The Impact of Typed and Spoken Feedback on Efficient Grading and Effective Revision

Brian J. Ne man

S!bmitted for "omp#etion of the $aster of %rts in Eng#ish St!dies &r. &ianne "hambers and &r. $ary 'ay $!#vaney

J!ne ()* (++,

Ne man ii

Abstract &espite n!mero!s st!dies detai#ing the ca!ses of Eng#ish teacher b!rno!t* more specifica##y those teaching composition* teachers sti## #ook for more ays to be efficient and he#pf!# in directing st!dents thro!gh feedback. $icrosoft -ord inc#!des options for inserting typed comments and voice comments by one assessing a piece of riting. .sing both of these concepts on timed essays for an %/ Eng#ish 0 c#ass* I meas!red the !se of typed and voice comments in t o ays1 to see if either ay he#ps me to comment on a c#ass set of essays more 2!ick#y* and to see hich prod!ces better res!#ts for st!dent riting. $y initia# e3pectations ere that typed comments o!#d be more he#pf!# beca!se the st!dents co!#d see my s!ggestions4 ho ever* the voice comments #ed to more s!ccessf!# revisions. In addition* I saved an average of t o min!tes per essay by inserting voice comments to assess the essays.

Ne man 5 The Impact of Typed and Spoken Feedback on Efficient Grading and Effective Revision Introduction Eng#ish teachers have #ong str!gg#ed ith grading st!dent essays. 6o m!ch do e rite7 -hat do e rite7 &o e have time to #et them revise7 &o I foc!s more on content or grammar7 &o I circ#e their mistakes or #et them find them7 &o I rite #onger termina# comments or more fre2!ent#y thro!gho!t the paper7 %ns ers to these 2!estions remain f#!id* changing based on st!dent pop!#ation* the p!rpose for the assignment* co!rse #oad for the teacher* and any n!mber of factors that contrib!te to an Eng#ish teacher8s abi#ity to positive#y inf#!ence st!dent riting. The idea of initiating some kind of conversation seems to be a thread fo!nd in a n!mber of st!dies. This conversation may #itera##y take p#ace* if a teacher has the #!3!ry of time for riting conferences* or it may be a series of piecemea# conversations thro!gh a teacher8s comments on a paper and a st!dent8s response on a s!bse2!ent draft. $ore specifica##y* teachers can ask 2!estions of st!dents in the paper and st!dents can respond thro!gh revision. 6o one asks these 2!estions and makes these comments has evo#ved over the years. In the ear#y9to9mid95:,+s* teachers e3perimented ith tape9recorded comments. -hi#e this form e3hibited benefits for st!dents and teachers* it fai#ed to take in #arge n!mbers probab#y d!e to the !n ie#diness of co##ecting this many cassettes* or perhaps d!e to the #ocation prob#em of trying to find a p#ace to record. -hat has come o!t of the idea of the spoken ord for revision has been the importance of tone. 6o a teacher s!ggests revision has become as important as hat the teacher act!a##y s!ggests* and many ed!cators fai# to consider ho a st!dent may see comments #ike ;a k.< and ;c#arity< on an essay. &o teachers rite these comments

Ne man ( beca!se they sho!#d be c#ear and he#pf!# to the st!dent* or co!#d the teachers =!st be tired of riting so m!ch ith so #itt#e ret!rn7 By making #onger comments hedged ith s!ggestions s!ch as ;maybe yo! co!#d>< or ;have yo! considered>< as the #ead9ins* st!dents have proved to be more responsive to teachers8 comments. -riting these f!##9sentence comments may be too tedio!s* ho ever* and teachers need to stream#ine the a#ready e3ha!stive process of grading essays. .ti#i?ing the e3isting techno#ogy can he#p ith this prob#em. $icrosoft -ord comes ith f!nctions for recording voice comments and inserting typed comments. -ith comp!ters in most ho!seho#ds for st!dents* and in most c#assrooms for teachers* this medi!m becomes a more appea#ing option. If many teachers type faster than they rite* perhaps inserting typed comments in sentence format o!#d not be that gr!e#ing. For teachers ho prefer to convey their messages thro!gh speaking* perhaps this option appea#s to them* a##o ing teachers to offer comp#ete tho!ghts by speaking them rather than trying to rite them. In considering the options* I intended to try both typed and voice comments and see hich I prefer and hich my st!dents prefer. I as conscio!s of time* and considered my tone in each comment* a## of hich appear as comp#ete sentences. $y hypothesis as that the typed comments o!#d be more appea#ing to me and to the st!dents. I predicted I o!#d #ike these better beca!se editing a tho!ght goes m!ch more 2!ick#y hen typing. I be#ieved st!dents o!#d #ike typed comments better beca!se vis!a##y* they i## act!a##y see the s!ggestions ne3t to the high#ighted area as opposed to =!st an a!dio icon aiting to be c#icked to revea# the s!ggestion. I fig!red that if I did end !p #iking the a!dio comments more it o!#d be beca!se I co!#d do it hands free and it o!#d prove to be more time effective. If the st!dents #iked

Ne man ) it better I imagined it o!#d be beca!se they o!#d react to my spoken tone better as if e ere having a conversation abo!t their riting4 the voice comments seem very persona#. @vera## then* my contention as this1 In order to make better !se of their time and to ret!rn st!dent ork more 2!ick#y* teachers sho!#d !se the Insert "omment f!nction hen the schoo#8s techno#ogy a##o s for s!ch s!bmissions. St!dents respond better to thoro!gh* po#ite comments that sti## sho their o nership of the paper. -hen considering the t o types of comments I co!#d insert into st!dents8 papers !sing $icrosoft -ord* I initia##y be#ieved typed comments o!#d be more beneficia# beca!se st!dents co!#d see the s!ggestions rather than =!st hear them.

Literature Review ;These kids =!st don8t kno ho to riteA< This comp#aint might be heard from a gro!p of Eng#ish teachers at the midd#e or high schoo# #eve#* or even perhaps at the co##ege #eve#. In fact* it might be a teacher in any discip#ine. B!t hose responsibi#ity is it to make these riters better7 This task !s!a##y fa##s to the Eng#ish teachers. In one st!dy* Robert "onnors and %ndrea B!nsford s!rveyed teacher comments on )*+++ graded co##ege essays. %fter reading the feedback* they noticed the fr!stration #eve# of teachers in the comments* s!rmising these negative fee#ings as a response to teachers ; ith too many st!dents* too many papers to grade< and #itt#e time to devote to b!i#ding individ!a#s8 riting abi#ity C(50D. In fact* on#y EF of the papers invo#ved in this st!dy inc#!ded ;engaged comments of more than 5++ ords< C(50D. -hy did :EF of teachers rite #ess7 &o they find it !se#ess7 &o st!dents even read everything hen teachers take

Ne man 0 the time to rite more7 Is the act!a# act of riting so tedio!s and time cons!ming that teachers demand #ess riting assignments from st!dents not beca!se the st!dents are sophisticated riters* b!t beca!se time =!st does not a##o for more assignments7 -hether e rite terse* imperative comments #ike* ;.se better dictionA< or e#aborate ith #onger comments abo!t o!r h!rt fee#ings that the st!dents did not heed o!r in9c#ass directions* teachers str!gg#e ith kno ing hat to rite in order to make st!dents better riters. In his artic#e* ;Theory of Responding to St!dent -riting*< ".-. Griffin capt!res the myriad fr!strations in ho e as Eng#ish teachers he#p st!dents hen

he asks* ;-hat kinds of comments are most effective7 Sho!#d they be primari#y descriptive or eva#!ative7 %nd here do o!r responses foc!s7 &o e tend to foc!s on intrinsic or e3trinsic feat!res7 %#so* hat kinds of ass!mptions are e making hen e foc!s on one set of feat!res as opposed to another7< C(::D. /erhaps o!r foc!s sho!#d concentrate not on#y on o!r p!rpose for the riting* b!t o!r p!rpose as teachers of riting1 Is increasing c#arity more important than e#iminating fre2!ent comma sp#ices7 &oes a eak thesis deserve more g!idance than fre2!ent errors in s!b=ectGverb agreement7 %s Eng#ish teachers* e m!st not on#y e3amine hat e say* b!t a#so ho and hy e are saying it. The tone imp#icit in a teacher8s response on an essay can often have more of an impact that the act!a# ords themse#ves. Richard Stra!b fo!nd that st!dents ;did not respond e## to comments that they fe#t ere e3pressed in a high#y =!dgmenta# ay< C2td. in Bardeen* Bardeen and &eegan :ED. Interesting#y as e##* Stra!b fo!nd that st!dents ;preferred praise on their riting on#y hen the praise had an e3p#anation as to hy it as praise orthy< C:ED. The danger some teachers recogni?e Cand others !nfort!nate#y

Ne man E ignoreD is that any response a teacher ;might intend as constr!ctive criticism can be interpreted by that st!dent as persona# criticism rather than comment on the ork presented< C"rone9B#evins :ED. To address this* $argie 'rest e3p#ains ho she orks both positive comments and negative into one feedback point1 ;Ho!r sentence str!ct!re and mechanics are great* b!t I fee# #ost beca!se I8m not s!re of yo!r point< C0+D. -hat 'rest does here is fo##o the advice of &avid $orand* ho disc!sses ;s!rro!nding the criticismGs!ggestion ith positive comments to soften its impact< C$orand 2td. in 'rest )IJD. $orand8s origina# st!dy disc!sses ;stat!s #eve#ing* the red!ction of po er differentia#s among s!perior and s!bordinate actors<4 b!t his st!dy is in re#ation to bosses and emp#oyees C$orand (0ED. $orand ca##s the phrase ;tactics of negative po#iteness< C()ID. This may ork for a teacher* b!t the time invo#ved o!#d be a bit more considerab#e beca!se sGhe o!#d need to preface each s!ggestion ith some po#ite idea to notice. Bois R!bin fo!nd that !sing these techni2!es as a more persona# response than simp#e symbo#s or !nder#ines ;sho s readers8 en=oyment of the te3t or emotiona# reaction to it< and enab#es the reader to create more of a bond ith the riter C)IID. So tone then is important* b!t m!st the reader a# ays hedge each criticism ith po#iteness to get a point across7 -o!#d this be more time cons!ming and seeming#y fa#se for st!dents if e did this a## the time7 Teachers have been searching for ays to improve their o n efficiency in grading for as #ong as riting has been a part the schoo# c!rric!#!m. Some teachers have e3perimented ith minima#ist grading techni2!es. For instance* ;%n e3c#amation point sho s approva#* a 2!estion mark points to a passage that is !nc#ear* and a KNoA8 te##s a st!dent a prob#em sho!#d be e#iminated< C%nderson and Speck (0D. Het* a prob#em that

