https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8ZCkazrvXtgdDBBYTI2SG5qSnc/edit?usp=sharing
And here is the essay in its glorious entirety, if that link doesn't work:
Providing Meaningful Feedback
on Student Writing
Dusty Neibauer
St. Mary’s University
Writing is
hard (even for English majors). Whether a student in Masters degree-level
classes, high school classes, or even a professional writer of novels,
journalism, or online publications of various means, the act of writing usually
carries with it a certain level of anxiety regarding many things: the nebulous
concept of grammar is often on the list of stresses; “moving commas around” is
a cliché often employed by the movies when speaking of writing; peer and
teacher feedback can be easily misinterpreted (and can be in actuality) as
overly negative and/or discouraging; what makes up “good writing” is subjective
depending on the audience, purpose, and forum; these facets, among many others,
lead to a highly subjective and stressful learning activity for many students,
for which they could be deemed anything but excited- intimidated, nervous,
disengaged, overly-sensitive, or twitchy may be better descriptors. Despite all
of this, writing is a huge part of what forms our species’ worldview with
regard to many aspects, from academia to religion to entertainment. It is
considered one of the best methods of gauging meaningful student learning.
The challenge for modern educators is to
provide meaningful chances for students to write in many avenues while
providing specific means of improvement without being discouraging, or making
writing more of an exercise in error-avoidance. Specific feedback regarding
writing is absolutely key in helping students improve, but must balance
constructive criticism and praise, all while avoiding the use of empty praise,
too much negativity, and, to be honest, large delays in returning essays to
students for meaningful revision while still maintaining a social or family
life of any sort (all those essays can stack up quickly and detract from
productive comments on essays, sanity, family life, personal leisure time,
exercise and fitness, etc. If English teachers were superheroes, grading essays
would be their Kryptonite). To achieve all of these lofty goals – helping
students enjoy writing of various means while still helping them to improve in
key areas – having students create writing portfolios is arguably the best
method in differentiating between varying writing styles and assignments, as
well as making writing more enjoyable and student-led - but that doesn’t solve
the real issue here: providing meaningful, constructive, timely feedback with
regard to specific traits in student writing. Since this is the most
time-consuming and pertinent issue with respect to the teaching of writing, I
decided to focus my research on finding the best methods to employ in facilitating
student writing improvement and cementing my role as an advocate for their writing
– not an adversary. I find that, when
providing feedback on student writing, providing a mixture of positive
commentary (genuine, not inflationary or disingenuous) and suggestions for
improvement related to “large concept” issues (thesis statement, organization
method, use of pertinent evidence) and syntactic / style choices (and limiting
grammatical feedback to specific concepts taught during the writing process)
yields the most significant improvement in students’ writing, and fosters an
engaged, positive, and symbiotic learning environment.
Unifying
Purpose, Specificity, and Student Investment
Since writers, as a species, are
sensitive on the whole about their skills and product, an optimal environment
for their evolving creations can help to ease tension between the artists and
their reviewers / editors. This starts with classroom management and teacher
persona, which is a huge issue of which this paper cannot support the weight. However,
with regard to the writing environment and the grades it produces, there are
multiple methods writing teachers can use to assuage student doubts and
stresses as well as foster creativity and improvement. It all starts with the
concept of grading.
According to Peter Elbow, grades are
not trustworthy; they are unclear; they don’t give feedback well; they
undermine the teaching and learning of writing in multiple, significant ways
(Elbow, 2000b). This is exacerbated by the traditional method of grading a
final draft that students passively consume and discard, not using the
painfully-conceived teacher feedback to improve their writing at all. If the
objective for student writing is, truly and in many facets, to increase student
learning, then there are ways for teachers to work around the traditional
method of grading essays and writing. To make essays do as little damage to
student psyches and make them as fair and accurate as possible, creating a
writing portfolio is one way to do it (Elbow, 2000a). A student’s writing
portfolio would encompass many different styles of student writing within one
cumulative assignment; it could include a mixture of high-stakes writing
(essays, short stories, etc.) with low-stakes writing (stream-of-consciousness,
journaling, etc.) and any mixture of other types desired. To distinguish
between “high” and “low” stakes further, I’ll paraphrase Elbow’s definitions:
zero-, to minimal-/nonverbal-/noncritical- (teachers never have to comment or
even read – purely for students’ eyes), to supportive (no criticism, just check
for completion), to descriptive-/observational, to minimal-critical-, to
critical-diagnostic response (highest stakes – usually used for essays, and
includes reviews of everything from grammar to thesis quality to tone to
coherence). Through mixing up the type of writing required, Teachers can create
a writing environment that balances the stakes and pressures of writing and
promotes learning, adjustment, experimentation, and creativity – all while
having students write with more frequency!
