|
Abstract APPENDICES A. Faculty Questionnaire |
APPENDIX A: FACULTY QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONDING TO STUDENT WRITING Dear Colleagues: ___Every Day ___1-4 times a day ___1-3 times a month ___1-3 times a semester ___I never respond to student writing (skip to question #3). 2. On an average month, how many hours do you personally spend responding to student writing? ___More than 30 hours a month ___Between 20 and 30 hours a month ___Between 10 and 19 hours a month ___Between 1 and 9 hours a month 3. My answers to the first two questions are based on teaching: ___4 courses a semester ___3 courses a semester ___2 courses a semester ___1 course a semester 4. How frequently do you use the following methods of responding to student writing in your courses? (Please read all the choices before answering.)
5. Are there any other methods you use to give feedback besides those mentioned above?
6. How effective do you think each of the following methods are in terms of actually helping student to improve writing?
7. Please describe any other response methods you feel are effective in helping students improve their writing?
8. How satisfied are you with the way you currently respond to student writing?
9. What questions or concerns do you have about responding to student writing that you would like to see addressed in future professional learning opportunities on campus? RESPONDING TO STUDENT WRITING Please provide some background information to help us to analyze responses. 10. I am:
11. Please indicate which applies to you:
12. My primary assignment is in the:
13. I primarily teach:
14. How large are the majority of classes that you teach? ___Fewer than 15 students 15. My present academic rank: ___Professor Responding to Student Writing: A Symposium on Feedback Friday, April 29, 2005 10 am - 5 pm San José State University, King Library Room 225 Welcome! We are very happy that you have decided to participate in the symposium and hope you will find it a valuable professional learning experience. We are especially pleased to see the diversity of disciplines, institutions, and role groups who are present, including faculty from SJSU and local community colleges representing a wide range of disciplines and departments; staff members and administrators from SJSU who are helping to improve student access to academic success; and graduate students interested in learning how to teach writing. Sincerely, The Symposium Organizers: Rosemary Henze, Betsy Gilliland, and John Leih Symposium Objectives (1) to enhance faculty members ability to provide effective feedback on student writing. "Effective feedback" in this context means feedback that students can understand and use to improve their writing; (2) to construct knowledge and questions about responding to student writing that will serve as a guide for next steps. Acknowledgements We are grateful for the support we have received from many sources. This symposium is primarily funded through a grant from the Learning Productivity Program. In addition, we have received support from the Linguistics and Language Development Department, the Center for Faculty Development, and the Writing Requirements Committee. Student assistants include Andrea Zele, Karen Au, Mareike Schoene, Doris Lin, and Florence Yu. Faculty facilitators of small group discussions include Peter Lowenberg, Pim Pisalsarakit, Maureen O'Brien, and Barbara Kaiser. Responding to Student Writing: A Symposium on Feedback Friday, April 29, 2005 10 am - 5 pm San José State University, King Library Room 225 Agenda 10:00 am Registration and coffee 10:30 am Welcome and Introduction Rosemary Henze, Linguistics and Language Development Robert Cooper, Associate Vice President, Undergraduate Studies 11:00 am Keynote address by Dr. Dana Ferris, Professor of English, CSU Sacramento 12:00 pm Lunch and informal discussion 1:00 pm Student panel Dalila Ibanez, Parth Gandhi, Mareike Schoene, Kim Le, Larasha Ludd, Vijay Vanniaranjan 2:00 pm. Survey results: Rosemary Henze 2:30 pm Library Resources: Susan Klingberg 2:45 pm Break 3:00 pm Faculty discussions in groups 4:30 - Wrap-up Please note: SJSU Faculty receiving a stipend must sign out and submit form when leaving. APPENDIX C Summary of Evaluations from the Symposium on Responding to Student Writing April 29, 2005 Overall, approximately 85 people attended all or part of the symposium. 82 people were pre-registered. Three did not show up, and six registered on site. In addition, approximately fourteen people worked as student assistants, organizers, or other roles. The evaluation form included 11 closed-ended (Likert scale) items and 4 open-ended questions. Altogether, 52 evaluation forms were turned in. Similar responses to the open-ended questions were grouped together. This summary was compiled by Rosemary Henze. What was the most valuable thing you have learned today? This open-ended question sought an evaluation of the whole symposium. 