Title: Introducing the Feedback File for Online Course Design in Technical and Professional Communication Meredith Singleton Visiting Assistant Professor; Literature, Languages and Writing Miami University 236 Rentschler Hall Hamilton, OH 45011 513-785-3200 [email protected]Lisa Meloncon Associate Professor, Technical Communication [email protected]1
45
Embed
Introducing the Feedback File for Online Course Design in ...writeprofessionally.org/.../03/collective_feedback_file_revi… · Web viewThis problem is exacerbated in online environments
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Title:
Introducing the Feedback File for Online Course Design in Technical and Professional
Communication
Meredith Singleton
Visiting Assistant Professor; Literature, Languages and Writing
While this proposed process may seem no more efficient than individualized
commenting, we note that experienced instructors may be able to combine these first two
steps because they can start a Feedback File by knowing what the common errors and or
issues are in typical assignments. Additionally, after taking time to create an initial
Feedback File, experienced instructors may use Feedback Files from previous terms as a
starting point for future terms. Because the Feedback File includes common errors seen in
each assignment, instructors would need only to collect examples from the current term’s
15
student work to update the Feedback File term over term. If instructors see additional
errors they would like to include in the Feedback File, they can easily be adapted and
expanded.
However, because Feedback Files deliver the same comments to multiple students
only once, as opposed to repeating the same comment over multiple drafts, Feedback Files
may also save considerable time while still providing necessary feedback on drafts.
Step 3: Provide an explanation for the error or issueThe strength of a Feedback File as a usable tool comes from the detailed explanation
an instructor can provide in the common error entry. For example, the information
provided in the explanation can refer to course readings or exercises, which is a more
effective pedagogical approach that actually encourages student learning. Unlike the
limitation of marginal comments, the explanation in the Feedback File can be as involved
and as long as needed. We have found this to be the strongest feature of the Feedback File
approach. Their limitless spaces allows instructors to provide visuals, links to outside
resources, and full explanations of issues that are much more in-depth than marginal
comments.
16
Figure 3. Sample Feedback File displaying flexibility in length of entries.
Figure 3 shows the flexibility in length that instructors have of the entries in a
Feedback File. Notice in this example from a Feedback File for a memo/policy assignment
(a second common assignment in the TPC course) that the instructor is able to use a
lengthy student example, provide a detailed explanation, and include a revision. The
instructor is able to take a more conversational approach in the feedback because there is
adequate space to do so. Particularly in online classes where the course loses the
impromptu discussions about writing and writing approaches, the Feedback File provides
an opportunity for instructors to engage more deeply with students on where and how to
make revisions. Marginal, individualized comments cannot provide such opportunities
beyond providing a link or short entry.
Step 4: Show how to correct the error or issueIn this step, an instructor can provide an example of how to correct the error or issue. Or,
this step can also be completed using good examples from student papers. Using student
work in positive ways is important because it can serve as the balancing positive feedback
17
students appreciate when receiving instructor comments. In the example in Figure 2, we
see that an instructor has taken a screenshot of a student draft that exemplifies the concept
well executed. This figure also represents the true flexibility of the Feedback File in length,
adaptability, and media integration.
Figure 4. Sample of visual used in Feedback File entry.
Using the Feedback File Creating the Feedback File is only one aspect of the pedagogical process of collective
feedback. Unlike individualized comments, the use of the Feedback File requires an
additional pedagogical move where students are asked to engage with both their own work
and the Feedback File.
18
As we noted, Feedback Files are only used during the draft stage of the writing
process because this is the stage where students need to learn how to critically engage with
and make adjustments to their own writing to produce an effective text. To provide
students with such detailed information at the end of the writing process would not allow
them to apply the information or further engage with the content moving forward.
Following are ways to integrate and use the Feedback File in an online TPC course.