To increase the level of continuity and
complexity among the pieces of writing, and perhaps tie it to a unit of study
or concept, instructors could teach writing through a multigenre writing
project. Tom Romano, author of multiple teaching guides about getting students
to write with passion and commitment (most notably Writing With Passion) states this definition in his book
specifically geared toward writing multigenre papers: “A multigenre paper
arises from research, experience, and imagination. It is not an uninterrupted,
expository monolog nor a seamless narrative nor a collection of poems. A
multigenre paper is composed of many genres and sub genres, each piece
self-contained, making a point of its own, yet connected by theme or topic and
sometimes by language, images, and content. In addition to many genres, a
multigenre paper may also contain many voices, not just the author's. The trick
is to make such a paper hang together” (Romano, 2000, x-xi). If students such
choice and control about genre and topic, they are much more likely to invest
in their writing and actively work toward its improvement; it creates diverse
papers that prize the creative over the overly-technical or analysis-based
criticism (though there’s a place for that sort of thing – I plan on including
multiple literary criticism essays throughout my courses as well), and
encourages students to write more frequently with lower stakes.
Having students publish their final
projects to the web is another way to encourage student investment and ensure a
higher-quality product, and “help(s) students find real purposes to write and
real audiences to reach” (Zemelman, Daniels, & Hyde, 2005, 78-105).
Teaching the multigenre paper also helps teach “the craft of writing
(organization, diction, syntax, grammar conventions, etc.)…most
effectively…through brief mini-lessons focused on skills appropriate to
particular writing tasks students are tackling, so the skills can be practiced
immediately in meaningful settings.” In another endorsement for publishing
student writing, Shelbie Witte states: “By combining writing with online
technology, teachers can provide opportunities for students and future educators
to develop their digital fluency while also strengthening their traditional literacy
skills” (2007, 92-96). In encouraging students to engage in a global community
of writers, which is easier than ever nowadays, the multigenre paper enhances
students’ digital fluency, online conduct, and writing skills. There are
multiple ways to publish student writing: Blogger is a site owned by Google- if
students have an e-mail address through Google, they can use Googledocs to
write the essays, Drive to share and review each others’ essays, and Blogger to
publish them; Figment is working toward creating an online community of writers
to share and review each others’ work, and help students create good-looking
digital covers and pages; collecting students’ multigenre papers and publishing
them, online or in print, for a school’s literary magazine is a great option to
hype their work for their classmates as well. The list of avenues is extensive
and continues to grow; thus, the publishing of students’ writing is easy,
raises expectations and results, and increases students’ excitement, execution,
and investment in their writing skills – it is truly a great idea.
The
last step in preparing students for their writing assignments is being specific
about what criteria make up the summative grade for the paper. Using a
subjective, “catch-all” system is hard for teachers – the amount of time it
takes to grade all of the diverse factors that make up student essays is
massively daunting – and for students, as they can be confused about how to
achieve their desired result (again, grades are a part of the American
educational system; until/if it changes, discussing its finer points isn’t a
productive use of time for instructors – mobility and adaptation within the
system must suit educators for the time being). The following section of this
essay focuses on selecting grammatical elements, so I’ll skip that element for
now- which brings me to the issue of defining “good writing” and its elements,
which is tricky, as Elbow succinctly states: “Since scholars and critics have
failed to agree on what “good writing” really is, we get to decide what we are
actually looking for and admit it openly to our students” (2000b). This allows
instructors a bit of freedom to “add the horizontal” using specific criteria
for our expectations regarding purpose, content, flow, organization, and
coherence, which varies depending on the type of writing being done. “The
important principle here is that we do well to name and acknowledge and
communicate the features of writing that influence our judgments” (2000b).