42 people responded to this question. The most common types of response were as follows: - Changed, refined, or questioned my own feedback strategies (25 people) - Gained understanding of student opinions on feedback (9 people) - Gained reassurance that I am doing the right thing (5 people) - Shared knowledge and experience with other instructors (3 people) In addition to these shared themes, there were a few comments that did not fit these patterns. One person noted that "There's a huge divide between the way content and writing instructors evaluate student writing, which needs to be bridged through more discussion and clear, shared standards." Another said that "Instructors are good at getting students to comment against instructors." (We believe this refers to some critical comments made by student panelists about the ways past instructors have responded to their writing). And a third person said that "Students and faculty have different perceptions about what should happen in response." General suggestions: - Writing instructors and content instructors would be more effectively served by separate discussions (1) - More potty breaks! (1) - Preliminary survey results should either not be shared (because too preliminary) or should be shared more carefully, with more attention to the details. (1) Keynote presentation by Dana Ferris I found Ferris' presentation valuable: 46 people rated this item. Of those, 97.8% strongly agreed or agreed that her presentation was valuable. One individual disagreed. I learned some new techniques for responding to writing: 46 people rated this item. Of those, 97.8% strongly agreed or agreed that her presentation was valuable. One individual disagreed. I plan to use some of Ferris' suggestions in responding to my students' writing: 44 people rated this item. 100% strongly agreed or agreed with this item. What new ideas have you gained from Ferris' presentation? 24 people responded to this question either by identifying specific new ideas or by indicating that they got lots of new ideas without specifying what those were. Among the specific new ideas mentioned were the following: - The importance of being specific and clear when responding to student writing (4) - Asking students to write up responses to teacher feedback (3) - Indirect feedback (3) - Making peer review instructions very clear and structured (2) - Using rubrics with just 4+ 44- ranking (1) - Prioritizing what type of feedback to give, e.g. content or grammar (1) - Data gathering for how to give feedback (1) (we're not sure what this means) - The importance of teacher feedback and how it is the only way to improve student writing (1) - Students like to get feedback (1) - The importance of saying something positive to students about their writing (1) - Marking errors (1) - The balance of affective, pedagogical, and interpersonal factors. (1) Suggestions related to Ferris' presentation - Have her books available for sale (2) - Would like more information on the peer review process, including specific activities. (1) Student Panel I found the student panel valuable: 48 people rated this item. Of those 91.6% strongly agreed or agreed that the student panel was valuable. 3 individuals disagreed, and one individual strongly disagreed. I have a better sense of how students interpret my responses to writing: 48 people rated this item. Of those 91.6% strongly agreed or agreed with this statement. 3 individuals disagreed, and one individual strongly disagreed. What new perspectives on feedback have you gained? 27 people responded to this open-ended question either by identifying specific new perspectives or by indicating that in general that the student panel was helpful. Among the specific new perspectives mentioned were the following: - Be as specific as possible in feedback (6) - Need to push 1-1 conferences (4) - An understanding that the students do value written comments. (2) - Be specific in positive comments as well as critical ones (2) - Students must learn to take responsibility and ownership of how to get access to help (e.g., on-line sources, tutors, office hours, writing manuals) (2) - Those students are very needy, want a lot from teachers (2) - Underscored difficulty students have in interpreting feedback (1) - The value of re-writing (1) - Students' level of participation and motivation for improvement vary greatly (1) - Students' emotional responses (1) - Use of summative feedback (1) - Tell students in advance of faculty workload, especially for content instructors (1) - Avoid over marking papers (1) - Students spoke very negatively about peer review -makes me rethink whether or not I should do it. (1) - Students view the situation very differently than most teachers (1) - Student appreciate email feedback from instructors (1) - I'm more curious now about the effects of feedback (1) - I need to be very clear about why I do what I do (1) Suggestions or comments related to student panel - The panel did not represent the range of students at SJSU (mainly self motivated, high achieving students; all but one were female) (4) - It was a little too long. Each student didn't necessarily have to respond to every question from the audience (2) - Provide more time for audience questions (1) - Student panel was very well done. I appreciated their comments, and it was a good idea to filter audience questions with index cards. (1) - Make sure panelists are screened carefully. One was not able to express her ideas very well. (1) FACULTY DISCUSSION GROUPS The activity helped me to clarify how I respond to student writing: 43 people rated this item. Of those, 90% strongly agreed or agreed that the activity helped them clarify how they respond to student writing. 4 individuals disagreed. The discussion helped me understand how other instructors respond to writing: 41 people rated this item. Of those, 95.1% strongly agreed or agreed that the discussion helped them understand how other instructors respond to student writing. 2 individuals disagreed. What new ideas have you gained from the breakout session? 