Integrating Technology to Assist English 101

Students with Their Essays

Introduction

Van Horn (2010) writes, “…, peer review can provide students with critical
feedback and an authentic collaborative writing process before their final drafts are
completed.” Moreover, students participating in peer review workshops deepen their
conceptual understanding, improve their writing skills, and familiarize themselves with
good writing habits (Cathey, 2007). In an attempt to improve student writing, the
instructor asked students to participate in peer review feedback workshops using an
online collaborative processing application known as Google Docs. Students posted their
essays for classmates to view, and peers posted comments on classmates’ essays. Online
collaborative word processing applications are easy to use.

Summary Data

As a pre-assessment of the students’ writing capabilities, each student submitted a

diagnostic essay on a topic of choice. The diagnostic essay, worth 100 points, did not
receive peer review feedback and were scored by the teacher using a checklist based on
five criteria – Introduction, 3 Support Paragraphs, Point of View, Conclusion, and MLA
Format. Each category carries a weight of 20 points. Scores from the diagnostic essay are
presented in Table 1.

Table 1: Diagnostic Essay Scores

Student Scores Student Scores
1 60 10 Absent
2 60 11 30
3 0 12 30
4 0 13 60
5 60 14 0
6 60 15 60
7 60 16 0
8 30 17 60
9 60

The class average for the diagnostic essay is 39.375. None of the students used a
consistent point of view (first or third person point of view), and they did not use the
MLA format. So, each paper was deducted 40 points. In cases where students scored only
30 points, their paragraphs lacked organization and /or style. The diagnostic essay score
is not a recorded grade. Each essay was returned with teacher comments.
 With the descriptive essays, 13 students participated in the optional peer review
workshop, and 4 students chose not to participate. Results detailing how the two groups
performed are presented in Table 2. Based on the results of the students who chose to
engage in the peer review activity, they clearly demonstrated that they are capable of
composing of essays, developing content, employing specific organizational patterns, and
selecting language appropriate for a particular audience and purpose. Each student,
regardless of grade, was invited to reflect in the form of a conference with the instructor.
Each student was encouraged to review the grade earned for the descriptive essay and to
make any adjustments to ensure his or her success in English 101.

Table 2: Descriptive Essay – Results of Peer Review

Student Score Peer Student Score Peer
Review Review
1 86 Y 4 0 N

2 84 Y 10 71 N

3 93 Y 12 64 N

5 86 Y 16 70 N

6 93 Y

7 90 Y

8 89 Y

9 85 Y

11 90 Y

13 80 Y

14 91 Y

15 93 Y

17 100 Y

Average 89.23 Average 51.25

Score Score
 Use of peer review during the writing of the compare and contrast essays was not
used as widely as it had been with the descriptive essays. Two students, who did not
provide or receive peer review, still managed to earn 80% or better. The one student, who
provided and received peer review, managed to earn a grade of 65 because she or he
chose not to consider the comments provided. The findings are revealed in Table 3. As
with the descriptive essay, students were invited to conference with the instructor and
were asked to consider making adjustments to ensure the desired grades. Overall, those
who effectively used the peer feedback scored considerably better than their peers.

Table 3: Compare and Contrast Essay – Results of Peer Review

Student Score Peer Student Score Peer
Review Review
5 81 Y 1 73 N

11 90 Y 2 73 N

12 65 Y 3 0 N

13 83 Y 4 0 N

14 81 Y 6 73 N

17 100 Y 7 70 N

8 87 N

9 75 N

10 0 N

15 90 N

16 0 N

Average 83.33 Average 49.18

Score Score
 After a class discussion about the positive and negative aspects of peer review,
students saw that they were not earning the scores desired. At the time of the grading of
the cause and effect essays (Table 4), three students withdrew. At some point, a counselor
from the College will follow up with each student to discuss the reason(s) for
withdrawing from English 101. Again, those who chose to use peer feedback outscored
those who did not.

