Data Analysis for Action Research
The question with which I started
this project was: “How can I improve students’ writing and composition using
the peer review process?” Although I only had approximately 6 weeks to insert a
couple of extra essays, I accomplished said feat. However, I have not had time
to insert the last essay at the time of this writing (it’s due next week), and
that would make the data more pertinent – that way, I’ll have two essays
written without using the formal peer review process, and two essays using my
newly revised (yet still evolving) methodology. As of this writing, however,
the data is definitely encouraging, but also far from conclusive.
I assigned two AP-style essays to be
written by my Pre-AP English class over the period of two weeks, with about
thirty minutes of class time to write (and to be finished at home and handed in
the next day). These essays are graded according to the AP scale of essay
quality, which is on a scale of nine. These essays are literary analysis
essays, employing the technique called “synthesis,” which means that a writer
draws from multiple sources (usually two to three) to answer a prompt in a
decisive, opinionated manner, citing specific evidence from all sources as
evidence to support his or her opinion. My students have done 4 other essays in
this manner throughout the trimesters I have had them, so they are familiar
with the format and techniques involved to achieve a successful score on an
AP-style essay. After those essays had been handed in and graded, I assigned a
third essay in which the rough draft was written in the same manner as the
first two; however, I then employed the peer review method I have started to
refine with my research in mind, and the results, as previously mentioned, are
definitely not conclusive, but are mildly encouraging.
The students’ average score on the
first two essays was 4.3 out of 9; after using the peer review process, their
scores jumped to an average of 5.2. This is encouraging, initially, because it
helps me think that there was indeed a benefit to having them review each
other’s essays (which is in direct contrast with a couple of the sources I
found!), and as an average, 5.2 for freshman is pretty solid. I’m grading them
on a scale that has junior-and senior-level writers in mind, and I try to grade
the freshman at that level of writing finesse and technique. However, as
previously mentioned, I need more essays using this style of peer review. What
I would also like to do is assign two or three essays, using this same style,
but giving the students the blanket statement that “you will be peer editing
each other’s essays,” then noting what the class’ focus, in general, falls upon.
I am interested in finding out if just the term “editing” as opposed to
“review” (and everything that accompanies it, including my specific questions
to be addressed) makes a large difference. If done with two classes
simultaneously, one being the placebo group (editing) and the other the control
(review), I think that I would be able to really draw a distinction between the
two different methods. However, I would need a lot of class time to be able to
do this, and, alas, the year is ending next week, which affords me only time
for the one last essay.
I will keep refining my approach and
questions for students to focus upon when employing peer review, but I want it
to be when the Pre-AP students are writing essays that they get full credit for
doing (usually the first four AP-style prompts are given full credit, as synthesis
is a new, specific style of writing that is challenging to do well – I find that
this takes away a bit of the students’ fear, and encourages them to be
opinionated, rather than being sort of homogenized in an effort to please the
instructor and his or her views regarding the literature students are
analyzing). I plan to implement it into my mainstream classes as well, but need
to perhaps refine my questions’ wording so that I’m specific enough to convey
what I want them to focus on, yet broad enough to not be constricting with
regard to students’ feedback. I also plan to do a large majority of the
upcoming peer review sessions online, using turntin.com’s peer review software,
and am interested in whether using it enhances or detracts from the overall
effect of peer review.
As far as an “ah ha” moment
experienced during the research, I’d say that shifting the terminology from
“peer editing” to “peer review” was actually a huge deal, as it reinforced to
me that I need to be incredibly specific in the way I frame the process and
expectations derived from peer review, and if done correctly, can really
benefit the students (and my essay grading time!).
Whether or not I continue with this
research formally or just continually refine my processes through regular
classroom instruction, I do believe that I have benefitted from engaging in the
research and review of literature. I am also contemplating folding this
research into the topic of “teacher feedback with regard to students’ writing”
as a larger research project, as it is the most important, time-consuming, and
influential part of most English teachers’ influence on their students. It can
lead to teacher burnout, students’ hurt feelings, debates over subjectivity,
personal stress and frustration, etc., ad nauseum. If I can truly formalize a
process that is adaptable -- yet usable -- and can show other teachers in my
department (and next year’s spring conference) how its effectiveness also saves
their own time and improves student writing, I will have made a major
difference in many lives! In a quest to teach students, I will have helped
teach adults as well – that, to me, would be living up to my potential as an
English instructor.
No comments:
Post a Comment