ict efficacy and efficiency for academic writing william s. warner, ph.d. william s. warner
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: ICT Efficacy and Efficiency for Academic Writing William S. Warner, Ph.D. William S. Warner](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062417/55173770550346f5558b5ff6/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
ICT Efficacy and Efficiency ICT Efficacy and Efficiency for Academic Writingfor Academic Writing
William S. Warner, Ph.D.
William S. Warner
![Page 2: ICT Efficacy and Efficiency for Academic Writing William S. Warner, Ph.D. William S. Warner](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062417/55173770550346f5558b5ff6/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Combine audio, visual and written feedbackCompare efficacy and efficiencyAssess 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 Information and Communication TechnologyCommunication Technology
![Page 3: ICT Efficacy and Efficiency for Academic Writing William S. Warner, Ph.D. William S. Warner](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062417/55173770550346f5558b5ff6/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
![Page 4: ICT Efficacy and Efficiency for Academic Writing William S. Warner, Ph.D. William S. Warner](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062417/55173770550346f5558b5ff6/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Fronter-basedFronter-based
13 Assignments 2-3 Days for Feedback
William S. Warner
![Page 5: ICT Efficacy and Efficiency for Academic Writing William S. Warner, Ph.D. William S. Warner](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062417/55173770550346f5558b5ff6/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Efficiency vs. EfficacyEfficiency vs. Efficacy
William S. Warner
TIME
IMPACT
![Page 6: ICT Efficacy and Efficiency for Academic Writing William S. Warner, Ph.D. William S. Warner](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062417/55173770550346f5558b5ff6/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Pilot Project EvaluationPilot Project EvaluationEfficacy – 29 Students Efficiency – 5 TAs Appealing idea
Unhelpful % Helpful2 1 0 1
2Written 0 5 7 7 81 Tutor 0 0 3 21 76Fronter 0 2 14 30
54Rubric 0 4 12 35 49 Audio 3 10 3 38
45
• 10-30 seconds/comment• 1-2 comments/paragraph• Too soon to judge• Technical snags• Time-consuming
![Page 7: ICT Efficacy and Efficiency for Academic Writing William S. Warner, Ph.D. William S. Warner](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062417/55173770550346f5558b5ff6/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Relative to Fronter comments Relative to Fronter comments
Disagree % Agreeaudio is more… 21 0 1 2efficient 20 40 30 20 0effective 0 30 50 20 0More suite for encouraging than editing
William S. Warner
![Page 8: ICT Efficacy and Efficiency for Academic Writing William S. Warner, Ph.D. William S. Warner](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062417/55173770550346f5558b5ff6/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Hard Copy PreferredHard 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: 16-24 points–Targets strengths and weaknesses
William S. Warner
![Page 9: ICT Efficacy and Efficiency for Academic Writing William S. Warner, Ph.D. William S. Warner](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062417/55173770550346f5558b5ff6/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
0-1 2 3 4* 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 issue’s significance* Adequately reasoned most claims*Logic generally sound* Supporting evidence adequatebut 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
ORGANIZATIONScore:
_________(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 1st person or metawriting* Excessively abstract* Excessive jargon or slang* Contractions (e.g. don’t)* 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.don’t)* 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 1st person* Sometimes wordy* Occasional jargon* No slang* No contractions (e.g. don’t)* 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 1st person* Concise* Precise* No jargon or slang* No contractions (e.g. don’t)* 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
STYLEScore 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
< 12 Weak Approval
12 - 15 Approved 16- 19 Strong Approval
20-24 GRADE RANGE
RubricRubric
William S. Warner
![Page 10: ICT Efficacy and Efficiency for Academic Writing William S. Warner, Ph.D. William S. Warner](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062417/55173770550346f5558b5ff6/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
StudentStudent TATA Rubric ScoresRubric Scores
William S. Warner
We’re not as smart as we thinkWe’re not as smart as we think
![Page 11: ICT Efficacy and Efficiency for Academic Writing William S. Warner, Ph.D. William S. Warner](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062417/55173770550346f5558b5ff6/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Autumn 2012Autumn 2012Audio replaced with JINGSKYPE introducedSocial media6 (45-min) video lectures
◦Introduction◦Outline◦Clarity ◦Cohesion◦Tables & Figures
William S. Warner
![Page 12: ICT Efficacy and Efficiency for Academic Writing William S. Warner, Ph.D. William S. Warner](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062417/55173770550346f5558b5ff6/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