Using multiple student essays as examples, including their (anonymous) grades
and the comments that instructors have made, is a great start; teaching
mini-lessons to stress specific elements, such as what elements make up a good
thesis statement or conclusion, is another good practice; varying the stakes of
the writing assignments and providing chances for students to experiment with
varying techniques and styles certainly helps as well. As long as instructors
are as specific as possible with what they’re looking for in a good essay,
provide examples, practice, and encouragement of creativity, both instructors
and students will benefit with more meaningful, clear, and concise writing and
grading periods.
Targeting Specific Grammatical Issues for
Constructive Feedback
Instead of including in the assignment a
category broadly-labeled something like “Grammar and Mechanics” or something of
its ilk, teachers of writing need to be more targeted and specific with which
particular grammatical skills writing students need to demonstrate proficiency.
Limiting the scope of grammatical feedback will save the instructor time in the
review phase to be able to focus only on one or two targeted skills; for
example, on a first writing assignment, focusing on comma splice prevention, in
which students use a variety of methods, such as using coordinating
conjunctions directly after commas, or using a conjunctive adverb following a
semicolon). It also allows students to know exactly what is expected of them
and to specifically focus on improving in that area, and makes it more
meaningful, as stated in the article Best
practice for teaching and learning in America’s schools: “The craft of writing
(organization, diction, syntax, grammar conventions, etc.) is most effectively
taught through brief mini-lessons focused on skills appropriate to particular
writing tasks students are tackling, so the skills can be practiced immediately
in meaningful settings” (Zemelman, Daniels, & Hyde, 2005, 78-105). This
specific focus helps expedite the feedback process for instructors and helps
the students make more meaningful progress on a targeted skill than if the
grammatical feedback were a sort of “catch-all” in which all aspects of English
grammar are included.
Despite the rosy outlook of paragraphs
like the above, this targeted approach is hard to apply. In my eight years of
teaching high school English, I’ve seen some of the worst phrasing errors imaginable,
and, sweet sassy molassy do they beg to be lashed by the correcting whip of
grammatical justice – the English language doesn’t deserve its brutal
treatment. Focusing on only one or two issues is very hard to do, and will take
some adjustment for many instructors. Most studies corroborate, however, with
Silver and Lee’s findings regarding broad feedback: “…less skilled writers
[they also found that skilled writers are commonly tied to this as well] are
the ones who get the least from teacher feedback on writing, and often just
rely on the exact feedback to make changes, without engaging actively with
their writing and forming autonomous habits” (Silver, Lee, 2007, 25). If this
is true, then more of that feedback is just a waste of the instructor’s time,
as it doesn’t foster student motivation. To make that one skill more meaningful
to writers and engage them with it, a writing conference following the review
session where students must demonstrate their knowledge of a skill based on
teacher feedback “mak(es) students responsible for pointing out their effective
usage of grammatical constructs...makes it more useful…and shifts
responsibility to the student” rather than having the instructor be wholly
responsible for all things grammar (Zemelman, Daniels, & Hyde, 2005,
78-105). This is a key distinction shared by the National Council of Teachers
of English; it agrees that for the best assessment (major facets of the essay
as well as grammatically) essays must include peers, instructors, and the
student him/herself: “Reflection by the writer on her or his own writing
processes and performances holds particular promise as a way of generating
knowledge about writing and increasing the ability to write successfully”
(Conference on College Composition and Communication Committee, 2009). While
those phrasing and grammatical errors are distracting, their impending
correction actually does little for students’ writing skills unless taught
specifically and thoroughly either before or during the writing process and
emphasized throughout. I’m not arguing against grammatical correction – just
for it to be commented-upon and applied in a more targeted, specific approach
that promotes its integration into student writing.
