26. Grading Myths
How students perceive teachers and the
grading process.
•It’s easy to grade a paper.
•Grading is only grammar.
•It takes only a few minutes
for my professor to grade each paper.
piperselden@gmail.comjilldahlman@yahoo.com
30. Assessing the Assessment
• What written
words do I use?
• On what am
I concentrating?
• How often do we concentrate on those items?
• Is it grammar? Punctuation? Rhetorical Moves?
Content? What do I value most?
piperselden@gmail.comjilldahlman@yahoo.com
35. Why write all those comments?
piperselden@gmail.comjilldahlman@yahoo.com
36. Instead, let the student
make notes
piperselden@gmail.comjilldahlman@yahoo.com
37. During the Grading Conference
Your part
piperselden@gmail.comjilldahlman@yahoo.com
38. Just like pizza delivery:
30 minutes or less!
piperselden@gmail.comjilldahlman@yahoo.com
39. Steps to the GC
• Use rubric
• Read essay aloud
• Student takes notes
• Pause for feedback
• Ask questions
• Emphasize craft
• Discuss areas for improvement
piperselden@gmail.comjilldahlman@yahoo.com
40. Wonky or garbled sentences
• What did you mean to say here?
• I don’t understand this part. Can you clarify?
• Is it possible to say this another way?
• Could you say this more clearly? Split a long,
complex sentence into two shorter ones?
piperselden@gmail.comjilldahlman@yahoo.com
45. And if you weren’t convinced…
• Frequent check-ins (students on track)
• Rapport building (student/teacher)
• Course retention
• Persistence
• Less grading!
• Less frustration!
• Happier teachers and students!
piperselden@gmail.comjilldahlman@yahoo.com
55. stacy.wittstock@wsu.edu
The goal was to...
• Explore the possibilities of fostering dialogue between students
about writing.
• Explore the possibilities of Collaborative Peer Review and
Response (CPRR) in both online and face-to-face spaces.
• Encourage students to consider which response method was
most useful for them.
An Experiment
56. “Proponents of CPRR demonstrate that rather than having the
teacher play the role of all-wise and all-knowing, systematic CPRR
can send a loud and clear message to students that they have much
to teach as well as learn...By conducting CPRR in a systematic and
collaborative way...students and teachers can learn to internalize
the writing strategies and moves they wish to continue using and
developing...so they can externalize these writing techniques in
other composing, pedagogical, and communicative situations…”
- Corbett, LaFrance, and Decker
Theory about CPRR
stacy.wittstock@wsu.edu
57. “Just as Kory Lawson Ching argues in this volume that writers
benefit when teachers play an active role in CPRR practice, we
argue that teachers can further enrich students’ experiences with
response by teaching writers how to solicit the feedback they need
to move them towards meaningful revision.”
- Forno and Stallings
Theory about CPRR
stacy.wittstock@wsu.edu
58. Respondents to a 2010 survey noted that good CPRR:
• must be taught
• should include clear guidelines and modeling
• should include some form of accountability and assessment
• requires patience from both teachers and students
• clearly shows that the teacher is invested in the process, and
• demonstrates a clear purpose, a clear set of goals, and clear
links to course objectives or learning outcomes.
- Corbett, LaFrance, and Decker
Theory about CPRR
stacy.wittstock@wsu.edu
59. Here’s what I did:
• Began the semester by having my students conduct peer review
in groups online through the CSU Writing Studio
• Switched midway through the semester to face-to-face, small-
group peer reviews
• Had students complete a short written survey at mid-semester
detailing their thoughts about both peer review models, and
describing which model they would prefer to continue using for
the remainder of the semester
The Experiment
stacy.wittstock@wsu.edu
60. “I prefer face to face because it gives them the chance to better
explain their comments to me so that I can understand what they
are trying to explain. Also, it makes it easier to point out the areas
that need to be fixed and areas they did well on. ”
- Stacey Quach, ENGL 101, Spring 2015
“I like the face-to-face peer-review much better because we can
discuss feedback and collaborate together. This makes revising very
easy and more beneficial. The only thing that makes the online one
worth it is that we can look back on the feedback while revising our
papers.”
- Jacob Koranda, ENGL 101, Spring 2015
Student Testimonials
stacy.wittstock@wsu.edu
61. “I like the electronic peer-review because I’m a shy person and I would
rather get some perspective in comments so that when I am revising
and finishing my essay, I can go back and read them to fix my essays.
Plus I don’t really like talking that much because I feel that I don’t
know what I am doing for some of my writing.”
- Kaylynn Alaniz, ENGL 101, Spring 2015
“Even though electronic is easy and you get feedback fast and
accessibly, face-to-face is still better. Gives you the opportunity to
show that person you really want to help and will give the best
possible feedback.”
