Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Introduction
Van Horn (2010) writes, “…, peer review can provide students with critical
feedback and an authentic collaborative writing process before their final drafts are
completed.” Moreover, students participating in peer review workshops deepen their
conceptual understanding, improve their writing skills, and familiarize themselves with
good writing habits (Cathey, 2007). In an attempt to improve student writing, the
instructor asked students to participate in peer review feedback workshops using an
online collaborative processing application known as Google Docs. Students posted their
essays for classmates to view, and peers posted comments on classmates’ essays. Online
collaborative word processing applications are easy to use.
Summary Data
The class average for the diagnostic essay is 39.375. None of the students used a
consistent point of view (first or third person point of view), and they did not use the
MLA format. So, each paper was deducted 40 points. In cases where students scored only
30 points, their paragraphs lacked organization and /or style. The diagnostic essay score
is not a recorded grade. Each essay was returned with teacher comments.
With the descriptive essays, 13 students participated in the optional peer review
workshop, and 4 students chose not to participate. Results detailing how the two groups
performed are presented in Table 2. Based on the results of the students who chose to
engage in the peer review activity, they clearly demonstrated that they are capable of
composing of essays, developing content, employing specific organizational patterns, and
selecting language appropriate for a particular audience and purpose. Each student,
regardless of grade, was invited to reflect in the form of a conference with the instructor.
Each student was encouraged to review the grade earned for the descriptive essay and to
make any adjustments to ensure his or her success in English 101.
2 84 Y 10 71 N
3 93 Y 12 64 N
5 86 Y 16 70 N
6 93 Y
7 90 Y
8 89 Y
9 85 Y
11 90 Y
13 80 Y
14 91 Y
15 93 Y
17 100 Y
11 90 Y 2 73 N
12 65 Y 3 0 N
13 83 Y 4 0 N
14 81 Y 6 73 N
17 100 Y 7 70 N
8 87 N
9 75 N
10 0 N
15 90 N
16 0 N
6 100 Y 2 63 N
12 80 Y 3 n/a
Withdrew
13 92 Y 4 n/a
Withdrew
14 85 Y 7 63 N
16 80 Y 8 81 N
17 100 Y 9 63 N
10 n/a
Withdrew
11 81 N
15 75 N
5 80 Y 3 n/a
Withdrew
6 90 Y 4 n/a
Withdrew
7 70 Y 8 0 N
12 90 Y 9 0 N
14 100 Y 10 n/a
Withdrew
15 90 Y 11 0 N
17 90 Y 13 0 N
16 0 N
Data Interpretation
The English Department has determined that by the end of the course, students
will meet the following departmental objectives:
a. use appropriate stylistic options for a specific subject, audience, and purpose.
b. organize ideas effectively by selecting and limiting a topic.
c. develop and supporting a thesis with relevant material.
d. employ a logical plan of development.
e. write essays that are substantially free of errors (grammar, usage, and mechanics).
Furthermore, the instructor has created objectives and assessment measurements
(Table 7) designed to help each student better meet the department objectives.
2 84 73 63 0 55 N
5 86 81 75 80 80.5 Y
6 93 73 100 90 89 Y
7 90 70 63 70 73.25 Y
8 89 87 81 0 64.25 N
9 85 75 63 0 55.75 N
11 90 90 81 0 65.25 N
12 64 65 80 90 74.75 Y
13 80 83 92 0 63.75 N
14 91 81 85 100 89.25 Y
15 93 90 75 90 87 Y
16 70 0 80 0 37.5 N
After reviewing Table 7 (Outcome, Objectives, and Assessments) and the current
timeline (Table 9), it has been determined that students may have performed better had
peer review been a mandatory requirement.
The proposed timeline for Fall 2011 (Table 10) incorporates the use of peer
review with the teaching of each essay. Students will receive two sessions on how to
provide peer review using Google Docs or some other online word processing
application. Throughout the semester, the instructor will apprise students of their writing
progress and any needed adjustments (Writing Center or tutoring).
Problem-Solving Process
a. Identify the Problem – Some students are not using the writing assistance services
provided by the Writing Center when writing papers for English classes. As a
result of not doing so, students are submitting poorly written assignments.
