

Writer

Identified

as Male

Writer

Identified

as Female

Meaning Male 2.94 2.31 .23* 1.83 1.80 3.00 3.15 3.44

Female 2.46 2.53 1.44 1.51 2.10 2.16 3.00 3.07

Conventions Male 1.44 1.15 .62* 1.67 .00 .57 1.62* .56

Female 1.51 1.71 1.53 1.07 .18 .31 .72 .83

Formatting Male .17 .46 .15 .11 .00 .14 .23 .19

Female .17 .29 .09 .07 .03 .03 .03 .10

Organization Male 1.22 .85 .46* 1.17 .93 1.64 2.15 1.88

Female 1.76 .79 1.38 1.59 1.33 1.06 1.94 2.31


Artistic Style Male 1.39 2.08 2.38 1.61 2.07 1.57 1.69 1.94

Female 1.98 1.94 2.00 1.85 1.64 1.50 1.03 1.93

Effort Male .11 .08 .08 .33 .13 .21 .31* .06

Female .07 .21 .09 .12 .26 .09 .16 .33

Process Male 1.00 1.00 .31 .78 .33 .29 .23 .38

Female 1.10 .88 .24 .49 .23 .03 .18 .38

Ideology Male .00 .00 .00 .17 .73 .93 .54 .25

Female .00 .06 .12 .10 .31 .75 .66 .48


Table 4: Average Numbers of Mode Comments By Identified Gender of Student Writer and Gender of Teacher Responder

Teacher

Gender


Home Sweet Home

Persuasive

Writer

Identified

as Male

Writer

Identified

as Female

Writer

Identified

as Male

Writer

Identified

as Female

Writer

Identified

as Male

Writer

Identified

as Female

Writer

Identified

as Male

Writer

Identified

as Female

Correction and

Criticism

Male 3.33 1.46 3.39 .92 3.47* 1.42 3.53 2.00

Female 2.83 2.74 2.80 2.97 1.66 1.60 3.00 4.06

Commands Male .67 .77 1.00 .38 1.24 .75 1.24 .46

Female 1.22 1.12 1.24 .56 .88 .73 1.20 .61

Closed Questions Male .44 .62 .11 .23 .59 .50 .59 .08

Female .61 .18 .12 .32 .44 .40 .37 .52

Praise Male 1.00 1.92 1.78 1.77 1.71 1.83 2.18* 3.15

Female 1.85 1.38 1.76 1.65 1.88 1.43 2.73 1.67


Open-ended

Questions

Male .83 1.08 .72 .23 .47 .58 1.35 .85

Female .73 1.26 .61 .59 .73 .40 1.29 .88

Reader Response Male .22 .46 .17 .23 .12 .25 .29 .38

Female .27 .38 .29 .18 .24 .13 .20 .27

Lessons,

explanations or

suggestions

Male 2.50* 1.77 1.56 .85 1.76 .92 1.88 1.38

Female 2.71 1.47 1.63 1.24 1.68 .80 2.02 .82


Table 5: Significant Gender Interactions: Focus and Mode of Comments

Title of Writing Focus/Mode Category

Teacher Gender Number of comments for writer identified as boy

Number of comments for writer identified as girl

F Value

More Comments

for Writers

Identified as Girls

Ducks story Meaning Male .23 1.83 4.53

Female 1.44 1.51

Ducks story Organization Male .46 1.17 2.28

Female 1.88 1.59

More Comments

for Writers

Identified as Boys

Native Case

persuasive

Correction &

criticism

Male 3.47 1.42 4.25

Female 1.66 1.60

Lessons, explanations and suggestions

Male 2.50 1.77 7.92


Female 2.71 1.47

Same sex

appreciation

Home Sweet

Home persuasive

Conventions Male 1.62 .56 6.99

Female .72 .83

Home Sweet

Home persuasive

Effort Male .31 .06 4.71

Female .16 .33

Same sex

depreciation

Ducks story Conventions Male .62 1.67 4.23

Female 1.53 1.07

Home Sweet

Home persuasive

Praise Male 2.18 3.15 6.13

Female 2.73 1.67

p<.05 in all cases


Appendix: Student Writing Used in the Study (typed exactly as students wrote the papers)

Narrative #1 (written by a girl)

Hi, I’m Melissa. I am 11 years old, I have brown hair, brown eyes and I love soccer. I play on a

indoor soccer team called West-view. We wear blue shirts and black shorts. We have a well developed

team. I casually play forefront. With Vanessa’s hard kicks, Max’s goal saves, plus Mario and Christian’s

goals were sure to win the play offs.

A while a go I had a dream. It was so strange, we were playing a hard competitve game of soccer,

in METAL!

My Dream Was The Future

We were in a bright yellow gym, it has basket ball nets on each side of the gym. It also contanied a

lion print in the middle of the floor. There was a skinny red line at the top and bottom, that went around

the walls. The team and I were standing in the far right corner and all you heard was “Haahaa”! “No, no

I’m not wearing metal, you can’t make me!” I hollered has our coach was explaining the horafing news.

