AERA 2012 Revision and the Pedagogical Implications of Teachers as Digital Writers

555 views

Published on

Presentation of paper at AERA 2012

Published in: Education, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
555
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Low applicability
  • Shouldn ’t this be greater?!
  • Shouldn ’t this be greater?! Same here. We need to be more deliberate in our syllabi to help make these objectives/connections.
  • AERA 2012 Revision and the Pedagogical Implications of Teachers as Digital Writers

    1. 1. Revision and the Pedagogical Implications of Teachers as Digital Writers Shelbie Witte, School of Teacher Education American Educational Research Association 2012
    2. 2. Overview• Revision and the Pedagogical Implications of Teachers as Digital Writers • The pedagogical implications of teachers as digital writers • An analysis of the impact of revision in digital writing environments 2
    3. 3. Purpose of the Study1) teachers use revision in their own writing2) 2) digital writing environments impact revision and revision instruction3) 3) the revision process is implemented into teachers’ classrooms   3
    4. 4. Research questions• In what ways do teachers of writing use revision in their own writing?• What are teachers’ perceptions of revision in their own writing and in writing instruction in the classroom?• How do digital writing environments impact revision and its instruction? 4
    5. 5. Study Participants• Tier One-Summer 2009 • 253 study participants from a random sampling of  NWP sites participating in the 2009 NWP E- anthology  • Two surveys, writing posted to the E-anthology,  responses, and revisions posted to the E- anthology • Tier Two-Fall 2009 • Focus group 5
    6. 6. Participants• Sampling frame of 150 participating sites of the National Writing Project Summer Institute E-Anthology (NWP E-A).• Thirteen sites were randomly selected to participate, yielding approximately 250 study participants.• This random sampling was determined by the constraints that the participants (a) post writing to the ‘Open Mic’ forum and ‘Classroom Matters’ forum of the NWP E-A, (b) ask for ‘Press’ or ‘Address’ feedback from NWP E-A participants, and (c) post a revision of the piece to the ‘Open Mic’ forum. 6
    7. 7. Tier One Study ParticipantsEnglish Language Arts  45%    Elementary  20%Special Education 5%Foreign Language 4%Reading 4%Science 4%Social Studies 4%Math 4%Other  10%(Speech, Composition, Literacy Coach, ELL, Arts/Humanities, Music, FACS, Counselor, Principal, Careers, Curriculum Specialist) 7
    8. 8. Tier One Study ParticipantsK-5     31%6-8  27%9-12   37%Univ.  4%Other  Less than 1%Age Range of Participants20-29    34%30-39    32%40-49    17%50-59    14%60-69    2% 8
    9. 9. Tier One Study ParticipantsTeaching experience:Less than three years    26%Three to five years         20%Six to ten years              16%Eleven to fifteen years   17%More than fifteen years  22% 9
    10. 10. Teachers and RevisionWhen writing for any reason (professionally, informally, creatively, or otherwise),• 95% of participants say they revise their work• 5% of participants say they do not revise their workWhen asked if they teach revision in writing in theirclassrooms,• 85% of participants said yes• 15% of participants said no 10
    11. 11. Teachers as WritersThe most common activities participants use in their own  writing to revise include:• reading aloud• incubation (step away for period of time)• peer involvement• add, move, change, or delete (words, sentences, para.)• questioning 11
    12. 12. In their own words….“I look for internal consistency of ideas within the paper as  a whole and then in smaller parts”“I put it away and wait until I find it again”“I revise very little, but if I do, it is from peer suggestion”“I revise as I write”“I use spellcheck”
    13. 13. Teaching RevisionThe most common activities in the classroom to facilitate  revision included:• teacher revision directly on students’ papers• peer revision groups and feedback face to face• independent revision and rewriting• read aloud strategies• examining student work as a class to offer suggestions  for revision
    14. 14. In their own words….“we read backwards paragraph by paragraph”“have students revise for specific things such as Noden’sBrush Strokes or Lane’s snapshots and thoughtshots”“check to be sure words are written, illustrated picture  reflects”“we never get to revision”“I don’t teach revision.  I teach Math”“Students hate to revise and so do I”
    15. 15. Revision Strategies in the SI• Peer groups• E-Anthology feedback• Add, move, change, or delete (words, sentences, paragraphs)• Re-read or read aloud• Digital tools (E-Anthology, Ning, Google Docs, Wiki)• Incubation• Editing (many mentioned strategies usually recognized as editing)• Mentor texts• Rubrics• Simultaneous revision 15
