|
Abstract INTRODUCTION AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Framing the issue
|
I. INTRODUCTION AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKFraming the issue Responses to problems tend to be based on how we define the problem. In the case of the perceived problem with college level student writing, deficit views tend to locate the source of the problem in the students, who are seen as deficient in some fundamental way (e.g., not knowing "enough" English or the right kind of English; not being motivated enough; not reading enough, etc.). Systemic views tend to locate the source of the problem in our institutions, including the K-12 school system from which most of our local students have come, or the local community colleges. It is easy to play the "blame game", especially when one can point the finger at institutions other than our own. A third view might be called a resource-based view (Davis et. al, 2005; Ruiz, 1988). In this view, students and their families and communities can be seen as having valuable resources, or "funds of knowledge" that can, if tapped by educators, contribute to a meaningful education (Gonzaélez, 1995). This is not to minimize the very real social problems that exist in communities, including poverty, violence, drug abuse, etc. But all families and communities do also bring potential resources to the educational "table". For instance, our students in many cases speak two, three, or four languages, which can contribute to their position as global citizens, not to mention increased "cognitive flexibility" and ability to view things from multiple perspectives (Diaz & Klinger, 1992). Increasingly, they also participate in "multiliteracies" such as text messaging, video gaming communities, etc., which to date are little understood and studied by educators (Luke, 2000). A resource-based view suggests that the problem of student writing might be located, at least in part, in our own need to build better bridges between the prior knowledge and experiences students bring to the classroom and the new knowledge and skills they need to acquire. Defining the problem in this way does not remove the need to attend to systemic-institutional issues, nor does it let students off the hook; they need to be responsible for their own learning, with our support. But it does give us, as faculty members, a different perspective in terms of what we can do. Rather than throwing up our hands and saying "it's the students fault" or "it's the system's fault", it gives us a place from which to start looking at our own practices. In this project, we looked very concretely at what faculty members can do to provide better feedback on student writing. This is one of the ways in which we can build better bridges between students' prior knowledge and what they need to know to be effective writers in their chosen fields. Existing support systems on campus Numerous support systems already exist on our campus to help students improve their writing. There are "academic English" classes such as LLD 1 and 2 for entering freshmen who receive low scores on the English Placement Test. LLD 1 also includes a required 2-unit lab component in the Language Development Center (LDC), where students are provided with small group and 1-1 support sessions. LLD 98 and 99 are additional academic English classes for upper division students who have failed the Writing Skills Test two or more times. The Learning Assistance Resource Center (LARC) provides tutoring in all subject areas for any registered student. The Peer Mentor Center also provides tutoring. The required 100W classes are designed to teach students the written and oral communication skills they will to be successful in specific fields, and the 250W classes accomplish the same goal at a more advanced level for graduate students. To support faculty members in teaching writing across the curriculum, the Center for Faculty Development offers workshops at least once a semester. Additional workshops have been offered through the MUSE program, and the Writing Requirements Committee now has an electronic handbook with many excellent resources for faculty members on teaching writing. Occasionally, a campus-wide event focuses on writing, such as the 2001 symposium on "Generation 1.5 students and writing", or the 2005 symposium offered through this project on "Responding to student writing." Feedback on student writing: The need for professional learning Despite all these support systems for both students and faculty members, gaps persist, and needs continue to remain unfulfilled. One question that faculty are beginning to explore in more depth is how to improve the quality of feedback to students on their writing. Instructors in writing classes as well as discipline specific classes often spend an inordinate amount of time correcting and giving comments on students' written work, whether through written comments, error correction, one-to-one conferencing, or peer review. However, we do not know to what extent this feedback is in fact useful to students. Does it improve their writing, or are we wasting our time? What does the research literature tell us about how to structure our feedback so that students can use it to improve their writing? And what do students themselves say? What kinds of feedback do they find most useful? Are there broad strategies in giving effective feedback that are applicable across disciplines? Across our campus, different groups have