For the professor, the space created by audio commentary is a place where comments on student writing can be stated fully and openly, with neither the interruption, scheduling, or time constraints inherent in conferencing, nor the space and time constraints inherent in handwritten margin notes.

Furthermore, this new space is one where the professor, through the act of engaging in a kind of imagined dialogue, is continually, actively, aware of and sensitive to audience, in ways similar to the conference—in ways sometimes forgotten in the less “human” space of written notes. The element of speech forces us to imagine the hearer—the student—in ways we try to do in written comments, but simply cannot at times because of space and time constraints. While we might like to soften, explain, or elaborate on a detail in written commentary, it simply takes more words, more time, and more effort to duplicate on paper the affective components of audio commentary. Furthermore, too many students see an overabundance of written commentary in their papers’ margins (endnotes or letters) as an indication of failure, not as an attempt at genuine, authentic communication.

Finally, even if professors were to take the time to write extensive responses to students’ papers, attending to audience as they write, we believe that audio commentary is still a more productive and engaging space for response to take place. The divergences and spontaneity of the spoken word—the stories we tell to explain how we connected, personally, to a student’s paper, the digressions that link what we’re saying to a past moment in the classroom, for instance—allow for a richness of response that writing, due to its more formal, structured nature, might never address.