Phase Two Findings
1. Student Work
Student work was measured in two ways. First, by the quality of the questions produced by the student giving peer feedback. Second, by the rewrite that students completed by incorporating the feedback they received into their paper.
In the chart to the left measuring quality of questions produced by the student providing feedback, students demonstrated an ability to develop useful questions. In terms of a "quality" question, I looked at whether or not the question would be one that would help the writer improve their writing. In this context, there were no half good/half bad questions; either the question was quality or it was not. During the first assignment, seven students out of 24 students (29%) produced three out of three quality questions. 10 out of 24 (41%) produced 2 out of 3 quality questions (meaning one question would not be useful), 4 out of 24 (17%) produced only 1 quality question (meaning two questions would not be useful), and 2 out of 24 (8%) did not produce quality questions. One consistent finding was noticed in the student questions that were deemed not to be considered “quality”. In these such instances the students used statements instead of questions. In the past, students had provided feedback in the context of positive comments, such as "Great job!" or "I like what you wrote!" This task of creating content-specific questions was different and new for students. Therefore, a fair number of students were still writing comments much like those they had previously written. An example of student work including one "quality" question and one comment is shown below.
Student work was measured in two ways. First, by the quality of the questions produced by the student giving peer feedback. Second, by the rewrite that students completed by incorporating the feedback they received into their paper.
In the chart to the left measuring quality of questions produced by the student providing feedback, students demonstrated an ability to develop useful questions. In terms of a "quality" question, I looked at whether or not the question would be one that would help the writer improve their writing. In this context, there were no half good/half bad questions; either the question was quality or it was not. During the first assignment, seven students out of 24 students (29%) produced three out of three quality questions. 10 out of 24 (41%) produced 2 out of 3 quality questions (meaning one question would not be useful), 4 out of 24 (17%) produced only 1 quality question (meaning two questions would not be useful), and 2 out of 24 (8%) did not produce quality questions. One consistent finding was noticed in the student questions that were deemed not to be considered “quality”. In these such instances the students used statements instead of questions. In the past, students had provided feedback in the context of positive comments, such as "Great job!" or "I like what you wrote!" This task of creating content-specific questions was different and new for students. Therefore, a fair number of students were still writing comments much like those they had previously written. An example of student work including one "quality" question and one comment is shown below.
In the student work sample above, one question, "Why do you think it's hard for Fern to take care of the pig?" specifically addresses the student's content with the goal to help develop her writing by determining where more information from the text is needed. The other sticky note says, "I don't agree," which is considered a non-quality question, as it is a statement and will not help the writer develop content.
For the last writing assignment in Phase Two, students were asked to create a web describing Wilbur from the viewpoint of another spider. In this instance, the number of quality questions improved. 12 students out of 24 produced all quality questions, which was a 9% increase from the first assignment. 8 out of 12 students had 2 quality questions. Only 3 students had 1 quality question, and 1 student had no quality questions. In this assignment, the lack of quality questions still was attributed to the fact that students were providing comments instead of questions. Below are two work samples, with descriptions to follow: Click each image to enlarge.
For the last writing assignment in Phase Two, students were asked to create a web describing Wilbur from the viewpoint of another spider. In this instance, the number of quality questions improved. 12 students out of 24 produced all quality questions, which was a 9% increase from the first assignment. 8 out of 12 students had 2 quality questions. Only 3 students had 1 quality question, and 1 student had no quality questions. In this assignment, the lack of quality questions still was attributed to the fact that students were providing comments instead of questions. Below are two work samples, with descriptions to follow: Click each image to enlarge.
In the student work sample on the left using the word "Jolly" to describe Wilbur, the student received a 2 out of 3 in terms of quality questions. This is because there was one comment that would not be useful to support the student in their revisions, which was, "Jolly is perfect because a synonym is on the Wilbur description." This student is referring to a character map that we made as a whole class of characteristics or adjectives describing Wilbur. The students could use that character map as a resource when writing this assignment. That comment was a positive and nice reinforcer for the student, but it would not be considered a quality piece of feedback in terms of developing content for a rewrite. The other comment, "I cannot understand this," would generally be considered non-quality, but in this specific instance, the sentence says "helping him," which cannot be understood. For this specific student, that was a useful piece of feedback. This could have been improved, however, by forming it into a question and asking, "What do you mean by 'helping him'?"
In the student work sample on the right using the word "Glad" to describe Wilbur, the student received a 3 out of 3 in terms of quality questions. The three questions the student asked, "Why is Wilbur glad to go to the fair?", Why is he a happy pig?", and "Why would he be saved by Charlotte?" are all specific and closely relates to the content written by the student. They are three questions that will help the student improve their writing and support them in which areas they need to provide a detail from the text.
In the student work sample on the right using the word "Glad" to describe Wilbur, the student received a 3 out of 3 in terms of quality questions. The three questions the student asked, "Why is Wilbur glad to go to the fair?", Why is he a happy pig?", and "Why would he be saved by Charlotte?" are all specific and closely relates to the content written by the student. They are three questions that will help the student improve their writing and support them in which areas they need to provide a detail from the text.
Of particular significance to this investigation, in terms of edits that students made to their papers after receiving feedback, it was clear that the students who received more "useful" questions were able to make better edits than those who received less useful feedback.
As shown in the chart on the left (click to expand), of the students who received 3 useful pieces of feedback, 58% of them made 3 useful changes in their rewrite piece. This is in comparison to students who received 1 useful piece of feedback, where 0% made 3 useful changes in their rewrite piece. This trend stayed consistent, where 25% of students receiving 3 pieces of useful feedback added 2 positive changes in their rewrite, with 0% of students receiving 1 piece of feedback adding 2 positive changes. The data becomes interesting when looking at students who added one positive change in their writing: 66% of students who received 1 piece of useful feedback made 1 positive change. Continuing with that trend, 0% of students receiving 3 pieces of useful feedback made 0 positive changes in their rewrite piece. This shows a positive correlation between the amount of useful feedback a student receives and the amount of edits that they make to their own paper.