Statement on syllabus While not specific to the Feedback File itself, students need to be told that the course will
be using an alternate form of feedback. This announcement on the course syllabus/website
mitigates any potential for student complaints, and more importantly, it provides an
upfront notice for students. In our experience, students have not complained about this
change and course evaluations have remained strong. An example statement may read, “I
will provide feedback on drafts via one posting (the Feedback File) that lists multiple areas
that need attention. While I will not comment specifically on each draft individually, these
Feedback Files will provide helpful information that will be useful to everyone. It is
important that you reference the draft Feedback Files, in addition to those of your peers.”
Including such a statement prepares students for the reality that they will not receive
comments in the way they are accustomed to, and it serves as an entry point into a
discussion about how the instructors will provide feedback.
Post the full document to the course websiteThe Feedback File should be posted to the course website or content management system
for use during the revision stages of the writing process. Posting the files in a communal
area of the course essentially builds a repository of Feedback Files that, by the end of the 19
term, students may use for references on their final projects. Posting the information online
has a greater potential for the feedback to become part of a larger review process to be
used multiple times throughout the course, as opposed to as singular instance of feedback
in an individualized comment.
Create a contextual textUsing the affordances of online technologies, instructors can post Feedback Files
through a short video or audio file, providing additional context for the File. Instructors can
also share these documents through cloud-based collaborative tools like Google Docs or
Dropbox. Instructors can also reference prior Feedback Files easily when reoccurring
issues across assignment genres exist. Many instructors choose to use screencasting
software or other oral/visual based tools (e.g., audio inserts into PowerPoint) to create a
personal and contextual delivery of the Feedback File. No matter the format, a contextual
document needs to be included that provides additional information for students on how to
use and interpret the Feedback File. These videos, PPTs or other contextual documents
would then be posted to the content management system, notifying students that the
feedback is available and how to use it. For example, instructors may create course
announcements that notify students that the Feedback Files are available and where to
access them.
Students would then reference the Feedback File (and perhaps video) provided by
the instructor. Students then review the error example, the explanation, and the revision,
and apply this to their own writing.
20
References to the file in the student draftsThe way the Feedback File is integrated into the student drafts varies based on the
preference of the instructor (another benefit of the flexibility of the Feedback File!). Some
instructors have chosen to only review student drafts without leaving any comments.
Others choose to review student drafts while simply highlighting the errors and identifying
which entry on the Feedback File a student should reference. This method will be explained
further below. Regardless of approach, the key pedagogical move that must be made is that
students need to know that their individual work includes the common errors or issues
that are in the Feedback File, and that they need to review the Feedback File and apply the
concepts to their own writing.
The latter method described above includes noting the error entry number from the
Feedback File (i.e. “See Feedback File #1”) as a comment on the student draft. The
instructor can choose whether or not to highlight this issue in each appearance on the
draft, or highlight it only one time and explain to the student that the error should be
addressed and revised throughout the text. This method would be implemented by writing
on the student draft “see Feedback File numbers 2,6,7 when you revise.” Using our
previous example from process writing, Figure 6 below exemplifies how an instructor
would provide limited comments on student drafts directing students toward specific
entries in the Feedback File.
21
Figure 6. Sample student feedback using collective feedback method.
Another way is to have students use the Feedback File more generally. That is, the
instructor may direct students to revise using the Feedback File, and then have students
write a short memo explaining what errors they corrected that were represented in the
Feedback File.
No matter the specific approach the instructor takes, students need to incorporate
the information from the Feedback File into their final drafts, and if the errors presented in
the Feedback File remain in the final drafts, the instructors know where to focus further
discussion in other course assignments and Feedback Files.
