Integrating Technology to Assist English 101

Students with Their Essays

Introduction

Van Horn (2010) wrote, “…, peer review can provide students with critical feedback and
an authentic collaborative writing process before their final drafts are completed.” Moreover,
students who participated in peer review workshops deepened their conceptual understanding,
improved their writing skills, and familiarized themselves with good writing habits (Cathey,
2007). In an attempt to improve student writing, the instructor asked students to participate in
peer review feedback workshops using an online collaborative processing application known as
Google Docs. Students posted their essays for classmates to view, and peers posted comments on
classmates’ essays. Online collaborative word processing applications were easy to use.

Summary Data

As a pre-assessment of the students’ writing capabilities, each student submitted a

diagnostic essay on a topic of choice. The diagnostic essay, worth 100 points, did not receive
peer review feedback and were scored by the teacher using a checklist based on five criteria –
Introduction, 3 Support Paragraphs, Point of View, Conclusion, and MLA Format. Each category
carried a weight of 20 points. Scores from the diagnostic essay are presented in Table 1.

Diagnostic Essay

The class average for the diagnostic essay was 39.375. None of the students used a
consistent point of view (first or third person point of view), and they did not use the MLA
format. So, each paper was deducted 40 points. In cases where students scored only 30 points,
their paragraphs lacked organization and /or style. The diagnostic essay score was not a recorded
grade. Each essay was returned with teacher comments.

Table 1: Diagnostic Essay Scores

Student Scores Student Scores

1 60 10 Absent
2 60 11 30
3 0 12 30
4 0 13 60
5 60 14 0
6 60 15 60
7 60 16 0
8 30 17 60
9 60
Descriptive Essay

With the descriptive essays, 13 students participated in the optional peer review
workshop, and 4 students chose not to participate. Results detailing the two groups performed are
presented in Table 2. Based on the results of the students who chose to engage in the peer review
activity, they clearly demonstrated that they were capable of composing of essays, developing
content, employing specific organizational patterns, and selecting language appropriate for a
particular audience and purpose. Each student, regardless of grade, was invited to reflect in the
form of a conference with the instructor. Each student was encouraged to review the grade
earned for the descriptive essay and to make any adjustments to ensure his or her success in
English 101.

Table 2: Descriptive Essay – Results of Peer Review

Student Score Peer Student Score Peer
Review Review
1 86 Y 4 0 N
2 84 Y 10 71 N
3 93 Y 12 64 N
5 86 Y 16 70 N
6 93 Y
7 90 Y
8 89 Y
9 85 Y
11 90 Y
13 80 Y
14 91 Y
15 93 Y
17 100 Y

Average 89.23 Average 51.25

Score Score
Compare and Contrast Essay

Use of peer review during the writing of the compare and contrast essays was not used as
widely as it had been with the descriptive essays. The one student, who provided and received
peer review, managed to earn a grade of 65 because she or he chose not to consider the
comments provided. The findings are revealed in Table 3. As with the descriptive essay, students
were invited to conference with the instructor and were asked to consider making adjustments to
ensure the desired grades. Overall, those who effectively used the peer feedback scored
considerably better than their peers.

Table 3: Compare and Contrast Essay – Results of Peer Review

Student Score Peer Student Score Peer
Review Review
5 81 Y 1 73 N

11 90 Y 2 73 N

12 65 Y 3 0 N

13 83 Y 4 0 N

14 81 Y 6 73 N

17 100 Y 7 70 N

8 87 N

9 75 N

10 0 N

15 90 N

16 0 N

Average 83.33 Average 49.18

Score Score
Cause and Effect Essay

After a class discussion about the positive and negative aspects of peer review, students
saw that they were not earning the scores desired. At the time of the grading of the cause and
effect essays (Table 4), three students withdrew. At some point, a counselor from the College
followed up with each student to discuss the reason(s) for withdrawing from English 101. Again,
those who chose to use peer feedback outscored those who did not.

