|
How human-centered responses guide students toward clearer, more purposeful communication.
Why did assigning an authentic audience fail to produce effective arguments? This article — the fourth in the Teaching Writing in the Age of Generative AI series — argues that writing is a social transaction where feedback should prioritize relational connection and rhetorical empathy, as defined by scholars like Flower and Moffett. The practical takeaway is the use of relational response to shift the reader’s role from evaluator to human reader.
I thought I had it figured out.
For our argumentative writing unit, I assigned a clear, authentic audience: our school leadership. Students would write arguments about something they wanted changed—from cafeteria policies to classroom technology—directly to the people who could enact that change from their own perspectives and citing evidence. This, I assumed, would frame writing as thinking and authentic identity building. As is often the case in teaching, I was proven wrong. When the drafts came in, I was shocked. The language was off the mark. Arguments demanding a new grading system used the casual, pleading tone of a text message; proposals for mental health support were full of unexplained jargon the busy administrators wouldn't wade through. My initial frustration was overwhelming: Why didn't they use the proper conventions for this genre? Then, I realized the disconnect. My students knew what they wanted to say, but they didn't know how to say it convincingly to that audience. They knew little about the genre of institutional argument or what their school leadership would find persuasive. What would be convincing? More importantly, how had others written successful arguments in this context? If writing is only ever aimed at an assessor, it becomes sterile. I suggest we shift the focus from evaluation to conversation—from isolating the writer to connecting them with a genuine human audience. The Rhetorical Core: Writing as Relational Choice
Writing, at its core, demands a social transaction. It requires the writer to move beyond "writer-based prose"—writing that only makes sense to the person who wrote it—and towards "reader-based prose." Linda Flower introduced this concept (Flower, 1979), explaining that reader-based prose is where the writer actively anticipates and negotiates with the needs and expectations of their audience. This negotiation compels a writer to make a series of conscious choices—about tone, evidence, and structure—deeply defined and rooted in what they know about another person.
James Moffett underscores this, arguing that discourse is fundamentally an act of "I talking to you about it" (Moffett, 1981). The “I” refers to the writer, the “you” the audience, and the “it” the subject of their writing. In this way, Moffett suggests that all writing is a negotiation between author, audience, and purpose. Furthermore, Janet Emig cautioned that when writing is detached from real purpose, students simply mimic tone, not truly developing their voice as writers (Emig, 1977). Some suggest a teacher cannot be an authentic writing audience because the role of "teacher" often means "evaluator." However, this perception overlooks the reality that teachers are often deeply human figures in students' lives. If we redefine our role—responding as human beings who engage with the ideas, rather than just as judges who assess adherence to a rubric—we absolutely can be that deeply human, authentic audience. If we re-anchor the writing task in a context where the audience matters, we give students the tools to understand who they are writing to and what they value. Relational Feedback: SEL and Human Connection
As my prior articles established, writing is fundamentally about thinking and building identity. Extending this, feedback shouldn't just focus on sharpening critical thinking or correcting conventions; it should also serve as a crucial site for social-emotional learning (SEL) and human connection.
In the digital age, AI tools can efficiently provide feedback on mechanics, clarity, and structural consistency. However, what makes human feedback unique is the point of social and emotional connection and the authentic human reader experience. AI can assess rules; it cannot tell the writer, "This made me laugh aloud," or "I connected to this deeply because it reminded me of this event from my own life." Relational feedback moves beyond the rubric to share the actual, personal experience of the reader, thereby facilitating SEL competencies like relationship skills and social awareness. When a reader shares their personal response, they are modeling empathy and validating the writer's humanity. Research on response-based feedback—feedback that privileges the reader's experience and response over institutional critique—confirms its power in helping writers revise their work more effectively because they are responding to a real communication breakdown rather than an abstract rule (Elbow, 1998). I use this model in my own college courses, giving most writing feedback in the genre of letters of response, a pedagogy inspired by Ruth Vinz. I've already observed increased engagement, assignment completion, and voluntary student responses—often because I've posed genuine conversation questions within my letters. I'm currently analyzing this data for formal publication, but the initial findings strongly suggest that treating feedback as a human conversation yields better results than treating it as a final judgment. Other research supports this: Nancy Sommers found that student writers often ignore comments that aren't integrated into a broader, holistic response (Sommers, 1982). Even without the time or capacity to write full letters to students, this mode of relational feedback centers on the writing's impact, using phrases like:
This feedback tells the student: "I see you, and I resonate with your thinking and experiences, but communication requires a bridge." This can also be a mode of feedback that you encourage students to give to one another. Practices: Cultivating Authentic Human Audiences
The goal is to shift the audience from "teacher-as-grader" or “student-as-grader” to "human-as-recipient" and to use feedback to reinforce that human link.
The power of writing is not just in the logic it presents or the identity it reveals, but in the bridges it builds. While AI tools offer valuable assistance with mechanics, they cannot replicate the relational feedback that fosters empathy and authentic connection. When we teach writing with a genuine audience, armed with the lessons from mentor texts, and commit to relational feedback, we redefine the teacher's role and move beyond “school assignments.” We equip students with the rhetorical empathy to recognize the person on the other side of the page and adjust their voice and choices accordingly. This focus on connection is one of the most profound skills we can teach in a world increasingly starved for meaningful relationships.
|
SEARCH BY TOPIC
|
|
The Center for Professional Education of Teachers (CPET) at Teachers College, Columbia University is committed to making excellent and equitable education accessible worldwide. CPET unites theory and practice to promote transformational change. We design innovative projects, cultivate sustainable partnerships, and conduct research through direct and online services to youth and educators. Grounded in adult learning theories, our six core principles structure our customized approach and expand the capacities of educators around the world.
|
ABOUT US
525 West 120th Street, Box 182 New York, NY 10027 416 Zankel Ph: (212) 678-3161 [email protected] Our Team Career Opportunities |
EDUCATOR RESOURCES
Book of the Month Online Courses Professional Articles Ready-to-Use Resources Teaching Today Podcast |
COACHING SERVICES
Custom Coaching Global Learning Alliance Literacy Unbound New Teacher Network Student Press Initiative |
MAKE A DIFFERENCE
Every gift is an investment in equitable education. With your support, we can continue to bring transformative change for K-12 teachers, leaders, and students worldwide. |