Who Should Correct a Written Work_CELE2014

8/9/2019 Who Should Correct a Written Work_CELE2014

1/15

Who should correct a written work:

the teacher or the learner ?

Rosa Maria Lozano Ortigosa

CENLEX Zacatenco, IPN


2/15

• Learners wrote (drafted?)

something and gave it to teacher

• Teacher made lots of marks on

learners’ work, she even

corrected some/many items

• Learners got a paper full of

annotations that contributed

very little to learning

•

Teacher prepared a remedialsession on relevant issues

• Learners checked (again)/ filed

/ disposed papers (?)

Minimun positive effect of all this TEACHER’s work!!!

MY “OLD” MODEL


3/15

MY QUESTION

Is it possible (for a teacher) to work less

and at the same time have a (more)

meaningful impact on learners’ learning

(writing proficiency)?

Scrivener’s 2005, Ur’s 1996, Peñaflorida in Richards and Renandya, 2002


4/15

• Learner writes (drafts?) something and gives it to teacher

• Teacher revises paper and directs learner’s attention to mostrelevant / problematic issues (by means of the observation code)

• Learner gets her paper back with observations (specific issues)

and, if necessary, a general comment

• Learner revises, corrects and rewrites her work, then gives the

two papers (1st and corrected versions) to teacher

• Teacher checks the two versions and looks for improvement;

she returns the two papers, with new comments, to learner. Ifnecessary, teacher offers help with remaining issues

•Teacher prepares a remedial session on relevant issue(s)

• Learners check (again) / file / dispose papers (?)

MY “NEW” MODEL


5/15

• PUNCT = Punctuation

• CAP = Capitalization

• SP = Spelling

• ___ GR = Grammar (tenses,

concordance, etc.)

• SYN = Syntax

• word order

•

something is missing• = Lexis

• = Awkward

sentence / idea

TEACHER’S OBSERVATION CODE

AWK

• = Conventions:

margins, date, greeting,

farewal, Format (according

to genre), etc.

• REG = Register

• ORG = Organization

• COHE= Cohesion

• COHE = Coherence

• TA = Task achievement

CONV

LEX


6/15


7/15

1st version


8/15

2nd version


9/15

1st version


10/15

2nd version


11/15

1st version


12/15

2nd version


13/15

POSITIVE

• Coherent with the draft-

write-revise-compose-rewrite

strategy

• Allows learners to reflect on

what they know/don’t knowand do some repair work by

themselves

• Much fairer as learners have

an opportunity to improve

their work before grading

• Good chances to have a

meaningful impact on

learning

NEGATIVE

• Learners need to be trainedto work with this model

•Teacher has to revise the

material twice

• Learners are reluctant to worktwice or they insist on having

the teacher’s corrections

• Some students correct only

what has been marked orcorrect something that was

correct

• Few learners ask for help

once the cycle is completed

MY BALANCE


14/15

• make it clear that, for grading purposes, the first version

DOES NOT COUNT

• make sure that I PRAISE positive aspects of work, this

also applies to the first version

• prepare a set of rubrics to be used together with the

“observation code”

• find out if learners consider that the “new”process really

helps them improve

• once learners have completed three writing

assingments using the “new” process, I’ll ask them to

evaluate their improvement and give me feedback

about their experience

• prepare a questionnaire (survey) for this purpose

FOR THE NEXT STEP, I WILL…


15/15

Any questions or

suggestions?

To all of them andto you,

THANKS! !!

I’d like to thank “my”students (2nd Bimester

2013 , groups B4, I2, A2) for

allowing me to use some oftheir works for this

presentation.

Rosa Maria Lozano

CENLEX Zacatenco IPN

[email protected]

[email protected]
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]

Documents

Who Should Correct a Written Work_CELE2014