Organization
of Operations
The order in which the assignment
proceeds matters greatly when it comes to the potential effectiveness of the
teacher feedback and the students’ use of it. I’ve graded essays in the
“traditional” way, where the final product is worked toward, peer reviewed, and
turned in as a final where it is marked and handed back. This just doesn’t work
for my students or me. Generally speaking, because there are always exceptions
to rules and grand pronouncements, students didn’t come in for extra help; they
wasted their time in class (precious, precious time that I could have used for
other things!) instead of consulting me on the finer points of writing; they
didn’t really learn anything from the final comments other than to be quietly
offended, hurt, or dismissive of them- and from my perspective, that horrible
screechy “mental-stabby” music from the movie Carrie (whenever she sends her
psychic mind-bolts of hate toward an abuser) would play anytime I’d see one of
the essays in the recycling bin after being handed back. Dealing with this was
costing me sanity and time away from my wife and daughter for naught. So, I
revised the order of operations, and it made a large difference in time and
result.
As students pre-write and write a rough
draft, as well as assemble usable sentences featuring grammatical flourishes and
direct quotations, workshop ideas in small groups, etc., I monitor their
progress like I normally would. However, before they turn in their rough draft
for my feedback, I have them complete a Schoology survey predicting /
explaining a couple of their perceptions: what they do well and not well in
writing; what they expect to earn for a final grade; what they think their
rough draft would earn at the moment they turn it in; and what they hope to
gain through my feedback. This sets the tone for improvement, and makes them
bear some responsibility for what they are turning in. It also helps me give
them more directed and usable feedback for things pertinent to the assignment
and genre in which they are writing.
After I mark their rough drafts (more
information regarding the specifics of this practice is coming in the following
section), I record a “for teacher eyes only” informal grade of the students’
rough drafts; this helps me speed up the process when I read and grade their
final drafts, and helps me see how much (or, of course, how little) they’ve
progressed. This is the tradeoff for not giving any corrective feedback on
their final drafts (unless a personal conference is desired): they receive the
instruction in process instead of after, and (hopefully) use it to positively
influence their writing. It also helps me focus on the product as a whole when
reading the final, and speeds up the grading of the final significantly, since
the quality is better, I remember their rough drafts and their quirks, and can
(dare I say it) enjoy reading their writing instead of dreading its marking!
There are other factors that instructors
can also use to help make this process rewarding and expedient: convincing
one’s district to subscribe to Turnitin.com, if possible, would be a
spectacular decision. When students know what it does, how to use it, that
they’ll have to submit anything they write to it, and that it is being used as
a helpful tool and not a “gotcha!” plagiarism checker, teachers will find that
they have much more time on their hands – they can stop Googling phrases! They
can stop playing the “I’m going to find where you got this” game and just make
the students re-do what most teachers will recognize as blatantly plagiarized. Finally,
one can grade students’ papers through Turnitin.com using rubrics of their
making, and even leave feedback in the form of a voice message – that can
really speed up the grading process. Another factor that can help students
polish is the peer review process. If given proper direction and specificity,
it can be a great tool for students to use during the drafting process. Lastly,
once the essays are handed back, some teachers find it useful to have them fill
out a quick survey of what they think the instructor is saying with his/her
feedback, whether they agree with the instructor’s perception, and whether they
would like an individual writing conference to further discuss the grade and
how it was conceived. This can help to prevent some students from playing the
“blame game,” silently seething away in their desks for the rest of the class,
and speaking of the instructor’s obvious prejudice against them outside of
class. Any combination of these methods can be used based on instructor
preference; it just comes down to personal style choices and what works best
for his/her classroom instruction.
Providing Meaningful, Quality,
Constructive Corrective Feedback
Once all of the above factors have been
established and accounted for, truly helpful and apt feedback can be given and
used for the benefit of students’ writing skill. As stated above, all of the
pre-feedback factors matter immensely in fostering student understanding and a
positive writing environment; thus, the context of the commentary matters as
well. The context in which teacher feedback is made must be established as
being for the purpose of “wean[ing] [of] students away from criticism from the
teacher and toward forming their own ability to review and revise their texts”
(Dunsford, 2006, 12-18). With that goal in mind, students should be able to
view the comments in the correct light and use them for improvement.
The most useful types of feedback,
broadly at first, are summed up fairly well by Dunsford: “Generally…students
revised more successfully when given specific comment (regarding not only
what’s wrong with the essay, but what can be done to improve it) that included
suggestions or strategies for making revisions. The students also revised
frequently in response to oral comments” (2006, 12-18). This suggests that the
more personal and contextual comments made with a chance for oral feedback and
discussion between the instructor and the student yield the best results. This
point is echoed and further elaborated-upon by Cindy Gunn and John Raven in
their article Evaluating teacher feedback
in writing classes. They assert the importance of providing guiding
feedback for the “larger” issues of an essay (versus the smaller issues, such
as typos and grammatical issues), such as flow, context, organization, quality
of information, and thesis statement on the drafts leading up to the final (2005,
265-273). This, in addition to specific grammatical commentary as stated
previously, can help to focus students on the most important facets of their
essays.
The specific tone and phrasing of
teacher feedback on student writing also matters greatly. Peter Elbow is a fan
of stating that, when it comes to both corrective feedback and a summative
essay assignment, to “Make (essays as summative assignments) do as little
damage as possible to teaching and learning…(as well as) Make them as fair and
accurate as possible” (Elbow, 2000a). Elbow further states that instructors
should “Frame comments in a forward-looking way, emphasizing what to improve
upon for future assignments” (Elbow, 2000c). Further confirmation of such
success with focused, positively-phrased feedback has been confirmed by many of
the other sources listed, including Silver & Lee, Storch &
Wigglesworth, Yangin Eksi, Konold, Konold & Miller, and Petit & Soto;
however, Deborah Dunsford frames the argument most succinctly: “Generally this
study showed that students revised more successfully when given specific
comment (regarding not only what’s wrong with the essay, but what can be done
to improve it) that included suggestions or strategies for making revisions
(Dunsford, 2006, 12-18). With effort made by the instructor to phrase
constructive feedback in the aforementioned manner, students will be more
likely to see the feedback in that light and use it well.
A good starting point for teachers
to start their renaissance of constructive feedback is focusing on how they
phrase their constructive feedback. As far as the actual phrasing goes, Peter
Elbow has quite a few good strategies. As stated previously, teachers should
phrase commentary in a “forward-looking” way – in other words, focusing on what
students should do to more clearly convey their ideas on future assignments
(i.e. the final draft of a summative assessment). Teachers must avoid sounding
like “a God-like writing judge” (2000c) – examples of this would be statements
that are overly harsh (or honest! I know they’re still learning…but still!),
too technical about issues not covered in the instruction, etc. If too many
issues are plaguing an essay, teachers must narrow their focuses to the
specific things being graded for the rubric and let the tertiary things go –
grammatical issues not covered, (in some cases) logical fallacies not
emphasized in class, complex phrasing issues, and other advanced techniques
that have yet to be covered. Indeed, direct corrective feedback can sometimes
be misinterpreted as being harsh, too critical, mean-spirited, or evil (if
written in the dreaded red ink!) by sensitive students, because writing is
something that is both personal and close to their own speaking and thinking
voices; a critical comment about it can make them feel foolish, embarrassed, or
shamed; thus, softening the phrasing of a critical comment, as well as
establishing a respectful writing environment focused on improvement and creativity,
can make a large difference in the perception of the student. Elbow even goes
as far as having students write a 5-minute reflection about (the feedback),
telling us what they “hear” us saying about their work, so we can catch
misinterpretations” (2000c). This is a good self-reflection tool for teachers
as well, as they can then see how their comments are being interpreted and
whether further “softening” is needed.
