1 / 23

Justine A. Neiderhiser The University of Michigan janeider@umich

Exploring “Freedom” In first year writing: A Corpus Approach for Comparing Student and Instructor-Generated Feedback. Justine A. Neiderhiser The University of Michigan janeider@umich.edu. Research on Peer Review.

shyla
Download Presentation

Justine A. Neiderhiser The University of Michigan janeider@umich

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Exploring “Freedom”In first year writing: A Corpus Approach for Comparing Student and Instructor-Generated Feedback Justine A. NeiderhiserThe University of Michigan janeider@umich.edu

  2. Research on Peer Review • Cho, Schunn, and Charney (2006) found that an instructor provided more feedback than students when responding to the same feedback prompts, both in number of words and in number of ideas. • Also found that students included more praise in their feedback than the instructor. • Additionally, they found that the instructor provided more directive comments than students.

  3. Research on Peer Review • Patchan, Charney and Schunn (2009) found that Instructors did not make more total comments than students, but used more words in each comment. • Also found that peers generated almost twice as much praise as instructors. • And that peers were more likely to provide recommendations for low-level prose issues than instructors. • Their conclusion: Student comments are valid because they are similar to instructor comments.

  4. Research Questions • What is the relationship between the feedback that I give my students and the feedback that they give each other? • If there are differences between instructor and student feedback, what is the source of this difference? Are student deviations from instructor commenting practices strategic?

  5. Participants and Course Context • Course: English 225, Academic Argumentation • Assignment Sequence: • Rhetorical Analysis • Narrative Argument • Researched Persuasive Argument • Comparative Analysis • Class structured to include full class workshops • Each student workshopped one time over the course of the semester

  6. The Corpus • Student generated feedback • 18 students participated in 8 workshop days over the course of the semester • 272 essays reviewed by students • Extracted in-line comments from reviewed essays • 46,038 tokens • Teacher generated feedback • 18 students wrote 4 papers over the course of the semester • 69 essays were actually turned in and reviewed by me • Extracted in-line comments from reviewed essays • 26,465 tokens

  7. Establishing a baseline

  8. Co-Occurring N-Grams

  9. N-Grams with similar meaning

  10. Searching for difference

  11. Co-Occurring N-Grams Phrases marked with an asterisk (*) did not appear in the frequently occurring phrases from project one (see Tables 1, 2, and 3).

  12. N-Grams with similar meaning

  13. Considering individuals

  14. References Cho, K., Schunn, C. D., & Charney, D. (2006). Commenting on writing - typology and perceived helpfulness of comments from novice peer reviewers and subject matter experts. Written Communication, 23(3), 260-294. Nelson, M. M., & Schunn, C. D. (2009). The nature of feedback: How different types of peer feedback affect writing performance. Instructional Science, 37(4). Patchan, M. M., Charney, D., & Schunn, C. D. (2009). A validation study of students’ end comments : Comparing comments by students, a writing instructor, and a content instructor. Journal of Writing Research, 1(2), 124-152.

More Related