Ne man J deve#ops here in sacrificing thoro!ghness for e3pediency is that st!dents may on#y see their s!rface errors4 that is if they !nderstand the coded marking system at a##. If teachers fee# p!t off by minima#ist grading and instead fee# compe##ed to give st!dents their f!## attention by correcting every error in every essay* i## the st!dent even read the teachers8 comments7 Lirginia BaFontana asks* ;-eren8t they gratef!# for my tracking do n every error in an effort to p!rge their prob#ems of grammar* spe##ing and p!nct!ation before I sent them off to co##ege7 M>N&efinite#y not< C,5D. Some Eng#ish teachers vie themse#ves as the #ast defense* that #ast great bastion of hope for st!dents to right a## their riting rongs before entering their freshman composition c#asses in co##ege. These teachers need to !nderstand that they cannot fi3 everything. Those teachers ho s!bscribe to the 2!a#ity of comments vs. the 2!antity have investigated ays to make this easier and may have fo!nd it in ta#king. @ne ay to ease the riting b!rden is to p!t do n the red pen a#together. %s ear#y as 5:,)* teachers began !sing tape9recorded comments. Enno '#ammer rites* ;The instr!ctor can say m!ch more and say it more c#ear#y< than sGhe co!#d !sing hand9 ritten comments on paper C2td. in %nderson and Speck (0D. Tape recording feedback a##o s teachers to offer comp#ete tho!ghts ith #ess effort than riting paragraphs or even =!st comp#ete sentences by hand on st!dent essays. $ore than (+ years #ater in 5::J* BaFontana rote an essay for English Journal proc#aiming the great benefits she and her st!dents reaped from !sing taped comments. The fo!r e3amp#es of her spoken comments in her essay each come in at over E+ ords. These comp#ete9sentence s!mmaries of errors and praise ;make it possib#e for me to take a more ho#istic approach to st!dent papers instead of getting #ost in a mass of detai#< C,(D. &espite these benefits*

Ne man , s!ffice it to say this method has not e3act#y s!perceded the hand ritten comments in most c#assrooms. Boe# 'im thinks perhaps ;co##ecting a!diotapes a#ong ith copies of st!dent assignments* keeping track of them* and then retaining them is too c!mbersome< C)+ID. Simi#ar to managing cassettes* I have co##ected sets of research notecards from near#y 5++ seniors at a time* and carrying the bag of cards aro!nd can be !n ie#dy at best. &espite the b!rden on teachers ho !se cassettes* the st!dentsOin a st!dy by Harbro and %ngevineOsaid they ;fe#t they received more persona# attention from the instr!ctor< ith voice comments C):J* 2td. in 'im )+ID. %t the end of her essay* BaFontana concedes some of the do nfa##s of her tape9recording system1 st!dents forget tapes* her o n s#ips of the tong!e* and having to correct at home C,)D. So hi#e the taped comments have some benefits for both teachers and st!dents* the dra backs are considerab#e. St!dents en=oy the persona# tone from recorded comments* and an even more persona# ay to assess riting is to act!a##y meet ith st!dents to disc!ss papers. The case for riting conferences is a strong one* ith &ona#d $!rray and Nancie %t e## #eading those charges. %nother voice for conferencing* &ona#d Graves* s!ggests teachers stray from =!st correcting errors1 ;Eight years after they have introd!ced 2!otation marks* teachers are sti## correcting errors as the st!dent packs his bags for co##ege< C(,JD. Graves goes so far as to s!ggest three conferences* each ith a different foc!s1 "onference 5 o!#d #ook at discovering a s!b=ect* "onference ( #ooks at foc!s and organi?ation* and "onference ) identifies more specific mechanica# errors CGraves (,JD. -ith a co!rse #oad of 5)E st!dents or more* ho many teachers can address riting on s!ch a persona# #eve# hen act!a# face time is necessary7 "an a teacher manage over 0++

Ne man I riting conferences on a sing#e essay7 -i## the rest of the c!rric!#!m s!ffer if a teacher8s co!rse is not so#e#y foc!sed on composition* and sGhe has other goa#s and benchmarks to attend to7 Barbara $onroe cites a thread on an N"TE9sponsored #istserv abo!t ho m!ch time Eng#ish teachers spend on grading papers and p#anning1 ;Those ho responded averaged 5E ho!rs per eek o!tside of c#ass for both*< ith the better part ass!med#y spent grading C@ en and $onroe 5+)D. If the ma=ority of the 5E ho!rs ere spent act!a##y p#anning* teachers o!#d probab#y have more s!ccessf!# c#asses. In order to best !ti#i?e o!r time* teachers have had to adapt* borro and create ays to get ork back to st!dents more 2!ick#y. &o e conference* take the minima#ist approach* tape record* or !se a grading grid7 Stephen 6e##er* a high schoo# teacher* #earnedOas most Eng#ish teachers doOthat in aiting too #ong to ret!rn papers* ;The identified mistakes in the riting ere too far removed from the #essons to have the #earning impact e anted them to have< C/erry 55ED. 6e made it his goa# to ret!rn papers ithin one to t o days after the st!dents s!bmitted them. 6e does not detai# how he does this* b!t instead raises more pedagogica# 2!estions abo!t why one sho!#d do this. Rather than committing to a fai#safe approach to grading 2!ick#y* 6e##er offers this advice1 do not ;spend more time on the paper than the st!dent did< C55JD. -hi#e bri##iant* this advice is vag!e at best. $aybe the most important s!ggestion 6e##er makes is one he attrib!tes to a co##eag!e* Bi## Frit?* ;Give the st!dents eno!gh feedback to bring the paper !p to the ne3t grade* not to the % paper< C55,D. S!re#y this is a beneficia# phi#osophy for ne and veteran teachers a#ike ho str!gg#e over ho m!ch to rite. If e ere to adapt 6e##er8s approach* ret!rning essays 2!ick#y by saying #ess b!t he#ping st!dents to get more o!t of it* perhaps teachers co!#d assign more riting and see

Ne man : the transference of s!ggestions on one essay then !ti#i?ed in the ne3t. -ith more comp!ters in schoo#s* teachers may be ab#e to !se techno#ogy to get ork back more 2!ick#y. In a st!dy appearing in The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education* &i3on* "assady* "ross and -i##iams iss!ed t o %/9sty#e prompts to c#asses. For %dvanced /#acement* m!ch of the st!dents8 s!ccess comes from ski##ed riting !nder timed sit!ations. %## the st!dents rote the first response* and for the second response some typed hi#e others rote once again. They fo!nd that ; hen gifted boys !sed ord processors to respond to a riting prompt* they composed better essays than hen they ere re2!ired to hand rite them< C5IID. The boys sa an I)F increase in the n!mber of ords hen they typed their responses* hi#e the gir#s ho rote and then typed prod!ced a simi#ar n!mber of ords. If teachers can !ti#i?e a schoo#8s comp!ter #ab more fre2!ent#y* some of the comments abo!t e#aboration on some essays may be needed #ess fre2!ent#y. B!t =!st typing the essays is not eno!gh. St!dents need to kno did e## and hat they can do to improve on the ne3t essay. $ost Eng#ish teachers o!#d conc!r that riting a series of drafts he#ps st!dents to improve. %#so* teachers o!#d m!ch rather read a st!dent8s typed ork than hisGher hand riting* especia##y if the st!dent is orking in a timed sit!ation. If foc!sed comments ;co!ched in po#ite #ang!age< orks for st!dents CR!bin )IJD* and techno#ogy has been seen to improve time spent grading* then the composite pict!re begins to come together. %ccording to Syde## Rabin* ;If the !#timate p!rpose of eva#!ation is to improve #earning* the end is not reached hen =!dgment is passed b!t on#y hen #earning begins C0ID. -e m!st !ti#i?e drafts* b!t grade them e3pedient#y. Teachers have cond!cted st!dies that circ#e aro!nd the main point of my st!dy* b!t they =!st begin to #ook at the hat they

Ne man 5+ potentia# for teachers. If a teacher practices timed ritings on a schoo# comp!ter* then sGhe can respond !sing the avai#ab#e techno#ogy on the comp!ter 2!ick#y and efficient#y in order to bring st!dents to that ne3t #eve#. %t this point* #ike 6e##er said* it is abo!t bringing the st!dent to the ne3t #eve#* not to the top #eve#* ith each s!ccessive draft. The c#osest ork in the fie#d I e3amined comes from Thomas 'r!c#i* a high schoo# Eng#ish teacher ho has been !sing $icrosoft -ord and its Insert "omment f!nction to deve#op st!dent riting. 6e !sed "&9R- techno#ogy to co##ect st!dent ork* record voice comments* insert hyper#inks* and type responses to st!dent ork* c#aiming that it ;a##o s the teacher to provide more feedback for st!dents in the same amo!nt of time it takes to grade a paper in the traditiona# manner< C0ID. Rather than take the same amo!nt of time as hand ritten methods* I intended to see if inserting typed comments or providing recorded voice comments in specific areas of st!dent essays o!#d improve their riting on a second draft. I a#so intended to see if one of these methods proved to be more e3pedient than the other. In previo!s st!dies* st!dents have rea##y taken to voice comments. In 'im8s st!dy* a st!dent said* ;To me it as #ike I as right there orking ith the teacherOit asn8t as forma# or conventiona#>it as more #ike a one9on9one< C)(0D. In 'r!c#i8s st!dy* he !sed the %!toTe3t f!nction to pre rite ;my most fre2!ent#y !sed feedback comments and then copy and save them for f!t!re !se. No I can provide comments that are not on#y meaningf!# and interactive b!t time efficient as e##< C0ID. So 'r!c#i !sed both the voice and typed comments on the same papers* a#ong ith hyper#inks for grammar s!ggestions. I #ooked at ho one of these might be !sed ith a #imited correction scope to better st!dent riting and improve the time it takes to grade st!dent essays. -hi#e 'r!c#i !sed "&9R- techno#ogy* I o!#d imagine that some of the

Ne man 55 same prob#ems o!#d arise as they did ith the taped comments of the 5:,+s and 5:I+s1 making s!re the st!dents have their "&s and having to restart for misspeaks. In (++J* &ebbie /erry and $ike Smithmier !sed 'r!c#i8s idea to deve#op peer9 editing practices in their c#assrooms* again !ti#i?ing the Insert "omment f!nction. They did not !se the voice comments* b!t did track changes !sing this f!nction on -ord. It did seem tho!gh that in their st!dy peers #ooked more at mechanics iss!es over organi?ation and sty#e iss!es* citing page n!mbers from the grammar handbook in their typed comments C(0D. Revision inc#!des more than editing4 st!dents sho!#d see ho they can make their thesis stronger thro!gh diction* organi?ation and #ogic. For my st!dy* st!dents saved the ork in shared fo#ders on the schoo#8s hard drive* #ooking at and #istening to my typed and spoken comments on their essays. I on#y commented on three iss!es1 thesis deve#opment* thesis s!pport* and sentence variety. I hoped that ith a #imited scope* st!dents co!#d address these changes ith their second drafts. %#so* rather than marking brief imperative comments as hand ritten remarks on their drafts* I spoke and typed comp#ete sentences* hich have tended to garner more favorab#e responses from st!dents than demanding change thro!gh brief* fragmented comments done by hand. "an teachers !se grading time more efficient#y thro!gh the !se of these f!nctions7 -o!#d st!dents make changes more effective#y ith #imited comments done thoro!gh#y7 -o!#d the tone that accompanies typed and voice comments he#p st!dents to see the teacher as a reader rather than a =!dge invo#ved in the riting process7 /erhaps if teachers !sed the avai#ab#e techno#ogy and the research abo!t riting feedback symbiotica##y they co!#d stream#ine the grading process hi#e getting better res!#ts from their st!dents.

Ne man 5(

The Participants The c#ass that participated in the st!dy consists of (, st!dents from a orking9 c#ass backgro!nd. The participants are enro##ed in an %/ Biterat!re and "omposition co!rse as seniors at Jo#iet -est 6igh Schoo#. They have taken practice %/ e3ams before* so the format had been practiced before. The co!rse consists of t o %frican9%merican st!dents* t enty9fo!r hite st!dents and one bi9racia# st!dent.