    16. 16. Key Findings– many teach revision and don’t realize that they do– a significant percentage of participants believe that they  are teaching revision, when in fact they are teaching  only editing and proofreading strategies– the division between revision and editing is becoming  increasingly blurred as revision becomes increasingly  simultaneous– teachers often do not “preach” what they “practice”;  meaning that the very strategies teachers use in their  own revisions are not the strategies they teach in the  classroom 16
    17. 17. Anticipated class time devoted to revision 17
    18. 18. How do digital writing environments impact revision and its instruction?• 77% of participants said E-anthology participation increased their willingness to teach revision • Importance of audience in writing • Collaboration/community that can develop in responding to others • Importance of using digital writing environments, even in F2F classrooms • Use of technology as motivator for student participation in revision 18
    19. 19. Participants’ anticipated use of digital environments in writing instruction 19
    20. 20. Tier II Emerging Themes• Audience• Genre• Self-efficacy, motivation• Teachers as writers (NWP influence)• Effects of Technology 20
    21. 21. Audience• Having an authentic audience for whom to write enhances the revision process for students. When they know that their writing is going to be viewed by someone other than the teacher, the final product begins to matter more.• Rowen (2005) argues that “when students know someone other than their teacher will see their writing, it becomes easy to help them with process and mechanics.” 21
    22. 22. Audience• When asked if she could have any resource for teaching revision to her students, what it would be, she responded with, “real audiences for every single thing that we do. . . . I struggle to find that audience that provides my students what they really need to get invested in the writing.” She reiterates that her students “are totally different when they have a real reason” to write. Latham & Gross / CAIS 2010 22
    23. 23. Genre• Students today are writing more than ever; however, the formats they use differ vastly from their ‘in school’ writing. Students still produce academic writing: essays, research papers, and literary analyses. They sometimes compose poems, stories, and plays. But most of their writing is done in forms that have yet to be recognized as ‘writing’ by the majority of classrooms and curricula.• “Writers now compose through new media like e-mail, listservers, and creative software packages. Writers use digital technologies to write many new kinds of texts, such as Web logs, hypertexts, and electronic portfolios” (Yancey, 2004). Latham & Gross / CAIS 2010 23
    24. 24. Genre• “Students are certainly much more interested in digital kinds of writing now in new ways – podcasts and video casts and those kinds of things.” She, therefore, is incorporating this technology into her classroom. Her students create “digital stories, which they love. . . . that particular kind of writing that marries their love of image and sound and all those textures.”• Williams (2001) explains, “Because digital technology increases student access to a diversity of expressive media, we as composition instructors must model our engagement with the multiple forms of literacy that constitute students’ lives. 24
    25. 25. Self-efficacy and Motivation• For many students, the word revision has little impact. They have written their draft and either they put everything they had into it the first time and cannot possibly improve it or they have always gotten good grades on their papers and they do not need to revise.• Teachers are finding that the attitude of students about revision is affected by many things, but one very specific influencing factor is the attitude of teachers about the revision process. 25
    26. 26. Self-efficacy and Motivation• Participant 1 says about revision that her students “hate it. . . . I say revision, and they go, ‘Ugh’. You know, they’re squeamish about it.”• Participant 2 explains that she sees a change in students’ interest in revision that “I’m sure is a direct result of my enthusiasm for it as well.” Acknowledging the importance of revision and finding practical and comfortable ways to teach it are practices that teachers of writing need to adopt 26
    27. 27. Teachers as Writers (NWP)• Participant 1 acknowledges that “as a writer myself, it took me a while to get to that point [practicing revision] . . . . And I think the summer institute helped with that to some degree.” As teachers evolve in their attitudes about revision, so do their students.• Participant 2 reflects, “I think certainly most everything that I do about revision comes from a summer institute. Certainly even the model of writing workshop . . . comes from what I’ve experienced participating in multiple summer institutes.” 27