Table 4: Cause and Effect Essay – Results of Peer Review

Student Score Peer Student Score Peer
Review Review
5 75 Y 1 63 N

6 100 Y 2 63 N

12 80 Y 3 n/a
Withdrew
13 92 Y 4 n/a
Withdrew
14 85 Y 7 63 N

16 80 Y 8 81 N

17 100 Y 9 63 N

10 n/a
Withdrew
11 81 N

15 75 N

Average 87.43 Average 69.86

Score Score
Argumentation Essay

Data for the argumentation essay (Table 5) was incomplete because six students did not
submit their argumentation essays before the end of this project. However, based on the
information available, peer review helped seven of eight students earn an A or B on the final
essay. The remaining student did not make any adjustments based on the peer review notes.
However, he or she did provide peer review.

Table 5: Argumentation Essay – Results of Peer Review

Student Score Peer Student Score Peer
Review Review
1 90 Y 2 0 N

5 80 Y 3 n/a
Withdrew
6 90 Y 4 n/a
Withdrew
7 70 Y 8 0 N

12 90 Y 9 0 N

14 100 Y 10 n/a
Withdrew
15 90 Y 11 0 N

17 90 Y 13 0 N

16 0 N

Average 87.5 Average 0

Score Score
Data Interpretation

The English Department determined that by the end of the course, students would meet
the following departmental objectives:

a. use appropriate stylistic options for a specific subject, audience, and purpose.
b. organize ideas effectively by selecting and limiting a topic.
c. develop and supporting a thesis with relevant material.
d. employ a logical plan of development.
e. write essays that are substantially free of errors (grammar, usage, and mechanics).

Furthermore, the instructor created objectives and assessment measurements (Table 7)

designed to help each student better meet the department objectives.

Table 7: Outcome, Objectives, and Assessments

Outcome
Composing a variety of essays
by developing content,
employing specific
organizational patterns, and
selecting language appropriate
for a particular audience and
purpose.
Objective Measure(s) Assessment
Measurements
Students will be able to apply graphic Graphic Organizers
organizers based on an organizational
pattern (descriptive, compare and
contrast, cause and effect, and
argumentative) to capture and organize
ideas for their essays and to develop
working theses to further organize
generated ideas.

Students will be able to relate notes

written on graphic organizers to
identify sources of relevant information
for specific audiences and purposes.

Students will be able to plan rough

drafts using a specific graphic
organizer.
 Students will be able to provide peer Peer Review
review feedback using Google Docs.

Students will be able to evaluate peer

review and use feedback to edit and
revise their rough drafts.

Students will be able to apply a rubric Rubric

to help them write and publish essays
for specific audiences with intended
purpose that develop a thesis with
relevant material and that follow a
logical pattern of development.

Students will be able to use self- Self-Reflection

reflections to recall, explain, and
defend their writing experiences.

(The self-reflections will be discussed

with the instructor using Skype.)

Student Performances

In Table 8, on page 55, the instructor illustrated how each student scored on the four
essays and if the student met the departmental objectives. Students who met the departmental
objectives, earned at least a score of 70. After careful review of the data, approximately 47% of
the students met the departmental goals. The data will be considered when preparing for Fall
2011.

Table 8: Student Performances

Student Desc. C&C C& E Arg. Average Met
Essay Essay Essay Essay Objectives
1 86 73 63 90 78 Y
2 84 73 63 0 55 N
3 93 0 n/a n/a n/a N

4 0 0 n/a n/a n/a N

5 86 81 75 80 80.5 Y
6 93 73 100 90 89 Y
7 90 70 63 70 73.25 Y
8 89 87 81 0 64.25 N
9 85 75 63 0 55.75 N
10 71 0 n/a n/a n/a N
11 90 90 81 0 65.25 N
12 64 65 80 90 74.75 Y
13 80 83 92 0 63.75 N
14 91 81 85 100 89.25 Y
15 93 90 75 90 87 Y
16 70 0 80 0 37.5 N
17 100 100 100 90 97.5 Y
Desc. = Descriptive, C & C = Compare and Contrast, C & E = Cause and Effect, and Arg. = Argumentation

Recommendations: Part 1

After reviewing Table 7 (Outcome, Objectives, and Assessments) on pages 53 and 54 and
the current timeline (Table 9), it was determined that students may have performed better had
peer review been a mandatory requirement.