18 people responded to this open-ended question by identifying specific new ideas they gained from the breakout session - Ways to improve 1-1 writing tactics (3) - Different ways to grade an assignment (3) - Have students do post-writing outlines (3) - Have students self edit for one aspect at a time (3) - Grading content on two levels : (a) Have students met minimum content requirements? (b) What "deeper" requirements have they met (e.g. analysis)? (1) - Calibrated peer review (1) - Writing responses are so variable across faculty. It makes me wonder where the line begins and ends in terms of effective writing; what is right and wrong? (1) - Unpack the prompt (1) - Phone conference with students (1) - Read written work aloud (1) - Great idea about simply asking students with excessive writing errors to "see me" rather than rewriting their papers. (1) - Highlight errors (mass errors) for class discussion (1) - Suggestions to make peer review effective (1) - How to apply what we learned today (1) - Conference prompts (1) - Indirect feedback is very helpful. - I had no idea what was happening in remedial writing courses (1) - I am considering ways of getting students' responses to my comments (1) - Importance of being conscious of cultural expectations and normalities of students (1) Suggestions or comments related to the breakout session - We should have more of this kind of activity (3) - We need to have at least one example of the prompt/essay appropriately evaluated (1) - Specific tasks in breakout should to be shorter to allow more time for general concerns and discussion of feedback (1) - Good packet of information (1) - Have a breakout session on institutional limitations (1) - I liked doing this exercise; it was very practical. Peter was a great facilitator (1) - Quite combative; too many items to digest on pink sheet (1) - Diversity can make comments and conferences challenging because we do not all think along the same lines (cultural differences). However, we must bridge the gap. (1) - Choose one topic per group and allow people to choose which group to join. (1) HOW PARTICIPANTS FOUND OUT ABOUT THE SYMPOSIUM 51 people responded to this item. The most frequent responses were "flyer in my mailbox at SJSU (49%) and "email from the Center for Faculty Development at SJSU (21.6%). A few people found out from another email that was not from the CFD (11.8%), "other means" (11.8%), and from a flyer that was not in their mailbox (5.8%). None of the respondents found out via the SJSU website or the Center for Faculty Development calendar. Registration process and facilities 51 people responded to these two items. All respondents rated these as excellent or good. Lunch: 50 people respondedto this item. All but two rated the lunch as excellent or good. Responding to Student Writing Faculty Project Application: Fall 2005 Due date: Sept. 23, 2005 Submit hard copy to: Rosemary Henze, extended zip 0093
Background: In Spring 2005, as part of a Learning Productivity Program grant, we conducted several activities on the topic of Responding to Student Writing. We held a one-day symposium on April 29th and also administered a faculty survey. This semester, we hope to both broaden and deepen faculty involvement by offering two opportunities for faculty members to conduct small projects. We will select up to ten SJSU faculty members who will receive #1000 each to conduct projects of either type A or type B or a combination (see below). Project staff (Rosemary Henze, John Leih, and Betsy Gilliland) will work with those faculty members to fine-tune the plan if necessary and to support them in carrying it out and documenting the process and results. In order to apply, faculty members must have either attended the Spring 2005 Symposium or viewed the video of Dana Ferris' keynote speech (this will be made available in the IRC) Faculty will only receive the full stipend after they have completed the project and submitted all documentation of the process and the results, by Dec. 15th 2005 latest. If necessary, they can ask for an advance of $500 to cover expenses such as materials. Faculty from all disciplinary areas are encouraged to apply. A. Discipline specific workshops or other professional development for departments or colleges Faculty may conduct a workshop or other form of professional development for fellow faculty members in their department or college. The workshop or other format) must focus on improving faculty's ability to respond to student writing, with the ultimate goal of helping students to improve their writing. It should draw on ideas and strategies recommended during the symposium and should include content that is specific to the department's or college's discipline(s). We will suggest that faculty members doing the workshops partner with one another as evaluators. In other words, the partner will observe the workshop or other professional development, collect feedback from participants and provide feedback to the presenter. These projects, by involving more faculty than those who attended the symposium, are intended to broaden the dissemination of effective ways to respond to student writing. Selection criteria for type A (professional learning in content areas) projects: 1. The project must provide a professional learning opportunity for faculty members at SJSU in a particular department or college. 2. It must focus on enhancing faculty members' ability to respond to student writing, with the ultimate goal of helping students to improve their writing. 3. The professional learning opportunity must take place within the Fall 05 semester and before Dec. 15th. 4. The applicant must indicate how she or he plans to use the information from the symposium (or the video of the symposium, or any of the recommended books listed below) to develop the professional learning opportunity. 