Steve,

This paper offers many useful tips when fishing in Orlando’s lakes. You offer many concrete and sensory details that really recreate the lake for me. This paper has a lot of potential, especially after another a revision. Where I find you diverge from your title is in the narration section of your paper. The assignment is to write about something you know how to do and explain it to us. Thus, while the narration is good and interesting, you should not allow it to become the center of your paper. I would suggest rereading the prompt and then use you narration to solidify your points.

I chose this as the main problem to respond to because the base of Steve’s problems within the paper is a knowledge problem. If he goes back and rereads the prompt, then this should fix this problem.

The main theme between these two sections of reading deal with responding to student’s papers and how they perceive these comments. In the section on responses to student writing, Lindemann goes over the technical reasons for why teachers do this. In the previous section of the reading on rewriting, Lindemann also touches on these responses as “rarely praised strengths” (Lindemann 190). This has been true in my entire writing career. While they are helpful to an extent, the comments I receive on my papers rarely give praise to my strengths. I believe that this is where teachers miss the most opportunity to actually help and teach their students. Yes it is important to point out mistakes, but it is also helpful to praise them on the things they did well. This, in my opinion, is how to make students better writer.