Students who do not seek help from the Writing Center or instructors are highly
likely to withdraw from classes or receive an F.
b. Analyze the Problem – Through discussion it has been discovered that many
students do not seek the services offered by the Writing Center because physical
and geographical constraints prevent them from visiting the Center.
Just as students are expected to become writing, the English Department must
lead the way in establishing a professional development program that will train all
instructors at the college how to teach their students the basis for writing-to-learn and
writing across the curriculum. Writing across the curriculum operates under the premise
that students learn when they write (Hampson, 2009). After all, Community College is a
student-centered college that prepares individuals to meet the challenges associated with
a diverse, global society.
Conclusions
Writing assignments can and do serve as evaluations that can predict student
success in post-secondary environments (Tobin, 2010). Based on the success of the five
students, who scored 80% or higher, they responded favorably to the peer review process.
Actively engaging in the peer review process benefitted the students and the instructor.
The students actively collaborated to provide and to receive critical feedback on their
essays before final submission. Student reflections include:
“My suggestion for improvement is to keep writing and not hold back any
information.” – Student 5
“Overall, I was not too bad but I have plenty of room to grow. I will do more
proofreading in the future. I will use “you” less and stick with one point of view. I
will pay closer attention to detail.” – Student 6
“After reading another essay, I felt pretty confident in my writing ability. I need
to focus more on my conclusion. I feel that once I finish my intro and body, when
I get to the conclusion, I run out of steam and stumble on what I want to say.” –
Student 14
“I must learn to stay focused and not shift from one point of view or another.
That is definitely my weakness.” – Student 15
“I think one of my strengths is a pretty good vocabulary and can describe things
so the reader can visualize. I think I can better organize things, my thoughts.” –
Student 17
Moreover, the instructor did not spend time collecting essays and writing comments. As
for the students who did not score 80% or higher, they chose to forgo any peer review
workshops. In conclusion, the English Department promotes an environment filled with
writing that celebrates communication, collaboration, creativity, and critical thinking.
Furthermore, at the end of the semester the department wants each student, to be able to
• use appropriate stylistic options for a specific subject, audience, and purpose.
• organize ideas effectively by selecting and limiting a topic.
• develop and supporting a thesis with relevant material.
• employ a logical plan of development.
• write essays that are substantially free of errors in grammar, usage, and
mechanics.
So, it makes sense to have students complete the peer review process using an online
word processing application, which provides the collaborative setting where students
review peer’s work by pointing out strengths, improvements, and other perspectives.
Reflections
The decision to focus on the importance of writing centers and writing across the
curriculum was made after reading two published research articles – The Writing Center
as a Key Actor in Secondary School Preparation and Caldwell Community College and
Technical Institute QEP: Writing Across The Curriculum Professional Development
Program.
Writing Centers
Too often students leave high school without a solid writing foundation. Some
enter college knowing of their deficit(s) and are placed in developmental reading, writing
or other non-credit English classes. However, there are others who do well enough on
college placement tests and are placed directly into an English 101 class. Once some of
those students realize that college writing is quite different from high school composition,
they go into sink or swim mode. Those who choose to swim usually seek tutoring from
the college’s writing center; whereas, other students remain clueless as to what to do.
There is a need to improve student writing on all educational levels. But for some
reason, writing is mostly associated with the English Department. However, students are
required to write in every subject area. How detailed the writing assignments are depends
on the individual instructors. Nevertheless, if College’s students are being prepared to
compete in a diverse, global society, they must be taught to write-to-learn and to write
across the curriculum.
Asking students to write-to-learn and to write across the curriculum requires buy-
in from College’s faculty. A well-planned professional development program is key to
encouraging faculty to incorporate into their various courses. More importantly, faculty
will come to realize that technology is a helpful instructional tool. Tools such as wikis,
mp3 and mp4 files, Google Docs, and Jing can be used to respond to student writing.
Nevertheless, when instructors become comfortable with various web-based tools,
collaboration between faculty and various departments will become the norm and there
will be considerable growth in student writing.
References
EBSCOhost.
doi:10.1080/10668920902928952
Tobin, T. (2010). The writing center as a key actor in secondary school preparation.
Van Horn, M. C. (2010). Module 8: Teaching with peer review. Teaching with hacker
handbooks: Topics, strategies, and lesson plans (p. 101). Boston, MA:
Bedford/St. Martin’s.