The Influence of Assessment of Classroom Writing on Feedback Processes and Product vs. on Product Alone

IF 0.3 Q4 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Writing & Pedagogy Pub Date : 2015-07-20 DOI:10.1558/WAP.V7I2-3.16672
R. Ruegg
{"title":"The Influence of Assessment of Classroom Writing on Feedback Processes and Product vs. on Product Alone","authors":"R. Ruegg","doi":"10.1558/WAP.V7I2-3.16672","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Although many second language writing classes use a process approach, anecdotal evidence suggests that assessment of writing in such classes often still focuses on the written product alone. This assessment practice continues despite specialists having recommended that both process and product be assessed. This study compares second-year university students in Japan who were assessed on feedback processes and product with others assessed on product alone in terms of perceptions of the feedback received. Perceptions were determined through a post-treatment questionnaire. Neither the assessment of the use of teacher feedback in revisions nor the assessment of the quality and quantity of peer feedback was found to have a clear benefit in terms of students’ perceptions of the feedback received. This finding suggests the need for further research to confirm whether the assessment of both process and product is worth the considerable time investment required.","PeriodicalId":42573,"journal":{"name":"Writing & Pedagogy","volume":"259 1","pages":"261-277"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2015-07-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Writing & Pedagogy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1558/WAP.V7I2-3.16672","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Although many second language writing classes use a process approach, anecdotal evidence suggests that assessment of writing in such classes often still focuses on the written product alone. This assessment practice continues despite specialists having recommended that both process and product be assessed. This study compares second-year university students in Japan who were assessed on feedback processes and product with others assessed on product alone in terms of perceptions of the feedback received. Perceptions were determined through a post-treatment questionnaire. Neither the assessment of the use of teacher feedback in revisions nor the assessment of the quality and quantity of peer feedback was found to have a clear benefit in terms of students’ perceptions of the feedback received. This finding suggests the need for further research to confirm whether the assessment of both process and product is worth the considerable time investment required.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
课堂写作评估对反馈过程和产品的影响vs.仅对产品的影响
尽管许多第二语言写作课程使用过程方法,但坊间证据表明,在这类课程中,对写作的评估通常仍然只关注写作成果。尽管专家建议对过程和产品都进行评估,但这种评估实践仍在继续。这项研究比较了日本大学二年级的学生,他们在反馈过程和产品方面被评估,而其他人只在产品方面被评估,就收到的反馈的看法而言。通过治疗后问卷调查确定感知。在学生对收到的反馈的看法方面,对教师反馈在修订中的使用的评估和对同伴反馈的质量和数量的评估都没有发现明显的好处。这一发现表明需要进一步的研究来确认过程和产品的评估是否值得投入大量的时间。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Writing & Pedagogy
Writing & Pedagogy EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
33.30%
发文量
16
期刊最新文献
Writing and identity: Promoting critical discourse amidst double consciousness Writing as resistance in an age of demagoguery Making sense of resistance in an afterschool tutoring program: Learning from volunteer writing tutors Stray dogs: Interviews with working-class writers, edited by Daniel M. Mendoza Schools, sexual violence, and safety: Adolescent girls and writing resistance at an afterschool program in suburban Mumbai
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1