William S. Warner
![Page 13: ICT Efficacy and Efficiency for Academic Writing William S. Warner, Ph.D. William S. Warner](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062417/55173770550346f5558b5ff6/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Social MediaSocial Media
Writing Centre http://www.umb.no/nwc/
Writing Wrongs Blog http://writingwrongsblog.wordpress.com/
William S. Warner
![Page 14: ICT Efficacy and Efficiency for Academic Writing William S. Warner, Ph.D. William S. Warner](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062417/55173770550346f5558b5ff6/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Autumn – 3 assignments81 students: 49 BSc, 32 MSc
EffectEffect
Unhelpful % Helpful2 1 0 1 2
JING 0 0 0 18 82Tutor 0 0 3 15 82
Paper 0 0 11 39 50Rubric 0 1 12 41 45
I found JING as helpful as the tutorDisagree % Agree2 1 0 1 2
5 11 23 29 28
William S. Warner
Unhelpful % Helpful2 1 0 1 2
JING 0 2 2 16 80
Tutor 0 0 12 27 61
Fronter 0 4 7 29 60
Paper 0 6 6 41 44Rubric 0 2 10 45 43
I prefer JING to Fronter commentsDisagree % Agree2 1 0 1 2
6 4 14 19 57
Spring – 10 assignments75 students: 15 BSc, 60 MSc
![Page 15: ICT Efficacy and Efficiency for Academic Writing William S. Warner, Ph.D. William S. Warner](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062417/55173770550346f5558b5ff6/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
STUDENT: Efficient EffectSTUDENT: Efficient EffectAutumn Spring
• 98 % students found JING increased writing efficiency
• Easier to understand than cryptic or loaded sentences
• Voice tone • Emphasize/prioritize• Confidence/support
JING saved me timeDisagree % Agree2 1 0 1 20 7 20 35 38
JING motivated/gave me confidenceDisagree % Agree2 1 0 1 23 3 20 40 35
JING improved my writingDisagree % Agree2 1 0 1 20 1 33 42 24
William S. Warner
![Page 16: ICT Efficacy and Efficiency for Academic Writing William S. Warner, Ph.D. William S. Warner](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062417/55173770550346f5558b5ff6/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Autumn6 TAs3 assignmentsDid not track student
Spring8 TAs4 and 6 assignmentsTracked 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 EvaluationTA Evaluation
NotNot 22 11 00 11 22 VeryVery Effective/Efficient Effective/Efficient
![Page 17: ICT Efficacy and Efficiency for Academic Writing William S. Warner, Ph.D. William S. Warner](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062417/55173770550346f5558b5ff6/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Spring TAsSpring TAsJING’s impact on student writing is noticeable when tracking re-writes.
Agree Disagree2 1 0 1 25 2 0 0 0
Which feedback method provides the most help to a student in the least amount of time?
5 JING4 Face-to-face consultation
1 Rubric1 Writing comments on hard copy
William S. Warner
![Page 18: ICT Efficacy and Efficiency for Academic Writing William S. Warner, Ph.D. William S. Warner](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062417/55173770550346f5558b5ff6/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
30 minutes/session30 sessions/term
Unhelpful (students) Helpful
2 1 0 1 2Autumn 10 students 0 1 2 4 3Spring 17 students 1 0 5 4 7
For night owl or procrastinator?
William S. Warner
![Page 19: ICT Efficacy and Efficiency for Academic Writing William S. Warner, Ph.D. William S. Warner](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062417/55173770550346f5558b5ff6/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Video LecturesVideo Lectures
I suggest that you watch the video lecture on…Half watched the video lectures
Unhelpful % Helpful2 1 0 1 2
Autumn(40) 0 0 2 63 35Spring (34) 0 0 9 35 56
William S. Warner
![Page 20: ICT Efficacy and Efficiency for Academic Writing William S. Warner, Ph.D. William S. Warner](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062417/55173770550346f5558b5ff6/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
SpringSpringFeedback TutorialsFeedback Tutorials
80% watched Principles of paraphrasinghttp://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=paraphrasing APA Format for Referencinghttp://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=apa_exposed
Unhelpful % Helpful 2 1 0 1 2
Autumn 1 3 13 33 50Spring 0 2 5 36 58
William S. Warner
![Page 21: ICT Efficacy and Efficiency for Academic Writing William S. Warner, Ph.D. William S. Warner](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062417/55173770550346f5558b5ff6/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Social Social MediaMedia HalfHalf (75) students found (75) students found
Unhelpful Very helpful2 1 0 1 2
Website 1 0 18 20 12 Writing Wrongs blog 0 0 12 28 15
Student Journal 0 0 10 11 7
William S. Warner
![Page 22: ICT Efficacy and Efficiency for Academic Writing William S. Warner, Ph.D. William S. Warner](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062417/55173770550346f5558b5ff6/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
• 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
RecommendationsRecommendations
![Page 23: ICT Efficacy and Efficiency for Academic Writing William S. Warner, Ph.D. William S. Warner](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062417/55173770550346f5558b5ff6/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
ConclusionsConclusions
Integrate JING across curriculumRequire video tutorials (e.g., EndNote)Develop social media for peer-reviewExplore MOOC automated feedback
William S. Warner