This week’s articles focus on writing assessment. I will start by saying that this is certainly a topic that I deal with within my own program. The constant chatter is that of assessment. How do we measure achievement in writing?
Huot begins with exactly what the educational system has been dealing with for quite some time: researchers have been struggling with the development of ways to produce reliable and valid means of assessing writing quality. Huot provides a review of the literature that addresses the relatively new way of assessing student writing. Huot emphasizes that the primary means of assessment for quality of writing revolve around two different readers, often English instructors, arriving at a specific quality of rating. I wanted to particularly address this issue as does Huot. As a former high school composition instructor and literature instructor, we had to prepare students for what is known as the high school proficiency exam. These exams are assessed in the same way Huot describes. However, the issue I had, and as Huot points out through the described research is that the raters are often influenced by expectation and the reading process in general. A lot of educational instruction revolves around preparing students for said tests, but when it comes to composition, how is an instructor able to prepare students when ideally multiple factors will no doubt influence the readers. But it seems, as Huot points out, the primary focus of assessment of writing will continue to turn to content and organization. Personally, it would be interesting to see the future studies on how readers arrive at their decisions. Right now, the HS proficiency exam utilizes the IOVC (Ideas, Organization, Voice, and Conventions) rubric to assess their test. As instructors, we were to emphasize this to the students. I still am not sure how I feel about it.
White’s article addresses the scoring of portfolios. He argues that portfolios should not utilize the holistic approach for assessment as portfolios are not designed to be scored that way. Typically, White argues, holistic scoring is used for specific types of writing. Because portfolios primarily are made up of a long term process, the overall reflection from the student about the process should be held in high regard. I actually agree with White in this case because it seems that many college programs and some high school culminating experience programs have shifted their focus to utilizing portfolios as a means of assessment, particularly in the English and education programs. I don’t think that holistic scoring would actually do their long term efforts justice as a means of assessment. White asserts that clear expectations and requirements should be articulated to students from the beginning so students have a clear understanding of the assessment process; reflection playing a large role. I am not actually sure how many of the programs that use portfolios as a means of assessment actually assess them so it would be interesting to investigate this. The Master’s program transitioned into the electronic portfolio process shortly after I graduated so I never got the chance to participate in this process. I have never used portfolios as a teacher, but I can imagine there would be some constraints because of time etc.
Royer and Gilles’s focuses on a nontraditional approach to placing students into remedial courses, specifically that of the freshman comp class. Royer and Gilles suggest that students choose which composition class they feel they need to sign up for based on a self evaluation of their reading and writing ability (directed self-placement). For the most part, this method will no longer point the blaming finger at instructors and English departments if students do not achieve. Essentially, the idea is that students that self-place in the remedial composition courses are people that would have been placed there anyway. Typically students that have a low perception of their abilities, or actually have lower level abilities feel they would need assistance with writing and reading and wouldn’t feel the stigma of been classified as a remedial student; thus, student motivation is less likely negatively affected. I honestly wouldn’t mind see this play out. I think it would be a good idea to test this method in a smaller institution that has more wiggle room to test this theory.
In the Impact of the SAT and ACT timed writing test report, the overall essence was the concern NCTE had about the timed essay portion of the exam. Essentially, NCTE felt that this assessment would not be a good gauge of student writing ability. Ideally this article reiterates the problem that many educators have regarding standardized tests: teachers constantly have to teach to the test. I think the same can be said for the proficiency exam that addressed earlier. Until we have another form of assessment for writing ability or further research, it seems this will continue to be the case.