We return to our question of whether or not the use of individualized commenting
in TPC service courses is the most effective pedagogical approach to help students learn
how to write for the workplace. Current TPC pedagogy asks students to engage in an
analysis of their peers’ texts, it often does not include such an analysis of the student’s own
texts. Feedback comes in the form of individual, yet sometimes cryptic, messages that
students can either “fix” or choose to ignore. By contrast, delivering collective feedback
through a Feedback File asks students to analyze their own documents while armed with
areas of revision that include descriptions, examples, and explanations. Revision through
22
this method becomes an individual act, asking students to develop their skills as their own
critics and as writers. Still and Koerber’s (2010) study found students wanted instructors
to
● avoid using unfamiliar terminology,
● ensure comments are legible,
● avoid using ambiguous circles and lines to highlight content,
● distribute comments throughout papers (even on sections that work well),
● suggest that comments offer solutions.
The Feedback File addresses each of these student preferences for feedback. Most
importantly, the Feedback File provides examples of problems with specific information on
solutions for those same problems.
Next StepsThe next steps for the use of the Feedback File include an expanded research study
with additional instructors at different institutions to replicate (or not) the initial results of
using the Feedback File in a TPC service course. This method of feedback is also being
piloted in different types of writing classes (such as composition).
We are also working on a student addendum to the study, which would follow the
same sort of pattern as Still and Koerber (2010) but would ask students their perceptions
of the Feedback File. This would also then follow some students into the workplace to
determine how well they are being prepared to write for the workplace.
Additionally, we are working with practitioners to get a better sense of the types
and processes of feedback in workplace settings. This information from practitioners will
23
be used to guide the next phases of the research study and hone the creation and use of the
Feedback File.
Conclusion
Even though TPC has begun to innovate in online writing instruction and move
beyond simply porting face-to-face practices into online environments, long standing
feedback methods from face-to-face classes are being used without much, if any critical
reflection. One of the most significant implications for using the Feedback File is that it
encourages alternative ways of providing comments for works-in-progress that are just as
effective, with more flexibility, than traditional individualized comments.
TPC would be well served for instructors to re-evaluate their traditional classroom
pedagogy and course design because “to teach online is not an easy or automated transfer
of face-to-face instructional strategies” (Grant-Davie & Cargile Cook, 2013, p.4). In some
ways, TPC instructors have wholeheartedly adopted long accepted feedback and
commenting practices without benefit of research into what are effective practices. Rather,
to teach well online means TPC instructors need to rethink and innovate their online
writing course design.
We need to be doing more than just “moving a course online,” which means we
should also not simply move current commenting practices without critical reflection. In
other words, the use of the Feedback File is modeling a reflective and innovative pedagogy
where TPC instructors critically assess current practices, try something new, conduct
empirical research on that practice, and then share those results.
24
While we await the findings of additional research studies on the Feedback File, we
are reminded that online writing instruction “thrives when instructors who experiment
with new approaches reflect upon and share what they learn with those who follow”
(Cargile Cook & Grant-Davie, 2013, p. 311). Our reflection on current feedback practices
led us to develop an alternative commenting strategy, and what we learned using the
Feedback File is that it has the potential to be an effective tool for student learning and can
positively impact instructors by creating efficiencies in time they can then transfer to other
pedagogical functions in the online course.
25
References
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2014). Grade change. Tracking Online Education in the United States. Babson Survey Research Group and Quahog Research Group, LLC.
Ascough, R. S. (2002). Designing for online distance education: Putting pedagogy before technology. Teaching Theology & Religion, 5(1), 17-29.
Barnum, C. M. (1994). Collaborative Writing in Graduate Technical Communication: Is there a Difference?. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 24(4), 405-419.
Bazerman, C. (1991). The second stage in writing across the curriculum. College English, 53, 209-212.
Beason, L. (1993). Feedback and revision in writing across the curriculum classes. Research in the Teaching of English, 395-422.
Breuch, L. A. K. (2005). The idea (s) of an online writing center: In search of a conceptual model. The Writing Center Journal, 25(2), 21-38.
Caplan, D., & Graham, R. (2004). The development of online courses. Theory and practice of online learning, 175.
Carliner, S. (1992). What you should get from a professionally oriented master's degree program in technical communication. Technical communication, 189-199.
Carr‐Chellman, A., & Duchastel, P. (2000). The ideal online course. British Journal of Educational Technology, 31(3), 229-241.