Methodology In order to carry o!t this research pro=ect in hich I intended to e3amine the efficiency of typed comments vs. voice comments on st!dent essays as e## as the effectiveness of these comments in prod!cing s!ccessf!# essay revision* the st!dents first needed to read a te3t for hich they co!#d do this. In Jan!ary* they read '!rt Lonneg!t8s Slaughterhouse-Five. The book is appro3imate#y (E+ pages in #ength* and they had three eeks to read this te3t. &!ring their reading* the st!dents e3amined Lonneg!t8s !se of irony and a##!sion* and #ooked at the a!tobiographica# aspects in the nove#. The st!dents comp#eted the reading by the end of the third eek of Febr!ary. Beca!se this is an %/ co!rse* I contin!a##y give %/9sty#e riting prompts to hich the st!dents respond to make them more comfortab#e ith the act!a# testing process. In this case* I !sed a prompt from an %/ revie book. I chose a pre9e3isting prompt rather than creating one of my o n beca!se the re#iabi#ity of the prompt o!#d !ndo!bted#y be higher. @n the %/ test* the third Cand fina#D 2!estion of the free9response portion asks st!dents to read a prompt and then choose from a #ist of te3ts they provide Cor a te3t of

Ne man 5) comparab#e #iterary merit the st!dent choosesD to ans er the prompt. I chose a prompt that inc#!ded Slaughterhouse-Five as one of the te3t options. The prompt appeared as fo##o s1 The most important themes in #iterat!re are sometimes deve#oped in scenes in hich a death or deaths take p#ace. "hoose a nove# or p#ay and specific death ho#e. %void p#ot rite a e##9organi?ed essay in hich yo! sho ho a scene he#ps to i##!minate the meaning of the ork as a s!mmary.

-hi#e the prompt sheet inc#!ded a #ist of )( orks* I c#ear#y bracketed SlaughterhouseFive for their response. -hen the st!dents finished the nove#* I bro!ght them to one of the riting #abs in o!r schoo#* a room e2!ipped ith )+ comp!ters. Each st!dent has a specific acco!nt on hisGher ;6< drive that contains a## of the ork they have done at schoo# over the #ast fo!r years. The st!dents #ogged in* and I distrib!ted the prompts to each st!dent after having revie ed the instr!ctions. I asked them to do the fo##o ing1 5. Finish the essay today* no matter ho it #ooks hen the 0+9min!te #imit is !p. I s!ggested this to maintain an e2!a# opport!nity for each st!dent to ans er the prompt and to emphasi?e the 0+9min!te average per ans er on the act!a# %/ test. (. .nder#ine the thesis of the essay. This he#ped for my comments hen I kne specifica##y hich sentence had the thesis. -e orked a## year on e3p#icit thesis statements4 the st!dents have not foc!sed as m!ch attention on imp#icit theses. ). Save the essay to t o p#aces1 The ;6< drive so they have their o n copy* and the ;S< drive* hich contains a fo#der ith each of their I& n!mbers individ!a##y. By

Ne man 50 !sing this option* the st!dents can save their ork* and I can open this fo#der d!e to access I have been granted by o!r techno#ogy specia#ists. 0. /rint t o copies of the essay. This as done to he#p my peer grader* Janice Sheehan* be ab#e to read their essays and identify their s!ccess in the three areas I identified previo!s#y1 e3p#icit thesis statement* thesis s!pport* and sentence variety and comp#e3ity. I kept the second copy =!st in case something happened to the origina# one saved on the net ork. The st!dents typed d!ring the 0+ min!tes and maintained a 2!iet atmosphere hi#e orking. @n#y one st!dent as absent and she typed the essay the ne3t day !nder the same directions. Responding to Student Work -ithin t o eeks of the st!dents comp#eting the first draft of the essays* I set aside a b#ock of time to comp#ete my comments in one session. To determine hich st!dents received voice comments and hich st!dents received typed comments* I ent ith a b#ind dra * sp#itting the st!dents into t o gro!ps by #ooking at the fo#der arrangement in the Shared fo#der. There ere three ro s of fo#ders identified by si39digit I& n!mbers. I chose the first thirteen fo#ders co!nting do n the first fo!r co#!mns* ith one fo#der in the fifth co#!mn. This method prevented me from fo##o ing a#phabetica# or any other recogni?ab#e order. The remaining fo!rteen st!dents received voice comments. For the st!dents on hose paper I inserted voice comments I did the fo##o ing1 5. @pened the fi#e on the ;S< drive and read the essay itho!t timing myse#f. (. Started the timer after a first read thro!gh so I co!#d get an !nderstanding of the st!dent8s response. I on#y anted to ga!ge ho #ong I took to make comments*

Ne man 5E not ho #ong it took me to read the essays. -hi#e the timer ran* I determined hat parts of the essay necessitated responses. ). Inserted voice comment by high#ighting a passage Cfor e3amp#e a part of the thesisD* c#icked on ;Insert*< then ;"omment*< then ;Loice "omment.< 0. Recorded a comment !sing a microphone p#!gged into the .SB port on the comp!ter* and I c#icked on the red ;Record< b!tton to record the comment and save it to the paper. %n a!dio icon appears near the high#ighted area of te3t. E. $oved on to thesis s!pport and then sentence comp#e3ityGvariety after inserting a voice comment for the thesis. For the third category* I #ooked at sentences that co!#d be combined and sentences that began ith a repetitive str!ct!re s!ch as ;s!b=ect9verb< for a fe sentences in a ro or ones that !sed the same c#a!se s!ch as ;%nother point Lonneg!t makes is>< and then repeated again in the ne3t sentence. @ften I recommended that the st!dents take a #ook at the entire paper to see if my s!ggestion co!#d app#y to other parts of the paper as e##. @nce I comp#eted the third comment I stopped the atch and recorded the time. For the st!dents on hose paper I inserted typed comments* I fo##o ed the same process e3cept to insert a typed comment* I c#icked on ;Insert*< then ;"omment*< and then ;Ne "omment.< % b!bb#e appeared on the right side and I then typed my s!ggestions in the b!bb#e. To insert the second and third comments* I simp#y high#ighted other passages and did the same thing. The margins shift to accommodate the added te3t b!t it does nothing to page breaks. The font =!st becomes s#ight#y sma##er. Thro!gho!t both types of comments* I timed myse#f and recorded my times on a chart for each st!dent #abe#ed on#y ith the I& n!mber. This chart ref#ects ho #ong each

Ne man 5J paper took to assess. Typica##y* teachers tend to rite brief* imperative comments s!ch as ;combine these t o sentences< and ;change the thesis.< 6aving read st!dies regarding tone* I !ti#i?ed the concept of co!ching my statements in po#ite phrasing. E3amp#es inc#!de* ;Ho! might ant to>< or ;$aybe yo! co!#d>.< I did this both for typed and voice comments. -hen I finished each essay I printed the version ith my comments so I co!#d see hat I s!ggested for them and co!#d recogni?e the changes they made for the second draft. &!ring the time I graded* commented and timed my ork* Janice SheehanO ho teaches a second section of %/ Eng#ish 0 ith simi#ar st!dentsOrevie ed my st!dents8 essays and #ooked at those same three areas* giving the st!dents a score of 59J in each of the three categories1 %dvanced CE9JD* /roficient C)90D* and Basic C59(D. I* too* gave the st!dents a score !sing the same sca#e. %ppendi3 B is the sheet I !sed to track their scores and my comments. -e did not share scores !nti# after the second draft had been co##ected. Janice never sa my comments. For the second draft* she graded the essays as if she ere seeing them for the first time ith on#y her scores from draft one to g!ide her. Revision Preparation %fter assessing a## the essays* I #ed a one9c#ass in9service on ho to !se the ;"omment< feat!re so st!dents !nderstood ho to access their essays and ho to #ook at and then make changes. $y c#assroom has an B"& pro=ector hooked !p to the comp!ter* so I can pro=ect doc!ments from my comp!ter and sho them on the screen for the st!dents. I !sed a samp#e essay and sho ed them ho to revie my s!ggestions and ho to make changes to their papers in order to res!bmit them ith the revisions. The B"& pro=ector a#so has speakers so st!dents co!#d hear my samp#e voice comments. I did not

Ne man 5, ant the #ag time to be too disparate bet een the voice and typed comment gro!ps once they ret!rned to the comp!ter #ab* so the more !nderstanding they had of the techno#ogy prior to ret!rning the better. I did not kno hich st!dents received hich type of

comments yet* so I e3p#ained they o!#d find o!t hich comments they received once they ret!rned to the #ab. Revising and Editing -hen e ret!rned to the comp!ter #ab* the st!dents sat in front of comp!ters each e2!ipped ith headphones. They opened their essays ith my comments and began making the changes they fe#t o!#d improve their essays based on my recommendations. I initia##y a##o ed for a second c#ass period for revision in case the st!dents needed more time b!t no one needed more time after the E+9min!te c#ass period. %#tho!gh revision on this sca#e does not fa## in #ine ith %/ testing since the st!dents have on#y one t o9ho!r session to rite three responses* the "o##ege Board co!rse recommendation s!ggests the st!dents have m!#tip#e opport!nities thro!gho!t the year to revise essays. @nce the st!dents finished making hatever changes they fe#t necessary* I asked them to save the second draft to the same fo#der* this time ith a 2 in front of the origina# doc!ment n!mber so I co!#d easi#y identify each draft. %fter saving their essays I asked them to print t o copies so both Janice and I co!#d re9score the essays. I asked that they remove the comments I inc#!dedOa b!bb#e on the right side of the essay for typed comments and an a!dio icon in the right margin for voice commentsOin order that Janice o!#d assess the second draft #ooking at ho s!ccessf!# it is itho!t seeing e3act#y hat I recommended.

Ne man 5I Assessing Draft Two @nce the st!dents had a## saved their second drafts to their individ!a# fo#ders* I needed to assess this ne ork as to hat changes st!dents made from the first draft.

Since the printed version did not inc#!de any comments* I needed to assess the essays by having the first draft in my hand* then opening their second draft on a comp!ter so I co!#d either read or hear my initia# comments to determine hat had changed and ho s!ccessf!# those changes ere. I needed to take into acco!nt not on#y the high#ighted portions of te3t b!t a#so the rest of the essay in case st!dents took my s!ggestions and app#ied them to other parts of the essay. I did not time the re9scoring as it did not matter for the p!rposes of this st!dy. By the end I had three versions of the st!dents8 essays1 Lersion 5 is their first draft ith no comments4 Lersion ( is their first draft ith my comments Cin the case of voice comments* I co!#d see hat parts of the te3t I high#ighted tho!gh I sa no specific ordsD4 Lersion ) is their revised draft ith my comments e#iminated. Peer Revision Janice and I have shared a room and an %/ c!rric!#!m a## year* each of !s teaching one section of the co!rse* so I fe#t comfortab#e choosing her to maintain inter9 rater re#iabi#ity. -hen the st!dents finished draft 5* I gave Janice the c#ass set of essays ith their I& n!mbers at the top. %ppendi3 % contains a samp#e of the sheet I gave her for tracking her scores. The essays ere not separated into voice and typed comment essays4 they ere =!st iss!ed as a c#ass set. I did not need to ait for her res!#ts in order to move to the revision stage ith the c#ass. -hen I gave her the second draft* they ere c#ean copies as e##. She !sed the same sheet for assessing the second draft* #ooking to

Ne man 5: see ho the st!dents improved overa## for this revised piece. %gain* she did not kno hich essays received voice or typed comments* nor did she kno hat my comments

ere* so she co!#d on#y assess them on hat she sa . Janice made no comments on st!dent essays for the first draft. Post-session Follow-up Survey %fter a## the st!dents had finished their second drafts and after I had scored both* I distrib!ted a s!rvey asking the st!dents to comment on the e3perience* to rate it vers!s hand ritten comments* and to disc!ss ho they persona##y ork best in terms of revising essays. This s!rvey appears in %ppendi3es " and &. Post-session Follow-up Interviews ( roup and Individual! 6aving read the st!dents8 reactions to the e3perience* I intervie ed a fe of them to get a more detai#ed reaction to the process. I spoke ith st!dents ho received voice comments and st!dents ho received typed comments. The gist of my 2!estions covered their preference vs. receiving hand ritten comments* the impact of tone* the effect of the nove#ty of the e3perience* and their s!ggestions ere I to do this again in the f!t!re.