In the last article, An Apologia for the Timed Impromptu Essay Test, White encourages argues the benefits of the timed essay test. White argues that there is some credibility with these tests because they are actual writings from students rather than standardized multiple choice tests. I think White makes a good point because all too often with standardized test the object of the game is multiple choice everything and although the writing portion is timed and may not be a genuine reflection of student writing, at least it is a glimpse. Plus, graders of these tests take this into account, I hope anyway. Ultimately, like with any other types of assessment, we have to consider the context of the timed essay and what it is these tests aim to assess.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Final Wesbite and Reflection
http://www.nayelee-villanueva.webs.com/
I will start by saying my website is still somewhat a work in progress. Although it is my final website, I feel that I will likely continue to work on it as a progressing professional. At first, I really thought this process would be quite simple, but as I quickly realized that wasn't the case. I am the type of person that obsesses over having to have the "perfect" final product and it seems as with the case of my final paper (a bit off topic I know) that I am primarily concerned with the final product rather than the process. This professional website takes on more of a personal type of writing (essentially writing about myself) which is something that I am not really great at as I don't like talking about myself. I find it more difficult to accomplish than writing academic papers. Not only was I concerned with the written content, but I had to worry about what it would esthetically look like. While I realize there is a whole field in this sort of thing, I often was setting up the site how I would like to see sites, based on my personality (plain, simple, and maybe a bit boring). I am not the type of person that enjoys bells and whistles so to speak. I prefer professional websites to be simple and to the point.
I initially started the process utilizing dreamweaver, but I grew quite frustrated as I am sure the rest of my classmates did. It isn’t to say I did not enjoy the creative aspect of it; I simply did not have the time to dedicate to this specific process. So, I found a web hosting site that already had a premade format to publish my material. I thought this to be the route to go because I could solely focus on the material I was actually placing on the site rather than the material and the process. Again, I wouldn’t have been concerned with the process if I did not have time constraints.
I couldn’t help but think through this website building process how I was more concerned about creating the final product and ideally giving you the instructor what you wanted. I am guilty of doing exactly what I do not want my students to do which is to write to me as the audience. I am not quite sure why I took on this approach…okay maybe I had an idea…I wanted the grade. But, I probably should have focused more on addressing the “real” audience for this site, potential employers. Nevertheless, in the end of all this, I did come out realizing the importance of actually having a professional website. I suppose for the longest time I always told myself I will establish it when I need to. Well, now I need to and I am grateful that I was somewhat forced to do it.
I certainly hope it is of above average quality, but as I mentioned before, I will continue to use it as a my professional website…eventually I will transition to my own domain name…I am betting my name will not be used anytime soon!
I will start by saying my website is still somewhat a work in progress. Although it is my final website, I feel that I will likely continue to work on it as a progressing professional. At first, I really thought this process would be quite simple, but as I quickly realized that wasn't the case. I am the type of person that obsesses over having to have the "perfect" final product and it seems as with the case of my final paper (a bit off topic I know) that I am primarily concerned with the final product rather than the process. This professional website takes on more of a personal type of writing (essentially writing about myself) which is something that I am not really great at as I don't like talking about myself. I find it more difficult to accomplish than writing academic papers. Not only was I concerned with the written content, but I had to worry about what it would esthetically look like. While I realize there is a whole field in this sort of thing, I often was setting up the site how I would like to see sites, based on my personality (plain, simple, and maybe a bit boring). I am not the type of person that enjoys bells and whistles so to speak. I prefer professional websites to be simple and to the point.
I initially started the process utilizing dreamweaver, but I grew quite frustrated as I am sure the rest of my classmates did. It isn’t to say I did not enjoy the creative aspect of it; I simply did not have the time to dedicate to this specific process. So, I found a web hosting site that already had a premade format to publish my material. I thought this to be the route to go because I could solely focus on the material I was actually placing on the site rather than the material and the process. Again, I wouldn’t have been concerned with the process if I did not have time constraints.
I couldn’t help but think through this website building process how I was more concerned about creating the final product and ideally giving you the instructor what you wanted. I am guilty of doing exactly what I do not want my students to do which is to write to me as the audience. I am not quite sure why I took on this approach…okay maybe I had an idea…I wanted the grade. But, I probably should have focused more on addressing the “real” audience for this site, potential employers. Nevertheless, in the end of all this, I did come out realizing the importance of actually having a professional website. I suppose for the longest time I always told myself I will establish it when I need to. Well, now I need to and I am grateful that I was somewhat forced to do it.