Table 4: Cause and Effect Essay – Results of Peer Review

Student Score Peer Student Score Peer
Review Review
5 75 Y 1 63 N

6 100 Y 2 63 N

12 80 Y 3 n/a
Withdrew
13 92 Y 4 n/a
Withdrew
14 85 Y 7 63 N

16 80 Y 8 81 N

17 100 Y 9 63 N

10 n/a
Withdrew
11 81 N

15 75 N

Average 87.43 Average 69.86

Score Score
 Data for the argumentation essay (Table 5) is incomplete because six students did
not submit their argumentation essays before the end of this project. However, based on
the information available, peer review helped seven of eight students earn an A or B on
the final essay. The remaining student did not make any adjustments based on the peer
review notes. However, he or she did provide peer review.

Table 5: Argumentation Essay – Results of Peer Review

Student Score Peer Student Score Peer
Review Review
1 90 Y 2 0 N

5 80 Y 3 n/a
Withdrew
6 90 Y 4 n/a
Withdrew
7 70 Y 8 0 N

12 90 Y 9 0 N

14 100 Y 10 n/a
Withdrew
15 90 Y 11 0 N

17 90 Y 13 0 N

16 0 N

Average 87.5 Average 0

Score Score

Data Interpretation

The English Department has determined that by the end of the course, students
will meet the following departmental objectives:

a. use appropriate stylistic options for a specific subject, audience, and purpose.
b. organize ideas effectively by selecting and limiting a topic.
c. develop and supporting a thesis with relevant material.
d. employ a logical plan of development.
e. write essays that are substantially free of errors (grammar, usage, and mechanics).
 Furthermore, the instructor has created objectives and assessment measurements
(Table 7) designed to help each student better meet the department objectives.

Table 7: Outcome, Objectives, and Assessments

Outcome Objective Measure(s)
Composing a variety of essays by
developing content, employing
specific organizational patterns,
and selecting language
appropriate for a particular
audience and purpose.
Assessment
Measurements
Students will be able to apply graphic Graphic Organizers
organizers based on an organizational
pattern (descriptive, compare and
contrast, cause and effect, and
argumentative) to capture and
organize ideas for their essays and to
develop working theses to further
organize generated ideas.

Students will be able to relate notes

written on graphic organizers to
identify sources of relevant
information for specific audiences
and purposes.

Students will be able to plan rough

drafts using a specific graphic
organizer.

Students will be able to provide peer Peer Review

review feedback using Google Docs.

Students will be able to evaluate peer

review and use feedback to edit and
revise their rough drafts.

Students will be able to apply a rubric Rubric

to help them write and publish essays
for specific audiences with intended
purpose that develop a thesis with
relevant material and that follow a
logical pattern of development.

Students will be able to use self- Self-Reflection

reflections to recall, explain, and
defend their writing experiences.

(The self-reflections will be discussed

with the instructor using Skype.)
 In Table 8, the instructor illustrates how each student scored on the four essays
and if the students met the departmental objectives. In order to meet the departmental
objectives, students must earn at least a score of 70. After careful review of the data, 47%
of the students met the departmental goals. The data will be considered when preparing
for Fall 2011.

Table 8: Student Performances

Student Desc. C&C C& E Arg. Average Met
Essay Essay Essay Essay Objectives
1 86 73 63 90 78 Y

2 84 73 63 0 55 N

3 93 0 n/a n/a n/a N

4 0 0 n/a n/a n/a N

5 86 81 75 80 80.5 Y

6 93 73 100 90 89 Y

7 90 70 63 70 73.25 Y

8 89 87 81 0 64.25 N

9 85 75 63 0 55.75 N

10 71 0 n/a n/a n/a N

11 90 90 81 0 65.25 N

12 64 65 80 90 74.75 Y

13 80 83 92 0 63.75 N

14 91 81 85 100 89.25 Y

15 93 90 75 90 87 Y

16 70 0 80 0 37.5 N

17 100 100 100 90 97.5 Y

Desc. = Descriptive, C & C = Compare and Contrast, C & E = Cause and Effect, and Arg. = Argumentation
Recommendations: Part 1

After reviewing Table 7 (Outcome, Objectives, and Assessments) and the current
timeline (Table 9), it has been determined that students may have performed better had
peer review been a mandatory requirement.

