Feedback for Adolescent Writers in the English Classroom

Exploring Pen-and-Paper, Electronic, and Automated Options

Authors

  • Paige Ware Southern Methodist University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1558/wap.v6i2.223

Keywords:

Secondary Feedback, Automated Evaluation, Revising

Abstract

This study examined the impact of different forms of feedback on the writing of a group of 82 adolescent students in secondary English classes. During a 6-week intervention, students were randomly assigned to one of three feedback groups: peer feedback on pen-and-paper drafts, teacher feedback delivered electronically through a course management system, and automated feedback generated through computer-based writing evaluation software. Pre- and post-measures of student writing quality, length, and correctness were analyzed, and survey data explored student perceptions of their experiences. Findings indicate that all students, regardless of which form of feedback they received, wrote longer essays and scored higher on holistic ratings at post test than they did at pretest. Neither language status nor group assignment had a greater or lesser impact on performance on length or holistic quality. However, differences between feedback groups spiked on the proximal measure that examined mastery of particular aspects of the genre being taught. Both peer feedback and teacher feedback delivered electronically had a statistically significant impact on student performance in the genre of open-ended response. The article concludes with a discussion of the implications of these findings for future research and instruction in the secondary context.

Author Biography

Paige Ware, Southern Methodist University

Paige Ware is an associate professor of Education at Southern Methodist University. Her research focuses on the use of multimedia technologies for fostering language and literacy growth among adolescents, as well as on the use of Internet-based communication for promoting intercultural awareness through international and domestic online language and culture partnerships. Her research has been funded by a National Academy of Education/Spencer Post-Doctoral Fellowship, by the International Research Foundation for English Language Education (TIRF), and by the Ford Scholars program at SMU. She was also the principal investigator of a Department of Education Office of English Language Acquisition (OELA) professional development grant supporting secondary school educators in obtaining their ESL supplemental certification.

References

Applebee, A., Langer, J., Nystrand, M. and Gamoran, A. (2003) Discussion-based approaches to developing understanding: classroom instruction and student performance in middle and high school English. American Education Research Journal 40: 685–730. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00028312040003685.

Atwell, N. (1998) In the Middle: New Understanding About Writing, Reading, and Learning. Portsmouth, New Hampshire: Boynton/Cook.

August, D. and Hakuta, K. (1997) Improving Schooling for Language-Minority Children: A Research Agenda. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Center on Education Policy: CEP (2012) State High School Exit Exams: A Policy in Transition. Retrieved 22 February 2014 from http://www.cepdc.org/displayDocument.cfm? DocumentID=408.

Chen, C-F. and Cheng, W-Y. (2008) Beyond the design of automated writing evaluation: pedagogical practices and perceived learning effectiveness in EFL writing classes. Language Learning and Technology 12(2): 94–112.

Dikli, S. (2006) An overview of automated scoring of essays. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment 5(1): 1–35.

Ericsson, P.F. and Haswell, R. (2006) Machine Scoring of Student Essays: Truth and Consequences. Logan, Utah: Utah State University Press.

Ferris, D. and Hedgcock, J. (2005) Teaching ESL Composition: Purpose, Process, and Practice. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Ferris, D., Liu, H. and Rabie, B. (2011) “The job of teaching writing”: Teacher views of responding to student writing. Writing & Pedagogy 3(1): 39–77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1558/wap.v3i1.39.

Fitzgerald, J. (1987) Research on revision in writing. Review of Educational Research 57(4): 481–506. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00346543057004481.

Flower, L. and Hayes, J. R. (1986) Detection, diagnosis, and the strategies of revision. College Composition and Communication 37(1): 16–55.

Genesee, F., Lindholm-Leary, K., Saunders, W. and Christian, D. (2006) Educating English Language Learners: A Synthesis of Research Evidence. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Graham, S. and Perin, D. (2007) A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of Educational Psychology 99: 445–476. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.445.

Grimes, D. and Warschauer, M. (2010) Utility in a fallible tool: A multi-site case study of automated writing evaluation. The Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment 8(6): 4–43. Retrieved December 16, 2013, from http://www.jtla.org.

Hillocks, G. (2002) The Testing Trap: How State Writing Assessments Control Learning. New York: Teachers College Press.

Hoffman, L. and Sable, J. (2006) Public Elementary and Secondary Students, Staff, Schools, and Districts: School year 2003-2004. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Educational Statistics.

Hyland, K. and Hyland, F. (2006) Contexts and issues in feedback on L2 writing: An introduction. In K. Hyland and F. Hyland (eds.) Feedback in Second Language Writing: Contexts and Issues 1–19. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kern, R. (2006) Perspectives on technology in learning and teaching languages. TESOL Quarterly 40(1): 183–210. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/40264516. 2006.

Lee, I. (2009) Ten mismatches between teachers’ beliefs and written feedback practice. ELT Journal 63: 13–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccn010.

Lee, Y-W., Gentile, C. and Kantor, R. (2010) Toward automated multi-trait scoring of essays: Investigating links among holistic, analytic, and text feature scores. Applied Linguistics 31(3): 391–417. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp040.

National Assessment of Education Progress: NAEP. (1998) Writing Report Card for the Nation and the States. Retrieved on 9 February 2014 from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pubs/main1998/1999462.asp

National Center for Education Statistics: NCES. (2007) The nation’s report card: Reading 2007. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. Retrieved on 15 February 2014 from https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2007/2007496.pdf.

National Commission on Writing. (2003) The Neglected “R”: The Need for a Writing Revolution. New York: College Entrance Examination Board. Retrieved on 1 February 2014 from http://www.vantagelearning.com/docs/myaccess/neglectedr.pdf.