I certainly hope it is of above average quality, but as I mentioned before, I will continue to use it as a my professional website…eventually I will transition to my own domain name…I am betting my name will not be used anytime soon!
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Ideology and Pedagogy
This week’s readings focus on critical and cultural studies in pedagogy. I will begin in order and start with Freire’s article focuses on the adult literacy process as means for freedom. In the first half of the article, Freire makes an analogy of the illiterate being that of a person who cannot function “normally” in society. Typically, those that are not “normal” often are classified as marginal. However, Freire stresses that the illiterate are not necessarily marginal because they still belong to something. He argues that if we were to accept the notion of an illiterate man as being a person who exists just outside of society, we must naturally accept the idea of this illiterate man as being a “sick” person who would need literacy as “medicine” to cure him which would in turn, allow him to return to where he came from, now a functioning (normal) member of society. The analogy given here reminds me of the same concepts and principles behind mental institutions. If you are not normal, you need to be fixed in order to return back to society in a functioning manner. Anything that needs to rely on “medicine” particularly that of the literacy type, would essential need to continue to receive it in some manner in order to function.; however, this would be a decision that a person would need to make. Freire argues that rather than teaching adults a process that is mechanical, we should make it available for people to “achieve critical consciousness so that they can teach themselves to read and write.” (p. 627) Essentially, this allows them the freedom of choice, the freedom to decide how they will be a member of society.
Berlin’s article on rhetoric and ideology emphasizes a point that, I think, is fair to say is true. Berlin argues that teaching is “never innocent.” He goes on to stress how pedagogy overlaps with ideology. These two cannot be separated. The point I walk away with here is that whatever agenda that the instructor holds, will no doubt affect their pedagogical practices in one way or another. This reminds me of a discussion we had in another class about incorporating social justice in the curriculum. Although some argue this can happen without bias, I am a firm believer, as Berlin, that there is always some form of ideology present. I can’t help think that all through graduate school we are taught all about theories and theoretical frameworks and eventually are instructed to subscribe to one come dissertation time. How can we not have an ideology when we teach? Berlin argues that if we do not recognize the coexistence of the two, we are essentially irresponsible in our practice. The point, know an ideology exist within pedagogy and understand how it shapes who we are and how we teach. Not always a negative thing, just more responsible. I believe knowing this as an instructor and expressing it to students begins the wonderful journey of critical thinking.
Shor’s article or study was a rather interesting read. Shor uses the work of Freire to ground the decisions for the pedagogical practices used in his classroom. He uses the theme of “work” for the various types of writing they conducted. Shor established a classroom that focuses on the student and their voices. I particularly enjoyed the first day activity…I think I may use that one myself. He uses many of the processes found in the typical writing process, but by the means in which he goes about it makes it unique. Of course because I am the grammar teacher, I was instantly attracted to the way he handled the grammar “situation.” I thought this made an excellent point about how grammar is not necessarily ignored but can be taught through alternative methods, i.e. reading papers orally etc.
Hairston’s article stresses the point that ideology should not be involved in rhetoric or the composition classroom. She asserts that students are not necessarily prepared to handle the magnitude that is involved with ideology. Ideally, students should be learning solely how to write and not necessarily focusing on “loaded” issues. To a certain degree I can see that point, especially from my own experiences teaching freshman composition. It seems that there is an epidemic of students not being able to have the capabilities to critically think let alone handle certain ideologies. However, I think there are ways in which we can incorporate, and probably already do, methods similar to that. Students can start with issues that concern them (of course with proper guidance). It is difficult to say, however. Sometimes I tend to just like the idea of keeping it simple and teaching them how to write. Its all very frustrating :)
Smith’s article on gatekeeping brought me back to our discussions in class about the issue. Smith essentially addresses the notion that we should not really be looking at gatekeeping with a negative connotation, but again being responsible with the power that we possess as college instructors. Students go to college to gain access and we are the means to their goals. Thus, we as instructors need to make conscious decisions about what we teach, how we teach it, and overall how it will affect students in the long run. Grant it, as Smith points out, they will not rely solely on our composition course, but we do play a minor role. Nevertheless, this minor role just might be the one thing they take with them into the future.