Table 9: Current (Spring 2011) Timeline

Dates Foci
February 03 – Collaborating and Peer Editing with Google Docs
February 05
February 10 – Recalling a Person, Place, or Thing
February 19
February 24 – Comparing and Contrasting
March 05
March 10 – Explaining Causes and Effects
March 19
March 24 – Taking a Stand
April 02

The proposed timeline for Fall 2011 (Table 10) incorporates the use of peer
review with the teaching of each essay. Students will receive two sessions on how to
provide peer review using Google Docs or some other online word processing
application. Throughout the semester, the instructor will apprise students of their writing
progress and any needed adjustments (Writing Center or tutoring).

Table 10: Proposed 2011 Timeline

Weeks Foci
1 Pre-Assessment (Writing Skills)
2–3 Peer Review with Google Docs
4 Library Orientation
5 Definition Essay and Peer Review with Google Docs
6 Definition Essay
7 Compare and Contrast Essay and Peer Review with
Google Docs
8 Compare and Contrast Essay
9 Cause and Effect Essay and Peer Review with Google
Docs
10 Cause and Effect Essay
11 Argumentation Essay and Peer Review with Google Docs
12 Argumentation Essay
13 Post-Assessment (Writing Skills)
14 Final Exam
15 Course Grade

Recommendations: Part 2
 The English Department addresses the issue of improving student writing on a
yearly basis. In many meetings, instructors voice frustrations about poor quality writing
and plagiarism. There are suggestions for conducting peer review workshops located on
the English Department’s Resource page; however, each instructor has the option to use
peer review workshops. Convincing the Chair of the English Department and the English
101 Coordinator to consider this innovation can be accomplished by using the problem-
solving process.

Problem-Solving Process

a. Identify the Problem – Some students are not using the writing assistance services
provided by the Writing Center when writing papers for English classes. As a
result of not doing so, students are submitting poorly written assignments.
Students who do not seek help from the Writing Center or instructors are highly
likely to withdraw from classes or receive an F.

b. Analyze the Problem – Through discussion it has been discovered that many
students do not seek the services offered by the Writing Center because physical
and geographical constraints prevent them from visiting the Center.

c. Generate Potential Solutions – After analyzing the problem, the development of

possible solutions is required. The following are two technology-based solutions:

• Skype, a free Web-based method of communication, would afford

students four benefits – a) alleviate physical and geographical constraints;
b) offer virtual office hours; c) provide an avenue for oral peer review; and
d) allow for greater dissemination of information when compared to
regular email.

• Google Docs, another free Web-based technology, provides the platform

for students to help each other with peer review at any hour of the day and
from any location. Students who opt to use With Google Docs can work
on any document at the same time.
d. Select and Plan the Solution – After discussion, the students and instructor decide
on the following plan:
• Students who need help with class assignments after regular class
hours would use Skype to contact the instructor.

• Students would use Google Docs or some form of peer review to

improve their quality of writing.

e. Implement the Solution – The incorporation of technology designed to help

students write better essays started February 03, 2011.
 f. Evaluate the Solution – The implementation of peer review worked well as
evidenced by students 5, 6, 14, 15, and 17. They all engaged in the peer review
process, and each student scored 80% or higher. Those five students exceeded the
70% standard that is considered passing. Of all the students in the class, only one
student actively used Skype to communicate with the instructor. On the other
hand, 12 students did not adequately or effectively use either solution; therefore,
the solutions did not benefit them. If the English Department wants to improve
the writing quality of its students, the department should consider:

• Teaching students to properly provide peer review feedback.

• Offering and using online collaborative word processing applications.
• Having students complete the peer review process during class since many
may not do so once leaving class.
• Raising the pass percentage from 70% to 80% since many students are
unable to transfer to universities or enter certain programs with a grade
less than a B.

Just as students are expected to become writing, the English Department must
lead the way in establishing a professional development program that will train all
instructors at the college how to teach their students the basis for writing-to-learn and
writing across the curriculum. Writing across the curriculum operates under the premise
that students learn when they write (Hampson, 2009). After all, Community College is a
student-centered college that prepares individuals to meet the challenges associated with
a diverse, global society.