been coalescing around the need to address these questions. For example, the Writing Requirements Committee decided in Spring 2004 that the issue of feedback on student writing was so important that they commissioned a video on this topic. The video will highlight practices that help students write better, and is especially designed for faculty who are not themselves writing instructors. The Teacher Scholars Program (offered through the Center for Faculty Development at SJSU), has for the last 2 years focused on student writing (Carroll et. al., 2003, and Schulze-Krohn et. al, 2004). One of the recommendations that emerged from the report by Schulze et. al. (2004), was that faculty need to "provide useful feedback that students will "hear'"and that does not overload faculty." (power point presentation). Faculty at SJSU are not alone in grappling with this issue. Ferris (2003) writes that despite research going back to the 1970s,"there is misinformation and confusion about the best ways for teachers and peers to give feedback." (p. xii) Contributing to the confusion is the fact that early (1970s and 1980s) research on teacher feedback indicated that it was of little use (Knoblauch and Brannon, 1981). However, this research focused on students writing in their first language. More recently, studies have begun to examine whether students who are writing in their second language have different feedback needs (Ferris, 2003, Goldstein, 2005). Given that many of the students attending SJSU are writing in their second (or third or fourth!) language, it is important to have the needs of these students, as well as those whose first language is English, in the forefront as we grapple with the complexities of how best to respond to student writing. Feedback on student writing must be situated in the larger context of the classroom and the institution (Ferris, 2003; Goldstein, 2005). It is not enough to focus only on the formal characteristics of teacher commentary on student papers, for those comments take place within an ongoing dialogue between teachers and students as well as students and students. Feedback on student writing is part of the dynamic relationship of curriculum, instruction, and assessment. For example, how will a student understand a particular teacher comment about paragraph development if paragraph development has not (yet) been a focus of instruction? Feedback also takes place within programmatic and institutional contexts that can influence how feedback is given and understood. For instance, how many units are students carrying? What are the expectations for writing in the students' other classes? How many classes are teachers teaching? And how many students are in each class? How exactly does high quality feedback help students? Educational psychologists suggest that "it can enhance motivation because it fosters higher levels of self efficacy and control which, in turn, work to decrease feelings of anxiety and helplessness" (McVey, 2006, citing Bandura, 1993 and Bruning et. al., 1995). Self efficacy can be defined as knowing that one can accomplish something in the future because one has accomplished similar things in the past. Because effective feedback is so closely intertwined with the classroom and institutional context, as well as with the resources and "funds of knowledge" students bring to the classroom, it is not wise to reduce it to a set of "cookbook style" directives. Different types of feedback work better for some students than others. However, speaking very broadly, we can extract a few general guidelines from the literature. For example, Ferris offers the following guidelines: 1. Identify sound principles for response to student writing. 2. Examine student texts and identify major feedback points. 3. Prioritize issues on various essay drafts. 4. Construct feedback that is clear and helpful. 5. Explain your feedback philosophies and strategies to your students and be consistent. 6. Hold students accountable for considering and utilizing feedback. (2003, p. 118) Ferris goes into detail about each of these principles. For instance, if students are to submit several drafts of a paper, it is appropriate to give different types of feedback at different stages. A teacher might comment on content and organization on a first draft, and focus more on grammar and sentence structure in later drafts. Furthermore, it is important to provide positive, encouraging comments as well as pointing out ways students can improve. Students need to know what they did well so that they can do those things in the future. This also serves to bolster their self-confidence and willingness to keep working on improving their writing. Vague, general comments such as "good" or "unclear" are usually not helpful because students are unlikely to understand specifically what was good, or what was unclear and how it might be improved. Specific feedback that points to the problem and suggests ways of improving is more helpful. It is not the purpose of this report to reinvent the wheel. Both Ferris (2003) and Goldstein (2005) provide extensive literature reviews and very useful advice for instructors on specifically how to improve the quality of their feedback. Given that there is this body of literature and guidelines for effective practice, our project began by asking: How can faculty members on our campus become more aware of the importance of feedback on student writing and learn how to provide more effective feedback?
|
|
