Scribd
Upload
61 views15 pages

Who Should Correct A Written Work - CELE2014

This document discusses the author's shift from a model where the teacher heavily corrects student work to a new model aimed to have a more meaningful impact on learning. In the old model, the teacher marked up student work with little benefit. In the new model, the teacher identifies specific issues for the student to address and the student revises and resubmits their work for further feedback. The author acknowledges negatives like extra work for both parties but argues it allows students to self-correct and improve before grading. Going forward, the author plans to gather student feedback on the new model's effectiveness and make adjustments like using rubrics.

Uploaded by

Rosa María Lozano Ortigosa
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
61 views15 pages

Who Should Correct A Written Work - CELE2014

This document discusses the author's shift from a model where the teacher heavily corrects student work to a new model aimed to have a more meaningful impact on learning. In the old model, the teacher marked up student work with little benefit. In the new model, the teacher identifies specific issues for the student to address and the student revises and resubmits their work for further feedback. The author acknowledges negatives like extra work for both parties but argues it allows students to self-correct and improve before grading. Going forward, the author plans to gather student feedback on the new model's effectiveness and make adjustments like using rubrics.

Uploaded by

Rosa María Lozano Ortigosa
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 15

Who should correct a written work:

the teacher or the learner?


Rosa Maria Lozano Ortigosa
CENLEX Zacatenco, IPN

MY OLD MODEL
Learners wrote (drafted?)
something and gave it to teacher
Teacher made lots of marks on
learners work, she even
corrected some/many items
Learners got a paper full of
annotations that contributed
very little to learning
Teacher prepared a remedial
session on relevant issues
Learners checked (again)/ filed
/ disposed papers (?)

Minimun positive effect of all this TEACHERs work!!!

MY QUESTION

Is it possible (for a teacher) to work less


and at the same time have a (more)
meaningful impact on learners learning
(writing proficiency)?
Scriveners 2005, Urs 1996, Peaflorida in Richards and Renandya, 2002

MY NEW MODEL
Learner writes (drafts?) something and gives it to teacher
Teacher revises paper and directs learners attention to most
relevant / problematic issues (by means of the observation code)
Learner gets her paper back with observations (specific issues)
and, if necessary, a general comment
Learner revises, corrects and rewrites her work, then gives the
two papers (1st and corrected versions) to teacher
Teacher checks the two versions and looks for improvement;
she returns the two papers, with new comments, to learner. If
necessary, teacher offers help with remaining issues
Teacher prepares a remedial session on relevant issue(s)
Learners check (again) / file / dispose papers (?)

TEACHERS OBSERVATION CODE

PUNCT = Punctuation

CAP = Capitalization

SP = Spelling
___ GR = Grammar (tenses,
concordance, etc.)
SYN = Syntax

word order

something is missing
LEX = Lexis
AWK = Awkward
sentence / idea

CONV = Conventions:
margins, date, greeting,
farewal, Format (according
to genre), etc.
REG = Register
ORG = Organization
COHE= Cohesion
COHE = Coherence
TA = Task achievement

1st version

2nd version

1st version

2nd version

1st version

2nd version

MY BALANCE
POSITIVE
Coherent with the draftwrite-revise-compose-rewrite
strategy
Allows learners to reflect on
what they know/dont know
and do some repair work by
themselves
Much fairer as learners have
an opportunity to improve
their work before grading
Good chances to have a
meaningful impact on
learning

NEGATIVE
Learners need to be trained
to work with this model
Teacher has to revise the
material twice
Learners are reluctant to work
twice or they insist on having
the teachers corrections
Some students correct only
what has been marked or
correct something that was
correct
Few learners ask for help
once the cycle is completed

FOR THE NEXT STEP, I WILL


make it clear that, for grading purposes, the first version
DOES NOT COUNT
make sure that I PRAISE positive aspects of work, this
also applies to the first version
prepare a set of rubrics to be used together with the
observation code
find out if learners consider that the newprocess really
helps them improve
once learners have completed three writing
assingments using the new process, Ill ask them to
evaluate their improvement and give me feedback
about their experience
prepare a questionnaire (survey) for this purpose

Any questions or
suggestions?

Id like to thank my
students (2nd Bimester
2013 , groups B4, I2, A2) for
allowing me to use some of
their works for this
presentation.

To all of them and


to you,

THANKS!!!
Rosa Maria Lozano
CENLEX Zacatenco IPN
rlozanoo@ipn.mx
rosylozano26@hotmail.com

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy