Skip to content
2018
Volume 53, Issue 1
  • ISSN: 0007-8204
  • E-ISSN: 1943-2216
side by side viewer icon HTML

Abstract

Research shows that preservice English teachers (PSETs) lack opportunities to respond to student writing and that they may view student writing through a deficit lens. To address this need, the authors developed the Writing Mentors (WM) program, a digital field placement that gave PSETs experience providing feedback to high school writers. In this analysis, we examine how PSETs’ views of response were shaped by their digital interactions with high school writers. The challenges of interacting asynchronously created opportunities for PSETs to identify limitations in the mode of communication, propose approaches to providing feedback, and reflect on how teacher feedback can nurture or constrain relationships with students. These findings point to the promise of critical reflection on the disruptive potential of digital feedback for supporting PSTs’ response to student writing.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.58680/ee202030922
2020-10-01
2024-03-03
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/ee/53/1/englisheducation30922.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.58680/ee202030922&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Anson C. (1989) Response styles and ways of knowing. InAnsonC. (Ed.). Writing and response: Theory, practice, research (pp.332–366). NCTE.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Ballock E. McQuitty V. McNary S. (2018) An exploration of professional knowledge needed for reading and responding to student writing. Journal of Teacher Education, 69(1), 56–68.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Barnes M. E. Chandler C. (2019) Leveraging digital spaces for pre-service teachers to practice reading and responding to student writing. Journal of Language and Literacy Education, 15(1), 1–23.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Barnes M. E. Smagorinsky P. (2016) What English/language arts teacher candidates learn during coursework and practica: A study of three teacher education programs. Journal of Teacher Education, 67(4), 338–355.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bomer R. Land C. L. Rubin J. C. Van Dike L. M. (2019) Constructs of teaching writing in research about literacy teacher education. Journal of Literacy Research, 51(2), 196–213.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Chisholm J. S. Olinger A. R. Heron-Hruby A. (2019) “I didn’t want to make them feel wrong in any way”: Preservice teachers craft digital feedback on sociopolitical perspectives in student texts. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 19(4), 605–639.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Cyr J. (2015) The pitfalls and promise of focus groups as a data collection method. Sociological Methods & Research, 45(2), 231–259.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Elbow P. (1999) Options for responding to student writing. InStraubR. (Ed.). A sourcebook for responding to student writing (pp.197–202). Hampton.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Evans K. (2003) Accounting for conflicting mental models of communication in student-teacher interaction: An activity theory analysis. InBazermanC.RussellD. R. (Eds.). Writing selves, writing societies: Research from activity perspectives (pp.393–427). WAC Clearinghouse.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Graham S. (2019) Changing how writing is taught. Review of Research in Education, 43, 277–303.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Hebard H. (2016) Finding possibility in pitfalls: The role of permeable methods pedagogy in preservice teacher learning. Teachers College Record, 118, 1–42.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Johnson L. L. (2016) Writing 2.0: How English teachers conceptualize writing with digital technologies. English Education, 49(1), 28–62.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Koenig S (Host) (2014, October3). Serial [Audio podcast]. Retrieved fromhttps://serialpodcast.org/season-one
    [Google Scholar]
  14. MacArthur C. A. (2012) Instruction and evaluation in revision. InBerningerV. W. (Ed.). Past, present, and future contributions of cognitive writing research to cognitive psychology (pp.461–483). Psychology Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Morgan D. N. Pytash K. E. (2014) Preparing preservice teachers to become teachers of writing: A 20-year review of the research literature. English Education, 47(1), 6–37.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Mrkich S. Sommers J. (2016) Audio response to student writing. WPA-Compile Research Bibliographies, 16, http://comppile.org/wpa/bibliographies/Bib26/Audio_Response.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Murray D. (1985) A writer teaches writing. (2nd ed.). Houghton Mifflin.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Newell G. E. VanDerHeide J. Wynhoff Olsen A. (2014) High school English language arts teachers’ argumentative epistemologies for teaching writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 49(2), 95–119.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Nowell L. S. Norris J. M. White D. E. Moules N. J. (2017) Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1), 1–13.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Rysdam S. Johnson-Shull L. (2015) Introducing feedforward: Renaming and reframing our repertoire for written response. Journal of the Assembly of Expanded Perspectives on Learning, 21, 69–85.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Saldana J. (2013) The coding manual for qualitative researchers. (2nd ed.). Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Sherry M. B. (2017) Prospective English teachers learn to respond to diversity in students’ writing through the student writing archive project (SWAP). English Education, 49(4), 347–376.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Sieben N. (2017) Building hopeful secondary school writers through effective feedback strategies. English Journal, 106(6), 48–53.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Simon R. (2013) “Starting with what is”: Exploring response and responsibility to student writing through collaborative inquiry. English Education, 45(2), 115–146.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Smagorinsky P. (2008) The method section as conceptual epicenter in constructing social science research reports. Written Communication, 25(3), 389–411.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Sommers N. (1982) Responding to student writing. College Composition and Communication, 33(2), 148–156.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Sperling M. Freedman S. W. (1987) A good girl writes like a good girl: Written response to student writing. Written Communication, 4(4), 343–369.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Stommel J.|@Jessifer| (2020, March23). For institutions making decisions about switching to pass/fail, here are some specific recommendations in a thread [Tweet]. Twitterhttps://twitter.com/Jessifer/status/1242232141972410368
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Straub R. (2000) The student, the text, and the classroom context: A case study of teacher response. Assessing Writing, 7, 23–55.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Watters A.|@audreywatters| (2020, April5). It is simply not appropriate—pedagogically, emotionally, privacy-wise—to compel children to sit thru Zoom [Tweet]. Twitterhttps://twitter.com/audreywatters/status/1246976243871789060
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.58680/ee202030922
Loading
/content/journals/10.58680/ee202030922
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error