Berlin’s article on rhetoric and ideology emphasizes a point that, I think, is fair to say is true. Berlin argues that teaching is “never innocent.” He goes on to stress how pedagogy overlaps with ideology. These two cannot be separated. The point I walk away with here is that whatever agenda that the instructor holds, will no doubt affect their pedagogical practices in one way or another. This reminds me of a discussion we had in another class about incorporating social justice in the curriculum. Although some argue this can happen without bias, I am a firm believer, as Berlin, that there is always some form of ideology present. I can’t help think that all through graduate school we are taught all about theories and theoretical frameworks and eventually are instructed to subscribe to one come dissertation time. How can we not have an ideology when we teach? Berlin argues that if we do not recognize the coexistence of the two, we are essentially irresponsible in our practice. The point, know an ideology exist within pedagogy and understand how it shapes who we are and how we teach. Not always a negative thing, just more responsible. I believe knowing this as an instructor and expressing it to students begins the wonderful journey of critical thinking.
Shor’s article or study was a rather interesting read. Shor uses the work of Freire to ground the decisions for the pedagogical practices used in his classroom. He uses the theme of “work” for the various types of writing they conducted. Shor established a classroom that focuses on the student and their voices. I particularly enjoyed the first day activity…I think I may use that one myself. He uses many of the processes found in the typical writing process, but by the means in which he goes about it makes it unique. Of course because I am the grammar teacher, I was instantly attracted to the way he handled the grammar “situation.” I thought this made an excellent point about how grammar is not necessarily ignored but can be taught through alternative methods, i.e. reading papers orally etc.
Hairston’s article stresses the point that ideology should not be involved in rhetoric or the composition classroom. She asserts that students are not necessarily prepared to handle the magnitude that is involved with ideology. Ideally, students should be learning solely how to write and not necessarily focusing on “loaded” issues. To a certain degree I can see that point, especially from my own experiences teaching freshman composition. It seems that there is an epidemic of students not being able to have the capabilities to critically think let alone handle certain ideologies. However, I think there are ways in which we can incorporate, and probably already do, methods similar to that. Students can start with issues that concern them (of course with proper guidance). It is difficult to say, however. Sometimes I tend to just like the idea of keeping it simple and teaching them how to write. Its all very frustrating :)
Smith’s article on gatekeeping brought me back to our discussions in class about the issue. Smith essentially addresses the notion that we should not really be looking at gatekeeping with a negative connotation, but again being responsible with the power that we possess as college instructors. Students go to college to gain access and we are the means to their goals. Thus, we as instructors need to make conscious decisions about what we teach, how we teach it, and overall how it will affect students in the long run. Grant it, as Smith points out, they will not rely solely on our composition course, but we do play a minor role. Nevertheless, this minor role just might be the one thing they take with them into the future.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Draft of Website
I am posting my professional website link. I am still working on it and should have more published before class on Thursday. Thanks guys!
