The teaching-focused research question I propose to study next quarter is, “What type of teacher feedback generates substantial student revision?” For this study, I will require revision for two assignments: the literacy narrative and the research proposal. The literacy narrative provides an opportunity to dive deeper into creative writing and work on storytelling elements. The research proposal provides an opportunity to have a smoother research approval process by slowing it down and requiring written revision and reflection to improve the research design itself.
For each assignment, I will provide written feedback in the form of a letter to the drafts submitted. For the literacy narrative, the feedback will be dialogic and provide the writer with information about how I experienced their narrative – i.e. what moved me, where I was confused, etc. For the research proposal, my letter will ask questions related to a high-level rhetorical problem where applicable. Students will be required to submit a reflection narrative on the revisions they made.
The scholarly discourse my study draws from and would contribute to spans decades, as issues surrounding feedback and revision are points of central scholarship in Writing Studies. Key scholarship that has shaped the methodological and overall pedagogical approach of my proposed research include:
- “Detection, Diagnosis, and the Strategies of Revision”
In this article, Linda Flower, John Hays, Linda Carey, Karen Schriver, and James Stratman discuss how students need to know the goals they want to achieve when engaging in the revision process and have a sense of the criteria for achieving said goals. The authors argue that identifying a problem and implementing strategies for revision requires both knowledge and intention. This has made me think about what types of activities I should plan for in class that can help generate an awareness of goals and strategies for revision. The “Show Don’t Tell” lesson is a place I feel I can draw attention to these issues.
- “Do Teachers’ Comments on Students’ Papers Help?”
In this article, author Gary Dohrer draws on previous research to emphasize how “the opportunity for revision and relevant instruction are essential if written comments are to improve students’ writing” (48). This is why I will require revision for these two projects (and make it an optional bonus point for other projects) so that theoretically at least twice in the quarter attempts at revision will be made/ the “opportunity for revision” will be provided. Dohrer also discusses the need for the teacher and students to have a “mutually agreed upon value system” so that the written comments are in alignment with what has been discussed; Dohrer points to “organization and quality of ideas” as an example as opposed to grammar, so as to be explicit about revision priorities (53). This points to the need for me to discuss a rubric with the class that I will use to evaluate revision. Lastly, as echoed by many other scholars, Dohrer emphasizes to not overwhelm students with too many comments and underscores that “the best commentary … is one that contributes to the student’s reconsidering the text for his or her own purposes” (50).
- “Revision as Critical Practice”
Joseph Harris echoes the above principle in this article; Harris discusses revision as a way to encourage students to “reflect on their own plans and decisions in writing” (588). Harris also shared that he assigns revision by requiring: the revised assignment, a copy of the previous draft on which they have highlighted changes and 250-500 word comment on 2-3 significant points of revision (588).
- “Revision and Reflection: A Study of (Dis)Connections between Writing Knowledge and Writing Practice”
Heather Lindenman, Martin Camper, Lindsay Dunne Jacoby, and Jessica Enochin discuss the relationship between student reflection and student revision in this article. The authors provide pedagogical recommendations based on results of a large-scale study they conducted. One recommendation I am adopting from this article is to ask why a student made certain changes for the revision reflection instead of what changes they made. The authors provide a template sentence for how they ask students to reflect on their revision: “When you made X comment on my Rhetorical Analysis assignment, I realized W; therefore I did Z in my revision.” The authors state “Prompts such as these will, we hope, help students gain a deeper understanding of how the memo functions as a rhetorical space to engage the kinds of critical and deep metacognitive thinking that correlates with thoughtful revisions” (602).
Based on the above scholarship, it is clear that my written feedback for both assignments must pose questions that catalyze self-directed revision by students. Indeed, the common thread across scholarship is that student ownership over their writing process is what generates substantive revision and teacher comments are only useful so much as they ignite that.
The practical methods for carrying out my research involve:
- Assigning “demonstrated revision” as requirements for the literacy narrative and the research proposal.
This “demonstrated revision” assignment includes assigning an accompanying revision reflection. I will create a rubric that defines substantive revision for each project. I will also prepare lessons that support understanding of the rubric, i.e. that support revision skills (knowledge and intention) for each project.
- Tracking how many students achieve substantive revision in both projects.
This will be done via normal grading and assignment tracking methods such as an excel spreadsheet. I will track how many students met the substantive revision rubric.
I do not have formal data-gathering documents as my research is embedded in grading these required revision assignments. I do look forward to crafting the rubric and related lessons for the revision requirement.
As revision will be taking place for assignments in the first part of the quarter, my hope is that this will generate progress towards the writing that takes place in the second half of the quarter. Through requiring revision and an accompanying reflection twice in the quarter, I hope to learn more about effective feedback methods and also see progress in student writing. I also hope students become more aware of their writing and their writing progress in the quarter. Project 7, the Author Statement, could be another source of information for me in terms of tracking student awareness and opinions about their writing and how much written teacher feedback and the act of revision played a role