Other strategies for improving the
way teachers provide the feedback can be more process-related. The first can be
implemented during an earlier point in the writing process: when students are
working on framing their arguments and finding supporting evidence. Students
compete in a competition for which there is some sort of trivial (yet
completely righteous) prize; they then create arguments for why their group
deserves to win the most, using (in this instance, for an argumentative or
persuasive essay) argumentative techniques the teacher wants to focus on. They
then compete to recognize and point out logical fallacies, critiquing each
other’s arguments, as they’d be expected to critique their own essays’
arguments. While this is an oral review game, it “sets the stage” for the type
of focus and complexity needed to critique their own arguments- thus sparing
the teacher from having to point out simple logical fallacies (or whatever the
focus for that assignment is) (Petit & Soto, 674-682). Another simple
strategy is for instructors to comment upon a rough draft and not a final; this
helps instill in students an environment of improvement, and forces (in
theory!) consideration and revision of their writing. Elbow, when commenting on
a rough draft, refrains from writing any comments (except for straight lines
indicating good uses of diction/syntax/rhetoric and wiggly lines indicating
poor uses of the same) until he’s read the entire essay; this prevents the
commonly-seen “retraction line through a comment” on essays that can make
teachers feel sheepish (2000c). If the writing is a low-stakes assignment, he
advises reading two examples of the writing consecutively, so as to make more
clear trends and skills that students do well and not so well. Mixing high- and
low-stakes writing assignments (some have feedback; some are free of it; sum
are formative, and some are summative) is a great way to foster creativity,
risk-taking, and a general aura of writing improvement by lowering the stakes
and pressure associated with the traditional summative essay. By combining all
of these factors, teachers can really help students improve their writing, and
help themselves grade essays more speedily, accurately, and constructively.
Not all feedback can be praising the
positive aspects of writing, however, nor should it. If instructors only focus
on pointing out what students do well, students will inevitably miss out on
chances to hone the less-developed aspects of their craft. Also, if teacher
feedback isn’t genuine, then it has been found to be ineffective by many
sources. While some state that “constructive feedback is encouraging and
positive, and that its focus lies in what the student did correctly, as well as
what can be done to improve future performance,” (Gunn & Raven, 2005,
265-273), they assume that all students are engaged and invested in the writing
process and turn in quality work and/or care about their own improvement. Most
teachers know that some essays, due to a lack of effort, motivation, or skill,
are nigh irredeemable in their current state. Even assuming that all students
are similarly-invested and will work toward their own improvement, “insincere
praise doesn’t yield good effects…and either leads to a lack of trust in the
instructor or to ‘A-grade junkies’ who ‘find writing to be a chore,’ as their
only pursuit is the grade” (Silver & Lee, 2007, 25). Perhaps most startling
of all: in their study, “out of all of the 66 students…only one made a revision
because of being praised! 1! So, while praise is important, it doesn’t
necessarily encourage revision or careful consideration of writing (though it
was reportedly appreciated); it must be placed side-by-side with constructive
criticism to truly be effective in crafting better writers.” Feedback, then,
must maintain a tenuous balance: providing pertinent information and
opportunities to improve while still, as Elbow states, “Humaniz(ing) comments –
mak(ing) them sound softer than a “God-like writing judge” of sorts” (Elbow,
2000c). Again- while a tough skill to master, and probably more time-consuming
[it’s tougher to comment in this way, as “I’m not understanding your point here
– further clarify” takes longer to write than “invalid!” “Misguided,”
“Erroneous!” “Ridiculous!” “Meandering…” “AU CONTRARE, MON FRERE!” or
“SIR/MADAME, I BEG TO DIFFER!!!!!!!!!” (one may note that the number of exclamation
points increases based on the instructor’s level of outrage at the student’s
claim – this can be most commonly-observed on persuasive or argumentative
essays!)].
Writing is
one of the most important skills that a student can be taught, in my completely
biased opinion; it facilitates the exercising of multiple parts of their
brains; it encourages them to think critically, creatively, and with an eye
toward specifics and detail. It is a very ancient mode of communication, but
can be made to feel modern, relevant, and massively important to students and
how they perceive their individual educations. It can be tempting for the
current generation of teachers (much like every generation attempting to
advise, educate, or guide the next) to “write off” (pun intended) the current students-
texters, Tweeters, Viners, Facebookers, bloggers (I don’t think that’s as big a
thing anymore!), Tumblers, Youtubers, XBOX Livers, Minecrafters, Snapchatters, Instagrammers,
or whatever stupidly-named-social-media-craze-captures-my-attention-in-the-next-five-seconds-Mr.
