• Save
CMC Teacher Education SIG Presentation; Mitchell
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

CMC Teacher Education SIG Presentation; Mitchell

on

  • 727 views

PowerPoint Presentation, Mitchell, Eurocall CMC Teacher Education SIGs, 2011, Barcelona

PowerPoint Presentation, Mitchell, Eurocall CMC Teacher Education SIGs, 2011, Barcelona

Statistics

Views

Total Views
727
Views on SlideShare
727
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • The Common European Frame of Reference for Languages
  • The essays were graded using a rubric to assess: Language & Style Good range of vocabulary and grammar Clear and concise Only a few errors Organization Well written thesis Organization is clear Good topic and concluding sentences Logically presented details Correct MLA and formatting Content Very focused Very clear main idea Very interesting Well supported Answers the prompt well
  • The essays were graded using a rubric to assess: Language & Style Good range of vocabulary and grammar Clear and concise Only a few errors Organization Well written thesis Organization is clear Good topic and concluding sentences Logically presented details Correct MLA and formatting Content Very focused Very clear main idea Very interesting Well supported Answers the prompt well
  • used in Arnold et al. 2009
  • 4 groups had more stylistic than formal changes
  • 4 groups had more stylistic than formal changes
  • 41% were unsure if it improved their writing overall Content, style, 25% unsure Language 37% unsure
  • There were 2 questions about the roles did it help everyone contribute equally and did it make collaboration harder/ 25% Thought the roles made it harder 25% were unsure. For the = participation, people either agreed or disagreed.
  • used in Arnold et al. 2009
  • used in Arnold et al. 2009 she calls these stylistic changes . including paraphrases, deletions that require the reading to make inferences, additions that make things more explicit, substitute words of equal meaning, rearrange phrases without changing the meaning, length or shorten ideas Substitution was often for a better word get -> become
  • used in Arnold et al. 2009 she calls these stylistic changes . including paraphrases, deletions that require the reading to make inferences, additions that make things more explicit, substitute words of equal meaning, rearrange phrases without changing the meaning, length or shorten ideas Substitution was often for a better word get -> become

CMC Teacher Education SIG Presentation; Mitchell CMC Teacher Education SIG Presentation; Mitchell Presentation Transcript