Data Results Ti"e Involved in #aking $o""ents $y hypothesis entering the e3periment as that voice comments o!#d take me #onger. I based this on my abi#ity to type 2!ick#y Cbet een ,E9I+ pmD. I orried abo!t a n!mber of iss!es re#ated to voice comments1 the recording part o!#d be too da!nting4 I o!#d constant#y have to rerecord my comments4 and speaking c#ear#y and effective#y

Ne man (+ o!#d re2!ire me to speak more s#o #y. %ccording to the res!#ts of the st!dy as sho n in Tab#e 5* my hypothesis as incorrect. Ta%le &' Assess"ent Ti"e Typed "omments J1+E min. per essay Loice "omments )1E: min. per essay Time &ifferentia# 9(1+J min. for voice

%vg. Time /er Essay to Grade

Loice comments saved more than t o min!tes on average off the assessment time. The typed comments took as #ong as I1(+ min. beca!se one partic!#ar essay as e3ceptiona##y #ong and repetitive* and I had to determine e3act#y hich part to high#ight before typing a comment. The 2!ickest typed response came in at 01(I min.* this d!e in #arge part to the brevity of the essay and the fre2!ent errors4 I did not #ack for something to high#ight. The voice comments took as #ong as E1)0 min.* the #ongest one being my first essay and I had to rerecord* and as 2!ick#y as (1EJ min. beca!se I kne e3act#y hat I needed to address for each of the three categories after my initia# reading of this essay. Peer S(oring Differential -hi#e I tr!sted Janice ith scoring my c#ass8s essays* I orried that o!r scores may t!rn o!t vast#y different. The essays co!#d receive a score of )95I* depending on their s!ccess in each of the three given areas1 Thesis* Thesis S!pport* and Sentence "omp#e3ity and Lariety. $y fears of disparity ere #arge#y !nfo!nded* as e had m!ch in common as sho n in Tab#e (. Ta%le )' Draft & S(oring

Ne man (5

$atching Scores E

PG9 5 5E

PG9( J

PG9) 5

PG90 +

PG9E +

In e3amining the res!#ts from my scores compared ith Janice8s scores from draft 5* it is obvio!s that e share m!ch of the same grading phi#osophy. -e ba#anced the scoring e## in that neither of !s consistent#y scored the st!dents higher than the other. Some of this may be d!e to teaching the same type of st!dents and orking c#ose#y in ho e teach %/. The differences became more apparent in the second draft as sho n in

Tab#e ). % n!mber of reasons co!#d e3p#ain these differences. Ta%le *' Draft ) S(oring $atching Scores E PG9 5 I PG9( 0 PG9) E PG90 5 PG9E 0

"onsidering the scores ere m!ch c#oser in draft 5* I o!#d s!ggest that my being ab#e to see the changes I recommended made it more obvio!s for me to see the changes the st!dents made in the essays. Janice graded the second drafts itho!t the benefit of seeing my comments on draft 5. -hen comparing the scores from both drafts* I had score changes of considerab#e points* ith one st!dent going from a ( to a J on the thesis statement a#one. Janice did not have s!ch dramatic increases in scores. This contrib!ted to the five scores that increased e differed on by fo!r9to9five points. This differentia# did not e3ist in draft 5. E+a"ining t,e S(ore Differential

Ne man (( The average scores for the essays ere not so different for the first draft* b!t after commenting the res!#ts sho ed significant gains for voice comments. Tab#e 0 sho s the considerab#e impact voice comments had on st!dent performance. Their percent increase from draft 5 near#y do!b#ed* from a 5.)I average score increase for typed comments vers!s a (.+, average score increase for voice comments. The perfect scores did not co!nt for ca#c!#ating the increase* b!t they ere factored into the average scores. Ta%le -' Average S(ores and S(ore In(rease &raft 5 %vg. Score L@I"E 5(.E, TH/E& 5(.++ &raft ( %vg. Score 50.J0 5).)I F Increase from &raft 5 to ( :F EF

Tho!gh Tab#e 0 sho s the marked increase in scores for voice comments* Tab#e E breaks do n those increases. -hi#e the thesis s!pport score sho s the biggest increase* it is important to note that the voice comments increased near#y a f!## point for the thesis statements. "omments for the thesis app#y on#y to the introd!ction* so perhaps revision of this statement and the assessment of it ere easier beca!se it as #ocated in a partic!#ar area and o!#d not be fo!nd e#se here in the essay as thesis s!pport and sentence variety and comp#e3ity revisions o!#d be. Ta%le .' S(ore Differential %y $ategory

Ne man ()

Survey Results and Interviews %fter comp#eting this st!dy* I iss!ed s!rveys to the st!dents to determine hat they fo!nd he#pf!# both specifica##y in this e3ercise and regarding riting in genera#. %ppendi3es " and & sho the s!rveys4 fo!r of the si3 2!estions on the s!rveys ere the same for each gro!p* ith the remaining t o 2!estions foc!sed more specifica##y on voice or typed comments. The s!rveys* as described in Tab#es J and ,* revea#ed he#pf!# information both for this st!dy and for f!rther ana#ysis. T enty9seven st!dents comp#eted the s!rveys. Ta%le /' $o"paring Typed and 0oi(e $o""ents to 1andwritten $o""ents RE"EILE& TH/E& "@$$ENTS 0G5) 5G5) L@I"E :G5) P.:5 RE"EILE& L@I"E "@$$ENTS IG50 0G50 @LER%BB :G50 P.(I &ifferentia# favoring voice bet een drafts 5Q( P.0+ &ifferentia# favoring voice bet een drafts 5Q( P.(E &ifferentia# favoring voice bet een drafts 5Q(

This -ay Fee#s $ore /ersona# Than Reading 6and ritten Feedback Revising This -ay Is $ore &iffic!#t Than Reading 6and ritten "omments TH/E& The Tone Is Better This -ay Lers!s %vg. Thesis Score P.J) Reading Shorter 6and ritten Feedback Increase from &raft 5 to &raft ( Cnot inc#!ding perfect scoresD %vg. Thesis S!pport P.0E Score Increase from &raft 5 to &raft ( Cnot inc#!ding perfect scoresD %vg. Sentence P.EE "omp#e3ityG Lariety Score Increase from &raft 5 to &raft ( Cnot inc#!ding perfect scoresD

P.IE

P.I+

Ne man (0 The information in Tab#e J comes from 2!estions I asked in the s!rveys that re2!ired st!dents to ref#ect on their e3periences ith hand ritten comments. Beca!se the st!dents did not have e3perience ith both voice and typed comments* I asked them to compare hat both gro!ps had in common as prior kno #edgeOhand ritten comments on their ritingOto the ne ay they e3perienced in this st!dy. The first response

revea#s the strong persona# connection st!dents made to the voice comments. -hi#e the second 2!estion sho s ho more st!dents fo!nd the voice comments diffic!#t to !se for revision vers!s hand ritten comments* this n!mber sti## means that 5+G50 fo!nd voice comments easier to !se for revision than hand ritten comments. The st!dents in both voice and typed comment gro!ps preferred the tone thro!gh the comp!ter vers!s the tone in hand ritten comments. In Tab#e ,* I took the responses from the 2!estions that appeared on both sets of s!rveys and s!mmari?ed the res!#ts by gro!ping a## (, responses together. These 2!estions asked more genera# 2!estions abo!t revision as opposed to the specific 2!estions abo!t the typed or voice comments. Their responses o!#d prove !sef!# for f!rther st!dy as e## as prove he#pf!# for !nderstanding the o!tcome of this st!dy. Ta%le 2' eneral Feed%a(k for 3ot, roups ()2 Students! St!dents -ho /refer -hen Teachers Foc!s on a Fe Big Errors St!dents -ho /refer -hen Teachers $ark Everything St!dents -ho Be#ieve They -o!#d Improve If They 6ad 515 $eetings St!dents -ho Be#ieve They -o!#d Improve ith $ore /eer Editing St!dents -ho Be#ieve They -o!#d Improve If They -rote $ore @ften St!dents -ho Be#ieve They -o!#d Improve ith Bess -ritingG$ore Feedback 5I : 5J 5) (+ )

Ne man (E St!dents -ho Be#ieve They -o!#d Improve ith $ore "hances to Revise St!dents -ho Be#ieve They -o!#d Improve If They Received $ore /raise 5, ,

Tab#e , brings a fe key iss!es to #ight. In genera#* the st!dents be#ieve their riting o!#d improve if they rote more fre2!ent#y ith chances for revision. %#so* st!dents favor feedback ith foc!sed comments on #arger iss!es as opposed to comments on every error. The sing#e9digit res!#ts revea# ho st!dents do not ant to see every error marked* do not ant to rite #ess and do not ant more praise in order to rite better. $ore than ha#f of the st!dents a#so be#ieve riting conferences o!#d he#p them improve their riting overa##. I fo##o ed !p the s!rveys ith a fe persona# intervie s* and the st!dents ith the voice comments e3p#ained the process to me from their perspective1 they #istened to the comment once =!st to get a fee# for the p!re nove#ty of the e3perience* then fo##o ed !p ith a second and sometimes a third #isten to be s!re they !nderstood hat I as asking. @ne st!dent* a m!sician* e3p#ained that he en=oyed the voice comments beca!se he is an a!dio #earner and this catered more direct#y to his #earning sty#e. T o st!dents disc!ssed ith me the iss!e of tone in that hearing me make s!ggestions had the effect of a conference in a ay. @ne st!dent c#aimed she did not ant to #et me do n by not making the s!ggestions I offered. She f!rther e#aborated on this by saying that it fe#t more persona# ith voice comments over hand ritten ones* and this connection #ed her to take the comments more serio!s#y. The st!dents ith typed comments e3p#ained that they ished they had received papers ith comments #ike this in the past beca!se it e#iminated misreads d!e to poor teacher penmanship* and they said they en=oyed the

Ne man (J thoro!ghness of the comments ith the comp#ete sentences. Some st!dents asked for more than the three comments so they co!#d find o!t hat I tho!ght abo!t other parts of the essay. Not a## the responses ere favorab#e* ho ever. Negative aspects of the voice comments inc#!ded the ;creepiness< of hearing me in headphones and the #ack of direct persona# reference ith the voice comments. I graded them b#ind by !sing on#y their I& n!mbers* so I co!#d not persona#i?e each response. For the typed comments* not m!ch feedback came back on the negative side other than anting more comments than the three I provided.