http://nayelee-villanueva.webs.com/
http://nayelee-villanueva.webs.com/
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Theories in Pedagogy
“The test of one’s competence as a composition instructor, it seems to me, resides in being able to recognize and justify the version of the process being taught, complete with all of its significance for the student. “ (Berlin 777)
This week’s readings focus on theories of pedagogy. All of the articles address ways in which we approach or teach composition. I will start with Hillock’s meta-analysis of experimental treatment studies in composition classrooms. Essentially, the meta-analysis aimed to provide an explanation of the variability among the treatments in comparison to that of their effect size. Hillock’s organized the research based on categorizing the treatments. Hillock’s organizes the literature under the categories of mode of instruction, natural process mode, environmental mode, individualized mode, and then the results for these treatments. Additionally, Hillock’s establishes subcategories for the focus of instruction which include grammar and mechanics (naturally), sentence combining, inquiry, and free writing. Hillock’s was able to determine what seems to be quite obvious and a lot of what we have been discussing in class that the dimensions involved in effective instruction are different from what is actually used as practice in the classroom. I would ask why that is, but I think I already know the answer. The findings of the meta-analysis indicate that the most effective mode of instruction is the “environmental” kind. Essentially, this form of instruction joins together the teacher, student and content more closely and thus utilizing all of the resources available in the classroom context. There is a brief discussion about grammar and the overall ineffectiveness of its instruction. I particularly point this out because I have been assigned the daunting task of teaching principles of grammar. While I read the findings presented in this study, and many others I have come across like it, I wonder exactly what the heck is the purpose. My rationale is that it is more of the “scientific” aspect of grammar rather than drilling it in order for my students to become better writers, that isn’t my purpose. I don’t know if I am correct in that manner; nevertheless, I am stuck with the job. We are again reminded that despite the findings of the effectiveness of the different dimensions, there isn’t one sole way of writing instruction. Ideally, there needs to be a combination and balance of the different modes.
Berlin’s article was one that I rather enjoyed reading. The article allows revisiting of the different types of pedagogical theories during the time in which he is writing: Neo-Aristotelians/Classicists, Positivists/Current –Traditionalists, Neo-Platonists /Expressionists, and the New Rhetoricians. Berlin describes the directives of prewriting, writing, and rewriting. However, his main emphasis is that of what he believes to be the most effective approach in pedagogy, the camp of New Rhetoricians. Berlin emphasizes the New Rhetoricians as epistemic in that “knowledge is not simply a static entity available for retrieval. Truth is dynamic and dialectical, the result of a process involving the interaction of opposing elements.” (Berlin 774) Essentially, what is true for one person may not be true for another…essentially epistemology at its finest. One of the points Berlin strongly argues is the notion that composition instructors shouldn’t be solely focusing on instructing students for the composition classroom, but instructing on a way that students “will experience the world, a way of ordering and making sense of it all.” (Berlin 776) As we think about truth and the way we instruct students, we need to think about how we should explore multiple truths….multiple realities.
Breuch article addresses the holes in perspective of that of the post-process approach. Breuch argues that the only reason for post-process theorists to critique process is for the simple agenda of using process as a means to move forward with the argument of postmodern perspectives that are essential for post-process theory. Breuch argues that post-process theory focuses on redefining writing. Essentially, Breuch argues that post-process theory is in fact not pedagogical at all. The implications from her work remind teachers that there needs to be a heightened awareness in our pedagogical practices that in fact meet the needs of the students.
Fulkersons article addresses the issue of composition studies diverging within the last decade. He provides description of the now emphasis on multicultural studies, expressivism, and procedural rhetoric. He asserts that there is less of a consensus regarding what should be taught in the composition classrooms as well as what is supposed to be achieved within these courses. More importantly, what is considered to be “effective” instruction. As I read through this article I couldn’t help but think about the field of education and the divergence that exists within the different fields of education. It seems, as Fulkerson puts it, there is a sort of war that takes place as to what is the “right” and “wrong” way of doing things. He says the same about pedagogical theories in composition.
The Down’s article addresses a proposed course for first-year composition students as a writing studies course. The framework of this course revolves around the notion that there is an understanding that there is no universal way of teaching for academic discourse. Ideally, the goal of the course is to essentially become more of a literacy course than writing course. Thus, students will have more of a realistic understanding of the nature of writing. I believe this is the sort of course that could possibly be more effective for students than the traditional English 101 course. Now, I am not saying this type of course should supplant the Eng 101 course, but be an addition to requirements. It is of importance for students to understand writing beyond academic discourse and the modes. Perhaps there will be drastic improvements to the way students not only produce writing, but approach it. Generally, students’ dispositions would change if they were more informed. Of course, the natural problem would exist in that we are faced with the same issues regarding pedagogical theories. What would be the best way to teach this. What exactly would it involve? Would this create more of a divergence in pedagogical studies than already exists? Perhaps…but is it worth it?
