Designing a Revision Tool to Distinguish Surface-level and Text-based Writing Feedback

Main Article Content

Kalianne L. Neumann
Theodore J. Kopcha

Abstract

This paper presents a design case that describes the design, development, and user experience testing of a Google Docs revision add-on. The add-on is an instructional, peer review tool intended to help students distinguish surface-level feedback from text-based feedback in order to develop their revision task schema. Eleven secondary teachers completed a survey about using the add-on for instructional purposes, and 56 secondary students completed a survey after using the tool to provide feedback to a peer’s writing and make changes to their writing based on feedback provided to them through the tool. Thematic analyses revealed recommendations for modifications and additions to the tool. Next steps include researching the effects of the updated add-on on secondary students’ revision task schema development.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Neumann, K. L., & Kopcha, T. J. (2019). Designing a Revision Tool to Distinguish Surface-level and Text-based Writing Feedback. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 10(1), 64–77. https://doi.org/10.14434/ijdl.v10i1.24118
Section
Articles
Author Biographies

Kalianne L. Neumann, Oklahoma State University

Kalianne L. Neumann is an Assistant Professor of Educational Technology at Oklahoma State University. Her research focuses on the development of revision task schema as well as technology integration in K-12 settings.

Theodore J. Kopcha, University of Georgia

Theodore J. Kopcha is an Associate Professor of Learning, Design, and Technology at The University of Georgia. He studies technology integration in K-12 and higher education, including technology-enhanced cognitive apprenticeships as well as problem- and project-based STEM learning.

References

Beal, C. R. (1990). The development of text evaluation and revision skills. Child Development, 61(1), 247-258. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/1131063

Berzsenyi, C. A. (2001). Comments to comments: Teachers and students in written dialogue about critical revision. Composition Studies/Freshman English News, 29(2), 71-92.

De La Paz, S., Swanson, P., & Graham, S. (1998). The contribution of executive control to the revising of students with writing and learning difficulties. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(3), 448-460. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.90.3.448

Faigley, L., & Witte, S. (1981). Analyzing revision. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 400-414. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/356602

Ferretti, R. P., & Lewis, W. E. (2013). Best practices in teaching argumentative writing. In S. Graham, C. A. MacArthur, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Best practices in writing instruction (2nd ed., pp. 113-140). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Hayes, J. R. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications (pp. 1-27). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Limpo, T., Alves, R. A., & Fidalgo, R. (2014). Children’s high-level writing skills: Development of planning and revising and their contribution to writing quality. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(2), 177-193. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12020

MacArthur, C. A. (2012). Evaluation and revision. In V. W. Berninger (Ed.), Past, present, and future contributions of cognitive writing research to cognitive psychology (pp. 461-483). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

MacArthur, C. A. (2013). Best practices in teaching evaluation and revision. In S. Graham, C. A. MacArthur, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Best practices in writing instruction (2nd ed., pp. 215- 237). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

MacArthur, C. A. (2016). Instruction in evaluation and revision. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (2nd ed., pp. 272-287). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

McCutchen, D. (2006). Cognitive factors in the development of children’s writing. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 115-130). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

National Center for Education Statistics, & Educational Testing. (2012). The Nation’s Report Card: Writing 2011. National Assessment of Educational Progress at Grades 8 and 12. NCES 2012-470. National Center for Education Statistics.

Neumann, K. L., & Kopcha, T. J. (accepted for publication). Using Google Docs for peer-then-teacher review on middle school students’ writing. Computers and Composition.

Promevo. (2015). Revision Assistant [software]. Retrieved from https://chrome.google.com/webstore/d etail/revision-assistant/aalcpknmagohgaakdjhapkggbc aidepa?utm_source=permalink

Rijlaarsdam, G., Couzijn, M., & van den Bergh, H. (2004). The study of revision as a process and as a learning-to-write process: Two prospective research agendas. In L. Allal, L. Chanquoy, & P. Largy (Eds.), Revision: Cognitive and instructional processes (pp. 190- 208). New York, NY: Springer.

Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1986). Research on written composition. In C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 778-803). New York, NY: Macmillan.

Verheijen, L. (2013). The effects of text messaging and instant messaging on literacy. English Studies, 94(5), 582-602. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/0013838X.2013.795737