Table 9: Current (Spring 2011) Timeline

Dates Foci

February 03 – February 05 Collaborating and Peer Editing with Google

Docs

February 10 – February 19 Recalling a Person, Place, or Thing

February 24 – March 05 Comparing and Contrasting

March 10 – March 19 Explaining Causes and Effects

March 24 – April 02 Taking a Stand

The proposed timeline for Fall 2011 (Table 10) located on page 57 incorporates the use
of peer review with the teaching of each essay. Students will receive two sessions on how to
provide peer review using Google Docs or some other online word processing application.
Throughout the semester, the instructor will apprise students of their writing progress and any
needed adjustments (Writing Center or tutoring).

Table 10: Proposed 2011 Timeline

Weeks Foci

1 Pre-Assessment (Writing Skills)

2 Peer Review with Google Docs

3 Peer Review with Google Docs

4 Library Orientation

5 Definition Essay and Peer Review with Google Docs

6 Definition Essay

7 Compare and Contrast Essay and Peer Review with Google Docs

8 Compare and Contrast Essay

9 Cause and Effect Essay and Peer Review with Google Docs

10 Cause and Effect Essay

11 Argumentation Essay and Peer Review with Google Docs

12 Argumentation Essay

13 Post-Assessment (Writing Skills)

14 Final Exam

15 Course Grade

Recommendations: Part 2

The English Department addresses the issue of improving student writing on a yearly
basis. In many meetings, instructors voice frustrations about poor quality writing and plagiarism.
There are suggestions for conducting peer review workshops located on the English
Department’s Resource page; however, each instructor has the option to use peer review
workshops. Convincing the Chair of the English Department and the English 101 Coordinator to
consider this innovation can be accomplished by using the problem-solving process.
Problem-Solving Process

a. Identify the Problem – Some students did not use the writing assistance services provided
by the Writing Center when writing papers for English classes. As a result of not doing
so, students submitted poorly written assignments. Students who did not seek help from
the Writing Center or instructors were highly likely to withdraw from classes or receive
an F.

b. Analyze the Problem – Through discussion it was discovered that many students did not
seek the services offered by the Writing Center because physical and geographical
constraints prevented them from visiting the Center.

c. Generate Potential Solutions – After analyzing the problem, the development of possible
solutions was required. The following were two technology-based solutions:

• Skype, a free Web-based method of communication, afforded students four

benefits – a) alleviated physical and geographical constraints; b) offered virtual

office hours; c) provided an avenue for oral peer review; and d) allowed for
greater dissemination of information when compared to regular email.
• Google Docs, another free Web-based technology, provided the platform for
students to help each other with peer review at any hour of the day and from any
location. Students who opted to use With Google Docs could work on any
document at the same time.

d. Select and Plan the Solution – After discussion, the students and instructor decided on the
following plan:

• Students who needed help with class assignments after regular class hours had
access to the instructor via Skype.
• Students used Google Docs or some form of peer review to improve their quality
of writing.

e. Implement the Solution – The incorporation of technology designed to help students

write better essays was started February 03, 2011 and ended April 02, 2011.

f. Evaluate the Solution – The implementation of peer review worked well as evidenced by
students 5, 6, 14, 15, and 17 in Table 8. They all engaged in the peer review process, and
each student scored 80% or higher. Those five students exceeded the 70% standard that
was considered passing. Of all the students in the class, only student 5 actively used
Skype to communicate with the instructor. On the other hand, 12 students did not
adequately or effectively use either solution; therefore, the solutions did not benefit them.
If the English Department wants to improve the writing quality of its students, the
department should consider:
 • Teaching students to properly provide peer review feedback. Offering and using
online collaborative word processing applications. Having students complete the
peer review process during class since many may not do so once leaving class.
• Raising the pass percentage from 70% to 80% since many students are unable to
transfer to universities or enter certain programs with a grade less than a B.

Just as students are expected to become writing, the English Department must lead the
way in establishing a professional development program that will train all instructors at the
college how to teach their students the basis for writing-to-learn and writing across the
curriculum. Writing across the curriculum operates under the premise that students learn when
they write (Hampson, 2009). After all, Community College is a student-centered college that
prepares individuals to meet the challenges associated with a diverse, global society.

