Upload
zinnia
View
33
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
To Revise and Improve Writing . Using Gen Ed Assessment to Inform and Influence Teaching. Guiding Questions. How do you teach revision? What do we learn about revision from the direct assessment of student writing? How might you restructure your revision pedagogy?. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
David S. Martins, Ph.D.
To Revise and Improve Writing
Using Gen Ed Assessment to Inform
and Influence Teaching
David S. Martins - FITL 2011
Guiding Questions How do you teach revision?
What do we learn about revision from the direct assessment of student writing?
How might you restructure your revision pedagogy?
David S. Martins - FITL 2011
How do you teach revision?
David S. Martins - FITL 2011
Revision Activities In-class Peer Review Take-home Peer Review In-class Analysis of Peer
Reviews Instructor feedback Revision Plans Teacher-Student
Conference In-class Discussion of
Evaluation Criteria/Rubric
In-class Workshop on Student Writing
In-class Modeling of Revision
In-class Sentence or Passage Revision (Using Computer)
“Self-Assessment” Questionnaire
Reflective Essay “Track Changes” Draft Writing Center visit
David S. Martins - FITL 2011
What do we learn about revision from the direct
assessment of student writing?
David S. Martins - FITL 2011
MethodPortfolio
Collection Basic Writing, Writing
Seminar (incl. CLA &NTID), Honors Seminar
Fall and Winter
N=174 (11.6%)
Drafts of “Documented Research Essay”
Scoring Guide Communication
Team – Revision Types Lit Review – Feedback
Types Program Faculty –
Revision Activities Pilot Workshops –
Test Scoring Guide
David S. Martins - FITL 2011
Scoring Guide1. Portfolio #: 20091/20092-RA- 2. Please indicate which of the following documents are
contained in the portfolio 3. Comparing the three drafts included in the portfolio,
what revisions do you see the student completing or attempting to complete while preparing the final draft:
4. Which of these revisions improved the essay the most?
5. Where were the completed revisions targeted? 6. Considering the feedback received, what revisions
did the peers/instructor believe were necessary to improve the draft?
David S. Martins - FITL 2011
Scoring Guide (cont.)7. Who seemed to provide comments that lead
to the most significant revision? 8. Considering all of the feedback received,
what kinds of comments seemed to lead to the most significant improvements to the essay? (Check no more than three.)
9. Considering the revisions made and the feedback offered, where was the most generative feedback located?
10. Evaluation of revision and final draft
David S. Martins - FITL 2011
Revision Types Source Information
Complexity and Audience Awareness
Organization
Editing & Stylistics
David S. Martins - FITL 2011
Source Information Source information has been added,
removed, or modified to support claims/thesis
Sources are more fully integrated into the essay (e.g., through signal phrases, inter-textual references, etc.)
David S. Martins - FITL 2011
Complexity &Audience Awareness
Focus of essay has been changed, narrowed, or expanded (e.g., through changes in word choice, organization, and/or use of sources)
Multiple or alternative perspectives are considered showing increased complexity of thought and audience awareness
Implications and/or questions are articulated showing increased complexity of thought and audience awareness
David S. Martins - FITL 2011
Organization Transitional words of phrases, between
and within paragraphs, have been added or modified to improve coherence and flow
Paragraphs have been added, removed, or moved to demonstrate intentional organizational structure
David S. Martins - FITL 2011
Editing & Stylistics Copyediting has reduced distracting
errors in spelling, punctuation, grammar, and format
Sentence-level changes in word choice, word order, and redundancy make essay clearer and more concrete
David S. Martins - FITL 2011
Most Frequent RevisionsOverall, the most frequent types of revision observed in the portfolios addressed changes that preserved, rather than changed the meaning of the text: Source information added, removed, or modified
(68%) Copyediting that reduced distracting errors (67%) Sentence-level changes in word choice, word
order, and redundancy (55%). Paragraphs added, removed, or moved (55%).
David S. Martins - FITL 2011
“Complexity”The issue of complexity, presumably the most difficult area to address in revision, accounted for the two least frequent types of revision observed:
Implications and/or questions articulated (26%)
Multiple or alternative perspectives are considered (30%).
David S. Martins - FITL 2011
Revision Trends and Grades
The greater variety of revision types = higher grades.
In A/B portfolios and A essays, the two most successful revisions were: 1. the articulation of
implications or questions (.89), and
2. the consideration of multiple or alternative perspectives (.79).
Those same two revisions were seen in 0% and 13% of the portfolios with D/F essay.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100
2
4
6
8
10
12
Revision Trends Based on Im-
provement Grades
ALinear (A)DFLinear (DF)
Number of Revision-Types Observed
Num
ber
of P
ortf
olio
s
David S. Martins - FITL 2011
Peer Feedback & Revision Location
92% of student respondents report peer response experiences in their classes, and 100% of faculty reported assigning peer response.
Instructor feedback was seen as leading to more significant revision (67%) compared to that of peers (9%).
Revisions occurred only where comments were written locally on the page in 60% of portfolios
David S. Martins - FITL 2011
Benchmarks Established 70% revise source
information to support claims or thesis.
70% revise to address errors in editing and mechanics.
55% revise organizational structure.
30% revise to show increased complexity of thought and audience awareness.
DiscussionProgram-Based Impact
David S. Martins - FITL 2011
How do these findings influence how might you restructure your revision pedagogy (e.g., class activities, assignment sequences, readings, peer response)?
DiscussionClass-Based Impact
David S. Martins - FITL 2011
Think back to your most successful assessment experience…
How did you make the assessment useful?
David S. Martins - FITL 2011
Key References Dave, Anish M. and David R. Russell. “Drafting and Revision Using
Word Processing by Undergraduate Student Writers: Changing Conceptions and Practices” Research in the Teaching of Writing 44. 4 (2010), 406-434.
Faigley, Lester and Stephen Witte. “Analyzing Revision” CCC 32.4 (1981), 400-414.
Horning, Alice and Anne Becker. Eds. Revision: History, Theory, Practice. West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press (2006).
Huot, Brian. “Toward a New Discourse of Writing Assessment for the College Writing Classroom.” College English 65 (2002): 163-180.
Sommers, Nancy. “Revision Strategies of Student Writers and Experienced Adult Writers.” CCC 31.4 (1980), 378-88.
Straub, Richard. “The Concept of Control in Teacher Response: Defining the Varieties of ‘Directive’ and ‘Facilitative’ Commentary. CCC 47 (1996), 223-251.