Analysis Revisiting my initia# hypothesis* I predicted that I o!#d see better res!#ts from typed comments beca!se I type 2!ick#y and beca!se st!dents o!#d see my s!ggestions right in front of them itho!t having to #isten to my comments repeated#y to determine hat I anted to see on draft (. The feedback from my intervie s ith st!dents and from the s!rveys he#ps to e3p#ain the increase in scores from the voice comments. -hi#e on#y one st!dent made specific mention of being an a!dio #earner* it o!#d not s!rprise me to #earn that more than one st!dent in a c#ass may #earn best in this sty#e. %#so* st!dies sho 515 conferencing as the optima# ay to assess riting and to he#p riters deve#op. Tho!gh I did not conference ith these st!dents* the inc#!sion of voice comments may provide the same benefits. If the st!dents fe#t even some type of responsibi#ity to make changes beca!se I had asked them to do so* not scribb#ed

Ne man (, comments as s!ch* perhaps I benefited from the persona#* intangib#e aspects of conferencing. If I ere to !se the voice comments more reg!#ar#y* I o!#d take advantage of persona#i?ing the comments. Some st!dents I intervie ed e3p#ained ho they o!#d have preferred the voice comments more if it so!nded #ike I kne I as ta#king to them. &!e to the time invo#ved in 515 conferencing* speaking to st!dents thro!gh recorded comments by !sing their names* referencing their other essays* or adding other persona# to!ches may improve the riting even more. $y rapport ith the c#ass appears to p#ay a ro#e in the voice comments8 effectiveness a#so beca!se one st!dent fe#t that she did not ant to #et me do n hen she heard the voice comments. That iss!e has never come !p before ith hand ritten comments. "onsidering the deve#opments of the st!dents ho received typed comments* I o!#d s!rmise that they reacted as they typica##y o!#d to hand ritten comments* on#y they co!#d e#iminate the i##egibi#ity iss!es that p#ag!e the comments of many Eng#ish teachers* myse#f inc#!ded. %side from this difference* one partic!#ar divergence I noted bet een the t o o!#d be the changes made to parts of the essay on hich I did not comment* even tho!gh I asked the st!dents to revisit other parts of their essays to see additiona# e3amp#es of hat I s!ggested they change. The st!dents ho received typed comments did far #ess of this than those ho received voice comments. Tho!gh I tai#ored the comments to the individ!a# papers* a s!ggestion I o!#d make on an essay in either category might #ook Cfor typedD or so!nd Cfor voiceD #ike this1 Take a #ook at the ay yo! start this Mthe high#ightedN sentence. It8s a s!b=ect fo##o ed by a #inking verb* and it8s something I see thro!gho!t not on#y the

Ne man (I paragraph b!t the paper. Try to start ith some different c#a!ses #ike yo! did in the second paragraph MI o!#d cite an e3amp#eN. Try changing this one and then #ook for other changes to make thro!gho!t yo!r paper too. This s!ggestion asks the st!dent to #ook at other parts of the paper* and the st!dents ith typed comments typica##y changed on#y the high#ighted sentence rather than improved other parts of the essay. This even app#ied to the fe st!dents ho received perfect scores on draft 5. They did not kno their scores after the first draft* and those st!dents ith a score of 5I made changes =!st #ike st!dents ho scored m!ch #o er and sti## managed to improve their essays. The perfect essays act!a##y ca!sed me some diffic!#ty in kno ing e3act#y hat to comment on hi#e the c#ock ran hen I as timing my comments. I do not norma##y consider st!dent essays perfect4 ho ever* in timed riting for %/ prompts* a st!dent8s ork does not have to be perfect to receive the highest score. Some of these %/ st!dents received a E on the Eng#ish Bang!age and "omposition %/ e3am as =!niors* so I kno that st!dents in this c#ass are capab#e of riting hat the e3am graders consider top9scoring s!bmissions. -hen I began making the comments !nder timed conditions* I str!gg#ed ith a fe aspects of this method. Sometimes I so!ght frantica##y for areas to comment on itho!t restarting the timer or revisiting an essay #ater. -hen I typed comments* they f#o ed fair#y e##4 if I anted to change hat I had typed* I co!#d do so seam#ess#y by de#eting and typing again. -ith the voice comments* any error meant I had to de#ete the entire comment and start again. %#so* I rare#y assess st!dent riting b#ind#y. %ppendi3es E and F sho the comments I made for myse#f as I assessed each st!dent8s riting. The ita#ici?ed font marks the comments I made after assessing draft (. Sometimes I made

Ne man (: notes for myse#f as a teacher* and sometimes I commented on the process of assessing the riting. Norma##y* I have a st!dent8s body of ork to ref#ect on and see ho sGhe is progressing as a riter* often referencing that st!dent8s deve#opment from the previo!s paper. In doing this st!dy* I kne each st!dent on#y as an I& n!mber. This e#iminated m!ch of the persona#* specific references I might have inc#!ded other ise. 6o ever* this benefited me as e## beca!se I did not assess the paper ith the st!dent8s persona#ity attached to it. -ith (+ of the (, st!dents s!rveyed be#ieving that they o!#d improve in their riting if they rote more often* it appears that teachers are not assigning eno!gh riting. Booking f!rther into this idea thro!gh the other 2!estions on the s!rvey* 5, of the st!dents ant more opport!nities to revise* and 5I ant teachers to say more abo!t #ess. Tho!gh a c#ass of %/ seniors is not the typica# co##ection of st!dents in a given c#assroom* these are the st!dents ho have typica##y been s!ccessf!# and have the a areness to kno ho they might best s!cceed at the co##ege #eve# in terms of composition. To do more riting and revise more fre2!ent#y* not to mention the 5J of (, st!dents ho be#ieve their riting o!#d improve ith 515 conferences* a teacher o!#d never have time to tend to a## these needs. 6o ever* by !sing voice comments* a teacher co!#d say more abo!t the #arger concerns in a st!dent8s riting in #ess time. By making the comments persona#* the teacher co!#d maintain some of the armth and persona#ity st!dents appreciate in conferencing. %dditiona##y* the opport!nities to revise o!#d be #ess ta3ing hen the st!dents res!bmit the essays beca!se in $icrosoft -ord8s Insert "omment f!nction* the teacher can track the changes made bet een drafts 5 and (. %#so*

Ne man )+ a teacher can ask st!dents to !se the high#ight f!nction to dra attention to any changes sGhe made from draft 5 to draft (. In revie ing the res!#ts of this st!dy* I have spent a great dea# of time #ooking at hich sty#e prod!ced better res!#ts from the st!dents1 typed comments or voice comments* b!t the other o!tcome I intended to e3amine as ho !sing these t o o!#d affect the time a teacher spends grading compositions. -ith the voice comments* I averaged t o min!tes #ess than the si3 min!tes I spent on typed comments. Fo!r min!tes for a t o9page essay is not over he#ming. This averages o!t to #ess than t o ho!rs for a c#ass of (E st!dents. Tho!gh I did not meas!re the time it o!#d take me to hand rite comments* I fee# safe in ass!ming that to inc#!de the amo!nt of ords I !sed in both typed and voice responses by hand riting themOand making them #egib#eO o!#d take me m!ch #onger than the fo!r min!tes I averaged ith voice comments and the si3 I averaged ith typed comments. @nce I become more comfortab#e ith voice comments and the nove#ty ears off for the st!dents* this does become a viab#e option for assessing riting. In fact* I fe#t restricted ith on#y the three common categories I assessed in their riting4 the st!dents a#so asked that I add more comments than the three* b!t overa## did fee# that the three categories I did e3amine ere he#pf!#. Teachers may fee# restricted by !sing the Insert "omment f!nction by thinking that they have to remain at schoo# to do this. The voice comments take considerab#y more memory than do the typed comments. Each essay ith voice comments took 0$B to I$B of memory* hi#e the typed comments came in at (E'B to )+'B. I saved an entire c#ass of (, essays ith voice and typed comments to my 5GB f#ash drive ith no prob#ems. -hi#e I did do the commenting at schoo#* I did not have to do this. For voice

Ne man )5 comments* a 2!iet spot* a .SB port* and a microphone are a## that are needed. For typed comments* nothing e3tra is needed. Revie ing ho the process ent* the peer scores from Janice he#ped me for draft 5 in that e both assessed their riting from a common point. %ppendi3 G sho s the score comparison bet een Janice8s scores and mine for draft 5 and draft (* respective#y. These scores are broken do n in vario!s ays in Tab#es ( thro!gh E. The simi#arities bet een o!r scores enco!raged me heading into draft (. The prob#em arose for draft ( hen I had the advantage of seeing ho st!dents addressed my specific concerns4 Janice co!#d on#y g!ess hat my s!ggestions might have been hen she eva#!ated the second draft. Tho!gh she o!#d have a better fee# for ho I assessed draft ( had she seen or heard my comments* I appreciated having her vie draft ( ith no comments beca!se she co!#d see if indeed the paper as better overa##. % st!dent may have made changes from the first to the second draft* b!t did those changes improve the paper7 Janice sa the differences and sometimes she as !nimpressed ith the differences* giving the same scores as they received in a given category on draft 5. %t other times she sa not on#y editing changes* hich I rare#y s!ggested save b!t in the thesis* b!t act!a##y sa evidence of ma=or revisions in tho!ght. Tho!gh her sit!ation as not idea#* it he#ped me in that she served as an o!tside grader !naffected by hether or not st!dents had typed or voice comments on their essays* and !naffected by kno ing the identity behind each paper. She co!#d on#y comment on the differences bet een the drafts. %fter orking ith a peer grader for the first time* I o!#d certain#y try this again beca!se it ca!sed me to reeva#!ate my scoring of essays and confirmed for me that I am #ooking for the same patterns as another Eng#ish teacher.

Ne man )(

Conclusion In this st!dy I set o!t to determine t o things1 o!#d a teacher spend more time commenting on st!dent ork by inserting typed comments or recording voice comments* and hich method o!#d prod!ce more effective revisions for st!dents. The res!#ts c#ear#y sho that st!dents had more s!ccess ith the voice comments rather than the typed comments. Their initia# reaction to the voice comments as one of nove#ty* b!t after they got past this* they !sed these comments to improve their ork. @f co!rse* if a teacher reg!#ar#y commented in this ay* the ne ness of the e3perience o!#d s!bside and the st!dents o!#d =!st accept this as a common practice. $ost teachers do not have the opport!nity to have a peer grader assess their st!dents8 essays4 ho ever* most teachers do have the opport!nity to !ti#i?e their schoo#s8 techno#ogy to make more time for themse#ves. If st!dies have sho n that Eng#ish teachers spend an average of 5E ho!rs per eek o!tside of the schoo# day grading riting and p#anning* ith grading ass!ming the preponderance of the time* perhaps !sing the techno#ogy can c!t do n on this time o!tside of schoo# spent grading. The image of the Eng#ish teacher ith the red pen circ#ing comma sp#ices and riting ;cs< above the red circ#e does not have to persist. If this prob#em occ!rs one time and yet no paragraph !ses transitory phrases* a teacher8s time o!#d be better spent orking on that iss!e ith the st!dent rather than hoping sGhe kno s hat to do ith a ;cs< comment. Eng#ish teachers are fre2!ent#y p#ag!ed by i##egibi#ity d!e to the reg!#arity of riting on st!dents8 papers* and typing andG or recording comments e#iminates that prob#em.

