1 / 23

Enhancing Academic Writing: ICT Feedback Efficiency and Efficacy

Explore the impact of audio, visual, and written feedback on academic writing efficiency and efficacy, assessing both instructor and student responses. This study delves into the power of feedback in improving student outcomes, comparing various feedback methods and tools, including JING, Skype, and social media utilization.

taini
Télécharger la présentation

Enhancing Academic Writing: ICT Feedback Efficiency and Efficacy

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. ICT Efficacy and Efficiency for Academic Writing William S. Warner, Ph.D. William S. Warner

  2. Combine audio, visual and written feedback • Compare efficacy and efficiency • Assess instructor and student response Of all the factors that make a difference to student outcomes, the power of feedback is paramount.... Hattie, J.C (2009) Visible Learning Information and Communication Technology William S. Warner

  3. 13 Assignments 2-3 Days for Feedback Fronter-based William S. Warner

  4. IMPACT TIME Efficiency vs. Efficacy William S. Warner

  5. Efficacy – 29 Students Efficiency – 5 TAs • Appealing idea Unhelpful % Helpful 2 1 0 1 2 Written 0 5 7 7 81 Tutor 0 0 3 21 76 Fronter 0 2 14 30 54 Rubric 0 4 12 35 49 Audio 3 10 3 38 45 • 10-30 seconds/comment • 1-2 comments/paragraph • Too soon to judge • Technical snags • Time-consuming Pilot Project Evaluation

  6. Disagree % Agree audio is more… 2 1 0 1 2 • efficient 20 40 30 20 0 • effective 0 305020 0 • More suite for encouraging than editing Relative to Fronter comments William S. Warner

  7. Final 3 papers – with rubric • TAs • Spot more errors • Rubric provides equitable quality-control • Ease of evaluation: 4X4 matrix • Students • Written comments qualified detail • Rubric quantified standards: 16-24 points • Targets strengths and weaknesses Hard Copy Preferred William S. Warner

  8. 0-1 2 3 4 Rubric William S. Warner

  9. We’re not as smart as we think StudentTARubric Scores William S. Warner

  10. Audio replaced with JING • SKYPE introduced • Social media • 6 (45-min) video lectures • Introduction • Outline • Clarity • Cohesion • Tables & Figures Autumn 2012 William S. Warner

  11. William S. Warner

  12. Writing Centre http://www.umb.no/nwc/ • Writing Wrongs Blog http://writingwrongsblog.wordpress.com/ Social Media William S. Warner

  13. Autumn – 3 assignments 81 students: 49 BSc, 32 MSc Spring – 10 assignments 75 students: 15 BSc, 60 MSc Unhelpful % Helpful 2 1 0 1 2 JING 0 0 0 18 82 Tutor 0 0 3 15 82 Paper 0 0 11 39 50 Rubric 0 1 12 41 45 I found JING as helpful as the tutor Disagree % Agree 2 1 0 1 2 5 11 23 2928 Unhelpful % Helpful 2 1 0 1 2 JING 0 2 2 16 80 Tutor 0 0 12 2761 Fronter 0 4 7 29 60 Paper 0 6 6 41 44 Rubric 0 2 10 45 43 I prefer JING to Fronter comments Disagree % Agree 2 1 0 1 2 6 4 14 19 57 Effect William S. Warner

  14. Autumn Spring • 98 % students found JING increased writing efficiency • Easier to understand than cryptic or loaded sentences • Voice tone • Emphasize/prioritize • Confidence/support JING saved me time Disagree % Agree 2 1 0 1 2 0 7 20 3538 JING motivated/gave me confidence Disagree % Agree 2 1 0 1 2 3 3 20 4035 JING improved my writing Disagree % Agree 2 1 0 1 2 0 1 3342 24 STUDENT: Efficient Effect William S. Warner

  15. Autumn 6 TAs 3 assignments Did not track student Spring 8 TAs 4 and 6 assignments Tracked 10 students • Efficacy • Very effective – 4 • Effective – 2 • Efficiency • Very efficient – 1 • Efficient – 5 • Efficacy • Very effective - 1 • Effective - 7 • Efficiency • Very efficient - 2 • Efficient - 6 Not 2 1 0 1 2 Very Effective/Efficient TA Evaluation William S. Warner

  16. JING’simpact on student writing is noticeable when tracking re-writes. Agree Disagree 2 1 0 1 2 5 3 0 0 0 Which feedback method provides the most help to a student in the least amount of time? 6 JING 4 Face-to-face consultation 1 Rubric 1 Writing comments on hard copy Notice the lack of improvement? 30 minutes for both? Spring TAs William S. Warner

  17. 30 minutes/session 30 sessions/term Unhelpful (students) Helpful 2 1 0 1 2 Autumn 10 students 0 1 2 4 3 Spring 17 students 1 0 5 4 7 For night owl or procrastinator? William S. Warner

  18. I suggest that you watch the video lecture on… • Half watched the video lectures Unhelpful % Helpful 2 1 0 1 2 Autumn(40) 0 0 2 63 35 Spring (34) 0 0 9 35 56 Video Lectures William S. Warner

  19. 80% watched • Principles of paraphrasing http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=paraphrasing • APA Format for Referencing http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=apa_exposed Unhelpful % Helpful 2 1 0 1 2 Autumn 1 3 13 33 50 Spring 0 2 5 36 58 SpringFeedback Tutorials William S. Warner

  20. Half (75) students found Unhelpful Very helpful 2 1 0 1 2 Website 1 0 18 20 12 Writing Wrongs blog 0 0 12 28 15 Student Journal 0 0 10 11 7 Social Media William S. Warner

  21. Develop protocol • Read first – not on the fly • Balloon comment • Color code highlight • Green – good • Yellow – suggest/consider • Red - error • I suggest you watch the video lecture on cohesion, which explains how to make transitions betweens paragraphs. • Save document on Fronter Recommendations William S. Warner

  22. Integrate JING across curriculum • Require video tutorials (e.g., EndNote) • Develop social media for peer-review • Explore MOOC automated feedback Conclusions William S. Warner

More Related