Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

ICT Efficacy and Efficiency for Academic Writing William S. Warner, Ph.D. William S. Warner.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "ICT Efficacy and Efficiency for Academic Writing William S. Warner, Ph.D. William S. Warner."— Presentation transcript:

1 ICT Efficacy and Efficiency for Academic Writing William S. Warner, Ph.D. William S. Warner

2 Combine audio, visual and written feedback Compare efficacy and efficiency Assess instructor and student response William S. Warner Of all the factors that make a difference to student outcomes, the power of feedback is paramount.... Hattie, J.C (2009) Visible Learning Information and Communication Technology


4 Fronter-based 13 Assignments 2-3 Days for Feedback William S. Warner

5 Efficiency vs. Efficacy William S. Warner TIME IMPACT

6 Pilot Project Evaluation Efficacy – 29 StudentsEfficiency – 5 TAs Appealing idea Unhelpful % Helpful Written Tutor Fronter Rubric Audio seconds/comment 1-2 comments/paragraph Too soon to judge Technical snags Time-consuming

7 Relative to Fronter comments Disagree% Agree audio is more… efficient effective More suite for encouraging than editing William S. Warner

8 Hard Copy Preferred Final 3 papers – with rubric TAs – Spot more errors – Rubric provides equitable quality-control – Ease of evaluation: 4X4 matrix Students – Written comments qualified detail – Rubric quantified standards: points – Targets strengths and weaknesses William S. Warner

9 * Did not argue a debatable issue * No evidence * No counter argument and rebuttal * No insight: an information dump or opinion piece *Argued a somewhat debatable issue *Significance of issue not clear *Attempted to reason claims * Logic sometimes faulty * Supporting evidence weak * Weak counter argument and rebuttal * Shows limited insight *Argued a debatable issue *Justify issues significance * Adequately reasoned most claims *Logic generally sound * Supporting evidence adequate but not always linked to thesis *Adequate counter argument and rebuttal *Demonstrates insight *Argued a highly controversial issue or opposed conventional thinking *Compelling justification of issue * Persuasively reasoned all claims * Logical * Supporting evidence strong and directly linked to thesis * Insightful counter argument and strong, convincing rebuttal * Demonstrates original insight IDEAS Score X 2: _________ (out of 8) *No clear sense of beginning, middle, end *Supporting details are insufficient *No paragraph topics *Contains introduction, body and conclusion, but not always distinct *Supporting details are often illogically sequenced * Some paragraph topics not visible * Distinct introduction, body and conclusion *Supporting details usually sequenced logically * Each paragraph has a clear topic * Introduction moves reader in three steps, followed by a distinct body, and a conclusion that does not merely repeat the body *Supporting details logically sequenced * Each paragraph has a clear topi ORGANIZATION Score: _________ (out of 4) * Incoherent: most sentences not clear * Not cohesive: no transitions between paragraphs and sentences * Thesis not visible * Topic sentences lacking * Excessive nominalization * Excessive passive voice * Excessive 1 st person or metawriting * Excessively abstract * Excessive jargon or slang * Contractions (e.g. dont) * Excessive to be verb * Agent of action in sentence often missing *Somewhat difficult to understand * Occasionally not cohesive: some transitions missing * Thesis easily misunderstood or does not reflect argument * Topic sentences rarely visible * Wordy * Unnecessary metawriting or 1st person * Frequent abstract language * Some jargon or slang * Some contractions (e.g.dont) * Often unnecessary negative (e.g., did not remember) * Frequent, unnecessary to be verb (e.g. there is, there are) * Agent of action in sentence often missing * Generally clear * Overall cohesive: transitions present but sometimes lacking or awkward * Thesis reflects argument * Topic sentences visible * No metawriting * Acceptable 1 st person * Sometimes wordy * Occasional jargon * No slang * No contractions (e.g. dont) * Some unnecessary negative (e.g., did not remember) * Agent of action in sentence generally visible * Easy to understand: writing flows * Cohesive: purposeful transitions create a coherent essay * Clear thesis prepares reader * All topic sentences crystallize paragraphs * No metawriting or 1 st person * Concise * Precise * No jargon or slang * No contractions (e.g. dont) * Negative (e.g. did not remember) in the affirmative (forgot) * Strong verb instead of weak to be (e.g., there is, there are) * Agent of action always visible STYLE Score X 2: _________ (out of 8) * Did not follow instructions *Many spelling and punctuation errors * Abbreviation errors * Many citation errors * Not APA reference style * < 600 words text *> 750 words text * Followed instructions * Several spelling and punctuation errors * Several abbreviation and citation errors * Irregular APA reference style * Followed instructions * Some spelling or punctuation errors * Some citation or abbreviation errors * APA reference style * Followed instructions * Few or no spelling or punctuation errors * Few or no citation or abbreviation errors * APA reference style MECHANICS Score: _________ (out of 4) TOTAL Score out of 24 Not Approved < 12Weak Approval Approved16- 19Strong Approval 20-24GRADE RANGE Rubric William S. Warner