Ne man )) Techno#ogy in the c#assroom can on#y improve over time. If teachers invest the ho!rs and schoo# districts enco!rage the training* the grading ork#oad co!#d be stream#ined. Eng#ish teachers i## never escape the b!rden of assessing st!dent riting* b!t they can take advantage of the avai#ab#e options to improve their efficiency and effectiveness. For a teacher to assess a c#ass set of three9page essays can go very 2!ick#y if a teacher on#y rites a 2!estion mark for a c!rio!s tho!ght* a check for a good idea* and ends the commentary ith a ;Good =obA< at the end. If the teacher never asks for revision* then ho m!ch i## the st!dent8s riting improve for the ne3t essay7 %#so* teachers can sacrifice their sanity to commenting on three9page essays for )+ min!tes each beca!se they be#ieve no error sho!#d go !np!nished. If indeed o!r =ob is to make st!dents better riters* then e m!st ask them to revise essays* not =!st edit the p!nct!ation. To eva#!ate s!bse2!ent drafts* ho ever* e m!st a#so have the time. .ti#i?ing the Insert "omment f!nction to add voice comments can he#p ith this. Tho!gh I did not compare the time spent grading by hand vers!s both voice and typed comments* this may be an area for f!rther st!dy. I #ooked to assess the techno#ogica# opport!nities avai#ab#e to teachers beca!se most have a fair !nderstanding of ho #ong grading by hand takes them* and they probab#y kno hat effect their

comments have on their st!dents as it c!rrent#y stands. I anted to meas!re the effect comments can have* not =!st the effect they currently have. Some teachers may be ary of orking ith the Insert "omment f!nction to grade riting beca!se of potentia# obstac#es1 #ack of comp!ter access at schoo#* #ack of mobi#ity in grading any here one chooses* or discomfort ith the techno#ogy. St!dents deprived of the appropriate techno#ogy o!#d be a diffic!#t iss!e to overcome* b!t the other t o iss!es can be

Ne man )0 hand#ed. Entire c#ass sets of essays can be saved onto a f#ash drive* and a teacher can then assess the riting ith nothing more than a #aptop for typed comments* and o!#d on#y need to bring a microphone for voice comments. The microphone I !sed cost R50.:E. %s for discomfort ith techno#ogy* teachers m!st contin!e to adapt to the changing c#assroom both techno#ogica##y and pedagogica##y as they have a# ays done. For additiona# research in this area* teachers may ant to eva#!ate ho e##

st!dents can !se the Insert "omment f!nction for peer eva#!ations. I as s!rprised to #earn that ha#f of my c#ass cited peer editing as an option that* if done more fre2!ent#y* o!#d he#p them to become better riters. This often depends on the ski## #eve# of st!dents in terms of ho effective peer comments are* b!t if the c#ass gets acc!stomed to riting for a #arger a!dience rather than =!st the teacher* perhaps both the riting and the comments abo!t riting i## improve. The !se of B#ackboardOa eb9based service for posting essays and assignments* among other thingsOco!#d prove !sef!# for this type of e3change. The Insert "omment f!nction a##o s an a!thor andGor grader to vie the changes made bet een drafts. I did not !se this f!nction for my st!dy b!t co!#d have. @ther aspects of this fie#d of st!dy that co!#d prove !sef!# may be ho persona#i?ing the voice comments o!#d benefit st!dents. The st!dents I intervie ed on hose paper I inserted voice comments c#aimed a persona# reaction to hearing my voice. Some of these st!dents c#aimed they fe#t it more imperative to consider my spoken comments over hat I o!#d norma##y rite on their essays. The ages of st!dents invo#ved in this type of assessment may prod!ce different res!#ts as e## in terms of ho they react to the voice of the teacher. The perspectives teachers co!#d take on assessment and revision for composition ere ine3ha!stib#e before comp!ters became common in ed!cation4 no *

Ne man )E these ne techno#ogica# possibi#ities can on#y provide teachers ith so many more opport!nities to make better riters of o!r st!dents.

-orks "ited %nderson* Rebecca S. and Br!ce -. Speck. ;S!ggestions for Responding to the &i#emma of Grading St!dents8 -riting.< Eng#ish Jo!rna# IJ.5 C5::,D1 (59(,. /roS!est Ed!cationa# Jo!rna#s. E#mh!rst "o##ege Bibrary* E#mh!rst* IB. 0 Nov. (++J T .pro2!est.!mi.comU.

Bardine* Bryan %.* $o##y Schmit? Bardine* and E#i?abeth F. &eegan. ;Beyond the Red /en1 "#arifying @!r Ro#e in the Response /rocess.< Eng#ish Jo!rna# :+.5 C(++5D1 :095+5. /roS!est Ed!cationa# Jo!rna#s. E#mh!rst "o##ege Bibrary* E#mh!rst* IB. 0 Nov. (++J T .pro2!est.!mi.comU.

"onnors* Robert J. and %ndrea B!nsford. ;Teachers8 Rhetorica# "omments on St!dent /apers.< "o##ege "omposition and "omm!nication 00.( C5::)D1 (++9 ((). JST@R. E#mh!rst "o##ege Bibrary* E#mh!rst* IB. ( &ec. (++J T .=stor.orgU.

"rone9B#evins* &eborah E. ;The %rt of Response.< Eng#ish Jo!rna# :5.J C(++(D1 :)9:I.

Ne man )J /roS!est Ed!cationa# Jo!rna#s. E#mh!rst "o##ege Bibrary* E#mh!rst* IB. 0 Nov. (++J T .pro2!est.!mi.comU.

&i3on* Fe#icia* Jerre## "assady* Tracy "ross* and &avid -i##iams. ;Effects of Techno#ogy on "ritica# Thinking and Essay -riting among Gifted %do#escents.< The Jo!rna# of Secondary Gifted Ed!cation 5J.0 C(++ED1 5I+95I:. /roS!est Ed!cationa# Jo!rna#s. E#mh!rst "o##ege Bibrary* E#mh!rst* IB. 0 Nov. (++J T .pro2!est.!mi.comU.

Graves* &ona#d J. Writing: Teachers and Children at Work. /ortsmo!th* N61 6einemann* 5:I). Griffin* ".-. ;Theory of Responding to St!dent -riting1 The State of the %rt.< "o##ege "omposition and "omm!nication )).) C5:I(D1 (:J9)+5. JST@R. E#mh!rst "o##ege Bibrary* E#mh!rst* IB. J Nov. (++J T .=stor.orgU.

'im* Boe#. ;@n#ine Techno#ogies for Teaching -riting1 St!dents React to Teacher Response in Loice and -ritten $oda#ities.< Research in the Teaching of Eng#ish )I.) C(++0D1 )+09)),. 'rest* $argie. ;Time on $y 6ands1 6and#ing the /aper Boad.< Eng#ish Jo!rna# ,J.I C5:I,D1 ),90(. JST@R. E#mh!rst "o##ege Bibrary* E#mh!rst* IB. J &ec. (++J T .=stor.orgU.

'r!c#i* Thomas E. ;$aking %ssessment $atter1 .sing the "omp!ter to "reate Interactive Feedback.< Eng#ish Jo!rna# :0.5 C(++0D1 0,9E(. /roS!est Ed!cationa# Jo!rna#s. E#mh!rst "o##ege Bibrary* E#mh!rst* IB. 0 Nov. (++J T .pro2!est.!mi.comU.

Ba Fontana* Lirginia. ;Thro a ay That "orrecting /en.< Eng#ish Jo!rna# IE.J C5::JD1

Ne man ), ,59,). /roS!est Ed!cationa# Jo!rna#s. E#mh!rst "o##ege Bibrary* E#mh!rst* IB. 0 Nov. (++J T .pro2!est.!mi.comU.

$orand* &avid %. ;Bang!age and /o er1 %n Empirica# %na#ysis of Bing!istic Strategies .sed in S!perior9S!bordinate "omm!nication.< Jo!rna# of @rgani?ationa# Behavior (5.) C(+++D1 ()E9(0I. JST@R. E#mh!rst "o##ege Bibrary* E#mh!rst* IB. J Nov. (++J T .=stor.orgU.

@ en* Trevor and Barbara $onroe. ;Bearning ith Techno#ogy.< Eng#ish Jo!rna# :(.5 C(++(D1 5+595+0. /roS!est Ed!cationa# Jo!rna#s. E#mh!rst "o##ege Bibrary* E#mh!rst* IB. 0 Nov. (++J T .pro2!est.!mi.comU.

/erry* &ebbie and $ike Smithmier. ;/eer Editing ith Techno#ogy1 .sing the "omp!ter to "reate Interactive Feedback.< Eng#ish Jo!rna# :0.J C(++ED1 ()9(0. /roS!est Ed!cationa# Jo!rna#s. E#mh!rst "o##ege Bibrary* E#mh!rst* IB. 0 Nov. (++J T .pro2!est.!mi.comU.

/erry* Tonya. ;The %rt of Grading /apers S!ick#y and Effective#y.< Eng#ish Jo!rna# :0.5 C(++0D1 55E955:. Sept. (++0. /roS!est Ed!cationa# Jo!rna#s. E#mh!rst "o##ege Bibrary* E#mh!rst* IB. 0 Nov. (++J T .pro2!est.!mi.comU.

Rabin* Syde##. ;Reading /apers1 % Teaching Response.< Eng#ish Jo!rna# ,:.E C5::+D1 0090I. JST@R. E#mh!rst "o##ege Bibrary* E#mh!rst* IB. ( &ec. (++J T .=stor.orgU.

R!bin* Bois. ;I J!st Think $aybe Ho! "o!#d><1 /eer "riti2!ing thro!gh @n#ine "onversation.< Teaching Eng#ish in the T o Hear "o##ege (:.0 C(++(D1 )I(9):(. /roS!est Ed!cationa# Jo!rna#s. E#mh!rst "o##ege Bibrary* E#mh!rst* IB. 0 Nov. (++J T .pro2!est.!mi.comU.

Ne man )I

%//EN&IV % /eer Grader Score Sheet ID# Draft ! Thesis 'tate(ent Thesis 'upport Co(ple)ity* +ariety Total 'core, Co((ents, Advanced " # $ Proficient % & asic !

ID# Draft ! Thesis 'tate(ent Thesis 'upport Co(ple)ity* +ariety Total 'core, Co((ents,

Advanced " # $

Proficient % &

asic !

ID# Draft !

Advanced " # $

Proficient % &

asic !

Ne man ):
Thesis 'tate(ent Thesis 'upport Co(ple)ity* +ariety Total 'core, Co((ents,

ID# Draft ! Thesis 'tate(ent Thesis 'upport Co(ple)ity* +ariety Total 'core, Co((ents,

Advanced " # $

Proficient % &

asic !