- Trevor Adams, ENGL 101, Spring 2015
Student Testimonials
stacy.wittstock@wsu.edu
62. “It’s nice to have another student who is in the same boat as me
read and provide feedback on my papers. It helps me answer
questions or parts I was confused about on the assignment, and it’s
also nice to have another set of eyes other than the professor.”
- Courtney Wendt, ENGL 101, Spring 2015
“I don’t have a preference when it comes to electronic or face-to-
face review, I do think an advantage of face-to-face is that we
communicate more as a group and it becomes easier to think of
new ideas when we can all add our opinions together.”
- Alia Jaeger, ENGL 101, Spring 2015
Student Testimonials
stacy.wittstock@wsu.edu
63. In general, I found that:
● Students varied in whether they preferred face-to-face or
online peer review.
● All but a few students appreciated collaborating with peers in
groups on peer review.
○ Those that did not appreciate collaboration cited unhelpful
or confusing comments as a reason.
○ Most students mentioned appreciating being able to
dialogue, communicate, and have conversation with others.
The Experiment
stacy.wittstock@wsu.edu
64. ● Technology proved to be a consistent problem, which may have
impacted how students reacted to conducting peer review
online.
○ The CSU Writing Studio, while a great free resource in many
ways, is clunky.
○ Google Docs may be a better option for the future.
● Collaboration certainly did not automatically fix the problem of
shallow feedback.
○ Students still finished peer review too quickly and still failed
to really address the writer’s questions at times.
Some Qualifiers
stacy.wittstock@wsu.edu
65. Similarly to collaboration with peer review...
• Dialogue between students and teachers in the feedback
process encourages agency and investment in the process from
all parties.
• The writer should be the center of the response process in
order to encourage knowledge transfer.
• Using technology that students are comfortable with helps to
foster better dialogue.
Relations to Dialogic Response
stacy.wittstock@wsu.edu
66. My feedback process...
• Using QuickTime, I created screencasts of myself going through
the student’s essay
• Students then created a “Revision Plan” that asked them to
watch the video and take notes. They were also asked to add
any additional questions they had to the Comments section of
the Youtube video
• I responded to each question as soon as possible.
Relations to Dialogic Response
stacy.wittstock@wsu.edu
69. Corbett, Steven J., Michelle LaFrance, and Teagan E. Decker, eds. “Introduction.”
Peer Pressure, Peer Power: Theory and Practice in Peer Review and Response
for the Writing Classroom. Southlake, TX: Fountainhead Press, 2014. Print.
Formo, Dawn M. and Lynne M. Stallings. “Where’s the Writer in Response
Research? Examining the Role of the Writer as Solicitor if Feedback in (Peer)
Response.” Peer Pressure, Peer Power: Theory and Practice in Peer Review
and Response for the Writing Classroom. Ed. Corbett, Steven J., Michelle
LaFrance, and Teagan E. Decker. Southlake, TX: Fountainhead Press, 2014.
Print.
Straub, Richard. “Responding--Really Responding--to Other Students’ Writing.”
The Subject is Writing. 2nd ed. Ed. Wendy Bishop. Portsmouth, NH:
Boynton/Cook Publishers, 1999. Print.
Works Cited
stacy.wittstock@wsu.edu
77. Student Feedback
“my teacher was
interested in my paper
and […] genuinely
concerned with helping
me to be a better writer”
“it allowed for a
lot more feedback
from the
professor”
“it feels more
friendly and shows
that the teacher
actually cares”
“similar to partaking in a meeting
with the teacher, but was
perhaps simpler and able to
occur more consistently and
reliably”
“You can discuss
with us our
writing wherever
it is needed
without
cluttering the
page”
owen.williams@email.wsu.edu@timacklin
79. Work in Pairs
[10 minutes total]
• [5 minutes ] Read the essay and comment using written
feedback on your own
•This student has the opportunity for revision
•This student MUST do well on this piece of writing to pass
the course
• [5 minutes ] Work with a partner to discuss this feedback
•What did you do?
•How did you feel?
•How did you decide what to comment on?
•How successfully were you able to articulate your
response?
81. Work in Pairs
[10 minutes total]
•[5 minutes each] Provide the same
feedback you just wrote to your
partner as if he/she were the student,
but try telling your partners the issues
– discuss your feedback
82. Large Group Discussion
[10-15 minutes total]
•What were your findings?
•How are these types of feedback
different? The same?
•What surprised you?
83. Stakeholder Partnerships: Encouraging Student
Voice and Agency through Dialogic Writing
Response
Jill Dahlman (jilldahlman@yahoo.com)
Tialitha Macklin (tialitha.macklin@wsu.edu)
Piper Selden (piperselden@gmail.com)
Owen Williams (owen.williams@email.wsu.edu)
Stacy Wittstock (stacy.wittstock@wsu.edu)