10 Student TA Rubric Scores William S. Warner Were not as smart as we think

11 Autumn 2012 Audio replaced with JING SKYPE introduced Social media 6 (45-min) video lectures Introduction Outline Clarity Cohesion Tables & Figures William S. Warner


13 Social Media Writing Centre Writing Wrongs Blog William S. Warner

14 Autumn – 3 assignments 81 students: 49 BSc, 32 MSc Effect Unhelpful % Helpful JING Tutor Paper Rubric I found JING as helpful as the tutor Disagree % Agree William S. Warner Unhelpful % Helpful JING Tutor Fronter Paper Rubric I prefer JING to Fronter comments Disagree % Agree Spring – 10 assignments 75 students: 15 BSc, 60 MSc

15 STUDENT: Efficient Effect AutumnSpring 98 % students found JING increased writing efficiency Easier to understand than cryptic or loaded sentences Voice tone Emphasize/prioritize Confidence/support JING saved me time Disagree % Agree JING motivated/gave me confidence Disagree % Agree JING improved my writing Disagree % Agree William S. Warner

16 Autumn 6 TAs 3 assignments Did not track student Spring 8 TAs 4 and 6 assignments Tracked 10 students Efficacy Very effective – 4 Effective – 2 Efficiency Very efficient – 1 Efficient – 5 Efficacy Very effective - 1 Effective - 6 Efficiency Very efficient - 2 Efficient - 5 William S. Warner TA Evaluation Not21012Very Effective/Efficient

17 Spring TAs JINGs impact on student writing is noticeable when tracking re-writes. Agree Disagree Which feedback method provides the most help to a student in the least amount of time? 5 JING 4 Face-to-face consultation 1 Rubric 1 Writing comments on hard copy William S. Warner

18 30 minutes/session 30 sessions/term Unhelpful ( students ) Helpful Autumn 10 students Spring 17 students For night owl or procrastinator? William S. Warner

19 Video Lectures I suggest that you watch the video lecture on… Half watched the video lectures Unhelpful % Helpful Autumn(40) Spring (34) William S. Warner

20 Spring Feedback Tutorials 80% watched Principles of paraphrasing APA Format for Referencing Unhelpful % Helpful Autumn Spring William S. Warner

21 Social Media Half (75) students found Unhelpful Very helpful Website Writing Wrongs blog Student Journal William S. Warner

22 Develop protocol Read first – not on the fly Balloon comment Color code highlight Green – good Yellow – suggest/consider Red - error I suggest you watch the video lecture on cohesion, which explains how to make transitions betweens paragraphs. Save document on Fronter William S. Warner Recommendations

23 Conclusions Integrate JING across curriculum Require video tutorials (e.g., EndNote) Develop social media for peer-review Explore MOOC automated feedback William S. Warner

Download ppt "ICT Efficacy and Efficiency for Academic Writing William S. Warner, Ph.D. William S. Warner."

Similar presentations

Ads by Google