5. The applicant must have clear objectives and a plan for assessing the effectiveness of the professional learning opportunity in achieving those objectives. Explain how both process and outcomes will be documented. 6. The applicant must indicate how the 1000 will be spent. Note that we will only handle a maximum of two payments to each recipient. We will not handle smaller portions of money being spent to pay participants in workshops, etc. That will be up to the recipient to handle. B. Classroom-based inquiry projects Faculty may carry out inquiry projects in their own or other people's classrooms. The inquiry project must focus on one or more strategies for responding to student writing and must seek to discover how effective these strategies are in terms of student learning. It should help us "close the loop" between the type of feedback we provide as faculty and what students do as a result of our feedback. It should draw on ideas and strategies recommended during the symposium. Projects that focus on peer review will be especially welcomed, given the questions and controvery that arose at the symposium. These projects are intended to deepen faculty knowledge of effective ways to respond to student writing. Criteria For Type B (classroom research) projects: 1. The project must enable the faculty member to gain insight into the use of one or more feedback strategies and how students respond to these strategies. 2. The applicant must have one or more clear research questions that can reasonably be addressed in a short term project 3. The applicant must indicate a research design. 4. The classroom research project must take place within the Fall 05 semester and before Dec. 15th 5. Applicant must indicate how she or he plans to disseminate the results of the project. 6. The applicant must indicate how the 1000 will be spent. Note that we will only handle a maximum of two payments to each recipient. We will not handle smaller portions of money being spent to pay participants in workshops, etc. That will be up to the recipient to handle. Application form: Name College Department Title Email Telephone Attach a one-page description of the project. Projects will be selected using the criteria explained on the other side. Appendix E: Abstracts of Faculty Projects College Students' Attitudes about Peer Review in an Upper Division Writing Workshop Gary Cava Child and Adolescent Development San José State University This report discusses findings from a pilot study designed to assess students' attitudes about peer review of their writing drafts. Fifty-eight students from an upper-division writing workshop in a major state university were asked about their experiences with, attitudes about, and satisfaction with three different formats of peer review. Writers engaged in one-on-one, group, and anonymous feedback sessions. Each session considered drafts of assigned papers for the class. An additional session reviewed drafts for papers assigned in content classes. A majority of students expressed positive experiences with the review process. Reviewing anonymously received the most support. Students reported that reviewing drafts from other classes was exceptionally beneficial to their writing process. When students were shown the benefits of review, were given clear guidelines for the activity, and felt emotionally comfortable with the process, they expressed positive attitudes towards peer response. The report concludes with suggestions for integrating peer review in content classes, limitations of the study, and areas for future research. Responding to Student Writing Faculty Report Laurie Drabble School of Social Work, College of Applied Arts and Sciences San José State University In order to investigate strategies for improving writing skills among students in the helping professions, I conducted a combined professional development and classroom research project on responding to student writing in the School of Social Work. Our department is concerned about improving our feedback on student writing because some of our students who show great promise as social workers in the community struggle to demonstrate professional level writing skills in the classroom. Faculty members are highly motivated to support improved writing skills among students, but are often hindered by a lack of training in providing effective and efficient feedback. The classroom research component of the project involved implementing and evaluating a special peer review session in support of a writing assignment in two MSW classes. First year students from two of six cohort groups in the Masters of Social Work program participated in special voluntary lunchtime structured feedback sessions for a class writing assignment. Student evaluation of these sessions suggests that MSW students find structured peer review sessions helpful for improving skills and increasing a sense of support related to writing. At the same time, review of "before and after" papers indicate that students with more serious problems in writing may need additional opportunities for coaching and revision based on instructor feedback. The professional development component of the project involved facilitating a faculty workshop on responding to student writing for faculty in the School of Social Work, which was co-led by a faculty member from the Linguistics and Language Development department and a faculty member from the School of Social Work. The workshop was provided over the lunch hour and was designed to provide concrete information and resources that faculty could immediately apply to their