Download
how should we respond to student writing n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Written Corrective Feedback: PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Written Corrective Feedback:

Written Corrective Feedback:

334 Vues Download Presentation
Télécharger la présentation

Written Corrective Feedback:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. How Should We Respond to Student Writing? Written Corrective Feedback:

  2. First Things First:Good Writing is Always a Process • Gathering ideas • Planning/Outlining • Drafting • Seeking advice from others • Revising for content • Revising for language

  3. Written Corrective Feedback: What Is It? • Includes written teacher comments on the following: • Format • Organization/structure of writing • Content • Advice/encouragement for future drafts/assignments • Language (grammar, word choice, spelling, punctuation) • But also includes written student comments! • Peer review worksheets

  4. Sample Correction Symbols • wf – word form • wc – word choice • vt – verb tense • p – punctuation/capitalization • wo – word order • sp - spelling

  5. Problems with Error Correction • Research tends to show that it does not work (possibly because it is hard to measure). • Some have suggested that it is harmful. • Corrected students tend to avoid rather than address. • Students can rely too much on their professor for correction. • Long-term benefits are not always visible in the classroom setting. • Still, students expect it.

  6. When Not to Use Error Correction • Student journals • Freewriting activities • Any single-draft assignment • Any assignment designed to develop fluency over accuracy

  7. Problems with Comments on Content and Organization • If it is vague, it can be confusing to students. • There is no guarantee that students will read it. • It is counterproductive if comments are mostly negative. • It is less effective when used without one-on-one conferences. • Despite this, such comments have proven more effective than error correction.

  8. Based on a three-draft written assignment A Proposed Approach

  9. Before the First Draft • Students read authentic texts related to their topic. • Students engage in group work, pair work and classroom discussion to explore their topic. • Students choose their own topic (possibly from a limited set provided by teacher). • Students plan the various sections of their assignment and compare with classmates.

  10. First Draft • Students divide into pairs and read each other’s essays. • Students fill out a teacher-prepared worksheet designed to help them give constructive advice to their peers. • The teacher collects all essays and provides written feedback on content/organization only.

  11. Sample Peer Review Questions • Write one thing you liked about your partner’s essay. What is especially good about it? • What is your opinion of your partner’s arguments? Are they generally good? Did your partner use examples from our readings? Explain. • Write two or three things your partner can do to improve her essay. Be specific.

  12. Second Draft • Students conference with teacher to discuss comments (no more than 3-5 minutes each). • Students use the comments from their peers and their teacher to make improvements to their essay. • Students submit all drafts together. • The teacher provides written feedback on language errors only (assuming content and organization have been addressed).

  13. Third Draft • Students use teacher comments to make improvements to their essay. • Students submit all drafts together. • Teacher writes minimal comments, often little more than a grade. • Students rarely read comments when they feel their work is done.

  14. Thank You! www.jorabek.com

  15. References Badger, R., and G. White. 2000. A process genre approach to teaching writing. ELT Journal 54 (2): 153–60. Bartels, N. 2003. Written peer response in L2 writing. English Teaching Forum 41 (1): 34–37 Mendonça, C. O., and K. E. Johnson. 1994. Peer review negotiations: Revision activities in ESL writing instruction. TESOL Quarterly 28 (4): 745–69. Truscott, J. 2007. The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing 16 (4): 255–72. Williams, Jason Gordon. 2003 .Providing feedback on ESL students’ written assignments. The Internet TESL Journal Vol. IX, No. 10., http://www.itesl.org/Techniques/Williams-Feedback.html.