English 501 - Seminar in the Methodology of Composition

Panacea or Lip Service? An Analysis of Audio Response in the Composition Classroom

Tialitha Macklin

Background: Creating the Study

❖ Formative Assessment with a Focus on Revision

❖ WSU’s Revision-Based Comp Program

❖ Technological Advancements

❖ Best Practices of Response

Best Practices of Response

❖ Limit the scope of your comments and the number of

comments you present

❖ Select your focus of comments according to the stage

of drafting and relative maturity of the text

❖ Give priority to global concerns of content, context,

organization, and purpose before getting (overly)

involved with style and correctness

Best Practices of Response

❖ Do not take control over the student’s text

❖ Gear your comments to the individual student

❖ Turn your comments into a conversation

❖ Make frequent use of praise

(Straub, 2000b, pp. 24–48)

Do Not Control Student’s Text

Do Not Control Student’s Text

Do Not Control Student’s Text

Gear Comments to Individual Student

“I liked the verbal feedback because I feel it was more

personal than ‘elaborate’ in the margins and gave a better

idea of what I should do to improve the essay

-Student

Turn Comments into Conversation

“It allows me to feel more like I am talking to my

professor.”

-Student from Pilot Study

Make Frequent Use of Praise

“Oral feedback has changed the way that I comment. It is

faster, more honest and positive, and my students really

seem to like it.”

-Teacher from Pilot Study

Audio Feedback as Panacea?

Anson 1997, 1999

Balazs, 1967

Bauer, 2011

Berner, Boswell, & Kahan, 1996

Bilbro, Iluzada, & Clark, 2013

Briand, 1970

Farnsworth, 1974

Fitzpatrick, 1968

Gould and Day, 2013

Hallett, 1978

Harris, 1979

Hodgkinson, Walter, & Coover, 1968

Huang 2000

Hubbell, 1968

Ice et Al, 2007

Kates, 1998

Killoran, 2013

Kim, 2004

Klammer, 1979

Lowe, 1963

Lunt and Curran, 2010

Mathieson 2012

Medlicott, 1980

Mellen & Sommers, 2003

Moxley, 1989

Olsen, 1982

Patrie, 1989

Rahme, 1979

Silva, 2012

Sipple, 2006, 2007

Sommers, 1989, 2002, 2012

Stratton, 1979a, 1979b, 1979c

Still, 2006

Tanner, 1964

Vogler, 1971

Yarbro & Angevine, 1982

Panacea?

❖ Anecdotal Evidence and Self-Reports

❖ Teacher-Focused

❖ Small Scale Research

Methodology

❖ Voice Response Only

❖ Teachers = iAnnotate App with iPad and Adobe

Reader

❖ Students = Dropbox and Adobe Reader

❖ Written Response as Control

❖ Pre-Study Survey (Survey 1) and Post-Study Surveys

(Surveys 2A and 2W)

2013-2014 Study

❖ Participants

❖ 530 Student Participants (ENGL 100, 101, 105)

❖ 6 Teacher Participants

❖ Surveys

❖ Survey 1 - 428 Participants

❖ Survey 2A - 225 Student Participants

❖ Survey 2W - 112 Student Participants

Previous Response Experience

24% 23% 22%

14%

3%

11%

3%0%

10%

20%

30%

Margins End Combo Conference Audio Grade Only Other

N=1530

Choice of Response Type

19%

12%

36%

26%

3% 1% 3%

18%

10%

27%

18%22%

0% 5%13%

6%

59%

19%

2% 0% 1%0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Margins Combo Audio Other

Survey 1 (N=541) Survey 2A (N=288) Survey 2W (N=111)

Why Response Type is Preferred

32%

27% 27%

6%

21%23%

34%

27% 28%

12% 13% 12%14%

12%10%

1% 1% 0%0%

13%

27%

40%

Survey 1 (N=987) Survey 2A (N=678) Survey 2W (N=317)

Satisfaction With Response

2%10%

7%2% 1% 1%

21%16%

5%

51%

42%47%

24%

31%

41%

0%

20%

40%

60%

Survey 1 Survey 2A Survey 2W

Interaction with Response

22%

23%

24%

3%

2%

2%

11%

10%

10%

1%

1%

0%

20%

21%

24%

1%

1%

1%

14%

14%

14%

1%

1%

1%

0%

0%

0%

2%

1%

0%

1%

2%

0%

16%

15%

16%

8%

8%

7%

0% 10% 20% 30%

Survey 1 (N=1897)

Survey 2A (N=945)

Survey 2W (N=439)

Read/Listen To Response

0% 0% 0%2% 1% 4%

30% 32% 32%

67% 66% 65%

0%

23%

47%

70%

93%

Survey 1 (N=426) Survey 2A (N=151) Survey 2W (N= 82)

Understanding of Response

0% 0% 0%5% 2% 0%

67%

38% 36%28%

60%64%

0%

23%

47%

70%

93%

Survey 1 (N=427) Survey 2A (N=228) Survey 2W (N=107)

Findings Requiring Additional Study

❖ Higher Level of Comprehension for Women in Written Study Group

❖ Higher than Average (22%) Choice of Audio Response for Some

Groups

❖ African American (56% - N=9), Hispanic (33% - N=15), Other Ethnic

Identifications (33% - N=9), and Multiple Ethnic Identifications (40% -

N=10) students had higher than average (22%)

❖ Small N makes this statistically invalid

❖ Small Numbers of Course Participants

❖ ENGL 100 (Audio), ENGL 105 (Written)

Results

❖ Students have mostly received feedback in the forms of

margins, end, and combo before coming into this study

❖ Most students chose combo as their first choice of response

type but audio response was preferred by nearly ¼ of

students who received audio feedback

❖ Students prefer feedback that is clear and easy to understand

❖ As a whole, students are satisfied with the response that they

receive from their writing teachers

Results

❖ Overall, students view teacher response as a positive element of the

composition class

❖ Most students indicate that they read/listen to most or all of their

teacher’s comments

❖ While most students indicate that they listen to all of our comments,

most students admit that they understand only some of our comments

❖ Overall, students are slightly more satisfied with written comments

❖ Audio response, in and of itself, is not a panacea

Didn’t Choose Audio Feedback

❖ Didn’t work with their

personal learning style

❖ Technological glitches made

the process difficult

❖ Listening to commentary

took longer than with written

feedback

❖ Difficult to recall content of

comment

Chose Audio Feedback

❖ Teacher Felt Approachable

❖ Easy to Understand

❖ Diction and Tone

❖ Personal

❖ Quantity

❖ Depth of Feedback

Panacea or Lip Service?

Future Work

❖ Analyze Revision Using These Same Participants

❖ Expand Analysis of Student Demographics Who Choose

Audio

❖ Analyze How Choice in Response Type Influences

Revision

❖ Deep Analysis of Student Narrative Comments

❖ Dialogic Response Study in Progress

English 501 - Seminar in the Methodology of

Composition

Panacea or Lip Service? An Analysis of Audio Response in the Composition Classroom

Tialitha Macklin

tialitha.macklin@wsu.edu

@timacklin

www.timacklin.com