Cho, K., Schunn, C. D., & Charney, D. (2006). Commenting on writing typology and perceived helpfulness of comments from novice peer reviewers and subject matter experts. Written Communication, 23(3), 260-294.
Connors, R. J., & Lunsford, A. A. (1993). Teachers' rhetorical comments on student papers. College composition and communication, 44(2), 200-223.
Cook, K. C. (2005). An argument for pedagogy-driven online education. Online education: Global questions, local answers, 49-66.
Cook, K. C. & Grant-Davie, Keith (Eds.). (2005). Online education: Global questions, local answers. Amityville, NY: Baywood.
26
Cook, K.,C. & Grant-Davie, K. (2013). Online education 2.0: Evolving, adapting, and reinventing online technical communication. Amityville, NY: Baywood.
Cunningham, D., & Stewart, J. (2012). Perceptions and Practices: A Survey of Professional Engineers and Architects. ISRN Education, 2012.
Dannels, D. P. (2000). Learning to be professional technical classroom discourse, practice, and professional identity construction. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 14(1), 5-37.
Dannels, D. P. (2010). Relational genre knowledge and the online design critique: Relational authenticity in preprofessional genre learning. Journal of business and technical communication.
Dohrer, G. (1991). Do teachers' comments on students' papers help?. College Teaching, 39(2), 48-54.
Duin, A. H. (1991). Computer-Supported Collaborative Writing The Workplace and the Writing Classroom. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 5(2), 123-150.
Duncan, N. (2007). ‘Feed‐forward’: improving students' use of tutors' comments. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 32(3), 271-283.
Gee, T. C. (1972). Students' responses to teacher comments. Research in the Teaching of English, 6(2), 212-221.
Hattie, J., & Gan, M. (2011). Instruction based on feedback. Handbook of research on learning and instruction, 249-271.
Hedden, C. (1992). Hypertext and collaboration: Observations on Edward Barrett's philosophy. Technical Communication Quarterly, 1(4), 27-41.
Henry, J. (1998). Documenting contributory expertise: The value added by technical communicators in collaborative writing situations. Technical communication, 45(2), 207-221.
27
Henschel, S. and Meloncon, L (2014). Of Horsemen and Layered Literacies: Assessment Instruments for Aligning Technical and Professional Communication Undergraduate Curricula with Professional Expectations. Programmatic Perspectives, 6(1).
Higgins, R., Hartley, P., & Skelton, A. (2002). The conscientious consumer: Reconsidering the role of assessment feedback in student learning. Studies in higher education, 27(1), 53-64.
Hillocks Jr, G. (1982). The interaction of instruction, teacher comment, and revision in teaching the composing process. Research in the Teaching of English, 261-278.
Jonsson, A. (2012). Facilitating productive use of feedback in higher education. Active learning in higher education, 1469787412467125.
Knievel, M. (2007, 11 Oct. -13 Oct ). Growing the Service Course: Anticipating Problems, Promise in the Technical Communication ‘Mini-Program’. Paper presented at the Council of Programs in Technical and Scientific Communication Program Greenville, SC.
Kramer-Simpson, E. A. (2012). Learning from feedback: How students read, interpret and use teacher written feedback in the composition classroom. UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE.
Latterell, Catherine G. (2003). Technical and Professional Communication Programs and the Small College Setting: Opportunities and Challenges. Journal of Technical Writing & Communication, 33(4), 319-335.
McLoughlin, C. (2002). Learner support in distance and networked learning environments: Ten dimensions for successful design. Distance Education, 23(2), 149-162.
Meloncon, L., & Arduser, L. (2013). Communities of practice approach: A new model for online course development and sustainability. Online education, 2, 73-90.
Meloncon, L., & England, P. (2011). The current status of contingent faculty in technical and professional communication. College English, 73(4), 396-408.
