Editing ToolboxEmpowering students to proofread and polish their academic writing.

The goal

• Essay Writing for University: CQUniversity STEPS program• Scaffolded learning and assessment• Sentences > paragraphs > research/referencing > essay• 12 week course: How to teach ‘just enough’

grammar/language skills?• How much is ‘just enough’? (see Chanock , D’Cruz & Bisset 2009)

• How big is the problem? How many errors do students make? (see Connors & Lunsford 1988)

The Resource: Editing Toolbox

First six weeks …• Build ‘just enough’ grammar/language knowledge to edit, i.e. • To recognise and repair frequently made errors (see Ellis 2002)

• Use ‘just enough’ – minimum – metalanguage

1. Sentence structure

2. Punctuation basics

3. Objectivity

4. Modality

5. Formatting references

6. Clarity

Learning & Assessment

• Editing Toolbox quizzes: online• 3 quizzes, fortnightly• Each quiz based on previous two weeks learning• Students do practice editing tasks each week in Study

Guide – quiz mirrors these tasks• Low stakes assessment: each quiz 10 questions, 0.5 mark

each (Total for three quizzes: 15% overall grade) • Quizzes are ‘open book’: not a test of memory, but of

application (see Nelson 1998)

Rationale

• Scaffold learning: skill building each week, practice exercises

• Instant formative feedback: Students can take control of learning and teachers can monitor progress

• Authentic editing practice: ‘short answer’ question format• Engagement: regular tasks, manageable• Empower students: to proofread own work, understand

marker feedback

Results of Pilot

• Pilot: Term 3, 2015 (‘distance only’ term)

Concerns:

1. Low scores

2. High query rate: ‘Why did I get this wrong?’

Response:• Continuous review and refinement of questions, resulting

in better scores, fewer queries

Refinements: Issue 1

1. Students came up with alternative answers

Rewrite the following sentence to remove the cliché.

In times of inflation, job cuts are par for the course.

Our response:• Added to answer bank – if appropriate

common, usual, normal …

• Edited instructions to constrain possible answers

Rewrite the following sentence to replace the cliché (in this case, a four word phrase) with ONE clear and precise word.

Refinements: Issue 2

2. Students made ‘typos’: misspelt words, missing words, extra spaces …

Our response depends on:• How long did student spend on quiz? (2 hours allowed)

Side lesson: editing takes time!

• Is issue ‘technical’?

Allow answer, edit question: e.g. hardcopy/hard copy/hard-copy• Some task sentences edited to make typos less likely

Distance students, who can often feel isolated, should participate in discussion forums wherever possible.

Refinements: Issue 3

3. Students did not follow instructions (or overthought question)

Our response depends on:• How long did student spend?

Side lesson: take time to read the question!• Ambiguous instructions? Edited to be clear and explicit.

‘Do not add, subtract or remove words (unnecessarily)’• For Term 1, introduced Practice Quiz

Refinements: Outcomes

• Better results, fewer queries in Term 1, 2015• Continued (now minor) refinements for Term 2, 2015 –

question clarification, omitting problematic words

Learning outcomes

Research pending, but from observations so far:

1. Language in student feedback and reflections demonstrates awareness

‘I need to watch out for ambiguity and work on my clarity’

2. Students engaging online with quizzes from Week 2

3. Students making better use of marker feedback, and self-identifying areas for review

Teaching outcomes

• Markers can use language such as ‘take care with run-ons’ knowing that students (should) understand what this means

• Markers/teachers can refer students back to Study Guide content and practice tasks for review

• Teachers can monitor student engagement and progress online from week 2, and have chance for ‘dialogue’ (Chanock, D’Cruz & Bisset 2009)

References

• Chanock, K, D’Cruz, C & Bissett, D 2009, ‘Would you like grammar with that?’, Journal of Academic Language and Learning, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 1-12.

• Connors, RJ & Lunsford, AA 1988, ‘Frequency of formal errors in current college writing, or Ma and Pa Kettle do research’, College Composition and Communication, vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 395-409.

• Ellis, R 2002, ‘The place of grammar instruction in the second/foreign language curriculum’, in Hinkel, E & Fotos, S (eds), New perspectives on grammar teaching in second language classrooms, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.

• Nelson, GE 1998, ‘On-line evaluation: multiple choice, discussion questions, essay, and authentic projects’, paper presented at the Teaching in the Community Colleges Online Conference, Kapiolani Community College, Hawaii, April 7-9, pp. 1