%//EN&IV B &rafts @ne and T o Eva#!ation Grid TH/E& "@$$ENTS I&W Score "omments1 C59JD Thesis Statement1 Thesis S!pport1 "omp#e3ityG Lariety1 Tota# Time1 Tota# Score1

TH/E& "@$$ENTS I&W Score "omments1 C59JD Thesis Statement1 Thesis S!pport1 "omp#e3ityG Lariety1 Tota# Time1 Tota# Score1

TH/E& "@$$ENTS I&W Score "omments1

Ne man 0+ C59JD Thesis Statement1 Thesis S!pport1 "omp#e3ityG Lariety1 Tota# Time1 Tota# Score1

TH/E& "@$$ENTS I&W Score "omments1 C59JD Thesis Statement1 Thesis S!pport1 "omp#e3ityG Lariety1 Tota# Time1 Tota# Score1
%//EN&IV " St!dent Eva#!ation of +oice "omments Please answer the -uestions below. If you need to clarify a response/ please do so ne)t to C0MM12T or use the bac3 of the paper if necessary. 5. -rite a ;T< for Tr!e or an ;F< for Fa#se ne3t to each statement1 a. b. c. XXXXX6earing the teacher8s voice makes the comments fee# more persona#. "@$$ENT1 XXXXX$ere#y hearing the s!ggestions is diffic!#t beca!se I prefer to see the comments. "@$$ENT1 XXXXXI get a better fee# for the tone of the teacher8s comments by hearing them instead of by reading them. "@$$ENT1

(.

/#ease circ#e the ans er that bests agrees ith yo!r opinion1 -hen I receive comments back on an essay I kno I -@N8T 6%LE the opport!nity to revise* I !s!a##y a. &on8t read the comments. b. Skim thro!gh the comments. c. I read a## the comments b!t don8t rea##y remember them for ne3t time. d. I consider the s!ggestions for my ne3t essay. "@$$ENT1 /#ease circ#e the ans er that best agrees ith yo!r opinion1 -hen I receive comments back on an essay I kno I -IBB have the opport!nity to revise* I !s!a##y a. &on8t kno here to begin b!t try to fig!re it o!t on my o n. b. Need to ta#k ith the teacher face9to9face before riting. c. Go over my paper ith someone e#se to he#p me fig!re it o!t. d. 'no hat I need to do and get it done. "@$$ENT1

).

Ne man 05

0.

/#ease circ#e the ans er that best agrees ith yo!r opinion1 a. I prefer to have a teacher mark every error so I kno hat I messed !p on. b. I prefer a teacher to foc!s on a fe big iss!es instead of every mistake. c. I prefer a teacher to rite a fe genera# comments and a grade. "@$$ENT1 /#ease circ#e a## the ans ers yo! agree ith1 I o!#d be a better riter if a. I rote more fre2!ent#y. b. I rote #ess fre2!ent#y b!t received more feedback. c. I had a chance to revise more fre2!ent#y. d. I sa more praise on my essays so I kno hat I8m doing e##. e. I co!#d ta#k ith the teacher one9to9one before s!bmitting a fina# copy. f. -e had more peer editing opport!nities. "@$$ENT1 @n a sca#e of 5 to 5+* ith 5 being ;never do this again*< E being ;!se it as often as yo! !se ritten comments< and 5+ being ;!se this on a## my f!t!re essays*< rite a rank for voice comments on the #ine1XXXXX "@$$ENT1 %//EN&IV & St!dent Eva#!ation of Typed "omments

E.

J.

Please answer the -uestions below. If you need to clarify a response/ please do so ne)t to C0MM12T or use the bac3 of the paper if necessary. 5. -rite a ;T< for Tr!e or an ;F< for Fa#se ne3t to each statement1 a. b. c. XXXXXReading typed comments fee#s more persona# than hand ritten ones. "@$$ENT1 XXXXXRevising my essay as more diffic!#t ith the comp!ter than ith a hard copy. "@$$ENT1 XXXXXI get a better fee# for the tone of the teacher8s comments by reading them in comp#ete sentences rather than standard* hand ritten margin notes. "@$$ENT1

(.

/#ease circ#e the ans er that bests agrees ith yo!r opinion1 -hen I receive comments back on an essay I kno I -@N8T 6%LE the opport!nity to revise* I !s!a##y a. &on8t read the comments. b. Skim thro!gh the comments. c. I read a## the comments b!t don8t rea##y remember them for ne3t time. d. I consider the s!ggestions for my ne3t essay. "@$$ENT1 /#ease circ#e the ans er that best agrees ith yo!r opinion1 -hen I receive comments back on an essay I kno I -IBB have the opport!nity to revise* I !s!a##y a. &on8t kno here to begin b!t try to fig!re it o!t on my o n. b. Need to ta#k ith the teacher face9to9face before riting. c. Go over my paper ith someone e#se to he#p me fig!re it o!t. d. 'no hat I need to do and get it done. "@$$ENT1

).

Ne man 0(

0.

/#ease circ#e the ans er that best agrees ith yo!r opinion1 a. I prefer to have a teacher mark every error so I kno hat I messed !p on. b. I prefer a teacher to foc!s on a fe big iss!es instead of every mistake. c. I prefer a teacher to rite a fe genera# comments and a grade. "@$$ENT1 /#ease circ#e a## the ans ers yo! agree ith1 I o!#d be a better riter if a. I rote more fre2!ent#y. b. I rote #ess fre2!ent#y b!t received more feedback. c. I had a chance to revise more fre2!ent#y. d. I sa more praise on my essays so I kno hat I8m doing e##. e. I co!#d ta#k ith the teacher one9to9one before s!bmitting a fina# copy. f. -e had more peer editing opport!nities. "@$$ENT1 @n a sca#e of 5 to 5+* ith 5 being ;never do this again*< E being ;!se it as often as yo! !se ritten comments< and 5+ being ;!se this on a## my f!t!re essays*< rite a rank for typed comments on the #ine1XXXXX "@$$ENT1

E.

J.

%//EN&IV E &rafts @ne and T o Eva#!ation Grid for Typed "omments TH/E& "@$$ENTS I&W (,+++E Score C59JD Thesis Statement1 0 Thesis S!pport1 ) Sentence 0 "omp#e3ity1 Tota# Time1 J1)5 Tota# Score1 55 "omments1 0 0 0 5( "o!#d have #ooked at sentence combining or sentence variety* b!t chose the variety as the bigger prob#em. The theme is vag!e#y capt!red* b!t the prompt isn8t direct#y ans ered ith a death in partic!#ar. o changes of significance are !ade des"ite reco!!endations# They$re !ore re"hrasing than i!"roving the essay#

TH/E& "@$$ENTS I&W 0,+)5I Score C59JD Thesis Statement1 E Thesis S!pport1 E Sentence E "omp#e3ity1 Tota# Time1 J105 Tota# Score1 5E TH/E& "@$$ENTS

"omments1 J E E 5J The riter gets ca!ght !p ith Lonneg!t8s #ife and forgets to e3p#ain &resden in more detai#. Sentences are genera##y comp#e3 b!t fa## into a pattern of 59( ord #ead9ins. Thesis %rings in Tralfa!adorians to !ake it !ore focused& other suggestions are largely ignored#

Ne man 0)
I&W 0,+E:+ Thesis Statement1 Thesis S!pport1 Sentence "omp#e3ity1 Tota# Time1 Tota# Score1 Score C59JD E 0 E E1): 50 "omments1 J E J 5, The thesis sets !p for the atmosphere* b!t the essay gets into other aspects a ay from that. The thesis doesn8t entire match !p ith hat8s disc!ssed in the essay. 6o ever* it is a good thesis. The thesis is fi'ed( the suggestions for co!"le'ity are evident throughout the "aragra"h( and the su""ort is hel"ed( %ut not entirely fi'ed# )t strays so!e#

TH/E& "@$$ENTS I&W 0,+++0 Score C59JD Thesis Statement1 0 Thesis S!pport1 0 Sentence ) "omp#e3ity1 Tota# Time1 I1(+ Tota# Score1 55

"omments1 E 0 ) 5( % #ong essay that repeats itse#f fre2!ent#y. The s!pport contradicts itse#f at times* and the variety #acks d!e to the #inking verb preva#ence in near#y every sentence. Thesis i!"roved and !ore s"ecific# The linking ver%s still e'ist everywhere& so!e changes( %ut too few# *ost of the su""ort is the sa!e as well# %//EN&IV E contin!ed

TH/E& "@$$ENTS I&W 0,+)() Score C59JD Thesis Statement1 J Thesis S!pport1 J Sentence J "omp#e3ity1 Tota# Time1 E1EE Tota# Score1 5I

"omments1 J J J 5I The essay is ski##f!##y done* ritten ith comp#e3ity and sty#e. -hi#e the verb tense shifts fre2!ent#y* that p#ays no ro#e in the scoring of the essay here. Word choice suggestion in thesis turns out great# +es"ite the "erfect score ) gave( the suggestions ) !ade were acted u"on in other "arts of the essay( like sentence co!%ining( to !ake it even %etter#

TH/E& "@$$ENTS I&W 0,+E:( Score C59JD Thesis Statement1 ( Thesis S!pport1 0 Sentence 0 "omp#e3ity1 Tota# Time1 J1++ Tota# Score1 5+

"omments1 ( 0 E 55 The idea of one man ki##ing another in the thesis doesn8t rea##y come !p in the essay. The sentences are genera##y diverse* b!t the #ack of commas makes it diffic!#t to detect. Thesis i!"roved( %ut not !uch %etter# ,e"hrased !ost of it# Changed other e'a!"les of clauses( not -ust the highlighted one#

TH/E& "@$$ENTS

Ne man 00
I&W 0,+++I Thesis Statement1 Thesis S!pport1 Sentence "omp#e3ity1 Tota# Time1 Tota# Score1 Score C59JD J J J E15I 5I "omments1 J J J 5I The thesis is e##9deve#oped* the s!pport top9notch* and the sentence comp#e3ity e##9e3ec!ted. %t times too tricky and ind!#gent* b!t overa## a s!ccessf!# essay. .erfect thesis score for a ti!ed "iece( %ut the i!"rove!ents focus the thesis !ore# +ash revisions and eli!ination of e'traneous infor!ation !ake this the %est essay overall#

TH/E& "@$$ENTS I&W 0,+)): Score C59JD Thesis Statement1 ) Thesis S!pport1 ( Sentence 0 "omp#e3ity1 Tota# Time1 E1++ Tota# Score1 :

"omments1 ) ( 0 : %//EN&IV E contin!ed The essay doesn8t rea##y fo##o the thesis the a!thor sets forth. It8s not rea##y abo!t Ro#and -eary at a##. There is ta#k abo!t a theme #ater on* b!t it8s not cohesive. The changes are !ini!al and don$t really address all !y %ig "ro%le!s with the essay#

TH/E& "@$$ENTS I&W 0,+E:J Score C59JD Thesis Statement1 ( Thesis S!pport1 ( Sentence ) "omp#e3ity1 Tota# Time1 E150 Tota# Score1 , TH/E& "@$$ENTS I&W 0,++5) Score C59JD Thesis Statement1 0 Thesis S!pport1 0 Sentence 0 "omp#e3ity1 Tota# Time1 J1(0 Tota# Score1 5(

"omments1 0 0 E 5) The paper #acked foc!s and the thesis set !p more of a comparison bet een La#encia8s death and ar. The entire p!rpose of the prompt got #ost ith this. Great i!"rove!ents# The co!!as( in "articular( !ake the "a"er easier to read# The thesis is !ore focused as is the su""ort#

"omments1 E 0 0 5) The thesis is decent* b!t 59 &erby isn8t a co!nterpart4 (9 the a!thor goes to some strange p#aces ith &erby8s character that maybe co!#d8ve been s!pported in the thesis better. Sp#icesGr!n9ons a prob#em. The thesis is !ore focused( %ut the other "ro%le!s still e'ist: Co!!a s"lices in "articular# / little with su""ort changed#