Meloncon, L., & Henschel, S. (2013). Current state of US undergraduate degree programs in technical and professional communication. Technical Communication, 60(1), 45-64.
Meloncon, Lisa. (2014). Curricular challenges of emphasis degrees in technical and professional communciation. In Tracy Bridgeford, Karla Saari Kitalong & Bill
28
Williamson (Eds.), Sharing Our Intellectual Traces: Narrative Reflections from Administrators of Professional, Technical, and Scientific, Communication Program (pp. 179-200). Amityville, NY: Baywood.
Meloncon, L. (2009). [State of online courses and programs in technical and professional
communication]. Unpublished raw data.
Meloncon, L. (2012). The rise of academic programs: A call for collaboration. Intercom,59, 13–15
Mioduser, D., Nachmias, R., Lahav, O., & Oren, A. (2000). Web-based learning environments: Current pedagogical and technological state. Journal of research on computing in education, 33(1), 55-76.
Olsen, Leslie A. "Computer-Based Writing and Communication: Some Implications forTechnical Communication Activities." Journal of Technical Writing and Communication19.2 (1989): 97-118.
Oswal, S. K., & Meloncon, L. (2014). Paying Attention to Accessibility and Disability in Technical and Professional Communication Online Course Design. Journal of Business and Technical Communication.
Palloff, R., & Pratt, K. (2005, August). Online learning communities revisited. In 21st annual conference on Distance Teaching and Learning.
Paretti, M. C. (2006). Audience awareness: leveraging problem-based learning to teach workplace communication practices. Professional Communication, IEEE Transactions on, 49(2), 189-198.
Paretti, M. C. (2008). Teaching communication in capstone design: The role of the instructor in situated learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(4), 491.
Richardson, J., & Swan, K. (2003). Examing social presence in online courses in relation to students' perceived learning and satisfaction.
Rickly, R., & Carter, L. (2005). Mind the gap (s): modeling space in online education. Online education: Global questions, local answers, 123-139.
Rubens, P., & Southard, S. (2005). Students’ technological difficulties in using web-based learning environments. Online education: Global questions, local answers, 193-206.
29
Scrocco, D. L. A. (2012). Do you care to add something? Articulating the student interlocutor's voice in writing response dialogue. Teaching English in the Two Year College, 39(3), 274.
Selzer, J. (1983). The composing processes of an engineer. College Composition and Communication, 34(2), 178-187.
Singleton, M. (2016). Smith, S. (1997). The genre of the end comment: Conventions in teacher responses to
student writing. College Composition and Communication, 48(2), 249-268.
Sommers, N. (1982). Responding to student writing. College composition and communication, 33(2), 148-156.
Spartz, John M., & Weber, Ryan P. (2015). Writing Entrepreneurs: A Survey of Attitudes, Habits, Skills, and Genres. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 29(4), 428-455.
St.Amant, K. and Meloncon, L. (2016). Reflections on Research: Examining Practitioner Perspectives on the State of Research in Technical Communication. Technical Communication.
Still, B., & Koerber, A. (2009). Listening to students: A usability evaluation of instructor commentary. Journal of Business and Technical Communication.
Straub, R. (1997). Students' reactions to teacher comments: An exploratory study. Research in the Teaching of English, 91-119.
Swan, K. (2002). Building learning communities in online courses: The importance of interaction. Education, Communication & Information, 2(1), 23-49.
Swan, K., Shea, P., Fredericksen, E., Pickett, A., Pelz, W., & Maher, G. (2000). Building knowledge building communities: Consistency, contact and communication in the virtual classroom. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 23(4), 359-383.
Vonderwell, S. (2002). Experiences of students and instructor in an online technology in education course: A case study.
Winsor, Dorothy A. " An Engineer's Writing and the Corporate Construction of Knowledge." Written Communication 6.3 (1989): 270-85.
Winter, J. K., Neal, J. C., & Waner, K. K. (1996). Student and instructor use of comments on business communication papers. Business Communication Quarterly, 59(4), 56-68.