Conclusions

Writing assignments can and do serve as evaluations that can predict student success in
post-secondary environments (Tobin, 2010). Based on the success of the five students, who
scored 80% or higher, they responded favorably to the peer review process. Actively engaging in
the peer review process benefitted the students and the instructor. The students actively
collaborated to provide and to receive critical feedback on their essays before final submission.
Student reflections include:

“My suggestion for improvement is to keep writing and not hold back any information.”
– Student 5

“Overall, I was not too bad but I have plenty of room to grow. I will do more
proofreading in the future. I will use “you” less and stick with one point of view. I will
pay closer attention to detail.” – Student 6

“After reading another essay, I felt pretty confident in my writing ability. I need to focus
more on my conclusion. I feel that once I finish my intro and body, when I get to the
conclusion, I run out of steam and stumble on what I want to say.” – Student 14

“I must learn to stay focused and not shift from one point of view or another. That is
definitely my weakness.” – Student 15

“I think one of my strengths is a pretty good vocabulary and can describe things so the
reader can visualize. I think I can better organize things, my thoughts.” – Student 17

Moreover, the instructor did not spend time collecting essays and writing comments. As
for the students who did not score 80% or higher, they chose to forgo any peer review
workshops. In conclusion, the English Department promotes an environment filled with writing
that celebrates communication, collaboration, creativity, and critical thinking. Furthermore, at
the end of the semester the department wants each student, to be able to

• use appropriate stylistic options for a specific subject, audience, and purpose.
 • organize ideas effectively by selecting and limiting a topic.
• develop and supporting a thesis with relevant material.
• employ a logical plan of development.
• write essays that are substantially free of errors in grammar, usage, and mechanics.

Therefore, it makes sense to have students complete the peer review process using an
online word processing application, which provides the collaborative setting where students
review peer’s work by pointing out strengths, improvements, and other perspectives.

Reflections

The decision to focus on the importance of writing centers and writing across the
curriculum was made after reading two published research articles – The Writing Center as a
Key Actor in Secondary School Preparation and Caldwell Community College and Technical
Institute QEP: Writing Across The Curriculum Professional Development Program.

Writing Centers

Too often students leave high school without a solid writing foundation. Some enter
college knowing of their deficit(s) and are placed in developmental reading, writing or other non-
credit English classes. However, there are others who do well enough on college placement tests
and are placed directly into an English 101 class. Once some of those students realize that
college writing is quite different from high school composition, they go into sink or swim mode.
Those who choose to swim usually seek tutoring from the college’s writing center; whereas,
other students remain clueless as to what to do.

English 101 is a required college course and is considered an indicator as to how well a
student will perform in college. And, if students desire to be successful in English classes, they
may wish to consider the services offered at the college writing center. College writing centers
benefit students, who have varying writing abilities and who need assistance with various aspects
of writing. When students work with the writing center tutors, the sessions are supportive and
confidential, and writers build up their writing confidence. In general, writing centers are
nonjudgmental places of help, where grades are not issued.

Writing Across the Curriculum

There is a need to improve student writing on all educational levels. But for some reason,
writing is mostly associated with the English Department. However, students are required to
write in every subject area. How detailed the writing assignments are depends on the individual
instructors. Nevertheless, if College’s students are being prepared to compete in a diverse, global
society, they must be taught to write-to-learn and to write across the curriculum.

Asking students to write-to-learn and to write across the curriculum requires buy-in from
College’s faculty. A well-planned professional development program is key to encouraging
faculty to incorporate into their various courses. More importantly, faculty will come to realize
that technology is a helpful instructional tool. Tools such as wikis, mp3 and mp4 files, Google
Docs, and Jing can be used to respond to student writing. Nevertheless, when instructors become
comfortable with various web-based tools, collaboration between faculty and various
departments will become the norm and there will be considerable growth in student writing.
 References

Cathey, C. (2007). Power of peer review: An online collaborative learning assignment in social

psychology. Teaching of Psychology, 34(2), 97-99. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Hampson, M. P. (2009). Caldwell community college and technical institute QEP: Writing

across the curriculum professional development program. Community College Journal of

Research & Practice, 33(8), 618-621. doi:10.1080/10668920902928952

Tobin, T. (2010). The writing center as a key actor in secondary school preparation. Clearing

House, 83(6), 230-234. doi:10.1080/00098651003774810

Van Horn, M. C. (2010). Module 8: Teaching with peer review. Teaching with hacker

handbooks: Topics, strategies, and lesson plans (p. 101). Boston, MA: Bedford/St.

Martin’s.