My Action Research class consisted of an in-depth project about providing feedback to students regarding their writing. Providing feedback has been a particular interest to me: I teach five sections of Advanced Placement English Language & Composition, and with 150 student writers wanting significant feedback on a regular basis, I have sought a way to do that in a timely fashion that leaves me a personal life. Think about it: when 150 students write a 4-page paper, that’s 600 pages to read and give feedback on. And that doesn’t count the two-page timed writes that my students write on a regular basis, nor the journal entries they write weekly. How do I handle the workload?
Through my action research project, I learned about the value of peer feedback through writing workshops. A study by Early and Saidy (2014) revealed that students used written feedback to encourage their peers to add textual evidence, improve aesthetic elements, and develop voice. I instituted a three-day writers workshop in which students shared their rough drafts, provided specific feedback, and then used that feedback to revise their papers. The students did produce better quality papers after the workshop, even though it still took me a significant amount of time to grade the papers afterward. I have since modified my use of writing workshops; a three-day workshop takes more time than I can commit, so I pared the workshop to one day this year. The workshops focused more on different "stations" that students rotated through, centers focused not only on peer review but on finding dead words such as really and very, reading their text aloud, finding specific grammatical problems such as run-on sentences, and a station where I read their paper and give them immediate feedback. I had mixed results with this form of workshop; my students generally turn in polished papers, but I felt much of the time was wasted as students did not have as strong a structure to perform the peer review. I am strongly considering going back to my three-day model in an attempt to give them more detailed and useful feedback, and to allow students to provide that feedback. This would also allow me to incorporate more the cooperative learning that Dean, Hubbell, Pitler, and Stone (2012) advocate for.
The significance of proper feedback cannot be overstated. Wiliam (2011) cites a study that shows that students who received constructive feedback learned twice as fast as a control group. Marzano (2007) says goal setting and feedback are more effective when done together. Dean et al. (2012) say teachers can create a classroom focused on learning by providing feedback that is “corrective, timely, and focused on criteria” (p. 11). Pitler and Stone (2012) encourage teachers to “engage students in the feedback process” (p. 24).
I recognize the importance of providing quality feedback; that isn’t the problem. Finding the time to provide that feedback in a writing class is my greatest challenge, one I will continue to undertake as my career moves forward.
References
Dean, C. B., Hubbell, E. R., Pitler, H., and Stone, B. (2012). Classroom instruction that works: Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Early, J. S., & Saidy, C. (2014). Uncovering substance: Teaching revision in high school classrooms. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 58(3), 209-218.
Marzano, R. J. (2007). The art and science of teaching: A comprehensive framework for effective instruction. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Pitler, H., and Stone, B. (2012). A handbook for classroom instruction that works. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Wiliam, D. (2011). Embedded formative assessment. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
No comments:
Post a Comment