TH/E& "@$$ENTS I&W 0,+)J( Score

"omments1

Ne man 0E
C59JD ) ( ) 01(I I

Thesis Statement1 Thesis S!pport1 Sentence "omp#e3ity1 Tota# Time1 Tota# Score1

) ( ) I

This essay ent very 2!ick#y* and I8m g!essing it8s beca!se the essay asn8t entire#y acc!rate* had p#ot s!mmary* and asn8t ritten at a high #eve#. It as straightfor ard and I didn8t str!gg#e ith hat to rite. The changes were largely ignored# The few that were !ade did little to !ake the "a"er %etter#

TH/E& "@$$ENTS I&W 0,+J+: Score C59JD Thesis Statement1 ) Thesis S!pport1 0 Sentence 0 "omp#e3ity1 Tota# Time1 J1+5 Tota# Score1 55

"omments1 0 0 E 5) %nother e3amp#e of the thesis not te##ing hat the importance is* =!st sho ing it i## be an important death. %#so* the paper repeats m!ch of the same information. 0e"t e'act sa!e thesis( %ut followed with a sentence that does what ) asked# Su""ort still not great( %ut does even !ore with !y sentence co!%ining suggestion than ) intended# %//EN&IV E contin!ed

TH/E& "@$$ENTS I&W 0,++5E Score C59JD Thesis Statement1 ) Thesis S!pport1 0 Sentence E "omp#e3ity1 Tota# Time1 ,10+ Tota# Score1 5(

"omments1 ) E J 50 The sentences* hi#e fre2!ent#y comp#e3* fa## apart ith minor grammar errors. The thesis never act!a##y picks a specific death. The rhetoric is f!n* b!t the #ogic =!st doesn8t foc!s on the prompt. Thesis still doesn$t "ick 1a death2& The su""ort does i!"rove in that he "icks one "articular death and adds su""ort# Co!"le'ity i!"roved %y eli!inating !ore introductory co!!as#

Ne man 0J

%//EN&IV F &rafts @ne and T o Eva#!ation Grid for +oice "omments L@I"E "@$$ENTS I&W 0,+)JE Score C59JD Thesis Statement1 J Thesis S!pport1 E Sentence J "omp#e3ity1 Tota# Time1 E1)0 Tota# Score1 5, L@I"E "@$$ENTS I&W 0,+J(( Score C59JD Thesis Statement1 ( Thesis S!pport1 ) Sentence ( "omp#e3ity1 Tota# Time1 015J Tota# Score1 , Score J J J 5I "omments1 %s the first essay* I on#y rerecorded one time. I have to get my tho!ghts together and see the ho#e essay before beginning to go thro!gh the comments. This essay as e3ce##ent and re2!ired #itt#e s!pport from me. *akes !y e'act thesis suggestions& changes focus of 3st %ody "aragra"h to fit co!!ents& fi'ed co!"le'ity too#

Score ) 0 0 55

"omments1 The paper is te3t!a##y inacc!rate* and the statements ere fre2!ent#y misspe##ed or p!nct!ated incorrect#y. I tried to foc!s on getting it a## to have a sense of synthesis rather than being so dis=ointed. Thesis so!ewhat changed( %ut not really cohesive yet# Evidence of !aking changes to other "arts of the essay fro! suggestions#

L@I"E "@$$ENTS I&W 0,++(+ Score

Score

"omments1

Ne man 0,
C59JD J J J 015I 5I

Thesis Statement1 Thesis S!pport1 Sentence "omp#e3ity1 Tota# Time1 Tota# Score1

J J J 5I

I #ooked at my atch hi#e trying to find ays to ork on comp#e3ity at )15E and rea##y str!gg#ed to find e3amp#es. The paper is rea##y e## done and needed #itt#e he#p in these areas. /aragraph !nity as the on#y area and that8s disc!ssed e#se here. Thesis changes !ade& The restructuring and co!"le'ity turned out very well# 4sed all co!!ents#

L@I"E "@$$ENTS I&W 0,+):+ Score C59JD Thesis Statement1 E Thesis S!pport1 E Sentence E "omp#e3ity1 Tota# Time1 )1)5 Tota# Score1 5E

Score E E E 5E

"omments1 The s!ggestion to add dashes may not fit e3act#y ith sentence comp#e3ity as m!ch as ith sentence cohesion* so this may need to be revisited in the fina# draft. Thesis is stronger content-wise %ut also oddly "unctuated& Changes are !ade %y eli!inating so!e of the e'tra content( %ut not at the 5uality of a 162 yet#

%//EN&IV F contin!ed
L@I"E "@$$ENTS I&W 0,+J)I Score C59JD Thesis Statement1 0 Thesis S!pport1 0 Sentence 0 "omp#e3ity1 Tota# Time1 015+ Tota# Score1 5( L@I"E "@$$ENTS I&W 0,++(J Score C59JD Thesis Statement1 ) Thesis S!pport1 ( Sentence ) "omp#e3ity1 Tota# Time1 01+( Tota# Score1 I Score 0 0 0 5( "omments1 The paragraphs co!#d8ve b#ended together near the end beca!se they kept saying the same thing. I foc!sed on repetition in initia# phrases for sentences. The thesis changes are different( not %etter& There are strong atte!"ts at fi'ing the co!"le'ity issue( %ut the changes are awkwardly "hrased#

Score ) 0 0 55

"omments1 Needed to #ook at the first sentence* and a#tho!gh they aren8t a## that #ong* there are other sentences that need to be reeva#!ated #ike this one. *ade changes in thesis %ut still a little convoluted& !ade changes in intro like ) asked& changes occur throughout "a"er fro! !y suggestions( and co!"le'ity is i!"roved in a nu!%er of areas#

L@I"E "@$$ENTS I&W 0,+0+J Score C59JD Thesis Statement1 0

Score E

"omments1 Sentences orked e## genera##y speaking. %!thor =!st

Ne man 0I
Thesis S!pport1 Sentence "omp#e3ity1 Tota# Time1 Tota# Score1 0 E )10J 5) E J 5J had some basic red!ndancy iss!es once or t ice to ork on. The word change in thesis is effective# The changes !ade in the thesis su""ort a%out Weary drea!ing of valor( as well as the co!"le'ity changes( show the co!!ents hel"ed the author#

L@I"E "@$$ENTS I&W 0,+IE, Score C59JD Thesis Statement1 ) Thesis S!pport1 ) Sentence E "omp#e3ity1 Tota# Time1 01+, Tota# Score1 55

Score 0 0 J 50

"omments1 &id have to rerecord one time for the thesis. The thesis is definitely re"hrased and so!ewhat i!"roved( %ut still wordy# Changes are !ade in the essay in various "arts( and the lack of focus and the contradictions are li!ited as well#

%//EN&IV F contin!ed
L@I"E "@$$ENTS I&W 0,++E) Score C59JD Thesis Statement1 E Thesis S!pport1 E Sentence J "omp#e3ity1 Tota# Time1 01)) Tota# Score1 5J L@I"E "@$$ENTS I&W 0,+05E Score C59JD Thesis Statement1 ( Thesis S!pport1 0 Sentence ) "omp#e3ity1 Tota# Time1 )1(5 Tota# Score1 : L@I"E "@$$ENTS I&W 0,+((+ Score C59JD Thesis Statement1 ) Score E E J 5J "omments1 Searching for something to say ith comp#e3ity and rerecording took more time here. 7es( the i!"rove!ent is !ade( %ut the thesis still lacks a little& other changes !ade are not very significant#

Score 0 0 0 5(

"omments1 It8s easier hen I have more of the essay in front of me to read hen I8m commenting. The "articular death and the s"ecific the!e are %oth included# Thesis isn$t "hrased wonderfully( %ut it$s co!"etent# So!e e'traneous infor!ation is a little !ore focused %ut not well-"hrased# Co!"le'ity fi'ed in areas ) asked for#

Score 0

"omments1 6ad to rerecord once here. *ade %ig changes to the

Ne man 0:
Thesis S!pport1 Sentence "omp#e3ity1 Tota# Time1 Tota# Score1 ) ) 01+5 : E E 50 thesis& it$s i!"roved %ut still a %it cu!%erso!e# The changes are !ade very well here and inserted throughout the "a"er( not -ust in the "art where ) asked for changes#

L@I"E "@$$ENTS I&W 0,+0(5 Score C59JD Thesis Statement1 E Thesis S!pport1 E Sentence E "omp#e3ity1 Tota# Time1 (1EJ Tota# Score1 5E

Score E E E 5E

"omments1 The foc!s points ere pretty straightfor ard here* so the ans ers came 2!ick#y. The thesis is ad-usted( %ut the thesis is so si!"le and o%vious# The other changes are !ini!al and don$t fully address !y concerns: for e'a!"le( rewriting the to"ic sentences#

%//EN&IV F contin!ed
L@I"E "@$$ENTS I&W 0,+)5+ Score C59JD Thesis Statement1 ( Thesis S!pport1 ) Sentence E "omp#e3ity1 Tota# Time1 )1E, Tota# Score1 5+ Score J E E 5J "omments1 6ad tro!b#e searching for sentence comp#e3ity again. @vera## there as good variety. ) don$t think it$s overreacting to go fro! 2-6 on thesis %ecause the changes are e'actly right# *aintains focus on 8alencia( eli!inated e'tra !aterial( and so!e linking ver%s are re"laced %ut !ore effort could ha""en here#

L@I"E "@$$ENTS I&W 0,+0(J Score C59JD Thesis Statement1 J Thesis S!pport1 0 Sentence J "omp#e3ity1 Tota# Time1 )1+: Tota# Score1 5J

Score J E J 5,

"omments1 @vera##* no g#aring iss!es ith the sentences* =!st the fact that t o themes ere being !ti#i?ed together. *inor change %ut good one for thesis& added a lot to the conclusion to focus the "a"er on the the!e that is addressed in the thesis#

Ne man E+

%//EN&IV G Score Sheet for &raft @ne and &raft T o DRA4T 021 DRA4T T50 T6P1D* M6 P11R M6 P11R +0IC1 'C0R1 'C0R1 'C0R1 'C0R1 T 55 : 5( : T 5E 50 5J 5E T 50 5E 5, 5J T 55 5+ 5( 5+ T 5I 5I 5I 5I T 5+ : 55 5+ T 5I 5I 5I 5I T : , : , T , , 5) I T 5( 55 5) 5+ T I , I , T 55 5( 5) 5) T 5( 5) 50 5) L 5, 5I 5I 5I L , I 55 : L 5I 5J 5I 5I L 5E 5) 5E 5) L 5( 55 5( 5(

ID# (,+++E 0,+)5I 0,+E:+ 0,+++0 0,+)() 0,+E:( 0,+++I 0,+)): 0,+E:J 0,++5) 0,+)J( 0,+J+: 0,++5E 0,+)JE 0,+J(( 0,++(+ 0,+):+ 0,+J)I

Ne man E5 0,++(J 0,+0+J 0,+IE, 0,++E) 0,+05E 0,+((+ 0,+0(5 0,+)5+ 0,+0(J L L L L L L L L L I 5) 55 5J : : 5E 5+ 5J , 55 55 5E , 5+ 5( 5+ 5, 55 5J 50 5J 5( 50 5E 5J 5, I 55 5) 5E , 55 5( 5( 5I