review of student writing. Findings from the classroom research component of the project were included into the workshop content. Evaluations indicate that faculty gained specific knowledge and strategies for providing effective and efficient response to student writing. Faculty were particularly appreciative of the team approach that afforded opportunities consult with both an expert in writing and a colleague from their discipline. Responding to Student Writing: A Workshop for Communication Studies Faculty Deanna L. Fassett, Ph.D., Department of Communication Studies San José State University I used Dr. Ferris's work to develop a four-hour workshop for communication studies faculty (primarily adjunct and part-time faculty at SJSU and faculty from Silicon Valley community colleges) on responding to student writing effectively and in the specific context of our curricula. Communication studies faculty, in their emphasis on oral communication skills, often neglect explicit attention to writing process in their instruction; moreover, we often find ourselves struggling with effective response as few of us have been taught to provide feedback to student writing. I developed the workshop in light of the following learning objectives: (1) Participants would discuss their past experiences with response to student writing and share best practices (both what works for them as instructors, but also what has worked for them in the past as students); (2) Participants would identify and practice at least two specific feedback strategies they could put to use at the end of the semester or in preparation for subsequent semesters; and (3) Participants would begin to articulate a sense of themselves as writing teachers, as people responsible for nurturing students' growth as writers and not just as speakers. Though attendance at the workshop was disappointing, community college and SJSU adjunct faculty were equally represented. Moreover, departmental support for this workshop suggests that, with better scheduling, it can become the first of many pedagogy-themed workshops offered by our department for and with our community college colleagues. I plan to offer the workshop again in a modified format in Fall 2006. Providing Online Feedback for Student Writing: Is Inking the Answer? Mary McVey Department of Child and Adolescent Development San José State University Feedback has long been recognized as a key component for successful learning (e.g., Estes, 1972; Gagne, 1977, 1985). And, the most effective feedback is that which is immediate and also provides explicit information on how performance can be improved (Bruning, Schraw, & Ronning, 1995; Winograd & Hare, 1988). This means that learners need to know not only if their work is correct, but, when it is not, they must be helped to understand the source of their mistakes and how to avoid making them in the future. Additionally, good feedback can enhance motivation because it fosters higher levels of self-efficacy and control which, in turn, work to decrease feelings of anxiety and helplessness (Bandura, 1993; Bruning et al., 1995). After attending the symposium last spring, it became clear that many instructors spend a great deal of time providing feedback on student writing but it is a) not necessarily the most effective in terms of improving the quality of writing and b) often not well received or acted upon by students. The present study explored this issue of feedback in the context of writing assignments in an online course and specifically from the view point of the student. In the course used for the project (Senior Seminar in Child & Adolescent Development), students write research-based essays on a bi-weekly basis and post them electronically to the course WebCT site. Providing prompt and effective feedback on writing is difficult in a fully online environment-especially on such a frequent basis. Typically, feedback on these assignments is emailed to students and consists of typing a series of general comments at the end of the essay with a few specific examples copied and pasted from their essays for clarification. This process is quite time consuming and, perhaps more importantly, does not have the same visual element as does the more traditional "pen in hand" approach that is standard when commenting on hardcopies of student papers. Furthermore, anecdotal evidence from students indicates they prefer receiving their corrected papers with handwritten feedback because it seems more "personal" and also makes the specific areas and issues that need to be addressed more evident. Underlining, arrows, etc. appear to have a benefit in their view. Given the above, this study explored the use of a semi-structured feedback form combined with the instructor's use of the "inking" or pen feature of a Tablet-PC for providing feedback on writing. The principle focus was to assess student views of this process. Responding to Student Writing Paula Messina Department of Geology and Program in Science Education San José State University Exemplary communication skills are critical for classroom teachers of all levels and all subject areas. Science Education 173, Secondary Science Methods, is a course designed for prospective high school science teachers. Reflection papers are an integral component of the curriculum; they are reviewed as drafts, and graded as revised submissions. The first paper's drafts were reviewed for organization, mechanics, and style. I identified specific mistakes and included exhaustive suggestions on how each paper could be improved. The first papers' revised versions showed significant improvement in