1 / 21

To Revise and Improve Writing

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?.

zinnia
Télécharger la présentation

To Revise and Improve Writing

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. To Revise and Improve Writing Using Gen Ed Assessment to Inform and Influence Teaching David S. Martins, Ph.D.

  2. 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

  3. How do you teach revision? David S. Martins - FITL 2011

  4. 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

  5. What do we learn about revision from the direct assessment of student writing? David S. Martins - FITL 2011

  6. Method Portfolio Collection Scoring Guide Communication Team – Revision Types Lit Review – Feedback Types Program Faculty – Revision Activities Pilot Workshops – Test Scoring Guide • Basic Writing, Writing Seminar (incl. CLA &NTID), Honors Seminar • Fall and Winter • N=174 (11.6%) • Drafts of “Documented Research Essay” David S. Martins - FITL 2011

  7. Scoring Guide • Portfolio #: 20091/20092-RA- • Please indicate which of the following documents are contained in the portfolio • 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: • Which of these revisions improved the essay the most? • Where were the completed revisions targeted? • Considering the feedback received, what revisions did the peers/instructor believe were necessary to improve the draft? David S. Martins - FITL 2011

  8. Scoring Guide (cont.) • Who seemed to provide comments that lead to the most significant revision? • 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.) • Considering the revisions made and the feedback offered, where was the most generative feedback located? • Evaluation of revision and final draft David S. Martins - FITL 2011

  9. Revision Types • Source Information • Complexity and Audience Awareness • Organization • Editing & Stylistics David S. Martins - FITL 2011

  10. 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

  11. 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

  12. 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

  13. 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

  14. Most Frequent Revisions Overall, 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

  15. “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

  16. 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: • the articulation of implications or questions (.89), and • 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. David S. Martins - FITL 2011

  17. 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

  18. 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. Discussion Program-Based Impact David S. Martins - FITL 2011

  19. How do these findings influence how might you restructure your revision pedagogy (e.g., class activities, assignment sequences, readings, peer response)? Discussion Class-BasedImpact David S. Martins - FITL 2011

  20. Think back to your most successful assessment experience… How did you make the assessment useful? David S. Martins - FITL 2011

  21. 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. David S. Martins - FITL 2011

More Related