Writing & Technology

        CALL 4/1/13
  slideshare.net/jwsmart
How can we use technology?
•   Feedback/assessment
•   Collaborative writing
•   Writing as a social activity
•   Teaching paraphrasing/avoiding plagiarism
Feedback: Ferris (2012)
• Response to student writing is not only, or even
  primarily, about marking errors.
• Comprehensive marking of a broad range of student
  errors is usually not the best approach.
• Teachers must take care to avoid overwhelming and
  discouraging students through their CF.
• CF about student errors must be clear and informative.
• The teacher should not do all the work of CF.
• The “treatment of error” does not consist solely of CF.
Corrective Feedback: Ferris
• Using comment features in Word clearer and
  more detailed than pen on paper. You can
  easily recycle comments. Can include links to
  resources
• Track changes – your thoughts?
• Can highlight problems w/o commentary.
• Can use SCMC for real time consultations w/
  learners.
Corrective Feedback: Ferris
• Grammar checkers in Word, etc. often require
  a lot of metalinguistic knowledge to use.
• Lexical choices can be made using online
  tools: Google, Check My Words, Lex Tutor
  (AWL Highlighter)
Computer-mediated feedback
• Can use screencasting for feedback (Ducate &
  Arnold, 2012).
• Used Jing to record 5 minute feedback from
  teacher, student given URL to watch.
• Video feedback more effective in some areas
  than commenting (word choice, case issues)
Feedback: 2.0 writing
• Teachers can also give feedback on blogs/wikis
• May want to keep blog, etc. private (only
  between teacher and student)
• Have blog for expression/fluency/reflection
  and a different one for project work.
Storch (2012): Collab writing
• Collaborative writing not simple co-authoring
• Organizing, editing, revising done together
• Important to consider relationships within
  groups (equality/mutuality)
• Prob best type is a wiki as a collaborative
  project.
Collab writing: Kessler (2012)
• Teacher’s role must be re-thought
• Students can engage in peer feedback (at
  multiple levels)
• May foster independent learning/autonomy
Collab writing: Kessler (2012, p. 228)
• “Create writing tasks that take advantage of the
  collaborative potential of social networking tools
  such as Facebook’s status update or Twitter’s
  microblogging.”
• “Create writing tasks that simulate real-world
  collaborative writing tasks, including the kinds of
  tasks that groups of professionals in workplace
  contexts might use to work on projects.”
• “Create writing tasks for higher level writers to
  actively contribute to real-world wikis and blogs.”
Wiki resources
        (Elola & Oskoz, 2011 p. 205)
•   Pbwiki
•   Mediawikis
•   Wikispaces
•   Educational wikis
•   Wetpaint Wikis in Education
Kessler, 2012
• Social/public nature of online writing can be
  motivational
• Comfort w/ technology and writing
  expectations can affect learners
• Multiple literacies to consider; can aid writing
  instruction
• Nature of writing is changing.
  Traditionally, writing is far less interactive.
Plagiarism/paraphrasing
• Turnitin/WriteCheck (latter paid “writing
  coach,” very controversial)
• See article from USA Today “Plagiarism
  software WriteCheck troubles some
  educators”
Writing project
• Plan a writing project/task (with a partner or
  two) that you could use in a writing class that
  would include at least two of the following:
• Collaborative writing
• Computer-mediated feedback
• Social/interactive writing
Prepare the activity using phases (as modeled in
Elola & Oskoz) to share with the class on Wed.

Writing & technology

  • 1.
    Writing & Technology CALL 4/1/13 slideshare.net/jwsmart
  • 2.
    How can weuse technology? • Feedback/assessment • Collaborative writing • Writing as a social activity • Teaching paraphrasing/avoiding plagiarism
  • 3.
    Feedback: Ferris (2012) •Response to student writing is not only, or even primarily, about marking errors. • Comprehensive marking of a broad range of student errors is usually not the best approach. • Teachers must take care to avoid overwhelming and discouraging students through their CF. • CF about student errors must be clear and informative. • The teacher should not do all the work of CF. • The “treatment of error” does not consist solely of CF.
  • 4.
    Corrective Feedback: Ferris •Using comment features in Word clearer and more detailed than pen on paper. You can easily recycle comments. Can include links to resources • Track changes – your thoughts? • Can highlight problems w/o commentary. • Can use SCMC for real time consultations w/ learners.
  • 5.
    Corrective Feedback: Ferris •Grammar checkers in Word, etc. often require a lot of metalinguistic knowledge to use. • Lexical choices can be made using online tools: Google, Check My Words, Lex Tutor (AWL Highlighter)
  • 6.
    Computer-mediated feedback • Canuse screencasting for feedback (Ducate & Arnold, 2012). • Used Jing to record 5 minute feedback from teacher, student given URL to watch. • Video feedback more effective in some areas than commenting (word choice, case issues)
  • 7.
    Feedback: 2.0 writing •Teachers can also give feedback on blogs/wikis • May want to keep blog, etc. private (only between teacher and student) • Have blog for expression/fluency/reflection and a different one for project work.
  • 8.
    Storch (2012): Collabwriting • Collaborative writing not simple co-authoring • Organizing, editing, revising done together • Important to consider relationships within groups (equality/mutuality) • Prob best type is a wiki as a collaborative project.
  • 9.
    Collab writing: Kessler(2012) • Teacher’s role must be re-thought • Students can engage in peer feedback (at multiple levels) • May foster independent learning/autonomy
  • 10.
    Collab writing: Kessler(2012, p. 228) • “Create writing tasks that take advantage of the collaborative potential of social networking tools such as Facebook’s status update or Twitter’s microblogging.” • “Create writing tasks that simulate real-world collaborative writing tasks, including the kinds of tasks that groups of professionals in workplace contexts might use to work on projects.” • “Create writing tasks for higher level writers to actively contribute to real-world wikis and blogs.”
  • 11.
    Wiki resources (Elola & Oskoz, 2011 p. 205) • Pbwiki • Mediawikis • Wikispaces • Educational wikis • Wetpaint Wikis in Education
  • 12.
    Kessler, 2012 • Social/publicnature of online writing can be motivational • Comfort w/ technology and writing expectations can affect learners • Multiple literacies to consider; can aid writing instruction • Nature of writing is changing. Traditionally, writing is far less interactive.
  • 13.
    Plagiarism/paraphrasing • Turnitin/WriteCheck (latterpaid “writing coach,” very controversial) • See article from USA Today “Plagiarism software WriteCheck troubles some educators”
  • 14.
    Writing project • Plana writing project/task (with a partner or two) that you could use in a writing class that would include at least two of the following: • Collaborative writing • Computer-mediated feedback • Social/interactive writing Prepare the activity using phases (as modeled in Elola & Oskoz) to share with the class on Wed.