Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
Research in the Classroom: Learning through Response
Transcript of Research in the Classroom: Learning through Response
http://www.google.com/imgres?q=pretty+girl+derpina+meme+face&start=239&hl=en&biw=1280&bih=878&tbm=isch&tbnid=Qb9bfqW3Dg-weM:&imgrefurl=http://www.zazzle.com/brunette%2Bflyers&docid=j14uRI_6ZHxLnM&imgurl=http://rlv.zcache.com/brown_female_me_gusta_comic_rage_face_meme_flyer-p244213975600223273enqon_216.jpg&w=216&h=216&ei=_XFkUJWRIdK3qQHe5YHIDg&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=378&vpy=521&dur=77&hovh=172&hovw=172&tx=72&ty=61&sig=103550655863926487923&page=9&tbnh=153&tbnw=156&ndsp=31&ved=1t:429,r:1,s:239,i:210 She is currently the Associate Professor of English at the University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee Co-edited Book
Writing Center Research: Extending the Conversation. Co-edited with Paula Gillespie, Byron
Stay, and Lady Falls Brown. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 2002. “Introduction,” xv-xxix,
and “The Call to Research: Early Representations of Writing Center Research,”3-21.
Articles and Contributions to Books
“Collaboration, Ethics, and the Emotional Labor of WPAs.” A Way to Move: Rhetorics of
Emotions and Composition. Eds. Laura Micciche and Dale Jacobs. Portsmouth, NH:
Boynton/Cook, Heinemann. 2003. 113-123.
“Preparing Ethical Citizens for the Twenty-First Century.” Co-authored with Jami Carlacio.
Professing Rhetoric: Selected Papers From the 2000 Rhetoric Society of America Conference.
Eds. Fred Antczak, Cinda Coggins, and Geoffrey D. Klinger. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 2002. 155-
“Imagining Stories: An Interview with Nancy Welch.” Co-authored with Fred Santiago Arroyo.
Writing on the Edge 12.1 (2001): 95-112.
"Taking It Personally: Redefining the Role and Work of the WPA." Kitchen Cooks, Plate
Twirlers, and Troubadours. Ed. Diana George. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Heinemann,
"Classical Rhetorics." Theorizing Composition: A Critical Sourcebook of Theory and
Scholarship in Contemporary Composition Studies. Ed. Mary Lynch Kennedy.
Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1998. 15-26. "Telling Stories of Errors in Expectation." Dialogue: A Journal for Writing Specialists 4.1
(Spring 1998): 5-10.
"Erika and the Fish Lamps." Co-authored with Colleen Connolly, Amy De Jarlais, and Laura
Micciche. Weaving Knowledge Together: Writing Centers and Collaboration. Eds. Carol
Haviland et al. Emmitsburg, MD: National Writing Center Association Press,1998.15-27.
"Collaboration in Context: Collaborative Learning Theory and Peer Tutoring Practice."
Intersections: Theory-Practice in the Writing Center. Eds. Joan Mullin and Ray Wallace.
Urbana, IL: NCTE, 1994. 39-53.
"The Authority of Roles and the Role of Authority in Peer Tutorials." Co-authored with Susan
Callaway and Katherine Hennessey Wikoff. Journal of Teaching Writing 12.2 (1994):
"Feminism and Composition Research: Researching as a Woman." Composition Studies:
Freshman English News 20.1 (1992): 47-54.
"Practice in the Believing Game." Language Arts Journal of Michigan 7.2 (1991): 14-21.
"Writing Center Ecology: A Bakhtinian Perspective." The Writing Center Journal 11.2 (1991):
"Returning Students' Ways of Writing: Implications for First-Year College Composition."
Journal of Teaching Writing. 10.1 (1991): 1-20.
"Peer Collaboration and the Computer-Assisted Classroom: Bridging the Gap Between
Academia and the Workplace." Co-authored with William Van Pelt. In Collaborative Writing in
Industry: Investigations in Theory and Practice. Eds. Mary M. Lay and William M. Karis.
Amityville, NY: Baywood Press, 1991. 170-205.
"Learning Through Response." English Journal 79.1 (1990): 98-99.
"A Theoretical Framework for Studying Peer Tutoring as Response." Co-authored with Ann
Matsuhashi, Ransom Conley, and Beverly Moss. In Responding to Student Writing: Theory,
Practice, and Research. Ed. Chris M. Anson. Urbana, IL: NCTE, 1989. 293-316.