  • Student and Teacher Roles in Collaborative Writing By Kathleen Mitchell, M.A.
  • Rational: Collaborative Learning
    • Why have students write collaboratively?
    • Collaboration can lead to:
      • Scaffolding of knowledge (Wood, Bruner, & Ross, 1976)
        • “ the speakers are at the same time individually novices and collectively experts, sources of new orientations for each other, and guides through this complex linguistic problem solving” (Donato, 1994, p. 46)
      • Reflection (Higgins, Flower, & Petraglia, 1992)
    • Collaborative writing can lead to more
      • Complex texts (Sotillo 2002; Storch 2005)
      • Grammatically accurate texts (Storch 2005)
  • Rational: Wikis
    • Why use a wiki?
    • Wikis can facilitate a robust revision process, especially content and language revisions (Arnold Ducate,& Kost, 2009; Elola & Oskov, 2010; Kessler, 2009, Lee, 2010).
      • Teacher guidance increases the number of formal revisions (Arnold et al., 2009)
    • Students have reported positive attitudes towards collaborative writing through wikis (Arnold, et al., 2009; Elola & Oskov, 2010; Lee, 2010; Miyazoe & Anderson, 2010).
  • Research Questions
    • What types of revisions do students make?
    • How many revisions do they make?
    • Does teacher-facilitation with assigned student roles help students contribute equally?
    • Do students find the wiki project valuable?
    • Do students feel their groups collaborated well?
  • Wiki Assignment Context
    • The class: “Language and Use”
      • Introduction to Academic English Writing
      • Goals: Students will be able to:
        • Write academic essays with good language, style, content and organization.
        • Develop self-editing skills.
        • Differentiate between colloquial and academic English.
        • Properly use MLA.
        • Make logical arguments.
        • Organize their writing.
  • Wiki Assignment Context
    • The students:
      • 40 students
      • First semester English students
      • Native language German
      • Level approximately B2-C1 in English
  • Wiki Assignment Teacher-Guided
  • Wiki Assignment Draft 2 Responsibilities
    • Content Expert
      • Added support
      • Developed ideas
      • Used outside sources
      • Focused paragraph
    • Organizational Mastermind
      • Checked thesis
      • Worked on topic and concluding sentences
      • Formatting
    • Style Guru
      • Improved word choice
      • Made concise
      • Corrected MLA
      • Wrote Work Cited
    • Language Editor
      • Corrected verb errors
      • Corrected sentence structure problems
      • Corrected other grammar
      • Fixed punctuation
  • Wiki Assignment Role of the Teacher
    • The teacher…
    • Trained students on wikis
    • Modeled the writing process
    • Gave them resources to deal with people who didn’t contribute
    • Set-up groups’ pages
    • Addressed in class common mistakes made in Draft 1
    • Assessed the final product
    • The teacher did not…
    • Write on groups’ pages during the process
    • Directly comment on groups’ first drafts
  • Wiki Assignment Role of the Teacher: Grading
    • Group Grades + Individual Responsibility
    • The essays were graded using a rubric to assess:
      • Language & Style
        • Clear and concise with few mistakes
      • Organization
        • Organization clear with well-written thesis and topic sentences
      • Content
        • Focused, well supported, interesting
    • Group members received the same grade, unless:
      • Their paragraph in Draft 1 was very poorly or well done.
      • Their editing task in Draft 2 was very poorly or well done.
  • Data Collection
    • Changes were archived on the wiki
    • Final Survey
  • Analysis- Types of Revisions Faigley & Witte, 1981
  • Results
    • Overall frequency and type of revisions
  • Results
    • Roles’ Effect
    * denotes significant difference at .05 level Roles' effect on average number and type of revisions   Style Guru Language Editor Organizational Mastermind Content Expert Total revisions* 32.20 34.67 9.90 16.00 Formal revisions* 8.60 20.78 3.90 5.78 Stylistic revisions* 17.50 9.22 3.10 7.00 Microstructure revisions* 4.70 2.89 1.10 2.50 Macrostructure revisions 1.40 1.78 1.80 1.30
  • Students’ Perceptions: Learning
    • Students thought it improved their…
      • Writing overall (52%)
      • Organization (74%)
      • Content (62%)
      • Style (62%)
      • Language (50%)
    • Sometimes, students were unsure of its effect on their writing.
  • Students’ Perceptions: Collaboration
    • Most students thought their groups collaborated well.
      • Equal participation (56%)
      • Roles were helpful (46%-44%)
    • Still, one-third would have preferred to work alone.
  • Conclusions
    • Most revisions were formal or stylistic.
    • The role affected the type and frequency of revisions.
    • These roles did not lead to equal participation during the process of writing one essay.
    • Students felt like the wiki project improved their writing ability, especially organization.
    • Collaboration went well in the groups.
  • The Future
    • Further Study:
      • Study how students might accomplish the task themselves
        • How that affects success
      • Study the effects of wiki project on end of term competence.
  • The Future
    • Changes for Class Use:
      • Smaller groups (combine roles)
      • Write fewer essays
      • Make time for optional individual essays
  • Discussion
    • What concerns might you have about using wikis? Or collaborative writing?
    • How else might we encourage equal participation?
    • How else might we encourage revising?
    • How can we fairly assess collaborative writing?
  • Analysis- Types of Revisions based on Faigley & Witte, 1981
    • Formal Changes:
    • Spelling: diferent  different
    • Verbs: were  have been
    • Punctuation: However  However,
    • Word order: its main function only  its only main function
  • Analysis- Types of Revisions based on Faigley & Witte, 1981
    • Meaning Preserving (Stylistic) Changes:
      • Additions: different  a different technology
      • Subtractions: save a lot of time  save time
      • Substitutions: iPad  Apple’s new devise
  • Analysis- Types of Revisions based on Faigley & Witte, 1981
    • Meaning Changes:
      • Microstructure changes:
        • These change things on a small scale
        • Additional details or examples
      • Macrostructure changes:
        • These change the “gist” of the text.
        • Addition or deletion of paragraphs