As shown in the chart on the left (click to expand), of the students who received 3 useful pieces of feedback, 58% of them made 3 useful changes in their rewrite piece. This is in comparison to students who received 1 useful piece of feedback, where 0% made 3 useful changes in their rewrite piece. This trend stayed consistent, where 25% of students receiving 3 pieces of useful feedback added 2 positive changes in their rewrite, with 0% of students receiving 1 piece of feedback adding 2 positive changes. The data becomes interesting when looking at students who added one positive change in their writing: 66% of students who received 1 piece of useful feedback made 1 positive change. Continuing with that trend, 0% of students receiving 3 pieces of useful feedback made 0 positive changes in their rewrite piece. This shows a positive correlation between the amount of useful feedback a student receives and the amount of edits that they make to their own paper.
2. Feedback from Students
62% (15 out of 24) of students claimed that they enjoy writing. This piece of data is consistent with the survey at the beginning of the semester, where the same number of students enjoyed writing. There was, however, an increase in students who perceive themselves to be good writers. For the preliminary survey, 54% of students saw themselves as a good writer, while 65% of students saw themselves as good writers at the end of the process. I am unable to conclude whether or not this was due to the experiences that students have had writing throughout the semester. There was also a change in attitude regarding who can best support them in their writing; in the preliminary survey, only 5% of students saw their peers as the best person to support them. For the post-survey, 17% of students saw their peers as the best person to support them. Although this is still a small portion of the class, I was pleased to see more students viewing their peers as resources. Upon reflection, I feel that this question could have been reworded to achieve better results; even if the child had a change in opinion on being able to receive support from a peer, they may still say that their teacher would do a better job.
I was pleased to see that 92% of students (22 out of 24) reported that their writing improved from the feedback they received from their peers. When students were asked how their peers helped them, they provided some interesting answers. Some included:
Responses to the question, "Did providing feedback to others help you in your own writing? In what ways?" were very interesting. Many students gave the response that if they noticed a mistake or something missing on a peer's paper, it would remind them to fix it on their own paper as well. Some also said reading their peer's work gave them ideas of things they would like to write about. Here are some quotes from students in response to the question:
62% (15 out of 24) of students claimed that they enjoy writing. This piece of data is consistent with the survey at the beginning of the semester, where the same number of students enjoyed writing. There was, however, an increase in students who perceive themselves to be good writers. For the preliminary survey, 54% of students saw themselves as a good writer, while 65% of students saw themselves as good writers at the end of the process. I am unable to conclude whether or not this was due to the experiences that students have had writing throughout the semester. There was also a change in attitude regarding who can best support them in their writing; in the preliminary survey, only 5% of students saw their peers as the best person to support them. For the post-survey, 17% of students saw their peers as the best person to support them. Although this is still a small portion of the class, I was pleased to see more students viewing their peers as resources. Upon reflection, I feel that this question could have been reworded to achieve better results; even if the child had a change in opinion on being able to receive support from a peer, they may still say that their teacher would do a better job.
I was pleased to see that 92% of students (22 out of 24) reported that their writing improved from the feedback they received from their peers. When students were asked how their peers helped them, they provided some interesting answers. Some included:
- "They give me details that help make my story come alive."
- "My friends are good writers and sometimes I don't know what to write. For the first time I wrote with paragraphs, I didn't know how to...I asked my friends and then I was good."
Responses to the question, "Did providing feedback to others help you in your own writing? In what ways?" were very interesting. Many students gave the response that if they noticed a mistake or something missing on a peer's paper, it would remind them to fix it on their own paper as well. Some also said reading their peer's work gave them ideas of things they would like to write about. Here are some quotes from students in response to the question:
- "It help me write more when I ran out of ideas."
- "Yes because if I ask the question I wonder the same question."
- "I help them correct something and I realize I did the same mistake."
- "They remind me to put something like something at the end."
- "Thinking about nicer ideas, making my brain think harder (which is a good thing), making both of our stories better."
3. Teacher Observations
While students completed the "gallery walk," I tried to simply observe students in their process of providing feedback to others. I had a clipboard with each student's name to make notations of students, (1) who were quick in their development of a question, (2) those who seemed hesitant, and, (3) those who asked for help from the teacher. To my surprise, no student asked for support from the teacher during this session. This informed me that students were engaged in their gallery walk and were clear on what was expected. There were 6 students who used their three sticky notes quickly and asked for more to continue leaving feedback for more students. These 6 students were also the students who left the best feedback in terms of supporting the other students in their revisions. Additionally, there were 4 students that I noted were writing general comments such as, "Good job." Even though this was not the task students were asked to complete, I did not intervene or redirect in order to get unobtrusive results.
While students completed the "gallery walk," I tried to simply observe students in their process of providing feedback to others. I had a clipboard with each student's name to make notations of students, (1) who were quick in their development of a question, (2) those who seemed hesitant, and, (3) those who asked for help from the teacher. To my surprise, no student asked for support from the teacher during this session. This informed me that students were engaged in their gallery walk and were clear on what was expected. There were 6 students who used their three sticky notes quickly and asked for more to continue leaving feedback for more students. These 6 students were also the students who left the best feedback in terms of supporting the other students in their revisions. Additionally, there were 4 students that I noted were writing general comments such as, "Good job." Even though this was not the task students were asked to complete, I did not intervene or redirect in order to get unobtrusive results.