This week’s readings focus on theories of pedagogy. All of the articles address ways in which we approach or teach composition. I will start with Hillock’s meta-analysis of experimental treatment studies in composition classrooms. Essentially, the meta-analysis aimed to provide an explanation of the variability among the treatments in comparison to that of their effect size. Hillock’s organized the research based on categorizing the treatments. Hillock’s organizes the literature under the categories of mode of instruction, natural process mode, environmental mode, individualized mode, and then the results for these treatments. Additionally, Hillock’s establishes subcategories for the focus of instruction which include grammar and mechanics (naturally), sentence combining, inquiry, and free writing. Hillock’s was able to determine what seems to be quite obvious and a lot of what we have been discussing in class that the dimensions involved in effective instruction are different from what is actually used as practice in the classroom. I would ask why that is, but I think I already know the answer. The findings of the meta-analysis indicate that the most effective mode of instruction is the “environmental” kind. Essentially, this form of instruction joins together the teacher, student and content more closely and thus utilizing all of the resources available in the classroom context. There is a brief discussion about grammar and the overall ineffectiveness of its instruction. I particularly point this out because I have been assigned the daunting task of teaching principles of grammar. While I read the findings presented in this study, and many others I have come across like it, I wonder exactly what the heck is the purpose. My rationale is that it is more of the “scientific” aspect of grammar rather than drilling it in order for my students to become better writers, that isn’t my purpose. I don’t know if I am correct in that manner; nevertheless, I am stuck with the job. We are again reminded that despite the findings of the effectiveness of the different dimensions, there isn’t one sole way of writing instruction. Ideally, there needs to be a combination and balance of the different modes.
Berlin’s article was one that I rather enjoyed reading. The article allows revisiting of the different types of pedagogical theories during the time in which he is writing: Neo-Aristotelians/Classicists, Positivists/Current –Traditionalists, Neo-Platonists /Expressionists, and the New Rhetoricians. Berlin describes the directives of prewriting, writing, and rewriting. However, his main emphasis is that of what he believes to be the most effective approach in pedagogy, the camp of New Rhetoricians. Berlin emphasizes the New Rhetoricians as epistemic in that “knowledge is not simply a static entity available for retrieval. Truth is dynamic and dialectical, the result of a process involving the interaction of opposing elements.” (Berlin 774) Essentially, what is true for one person may not be true for another…essentially epistemology at its finest. One of the points Berlin strongly argues is the notion that composition instructors shouldn’t be solely focusing on instructing students for the composition classroom, but instructing on a way that students “will experience the world, a way of ordering and making sense of it all.” (Berlin 776) As we think about truth and the way we instruct students, we need to think about how we should explore multiple truths….multiple realities.
Breuch article addresses the holes in perspective of that of the post-process approach. Breuch argues that the only reason for post-process theorists to critique process is for the simple agenda of using process as a means to move forward with the argument of postmodern perspectives that are essential for post-process theory. Breuch argues that post-process theory focuses on redefining writing. Essentially, Breuch argues that post-process theory is in fact not pedagogical at all. The implications from her work remind teachers that there needs to be a heightened awareness in our pedagogical practices that in fact meet the needs of the students.
Fulkersons article addresses the issue of composition studies diverging within the last decade. He provides description of the now emphasis on multicultural studies, expressivism, and procedural rhetoric. He asserts that there is less of a consensus regarding what should be taught in the composition classrooms as well as what is supposed to be achieved within these courses. More importantly, what is considered to be “effective” instruction. As I read through this article I couldn’t help but think about the field of education and the divergence that exists within the different fields of education. It seems, as Fulkerson puts it, there is a sort of war that takes place as to what is the “right” and “wrong” way of doing things. He says the same about pedagogical theories in composition.