Nurmukhamedov, U. (2009) Teacher feedback on writing: Considering the options. Writing & Pedagogy 1(1): 113–124. http://dx.doi.org/10.1558/wap.v1i1.113.

Olson, C. B., Kim, J. S., Scarcella, R., Kramer, J., Pearson, M., van Dyk, D. A., Collins, P. and Land, R.E. (2012) Enhancing the interpretive reading and analytical writing of mainstreamed English learners in secondary school: Results from a randomized field trial using a cognitive strategies approach. American Educational Research Journal 49(2): 323–355. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0002831212439434.

O’Neil, P., Murphy, S., Huot, B. and Williamson, M. M. (2005) What teachers say about different kinds of mandated state writing tests. Journal of Writing Assessment 2(29): 81–108.

Pellettieri, J. (2000) Negotiation in cyberspace: the role of chatting in the development of grammatical competence. In M. Warschauer and R. Kern (eds.) Network-Based Language Learning: Concepts and Practice 59–86. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Prichard, R. J. and Honeycutt, R. L. (2008). The process approach to writing instruction: examining its effectiveness. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, and J. Fitzgerald (eds.) Handbook of Writing Research 257–290. New York: Guilford Press.

Remley, D. (2013) Templated pedagogy: Factors affecting standardized writing pedagogy with online learning management systems. Writing & Pedagogy 5(1): 105–120. http://dx.doi.org/10.1558/wap.v4i5.1.

Roberts, C. (2009) Professional development and high-stakes testing: Disparate influences on student writing performance. Writing & Pedagogy 1(1): 63–88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1558/wap.v1i1.63.

Russell, M. and Abrams, L. (2004) Instructional effects of computers for writing: The effect of state testing programs. Teachers College Record 106(6): 1332–1357.

Santa, T. (2006) Dead Letters: Errors in Composition, 1873 – 2004. Cresskill, New Jersey: Hampton Press.

Scherff, L. and Piazza, C. (2005) The more things change, the more they stay the same: a survey of high school students’ writing experiences. Research in the Teaching of English 39(3): 271–304.

Schultz, J. M. (2000) Computers and collaborative writing in the foreign language curriculum. In M. Warschauer and R. Kern (eds.) Network-Based Language Learning: Concepts and Practice 121–150. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sengupta, S. (2001) Exchanging ideas with peers in network-based classrooms: An aid or a pain? Language Learning and Technology 5(1):103–134. http://www.llt.msu.edu/vol5num1/sengupta/default.html.

Shanahan, T. and Beck, I. L. (2006) Effective literacy teaching for English-language learners. In T. Shanahan and D. August (eds.) Developing Literacy in Second-Language Learners 415–488. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Shermis, M. D. and Burstein, J. (2003) Automated Essay Scoring: A Cross-Disciplinary Perspective xiii–xvi. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Sommers, N. (1980) Revision strategies of student writers and experienced adult writers. College Composition and Communication 31: 378–388.

Spratt, M. (2005) Washback and the classroom: the implications for teaching and learning of studies of washback from exams. Language Teaching Research 9(1): 5–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1191/1362168805lr152oa.

Sullivan, N. and Pratt, E. (1996) A comparative study of two ESL writing environments: a computer-assisted classroom and a traditional oral classroom. System 29(4): 491–501.

Tardy, C. (2006) Researching first and second language genre learning: a comparative review and a look ahead. Journal of Second Language Writing 15: 79–101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2006.04.003.

Tuzi, F. (2004) The impact of e-feedback on the revisions of L2 writers in an academic writing course. Computers and Composition 21(2): 217–235. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2004.02.003.

Wang, M-J. and Goodman, D. (2012) Automated writing evaluation: Students’ perceptions and emotional involvement. English Teaching and Learning 36(3): 1–37. http://dx.doi.org/10.6330/ETL.2012.36.3.01.

Ware, P. (2011) Computer-generated feedback on student writing. TESOL Quarterly 45(4): 769–775. http://dx.doi.org/10.5054/tq.2011.272525.

Ware, P. and O’Dowd, R. (2008) Peer feedback on language form in telecollaboration. Language Learning & Technology 12(1): 43–63.

Ware, P. and Warschauer, M. (2006) Electronic feedback and second language writing. In K. Hyland and F. Hyland (eds.) Feedback in Second Language Writing: Contexts and Issues 105–122. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Warschauer, M. (2009) Learning to write in the laptop classroom. Writing & Pedagogy 1(1): 101–112. http://dx.doi.org/10.1558/wap.v1i1.101.

Warschauer, M. and Grimes, D. (2008) Automated writing assessment in the classroom. Pedagogies 3(1): 52–67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15544800701771580.

Warschauer, M. and Ware, P. (2006) Automated writing evaluation: Defining the classroom research agenda. Language Teaching Research 10(2): 1–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1191/1362168806lr190oa.

Wilcox, K. (2011) Writing across the curriculum for secondary school English language learners: A case study. Writing & Pedagogy 3(1): 79–111. http://dx.doi.org/10.1558/wap.v3i1.79.

Xi, X. (2010) Automated scoring and feedback systems: where are we and where are we heading? Language Testing 27(3): 291-300. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0265532210364643.

Zamel, V. (1985) Responding to student writing. TESOL Quarterly 19: 79 – 102. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3586773.

Published

2014-09-22

How to Cite

Ware, P. (2014). Feedback for Adolescent Writers in the English Classroom: Exploring Pen-and-Paper, Electronic, and Automated Options. Writing & Pedagogy, 6(2), 223-249. https://doi.org/10.1558/wap.v6i2.223

Issue

Section

Research Matters