Post on 18-Jul-2015
transcript
English 501 - Seminar in the Methodology of Composition
Panacea or Lip Service? An Analysis of Audio Response in the Composition Classroom
Tialitha Macklin
Background: Creating the Study
❖ Formative Assessment with a Focus on Revision
❖ WSU’s Revision-Based Comp Program
❖ Technological Advancements
❖ Best Practices of Response
Best Practices of Response
❖ Limit the scope of your comments and the number of
comments you present
❖ Select your focus of comments according to the stage
of drafting and relative maturity of the text
❖ Give priority to global concerns of content, context,
organization, and purpose before getting (overly)
involved with style and correctness
Best Practices of Response
❖ Do not take control over the student’s text
❖ Gear your comments to the individual student
❖ Turn your comments into a conversation
❖ Make frequent use of praise
(Straub, 2000b, pp. 24–48)
Do Not Control Student’s Text
Do Not Control Student’s Text
Do Not Control Student’s Text
Gear Comments to Individual Student
“I liked the verbal feedback because I feel it was more
personal than ‘elaborate’ in the margins and gave a better
idea of what I should do to improve the essay
-Student
Turn Comments into Conversation
“It allows me to feel more like I am talking to my
professor.”
-Student from Pilot Study
Make Frequent Use of Praise
“Oral feedback has changed the way that I comment. It is
faster, more honest and positive, and my students really
seem to like it.”
-Teacher from Pilot Study
Audio Feedback as Panacea?
Anson 1997, 1999
Balazs, 1967
Bauer, 2011
Berner, Boswell, & Kahan, 1996
Bilbro, Iluzada, & Clark, 2013
Briand, 1970
Farnsworth, 1974
Fitzpatrick, 1968
Gould and Day, 2013
Hallett, 1978
Harris, 1979
Hodgkinson, Walter, & Coover, 1968
Huang 2000
Hubbell, 1968
Ice et Al, 2007
Kates, 1998
Killoran, 2013
Kim, 2004
Klammer, 1979
Lowe, 1963
Lunt and Curran, 2010
Mathieson 2012
Medlicott, 1980
Mellen & Sommers, 2003
Moxley, 1989
Olsen, 1982
Patrie, 1989
Rahme, 1979
Silva, 2012
Sipple, 2006, 2007
Sommers, 1989, 2002, 2012
Stratton, 1979a, 1979b, 1979c
Still, 2006
Tanner, 1964
Vogler, 1971
Yarbro & Angevine, 1982
Panacea?
❖ Anecdotal Evidence and Self-Reports
❖ Teacher-Focused
❖ Small Scale Research
Methodology
❖ Voice Response Only
❖ Teachers = iAnnotate App with iPad and Adobe
Reader
❖ Students = Dropbox and Adobe Reader
❖ Written Response as Control
❖ Pre-Study Survey (Survey 1) and Post-Study Surveys
(Surveys 2A and 2W)
2013-2014 Study
❖ Participants
❖ 530 Student Participants (ENGL 100, 101, 105)
❖ 6 Teacher Participants
❖ Surveys
❖ Survey 1 - 428 Participants
❖ Survey 2A - 225 Student Participants
❖ Survey 2W - 112 Student Participants
Previous Response Experience
24% 23% 22%
14%
3%
11%
3%0%
10%
20%
30%
Margins End Combo Conference Audio Grade Only Other
N=1530
Choice of Response Type
19%
12%
36%
26%
3% 1% 3%
18%
10%
27%
18%22%
0% 5%13%
6%
59%
19%
2% 0% 1%0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Margins Combo Audio Other
Survey 1 (N=541) Survey 2A (N=288) Survey 2W (N=111)
Why Response Type is Preferred
32%
27% 27%
6%
21%23%
34%
27% 28%
12% 13% 12%14%
12%10%
1% 1% 0%0%
13%
27%
40%
Survey 1 (N=987) Survey 2A (N=678) Survey 2W (N=317)
Satisfaction With Response
2%10%
7%2% 1% 1%
21%16%
5%
51%
42%47%
24%
31%
41%
0%
20%
40%
60%
Survey 1 Survey 2A Survey 2W
Interaction with Response
22%
23%
24%
3%
2%
2%
11%
10%
10%
1%
1%
0%
20%
21%
24%
1%
1%
1%
14%
14%
14%
1%
1%
1%
0%
0%
0%
2%
1%
0%
1%
2%
0%
16%
15%
16%
8%
8%
7%
0% 10% 20% 30%
Survey 1 (N=1897)
Survey 2A (N=945)
Survey 2W (N=439)
Read/Listen To Response
0% 0% 0%2% 1% 4%
30% 32% 32%
67% 66% 65%
0%
23%
47%
70%
93%
Survey 1 (N=426) Survey 2A (N=151) Survey 2W (N= 82)
Understanding of Response
0% 0% 0%5% 2% 0%
67%
38% 36%28%
60%64%
0%
23%
47%
70%
93%
Survey 1 (N=427) Survey 2A (N=228) Survey 2W (N=107)
Findings Requiring Additional Study
❖ Higher Level of Comprehension for Women in Written Study Group
❖ Higher than Average (22%) Choice of Audio Response for Some
Groups
❖ African American (56% - N=9), Hispanic (33% - N=15), Other Ethnic
Identifications (33% - N=9), and Multiple Ethnic Identifications (40% -
N=10) students had higher than average (22%)
❖ Small N makes this statistically invalid
❖ Small Numbers of Course Participants
❖ ENGL 100 (Audio), ENGL 105 (Written)
Results
❖ Students have mostly received feedback in the forms of
margins, end, and combo before coming into this study
❖ Most students chose combo as their first choice of response
type but audio response was preferred by nearly ¼ of
students who received audio feedback
❖ Students prefer feedback that is clear and easy to understand
❖ As a whole, students are satisfied with the response that they
receive from their writing teachers
Results
❖ Overall, students view teacher response as a positive element of the
composition class
❖ Most students indicate that they read/listen to most or all of their
teacher’s comments
❖ While most students indicate that they listen to all of our comments,
most students admit that they understand only some of our comments
❖ Overall, students are slightly more satisfied with written comments
❖ Audio response, in and of itself, is not a panacea
Didn’t Choose Audio Feedback
❖ Didn’t work with their
personal learning style
❖ Technological glitches made
the process difficult
❖ Listening to commentary
took longer than with written
feedback
❖ Difficult to recall content of
comment
Chose Audio Feedback
❖ Teacher Felt Approachable
❖ Easy to Understand
❖ Diction and Tone
❖ Personal
❖ Quantity
❖ Depth of Feedback
Panacea or Lip Service?
Future Work
❖ Analyze Revision Using These Same Participants
❖ Expand Analysis of Student Demographics Who Choose
Audio
❖ Analyze How Choice in Response Type Influences
Revision
❖ Deep Analysis of Student Narrative Comments
❖ Dialogic Response Study in Progress
English 501 - Seminar in the Methodology of
Composition
Panacea or Lip Service? An Analysis of Audio Response in the Composition Classroom
Tialitha Macklin
tialitha.macklin@wsu.edu
@timacklin
www.timacklin.com