The Down’s article addresses a proposed course for first-year composition students as a writing studies course. The framework of this course revolves around the notion that there is an understanding that there is no universal way of teaching for academic discourse. Ideally, the goal of the course is to essentially become more of a literacy course than writing course. Thus, students will have more of a realistic understanding of the nature of writing. I believe this is the sort of course that could possibly be more effective for students than the traditional English 101 course. Now, I am not saying this type of course should supplant the Eng 101 course, but be an addition to requirements. It is of importance for students to understand writing beyond academic discourse and the modes. Perhaps there will be drastic improvements to the way students not only produce writing, but approach it. Generally, students’ dispositions would change if they were more informed. Of course, the natural problem would exist in that we are faced with the same issues regarding pedagogical theories. What would be the best way to teach this. What exactly would it involve? Would this create more of a divergence in pedagogical studies than already exists? Perhaps…but is it worth it?
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Revised Proposal
Responding to Student Writing: Practice and Perception in the Freshman Composition Classroom
Teacher feedback on written assignments in the freshman college composition classroom has continuously raised the question of overall effectiveness of written-teacher commentary on student writing. College composition instructors’ comments on written assignments frequently overemphasize markings of errors in mechanics and grammar rather than constructing feedback that will encourage students to recognize how their written assignments could be improved and also how it should encourage students to become their own editor. Instructors should identify the need to find a balance between the specificity of comments on content and mechanics on students’ written assignments.
Much of the research conducted provides various pedagogical strategies to provide effective written responses to student writing; however, many instructors are not aware of the complex nature of responding to student writing in order to provide a more effective approach to feedback. When instructors aren’t aware of the conflicting practices of feedback on student writing, unintentional negative effects may take place that will leave the student not knowing exactly what changes should be made and how it will improve their writing and writing skill. Additionally, instructors relying solely on surface level written feedback rather incorporating conferencing are putting students at risk to perceive comments purely as negative criticism and allow no room for development in student writing.
The purpose of this presentation is to examine practices in utilizing both written and verbal feedback as a means to respond more effectively to student writing as well as students’ perception of this alternative form of assessment by focusing on the following:
1. Various forms of verbal feedback through conferencing
2. The various levels of conferencing
3. Student perception of conferences
4. The necessary balance between written and verbal feedback
This presentation aims to provide freshman composition instructors with a dual approach to practices in feedback on student writing that will allow instructors to reflect on how they communicate feedback to student writing in relation to how students perceive both written and verbal feedback on writing assignments. From these approaches, freshman composition instructors can begin to determine how much and what they should emphasize based on an established continuum.
This presentation is designed for those that are involved in composition studies and freshman composition instructors. Because students not only produce written assignments in freshman composition, instructors in social sciences and humanities may benefit from this presentation. Audience members will benefit from this presentation by obtaining more effective pedagogical practices in responding to student writing.
Teacher feedback on written assignments in the freshman college composition classroom has continuously raised the question of overall effectiveness of written-teacher commentary on student writing. College composition instructors’ comments on written assignments frequently overemphasize markings of errors in mechanics and grammar rather than constructing feedback that will encourage students to recognize how their written assignments could be improved and also how it should encourage students to become their own editor. Instructors should identify the need to find a balance between the specificity of comments on content and mechanics on students’ written assignments.
Much of the research conducted provides various pedagogical strategies to provide effective written responses to student writing; however, many instructors are not aware of the complex nature of responding to student writing in order to provide a more effective approach to feedback. When instructors aren’t aware of the conflicting practices of feedback on student writing, unintentional negative effects may take place that will leave the student not knowing exactly what changes should be made and how it will improve their writing and writing skill. Additionally, instructors relying solely on surface level written feedback rather incorporating conferencing are putting students at risk to perceive comments purely as negative criticism and allow no room for development in student writing.
The purpose of this presentation is to examine practices in utilizing both written and verbal feedback as a means to respond more effectively to student writing as well as students’ perception of this alternative form of assessment by focusing on the following:
1. Various forms of verbal feedback through conferencing
2. The various levels of conferencing
3. Student perception of conferences
4. The necessary balance between written and verbal feedback
This presentation aims to provide freshman composition instructors with a dual approach to practices in feedback on student writing that will allow instructors to reflect on how they communicate feedback to student writing in relation to how students perceive both written and verbal feedback on writing assignments. From these approaches, freshman composition instructors can begin to determine how much and what they should emphasize based on an established continuum.