all nineteen cases. However, I was surprised to observe the same types of errors were repeated in the second papers' drafts. The hypothesis tested in this study is whether students' learning and skills application are improved by fewer editorial notes on the initial drafts (i.e., is it possible that students make corrections when an instructor's detailed comments are included in reviewed drafts -- without fully understanding the reasons behind those comments?). I changed my review strategy for the third reflection paper by including only an itemization of the types of mistakes noted, general comments, and detailed descriptions/examples of the kinds of mechanical problems encountered (where appropriate). Although students were given a longer period to rewrite this assigned paper, the overall improvement rate decreased from that of the first paper. The most startling realization to emerge from comparing these two sets of papers was that three of the nineteen students submitted their identical drafts as their "rewritten" essays for the latter assignment. Possible reasons may include students' inability or unwillingness to identify the errors themselves and/or procrastination and subsequent end-of-semester time limitations, apathy, or a combination of these and other factors. Writing in the Margins: An Assessment of Faculty Commentary on Student Writing and Student Response Regarding Such Remarks Mária Ochoa, Ph.D., Department of Social Science, San José State University This research project, conducted during the Fall semester 2005, sought to identify the variety of remarks that faculty offer to students and those that, in particular, motivate and enable students to incorporate sound writing practices. Participants included five faculty and one hundred and thirty-eight students in the Department of Social Science. Based on assessment material provided by participating faculty and queries developed by students enrolled in the Social Science 100W Writing Workshop, the faculty member in charge of the 100W course developed a survey consisting of open-ended questions as well as various scales of response including Likert, evaluation, and frequency. The instrument was administered over a three-day period to four classes, one lower division GE course from the Asian American Studies Program and three upper division courses, one offered in Social Science and the other two in the Women's Studies Program. The data seems to indicate that students favor individualized responses from faculty including face-to-face meetings and extensive written commentary at the conclusion of their writing assignments. In addition, students indicated that the paucity of commentary regarding their writing, lack of clear penmanship applied by faculty when crafting comments, and their uncertainty regarding the meaning of certain editorial marks and the use of certain color ink, particularly red, by faculty contributed to their lack of motivation in improving their writing. However, given the relatively small size of the sample, the study ought to be expanded in a subsequent project in order to appropriately evaluate the range and depth of these initial responses. Responding To Student Writing: Research Findings Report Frances Schwab Social Sciences Department, San José State University This research project was designed for instructors teaching writing as part of across the curriculum focus, rather than English or 100W courses. My original research question was, "What combination of response tools and methods work best for our students who need it most?" A related and germane question also became, "What breadth of writing focus is realistic and helpful during a non-English course?" Participants in this project were the 70 students in my two classes this semester. The research process included Student Feedback Tools and a follow-up Focus Group to assess what range of tools and responses from the Seminar and other sources students find most helpful. From this feedback, I proposed developing a brief, practical set of recommendations for other across the curriculum instructors and share these with the Department of Social Sciences Department faculty. Given the limited remaining timing of the Fall Semester, it was agreed that the presentation to Department Faculty could be in the Spring Semester to follow. My research findings spotlight a profound irony:
Responding To Student Writing Asha Weinstein Urban and Regional Planning San José State University I prepared a two-workshop series designed to help faculty in Urban and Regional Planning improve their skill at responding effectively to student writing. In the first workshop, held on August 30, I led a lecture and discussion designed to improve instructors' skills in responding to student writing, and the group also watched the first half of Dana Ferris' lecture. Eight faculty attended, including both full-time faculty and lecturers. For the second workshop, on December 13, the group held a follow-up meeting to discuss what strategies they were able to use and how well these worked. Both workshops were successful in that faculty self-reported finding them helpful, and the discussions clearly engaged all participants. However, because I allowed workshop participants to digress somewhat from my agenda onto the topics of most interest to them, the workshop focused more than I intended on assigning letter grades and less on providing written feedback. Finally, at the end of the second workshop, participants expressed a desire for me to lead more workshops on teaching strategies in future, evidence that they found the experience helpful.
|
|