    28. 28. Teachers as Writers (NWP)• From creating the norms for the writing groups to planning how to effectively respond to others’ writing, teachers continue to incorporate the NWP techniques into their writing instruction.• For students, the impact of the NWP is clear. They are experiencing writing instruction in new ways. Because so many teachers experience the summer institutes, more students, according to Participant 2, “go through a number of teachers who are writing project TC’s.” She also comments, “As we have TC’s who are trained in the schools . . . there’s a big change. I’ve noticed a shift in the last decade over how students think about revision.” 28
    29. 29. Effects of Technology• One of the most important purposes for using many digital sites is for students to have an immediate audience. Teachers seek out places to publish student writing, and the internet provides a multitude of these. From track changes to digital writing groups, student writers can receive feedback on their documents and then revise for a new draft.• When asked how often their students write in digital environments, Participant 1 said, “Every day. Every class day. . . .the Elmo and the internet and things to do research,” and Participant 2 also says, “yeah, daily. . .We use email all the time. We are constantly emailing each other.” 29
    30. 30. Effects of Technology• Participant 1 states, “If we create the environment and give them time . . . ultimately they become more sophisticated users of technology and more sophisticated writers.” The use of digital writing environments also has changed the students’ attitudes about revision. They are more motivated to revise when they know they have an audience.• Participant 2 says that her students are “much happier to revise in a digital environment, and they’re much happier to revise for digital publication.” 30
    31. 31. Acknowledgements• Florida State University Office of Creativity and Research, First Year Assistant Professor Grant Program• National Writing Project 31
    32. 32. Key References• Applebee, A.N. (1981). Writing in the secondary school: English and the content areas. Urbana, IL: NCTE.• Atwell, N. (1998). In the middle: New understandings about writing, reading, and learning. Portsmouth, NH. Heinemann.• Bishop, W. (1999). Places to stand. College Composition and Communication. 51 (p. 14).• Bridwell, L. (1980). Revising strategies in twelfth grade students’ transactional writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 14(3), 107-122.• College Board (2003). Report of The National Commission on Writing in America’s Schools and Colleges. Retrieved September 15, 2008 from http://www.writingcommision.org• Emig, J. (1971). The composing process of twelfth graders (Research Report No. 13). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.• Faigley, L. & Witte, S. (1981). Analyzing revision. College Composition and Communication, 32, 400-414.• Graham, S. & Perin, D. (2007). Writing next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in middle and high schools. Alliance for Excellence in Education.• Greene, J.C., Caracelli, V., & Graham, W. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 11(3), 255-274.• Keyes, R. (2003) The courage to write. New York: Henry Holt.• Kirby, D. & Liner, T. (1980). Revision: Yes, they do it. Yes, you can teach it. English Journal. 69(3), 41-45• Murray, D. (1978). Internal revision: A process of discovery. In C. Cooper and L. Odell (Eds.) Research on Composing: Points of Departure. Urbana, IL: NCTE.• National Assessment of Educational Progress (1977). Write/rewrite: An assessment of revision skills: Selected results from the second national assessment of writing. 32
    33. 33. Key References• National Assessment of Educational Progress & Educational Testing Service (1986). The writing report card: Writing achievement in American schools. Princeton, NJ: National Assessment of Education Progress.• National Council of Teachers of English (2008) Policy brief on writing. Retrieved www.ncte.org• National Council of Teachers of English, Conference on College Composition and Communication position statement on the preparation and professional development of teachers of writing (1982). Retrieved from http://www.ncte.org/cccc/resources/positions/123789.htm• National Writing Project and Nagin, C. (2006). Because writing matters. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.• Sneed, J.H. (1988). The teaching of revision: Case studies of three eighth-grade language arts teachers. National College of Education, 1988, 186 pages; AAT 8921518• Sommers, N. (1980). Revision strategies of student writers and experienced adult writers. College Composition and Communication, 31, 378-388.• Yancey, K. (2008). 2008 NCTE Presidential address: The impulse to compose and the age of composition. The National Council of Teachers of English Annual Meeting. Retrieved from www.ncte.org 33
    34. 34. Contact Information• switte@admin.fsu.edu• www.shelbiewitte.com 34

    ×