This presentation is designed for those that are involved in composition studies and freshman composition instructors. Because students not only produce written assignments in freshman composition, instructors in social sciences and humanities may benefit from this presentation. Audience members will benefit from this presentation by obtaining more effective pedagogical practices in responding to student writing.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Draft Project Proposal
Responding to Student Writing: Theory, Practice, and Perception in the Freshman Composition Classroom
Throughout Daniel B. Willingham’s work on teacher effectiveness of feedback on written assignments, college freshman composition instructors can identify the need to find a balance between the specificity of comments on content and mechanics on students’ written assignments. College composition instructors’ comments on written assignments frequently overemphasize markings of errors in mechanics and grammar rather than constructing feedback that will encourage students to recognize how their written assignments could be improved and also how it should encourage students to become their own editor.
Much of the research conducted provides various pedagogical strategies to provide effective written responses to student writing; however, many instructors are not aware of theories of responding to student writing in order to provide a more effective approach to feedback. When instructors aren’t aware of the theories behind feedback on student writing, unintentional negative effects may take place that will leave the student not knowing exactly what changes should be made and how it will improve their writing and writing skill. Additionally, should instructors not know how to respond effectively to student writing, oversaturation or overly vague comments will leave the student not knowing which direction to take in the writing process.
The purpose of this presentation is to examine theory in student feedback by focusing on the following factors:
1. What instructors know about responding to student writing
2. How instructors communicate feedback to student writing
3. Students reactions to feedback both verbal and written
This presentation aims to provide freshman composition instructors with theories behind pedagogical practices that will allow instructors to reflect on how they communicate feedback to student writing in relation to how students perceive both written and verbal feedback on writing assignments. From these theories, freshman composition instructors can begin to determine how much and what they should emphasize based on an established continuum.
This presentation is designed for those that are involved in composition studies and freshman composition instructors. Because students not only produce written assignments in freshman composition, instructors in social sciences and humanities may benefit from this presentation. Audience members will benefit from this presentation by obtaining more effective pedagogical practices in responding to student writing.
Throughout Daniel B. Willingham’s work on teacher effectiveness of feedback on written assignments, college freshman composition instructors can identify the need to find a balance between the specificity of comments on content and mechanics on students’ written assignments. College composition instructors’ comments on written assignments frequently overemphasize markings of errors in mechanics and grammar rather than constructing feedback that will encourage students to recognize how their written assignments could be improved and also how it should encourage students to become their own editor.
Much of the research conducted provides various pedagogical strategies to provide effective written responses to student writing; however, many instructors are not aware of theories of responding to student writing in order to provide a more effective approach to feedback. When instructors aren’t aware of the theories behind feedback on student writing, unintentional negative effects may take place that will leave the student not knowing exactly what changes should be made and how it will improve their writing and writing skill. Additionally, should instructors not know how to respond effectively to student writing, oversaturation or overly vague comments will leave the student not knowing which direction to take in the writing process.
The purpose of this presentation is to examine theory in student feedback by focusing on the following factors:
1. What instructors know about responding to student writing
2. How instructors communicate feedback to student writing
3. Students reactions to feedback both verbal and written
This presentation aims to provide freshman composition instructors with theories behind pedagogical practices that will allow instructors to reflect on how they communicate feedback to student writing in relation to how students perceive both written and verbal feedback on writing assignments. From these theories, freshman composition instructors can begin to determine how much and what they should emphasize based on an established continuum.
This presentation is designed for those that are involved in composition studies and freshman composition instructors. Because students not only produce written assignments in freshman composition, instructors in social sciences and humanities may benefit from this presentation. Audience members will benefit from this presentation by obtaining more effective pedagogical practices in responding to student writing.
