EXPLORING “FREEDOM”IN FIRST YEAR WRITING:

A CORPUS APPROACH FOR COMPARING STUDENT AND INSTRUCTOR-GENERATED FEEDBACK

Justine A. NeiderhiserThe University of Michigan

janeider@umich.edu

RESEARCH ON PEER REVIEW Cho, Schunn, and Charney (2006) found

that an instructor provided more feedback than students when responding to the same feedback prompts, both in number of words and in number of ideas.

Also found that students included more praise in their feedback than the instructor.

Additionally, they found that the instructor provided more directive comments than students.

RESEARCH ON PEER REVIEW Patchan, Charney and Schunn (2009)

found that Instructors did not make more total comments than students, but used more words in each comment.

Also found that peers generated almost twice as much praise as instructors.

And that peers were more likely to provide recommendations for low-level prose issues than instructors.

Their conclusion: Student comments are valid because they are similar to instructor comments.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS What is the relationship between the

feedback that I give my students and the feedback that they give each other?

If there are differences between instructor and student feedback, what is the source of this difference? Are student deviations from instructor commenting practices strategic?

PARTICIPANTS AND COURSE CONTEXT Course: English 225, Academic

Argumentation Assignment Sequence:

Rhetorical AnalysisNarrative ArgumentResearched Persuasive ArgumentComparative Analysis

Class structured to include full class workshops

Each student workshopped one time over the course of the semester

Student generated feedback18 students participated in 8 workshop days over

the course of the semester272 essays reviewed by studentsExtracted in-line comments from reviewed essays46,038 tokens

Teacher generated feedback18 students wrote 4 papers over the course of the

semester69 essays were actually turned in and reviewed

by meExtracted in-line comments from reviewed essays26,465 tokens

THE CORPUS

ESTABLISHING A BASELINE

Relative Frequency

Instructor’s Comments

Students’ Comments

Relative Frequency

7.92 I’m not sure I am not sure 7.20

7.92 This is a good This is a great 7.20

6.79 This is a great This is a good 5.60

6.79 you mean by this you mean by this 5.60

4.53 an example of this an example of this 4.00

4.53 What do you mean What do you mean 9.60

CO-OCCURRING N-GRAMS

N-GRAMS WITH SIMILAR MEANINGRelative Frequency

Instructor’s Comments

Students’ Comments

Relative Frequency

5.66 This is a really This is a very 2.405.663.403.40

you want to makeyou want to beyou would want to

You might want toyou may want to

11.207.20

4.533.40

a good job ofa nice job of a great job of 1.60

4.53 does this say about What does this add 2.403.40 a good point but This is good but 2.40

3.403.40

might be able tothink that you could

I think you canI think you should

5.605.60

3.40 the point you are what you are trying 3.20

Keyness Instructor’s Key Terms

Students’ Key Terms

Keyness

90.55 you Good 49.6756.58 Do I 41.8753.75 really he 41.6440.99 Can paragraph 40.5840.05 actually Maybe 35.2939.39 here Great 34.2233.11 point and 29.6124.00 nice may 28.0322.53 points add 27.4620.87 connection sentence 26.7020.04 Yes paragraphs 20.3219.85 that am 19.2519.40 scholars awkward 18.1818.41 choices Point 18.1815.87 contrast intro 14.97

SEARCHING FOR DIFFERENCE

Relative Frequency

Instructor’s Comments

Students’ Comments

Relative Frequency

11.31 This is a great This is a great 5.03

4.85 I really like the* I really like this* 5.03

4.85 This is a really This is a really* 5.03

4.44 What do you mean What do you mean 5.03

3.23 a great job of* a great job of 2.52

2.42 you are trying to* you are trying to 5.03

2.02 I’d really like to* I’d like to* 5.03

Phrases marked with an asterisk (*) did not appear in the frequently occurring phrases from project one (see Tables 1, 2, and 3).

CO-OCCURRING N-GRAMS

N-GRAMS WITH SIMILAR MEANINGRelative Frequency Instructor’s

CommentsStudents’ Comments Relative Frequency

8.48 I’m not sure I don’t know 7.555.25 like the way you I like how you 12.584.443.23

the point you areyou are making here

you are talking aboutyou are trying to

7.555.03

2.42 lead with a transition add a transition phrase 7.55

2.42 wonder if you could You could talk aboutI think you should

5.0310.07

2.42 wonder if you might you might want to 17.61

2.42 you want to make You may want toIt would make it

5.0310.07

2.02 How so? Can you and how did you 5.03

2.02 the rhetorical choices the

like a rhetorical analysis 5.03

Keyness Instructor’s Key Terms

Students’ Key Terms

Keyness

14.52 And paper 17.0614.52 certainly Good 7.4714.52 glad did 6.7514.52 Yes should 6.7510.89 especially use 5.6910.89 excellent good 5.337.26 absolutely the 5.167.26 assignments add 4.987.26 got example 4.627.26 imagine Maybe 4.627.26 making or 4.277.26 nice just 3.917.26 projects information 3.567.26 result thesis 3.567.26 shift like 3.357.26 To paragraph 3.226.78 with sentence 3.226.75 emphasize better 3.20

CONSIDERING INDIVIDUALS

Student Keyness of Instructor Comments

Keyness of Student’s

CommentsNatasha 4.87 1.80Kohlee 7.89 2.65Aubrey 6.46 3.16Natalie 4.51 3.27Dave 6.69 3.29Morgan 4.93 3.61Anthony 5.99 3.90John 4.59 4.08Aaron 5.78 4.40Carol 7.40 4.79Lisa 6.46 4.97Christopher 3.61 5.03Mark 1.25 5.06Thomas 2.96 5.20Dan 6.06 5.64Pete 5.48 6.25Molly 2.46 6.59Average 5.14 4.34

REFERENCESCho, K., Schunn, C. D., & Charney, D. (2006).

Commenting on writing - typology and perceived helpfulness of comments from novice peer reviewers and subject matter experts. Written Communication, 23(3), 260-294.

Nelson, M. M., & Schunn, C. D. (2009). The nature of feedback: How different types of peer feedback affect writing performance. Instructional Science, 37(4).

Patchan, M. M., Charney, D., & Schunn, C. D. (2009). A validation study of students’ end comments : Comparing comments by students, a writing instructor, and a content instructor. Journal of Writing Research, 1(2), 124-152.