Neibs-is-raging-LIKE-OH-MY-GOD-I’M-GOING-TO-TWEET-THAT- that make up the
proverbial “Snapchat snapshot” of their generation; however, it will be much
more satisfying, gratifying, and progressive to help guide them toward creating
something with meaning, both personally and educationally; to show them that
they can publish something of quality and worth; to help them demonstrate why
writing- the preserver of culture, the bringer of knowledge to the massive, the
great equalizer, that which can stronger than the sword- is not something that
can be merely discarded by a viscera of narcissistic social media trying to
steal away their collective attention spans, perspective, and soul. The
teaching of writing can do that – it is something that most English teachers
recognize, tout, and love about their shared profession. Thus, it is time, at
least for me, to reinstate the teaching of writing as the enjoyable,
influential, and culturally significant to its rightful place at the forefront
of our shared cultures – something that matters immensely to those that form,
create, shape, and consume it. While these are grandiose claims, I think that
they deserve to be; for all any teacher knows, he or she could teach the love
of writing to a revolutionary – and it all starts with a supportive learning
environment, clear-cut goals, and a shared goal of improvement.
References
Conference
on College Composition and Communication Committee (2009). Writing Assessment: a Position Statement. Retrieved from http://www.ncte.org/cccc/resources/positions/writingassessment
Dunsford, Deborah. (2006). Feedback follow up: The influence of
teacher comment on student writing assignments. NACTA Journal, 50(2), 12-18.
Elbow, Peter. (2000). Evaluation and
Grading. Everyone Can Write – Essays
Toward a Hopeful Theory of Writing and Teaching Writing. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Elbow, Peter. (2000). Getting Along
Without Grades – and Getting Along With Them Too. Everyone Can Write – Essays Toward a Hopeful Theory of Writing and
Teaching Writing. New York: Oxford University Press.
Elbow, Peter. (2000). High Stakes and Low
Stakes in Assigning and Responding to Writing. Everyone Can Write – Essays Toward a Hopeful Theory of Writing and
Teaching Writing. New York: Oxford University Press.
Elbow, Peter. (2000). Using the Collage
for Collaborative Writing. Everyone Can
Write – Essays Toward a Hopeful Theory of Writing and Teaching Writing. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Gunn, Cindy, and John Raven. (2005).
Evaluating teacher feedback in writing classes. Academic Exchange Quarterly Summer, 265-273.
Konold, Kathryn, Konold, Kyle, & Miller,
Susan. (2004). Using teacher feedback to enhance student learning. Teaching Exceptional Children, 36.6,
64-69.
Petit, Angela, & Soto, Edna. Already
Experts: Showing student how much they know about writing and reading arguments. Journal of Adolescent & Adult
Literacy, 45.8, 674-682.
Romano, Tom. (2000). Blending Genre, Altering Style: Writing Multigenre Papers.
Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Publishers.
Scott, Alex. (2007). Essay writing for everyone: an investigation
into different methods used to teach Year 9 to write an essay. Teaching History 123, 11-16.
Silver, R., & Lee, S. (2007). What
does it take to make a change? Teacher feedback and student revisions. English Teaching, 6(1), 25.
Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G.
(2010). Learners’ processing, uptake, and retention of corrective feedback on
writing. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 32(2), 303-334.
Stuart, Moira K. (2002). Improve your
students’ writing with a class magazine. American
Language Institute, 474 367, 1-5.
Witte, Shelbie. (2007). “That’s online
writing, not boring school writing”: Writing with blogs and the Talkback
Project. International Reading
Association, 10.1598, 92-96.
Yangin Eksi, Gonca. (2012). Peer review
versus teacher feedback in process writing: how effective?" International Journal of Applied
Educational Studies 13.1, 33-47.
Zemelman, S., Daniels, H., & Hyde, A.
(2005). Best practice for teaching and learning in America’s schools. Best Practice, 3, 78-105.
No comments:
Post a Comment