Conclusions

Writing assignments can and do serve as evaluations that can predict student
success in post-secondary environments (Tobin, 2010). Based on the success of the five
students, who scored 80% or higher, they responded favorably to the peer review process.
Actively engaging in the peer review process benefitted the students and the instructor.
The students actively collaborated to provide and to receive critical feedback on their
essays before final submission. Student reflections include:

“My suggestion for improvement is to keep writing and not hold back any
information.” – Student 5

“Overall, I was not too bad but I have plenty of room to grow. I will do more
proofreading in the future. I will use “you” less and stick with one point of view. I
will pay closer attention to detail.” – Student 6

“After reading another essay, I felt pretty confident in my writing ability. I need
to focus more on my conclusion. I feel that once I finish my intro and body, when
I get to the conclusion, I run out of steam and stumble on what I want to say.” –
Student 14
 “I must learn to stay focused and not shift from one point of view or another.
That is definitely my weakness.” – Student 15

“I think one of my strengths is a pretty good vocabulary and can describe things
so the reader can visualize. I think I can better organize things, my thoughts.” –
Student 17

Moreover, the instructor did not spend time collecting essays and writing comments. As
for the students who did not score 80% or higher, they chose to forgo any peer review
workshops. In conclusion, the English Department promotes an environment filled with
writing that celebrates communication, collaboration, creativity, and critical thinking.
Furthermore, at the end of the semester the department wants each student, to be able to

• use appropriate stylistic options for a specific subject, audience, and purpose.
• organize ideas effectively by selecting and limiting a topic.
• develop and supporting a thesis with relevant material.
• employ a logical plan of development.
• write essays that are substantially free of errors in grammar, usage, and
mechanics.

So, it makes sense to have students complete the peer review process using an online
word processing application, which provides the collaborative setting where students
review peer’s work by pointing out strengths, improvements, and other perspectives.

Reflections

The decision to focus on the importance of writing centers and writing across the
curriculum was made after reading two published research articles – The Writing Center
as a Key Actor in Secondary School Preparation and Caldwell Community College and
Technical Institute QEP: Writing Across The Curriculum Professional Development
Program.

Writing Centers

Too often students leave high school without a solid writing foundation. Some
enter college knowing of their deficit(s) and are placed in developmental reading, writing
or other non-credit English classes. However, there are others who do well enough on
college placement tests and are placed directly into an English 101 class. Once some of
those students realize that college writing is quite different from high school composition,

they go into sink or swim mode. Those who choose to swim usually seek tutoring from
the college’s writing center; whereas, other students remain clueless as to what to do.
 English 101 is a required college course and is considered an indicator as to how
well a student will perform in college. And, if students desire to be successful in English
classes, they may wish to consider the services offered at the college writing center.
College writing centers benefit students, who have varying writing abilities and who need
assistance with various aspects of writing. When students work with the writing center
tutors, the sessions are supportive and confidential, and writers build up their writing
confidence. In general, writing centers are nonjudgmental places of help, where grades
are not issued.

Writing Across the Curriculum

There is a need to improve student writing on all educational levels. But for some
reason, writing is mostly associated with the English Department. However, students are
required to write in every subject area. How detailed the writing assignments are depends
on the individual instructors. Nevertheless, if College’s students are being prepared to
compete in a diverse, global society, they must be taught to write-to-learn and to write
across the curriculum.

Asking students to write-to-learn and to write across the curriculum requires buy-
in from College’s faculty. A well-planned professional development program is key to
encouraging faculty to incorporate into their various courses. More importantly, faculty
will come to realize that technology is a helpful instructional tool. Tools such as wikis,
mp3 and mp4 files, Google Docs, and Jing can be used to respond to student writing.
Nevertheless, when instructors become comfortable with various web-based tools,
collaboration between faculty and various departments will become the norm and there
will be considerable growth in student writing.

References
Cathey, C. (2007). Power of peer review: An online collaborative learning assignment in

social psychology. Teaching of Psychology, 34(2), 97-99. Retrieved from

EBSCOhost.

Hampson, M. P. (2009). Caldwell community college and technical institute QEP:

Writing across the curriculum professional development program. Community

College Journal of Research & Practice, 33(8), 618-621.

doi:10.1080/10668920902928952

Tobin, T. (2010). The writing center as a key actor in secondary school preparation.

Clearing House, 83(6), 230-234. doi:10.1080/00098651003774810

Van Horn, M. C. (2010). Module 8: Teaching with peer review. Teaching with hacker

handbooks: Topics, strategies, and lesson plans (p. 101). Boston, MA:

Bedford/St. Martin’s.