“how are we sposte to run when were wearing gard glothes.””Melissa come down we want you to be saff.

“The metal will protect you if you fall.” My coach constencly said. “It’s not going to protect us if it rains,

we’ll rust.” Everyone craked up at Mario’s joke. “ Melissa please give it a chance today,

PPPPLLLLEEEEAAASSSSEEEE.” My coach was on his knees I had to say yes. I went to the bathroom

and changed.

There were four layers of silver armer and to top it off it fit tight. When I got back in the gym I was

able to take off two layers. It was lighter.

“Let the Games Begin”

“Melissa, Christian forefront, Vannessa, Mario defence, Max net.” Coach screamed.


The spokes person started speaking and the game began. “Christian kicks the ball it hits the oppiste

team Melissa get’s it she shuts and hits the goalies head in goes the ball.” “the new costumes seem to be

better than ever!” “Switch!” yelled the coach. The next four went on. “Nice goal.” My friend Vanessa

wispered in to my ear. Vannessa’s Portugal she has short brown hair & brown eyes. Her eye’s caputure

people’s attention. “Ok” I wispered back.

“Melissa, Vannessa forefront now.” We were back in the game.

The Spokesperson started speaking again.

“Defence kicks it and wait a second he fell, he’s hurt.” “The coach came to the conclusion that the

game was over!” “West-view wins a big one to nothing.” “Good bye till next time.” “Don’t say I didn’t

but I told you so, does this mean it’s not safe “And we don’t have to wear if anymore? Said Mario in

pain. “I guess so said our coach. “YYYYEEESS!” Everyone was happy.

That was the end of my dream. Well that was the future not the present! Gota go I have a big game

bye.


Persuasive Paper #1 (written by a girl)

Home Sweet Home First Nations

In today’s world many First Nations people in Canada live on reserves. These First Nations speak

different languages. They live in tribes. Each tribe has a different belief. The were the First to live in

Canada. When the white Canadians came, the government gave the First Nations a bit of land where they

will continue their lives. I believe they should have their own land in order to maintain their lifestyle.

Living on reserves, they experience what their brave, courageous ancestors went through, including

the good and bad. They're teaching the young, curious children about their religion. First Nations believe

that a religion is what a good, reliable family needs. While being the First on the Canadian land the First

nations are used to the food, weather, and fresh air. Many people have questions as to who they are? And

where they come from? On reserves the First Nations know the answers. When not on reserves these

people are not treated with as much respect as other Canadians. That is wrong. They do this because they

stereotype natives. On the other hand, when on reserves they are all treated the same. Being proud of

who they are. Also on reserves their family members are buried, which makes it sacred to them.

However, another reason reserves are needed is to avoid over modernization of the First Nation’s natural

land.

These First Nations fish, hunt, and farm to receive their food. Knowing when it comes and where to

get it. The First Nations enjoy fishing and hunting, which they cannot do in the city Because such an

environment is not available. These reserves give the First Nations a place where they could be

themselves by building a fire during the winter, and masked dancers participate in ceremonial dances.

The First Nations should have control over their own affairs. Over 75% of Canadian Indian bands now

administer all or parts of their education program. Preserving native language is an essential part of their

education. Furthermore, on reserves they are not ridiculed for their beliefs and religion. These people


think like us, they might have different beliefs, but they are human. Nothing is wrong with them. This

land is, as you know, like a cemetery to them. Their families are buried on the land. Would you like

someone to go the cemetery and dig up your family members? I think NOT! Just imagine what would

happen to that land if they were to live like us. That land would be dug up and a city would be built. All

the trees would be knocked down and the beautiful living land would be destroyed. Why are Canadians

intruding in their space?

Never the less, some Canadians stereotype natives thinking all they do is drink and do drugs on the

reserves. Furthermore, living in a normal Canadian society will provide greater employment

opportunities.

This will lead to higher standards of living as they will be able to provide for and support their

families. Moreover, the increased feeling of satisfaction about their lives will lower the suicide rate.

With the support of the Canadian society their living conditions will improve to Canadian Public Health

standards and decrease such health hazards when not on reserves. Furthermore, the education that all

native children receive is and has been second-rate. Most First Nations who utilize Canadian government

services should pay taxes like all Canadians and enjoy the benefits of tax programs.

First Nations have a choice to stay on reserves or to live in regular Canadian society. Their decision

affects how they live and their desire to govern themselves. By knowing how important the First Nation’s

culture is to them, I support the decision of keeping reserves. While staying on reserves they will be able

to keep the First Nations’s traditions alive.

With reserves the First Nations’s history may be lost.

grade six teachers’ responses to narrative and persuasive ...€¦ · web viewhome sweet home...

Documents