"'Treading Softly': Dealing with the Apprehensions of Older Freshman Writers." ERIC, 1984.
ED 244 260.
"Teaching Revising/Revising Teaching." Journal of Teaching Writing 1.1 (1982): 149-151. Gloria A. Neubert Sally J. McNelis Learning through Response Teaching Specific Revision Suggestions She is currently a professor at Townson University She mainly focuses on topics such as inductive teaching, peer coaching, interactive teacher, and teaching content reading Creating interactive environments in the secondary school by Lois T Stover ( Book )
1 edition published in 1993 in English and held by 528 libraries worldwide
Discusses interactive classrooms.
Inductive reasoning in the secondary classroom by Gloria A Neubert ( Book )
4 editions published between 1991 and 1992 in English and held by 454 libraries worldwide
Peer coaching in teacher education by Gloria A Neubert ( Book )
1 edition published in 1994 in English and held by 366 libraries worldwide
Teaching geography in the disciplines by James B Binko ( Book )
1 edition published in 1996 in English and held by 364 libraries worldwide
Improving teaching through coaching by Gloria A Neubert ( Book )
1 edition published in 1988 in English and held by 357 libraries worldwide
New teachers helping new teachers preservice peer coaching by Elizabeth A McAllister ( Book )
4 editions published between 1995 and 1998 in English and held by 155 libraries worldwide
Putting it all together : the directed reading lesson in the secondary content classroom by Gloria A Neubert ( Book )
2 editions published in 2004 in English and held by 111 libraries worldwide Question: What is the precise way to help someone review a writing assignment? Who teaches you to be able to do this effectually? How many techniques are there to be able to help and not hurt your peers when they come to you for revising? The authors of the article “Teaching specific revision suggestions Gloria A. Neubert & Sally J Mcnelis and the author of “Learning through response” Alice M Gillam showed different experiments related to that specific topic “peer-response” “they had difficulty getting students to respond effectively to one another’s writing” (page 52) referring to students who were revising papers. So what is it so complicated about peer response and PQP? Response: Praise-question-polish technique can be seen in different ways but it “requires group members (usually two to five per group) to take a turn reading drafts aloud as the other students follow copies” (page52) for it to be really effective. We don’t believe there is a certain specific way on doing a revision suggestion. Of course “I think you should add a little more detail” (page 52) is not sufficient to let the writer know what to repair exactly. Also we believe the writer should be able to rethink his choices on his own because at the end the writer is the one single individual that will have the ultimate decision on their finishing project. To be able to teach revision suggestion you have to start from the bottom up and that is by teaching the PQP process. That process “was introduced to our middle-school students through a “fishbowl” technique, that is, sally and three students rehearsed and then role-played a PQP session while the remainder of the class watched and noted the process. We discussed the steps in the procedure, and the students practiced wiring PQP statements” (page 53) to keep the students interested in the PQP project they only gave one or more focus questions “which grew out of the instruction that had preceded the drafting of the piece” (page 53) after doing this they got results that they put in percentages that is the authors and researchers Neubert and McNelis. Having focus questions for this experiment helped get the 53% “general but useful” and just 19% were “vague”. The next step, after having an idea of how to revise or give specific comments to give the writers, is make those who gave imprecise comments to do it again and again until they were successful in their objective. That is give good feedback to help the writer know what to fix in his project.
We don’t think there is one single technique to help your peers when they come to you for revising. In the contrary there are too many ways to do it. It all depends on the type of writing assignment and the help they ask for. We believe that the most effective way to do this is by reading it out loud to make the writer realize by themselves what is wrong and how he/ she is going to fix that problem. We believe the adjustment should not be drastic if the idea is really not satisfactory then yeah change your whole assignment but that is not the point here. Doing PQP showed that it increases the effectiveness in a peer-response when it comes to teaching and learning revising suggestions. THE END!!!! She targeted her writing towards improving peer workmanship through peer revision, In the article “Peer Response: Teaching Specific Revision Suggestions” by Neubert and McNelis, the general subject of the article is that students ability to give feedback on peer evaluations for writing drafts is not quite helpful to the writer. Sally McNelis conducted a study to find out if the Praise- Question- Polis strategy causes any changes in the way students give feedback to a writer’s work during peer evaluations.
First year writing students need to be aware of what exactly the outcome of peer evaluations is and how important it is to give specific and helpful feedback so that the writer can become aware of any possible or necessary changes that will help them improve their work.
