Upload
university-of-oslo-uio
View
212
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Presented by:Paul M. Rogers Ph.D.
Citation preview
Major Findings• Writing development is multidimensional and
nonlinear across a number of knowledge domains
• New digital technologies have increased student opportunities to write for authentic purposes and audiences
• Ongoing chains of communication with readers who possess certain qualities provide the greatest opportunity for writing development
What do we learn when we learn to write?
How can we as faculty best develop student writing abilities?
The Stanford Study of Writing
• Random Sample 12% of the Class of 2005 n=189 - 1/5 in the interview group n=39
• All disciplines - 14,776 pieces of writing
• 150 hours of interviews across five years
Strong academic achievers are not necessarily strong
writers• Stanford’s incoming class of 2001’s had an admittance rate of 12.7% (Brown, 2001)
• All study participants needed to adjust to the demands of college writing at Stanford.
Longitudinal Studies of Writing in Higher Education
Rogers, P.M. (2010). The contributions of North American longitudinal studies of writing in higher education to our understanding of writing development. In C. Bazerman, R. Krut, K. Lunsford, .S. McLeod, S. Null, P.M. Rogers and A. Stansell (Eds.). Traditions of Writing Research. Oxford, UK: Routledge.
Beaufort, A. (2004). Developmental gains of a history major: A case for building a theory of disciplinary writing expertise. Research in the Teaching of English, 39(2), 136-185.
Rogers, P.M. (2008). The development of writers and writing abilities: A longitudinal study across and beyond the collegespan.(Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Santa Barbara, 2008). DAI # 3319795.
Looking at the change across all 10 categories, we found a statistically significant improvement from the first year to the last years for Claims and Knowledge t(83) = 6.72, p-value = .000Telling and transforming t(83) = 4.09, p-value = .000Awareness of Readers t(83) = 3.29, p-value = 0.001Treatment of Sources t(83)= 3.71, p-value = .000;Theory and Concepts t(83) = 3.04, p-value = 0.003Students grew the most in the category of argumentation with the use of claims and evidence showing, by far, the most growth.
Digital Technology
"I think we're in the midst of a literacy revolution the likes of which we haven't seen since Greek civilization," she says. For Lunsford, technology isn't killing our ability to write. It's reviving it—and pushing our literacy in bold new directions.
Read More http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/magazine/1709/st_thompson#ixzz0nEURsebd
Non-classroom Related Factors
Classroom Discourse
Student’s lives outside of the classroom or school context
What teachers say about writing in the classroom, including direct instruction
Psychological factors such as self-esteem, confidence, or anxiety
Peer to peer talk, reading and writing groups
Time - Natural development (growth, maturity, and development)
Whole class discussion
Preexisting abilities and writing experiences; cultural backgrounds, and gender
Conversation with teachers
Student engagementInstitutional context, including assessment regimesMentoring (in socio-cultural settings)
Teacher Behaviors Classroom GenresTeacher expectations Teacher written response to writing i.e.
ongoing, performance specific feedbackResponsive teacher attitude in relation to feedback
Model texts
Immediate rhetorical context, e.g. classroom & grades
Access to other student texts
Time to draft, revise, and reflect ReadingMentoring (by teachers) General instructional supports: handouts
etc ...Repeat performance opportunities, i.e. practice
Increased domain knowledge
Nature of tasksTeacher supportiveness, accessibility outside class
Non-classroom Related Factors
Student’s lives outside of the classroom or school contextPsychological factors such as self-esteem, confidence, or anxietyTime - Natural development (growth, maturity, and development)Preexisting abilities and writing experiences; cultural backgrounds, and genderStudent engagementInstitutional context, including assessment regimesMentoring (in socio-cultural settings)
Classroom Discourse
What teachers say about writing in the classroom, including direct instructionPeer to peer talk, reading and writing groups
Whole class discussion
Conversation with teachers
Teacher BehaviorsTeacher expectationsResponsive teacher attitude in relation to feedback
Immediate rhetorical context, e.g. classroom & grades Time to draft, revise, and reflectMentoring (by teachers)Repeat performance opportunities, i.e. practiceNature of tasksTeacher supportiveness, accessibility outside class
Classroom Genres
Teacher written response to writing i.e. ongoing, performance specific feedback
Model texts
Access to other student texts
Reading
General instructional supports: handouts, graphic organizers, assignments, and rubrics
Increased domain knowledge
Dialogic Interaction
Bahktin’s description of dialogue proved extremely valuable in understanding the dimensions of the most impactful response practices. From Bahktin’s perspective, for an interaction to be dialogic, it must include a change of speaking subjects, the “finalization” of an utterance, and addressivity (pp. 76-78). A change of speaking subjects implies clear distinction between the turns that interlocutors take (p. 71); further, each turn taken must include the possibility of a response. Secondly, an utterance is finalized when [each] speaker has said (or written) everything he wished to say in a particular situation. Addressivity, the third feature, refers to personalization, i.e., the quality of being directed to a specific audience or individual. In a classroom context, this quality of addressivity implies that the response to one student is “differentiated, personalized,and individuated from a matrix of response that addresses the class as audience” (Phelps, 2000). By attending to these qualities rather than mere feedback, the focus shifts from the responder’s activity to the learner’s development through dialogic interaction.
Bahktin, M. M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Riegel, K. (1979). Foundations of dialectical psychology. New York: Academic Press.
• expert knowledge of the subject matter • expert knowledge of the genre requirements• a high level of interest and engagement on the part of the responder • accessibility, availability, and supportiveness • knowledge of the individual student’s writing strengths and weaknesses • continuity of interaction over several writing tasks • responders ability to give good comments, oral and written • a willingness to work through multiple drafts of the same paper • candor and trust (see also O’Neill & Fife, 1999 p. 196) • respect for the reader/responder's writing ability
Qualities of Effective Responders
Implications
Integrate writing instruction (WAC), especially as students progress towards professional activity.
Best accomplished at the departmental/faculty level
Implications
Consider the value of digital technologies in students’ overall developmental trajectories, i.e., look closer
Dialogic Interactions
•Open ended conversations•Teach and model for students how peer review works for professional writers•Use multiple channels for engaging in dialogic interaction•Engage early with writers•Positive and negative comments are useful when coupled with instruction
Thank you for your [email protected]
http://mason.gmu.edu/~progers2/