Neubert and McNelis focus on increasing the percentages of “specific” responses and on decreasing the percentages of the “Vague” comments given by students during peer evaluations. Sally McNelis works with a group of “…middle-school students through a ‘fishbowl’ technique” and introduces the PQP stategy. After receiving the comments students had written they classified each response under “Vague”, “General, but Useful”, or “Specific” statements. As a result, they found that “28%of our students’ comments were ‘specific’ comments, 53% were ‘general but useful’, and 19% were ‘vague’”(page 53) which lead them to teach a group of students on how to give the right information on comments during evaluations.
When the results of a national survey showed that “..many teachers grieved over the use of peer response groups because they had difficulty getting students to respond effectively to one another’s writing.”(52 English Journal), we can assume that Sally McNelis was encouraged to conduct her own study to figure out if the levels of aid on the responses of middle school, first year writing students were to their peer essays were how teachers had described them and if that was the case, they would focus on correcting the way each student wrote their responses.
At the end of the study Neubert and McNelis increased the percentages of “Specific” responses from 28% to a 60% and decreased the “vague” responses from a 19% to 6%. - Believing game: perspective that Peter Elbow names when a person sees their draft as a potential to lead to something better rather than a draft that is half empty.
- Peer response benefits the analyzing person as well as the criticized one.
- Peer respondents benefit their reading, talking, and thinking about writing by adding more maturity and sophistication after reading so many texts.
- “Karen Spear argues that reading and responding to peers writing offers the best opportunity for students to develop the higher order reading skills that we complain about their lack”
- Peer writing is unfinished and flawed, so listeners should make their own predictions and construct their own meaning rather than seeing it as a straight “Receiving meaning”.
- The “making of the meaning” comes from the need to explain; it forces an awareness when reading.
- RECENT STUDY: “reading peer tects invokes high-level critical reading skills” pg 98 by Ann Matsushashi and her colleagues found this to be true.
- SECOND BENEFIT: if we respong to peers’ writing we develop a vernacular for talking about writing. We will forcely create a language about language.
- BACKGROUND: Gere and Abbott, say that writing-group respondents develop critical capacities that will serve them as writers, because it offers students a chance to develop their own vocabulary when they need to talk about writing, and this language contains vocabulary that can be more understandable than the one in the books and teachers.
- THIRD BENEFIT: "a vernacular for talking about writing provides a language for thinking about writing. (psychologists call this phenomenon metacognition”pg 99
- "Metacognition is the ability to monitor ones own thinking process," pg 99 like when making a peer or a critique.
- Healy made suggestions for modeling
- Spear made sugestions to listening and reading acitvities
- Elbow and Belanoff made guidelines for structuring response.
- Successful application of peer-response require a “believing game”, trusting in students capacity to learn from one another, and have will to either receive or give a response. pg 99 ? Student Speak When a group of two or more students collaborate with each other and critique one anothers work Example: When I was in high school, before submitting each and every essay, my teacher would dedicate 2-3 days prior to the dude date for peer Student Speak When something or someone is unclear of meaning . Example: My professor for chemistry is so vague. I normally fail to comprehend the point he is trying to get across because he lacks information during his lectures. Student Speak Making complete and direct points, stating the facts so that the meaning is 100% clear for the audience. Example: If a friend were coming to visit me ,instead of saying that I live in the Rio Grand Valley, I would give her my direct address otherwise the location of my house would be unclear to him/her. A more effective way of peer editing. Student speak Example: Most of the time when peers edit each others work, they are very vague with their criticism. With the PQP form of editing criticism is more concrete. Student Speak When and action or procedure is presented to a group so that they will know how to do it . Example: When I was in
volleyball, before teaching
us anything new, the coaches would demonstrate the play/technique for us. Student Speak A phenomenon that occurs when we think about our thoughts. We are aware that we are thinking about thinking. Example : Most of the writing pieces in this course so far have generated metacognition. Student Speak This is basically a technique which requires us to trust in our peers opinions and value their critiques. Example: When I received my peer edited draft, I took into consideration their critiques and fixed my errors . Gillam, Alice M. "Research in the Classroom: Learning through Response." The English Journal 79.1 (1990): 98- 99. Neubert, Gloria A., and Sally J. McNelis."Peer Response: Teaching Specific Revision Suggestions." The English Journal 79.5 (1990): 52-56