. Iv -- A v I.N\W|0Avv . o . . l l b. I. V 4 -- lv"~o - o n .. w 0‘ b‘oKno-tdhu‘fttflu . . . . - . Unzhflllvflnhu: .II. I I I”: I ~ ‘I V V.. . . . «.94. Unhl..-..Wo.... . . . afield... .4...“ . h... . D 1'. 2. If, I II "llli'. H‘. - I‘I'I . . . . . . . .f-lmMI . . II III . . It"- .2..-“ iff. .VNI. v: o u- I - s gin»..- -1 e... -I n. . . . . .--- r.va.v ..n... f . 1 I... . . :uflI- I...um_..I-I)II : u ‘. . . “rhu‘I. Mn...” .3... iI-' a‘ ‘ I I“. . ‘ -... . .u I I : N :l .‘V .I o ‘ 7' I I | I . I a I .‘l." ‘. I " ‘ 'u 1 I It“ .I'éh II III 1y I. .. .AI. IOIHUWVH I.1...I4II..I1.I\.. I . . ull. . -mMurh M... 0.. II .... .,.JI . KIEafifffiéfi? .1... EWNNHF. . . . .I\....uh. - HT»... 1.5.5:... fiflwflnfi .U..(.L.I...kfl.\nn_m, .. . .I IN... .:...... . - In»!|1\lII.(I III. IIJIICI . . NI 0. -J I. . . III HwflfiI...¢I. . - . - . . - - ,. ... - . . r -- . .. .2... . .v..n,I-..-.. in . . . .. u. I. ....- nim\skaanuI- IIIIQ‘PI» N.III¢...I.A¢JIIIIII III I . . . I. . . \ I . -I I I , . sq- . InnYNnmmHLhIL - . II 0&3 I. I. r . “Jung nun/.WJCIII - .Icu: It.-." ”NINE... I .I..I..s. ._I I.I.H...unl.llmw.fi. ) .II. . I I... . .NI .2 . . . . I . .. I . l . I I . I v . . I I II I II . v g...........1...I.. WW“- - . finnmmnfigkmmmfl. . 5.....8. .2 11......“iII.......L.-..«§.... L .- r11... .1..I..-... .I .II-._W¢III.I:. I. II. 1.21“. 1.. . EI.I|.. I..- I1 II. b... . It . tn- U»WHUWWI§. 00“! upkHIvVI I‘«'I-II I I! III. .II. . .v. . . . . . . . - . - . II. . .\ . - .\’I\ I I II. (I I I II I I . \III III . . -.II I . Inn) II I.I-....l III . II...I.\II.IIII I II.I M. . . I . . . . . .1 I I .1. . - I} 3.... flIIIHIHUQ. . I. I. .It 0.3.... It .3... z... ...- ... .-...3:.... ..1 . .. h. f . . . . . III III II..WHI-I.I... I- .Iunmv. . I.I:lull.I.II....IbI. 1.- 3.34....»hijvnfiio I. ...n.....hI..I_...I.., ....£......1. 3.. . I - - - . .. . I. . . . I . I c I ... I ...I. | I..- .I- . I - - . l . .0 . If .I-. IMPUJI. .III..hr. I. . . . ...-..I-. ...I.I-..- . . . . .. - - . I . I I.I .II.AQIv... .I .II. .. l‘: . ,.. . ... --(. ,..| . . . l. .. . . a .11.. .- I I AI . . - n . . . . ‘I I III... I 'I I III I. DI. I I‘II'IIII . . I I I I ll II} RARIES l\‘llllllll‘ll‘ll. ll \ \llll MICHIGA l l l E l l i {l lll‘lll 3 1293 00064 1385 l LIBRA R Y ... . Michigan State University ,9 m .-:-r "'i 3“- 171m: This is to certify that the thesis entitled AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF THE IMPACT ON STUDENT WRITING OF PEER EVALUATION presented by Thelma Ludwig Jones has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degree in Education it :5 Q /§’5qflz//f\ Major professor Date .Fa} 1.; i217— 0-7639 - SEPi‘ 2'; 7‘ 1993 é Jar. 9-1 l « © Copyright by THELMA LUDWIG JONES 1977 AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF THE IMPACT ON STUDENT WRITING OF PEER EVALUATION By Thelma Ludwig Jones A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY College of Education 1977 ABSTRACT AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF THE IMPACT ON STUDENT WRITING 0F PEER EVALUATION By Thelma Ludwig Jones Purpose The purpose of this study was to explore the impact occur- ring on student writing from the evaluation of the students' peers. The researcher examined the impact of peer evaluation on narrative, description, and analysis writing of male and female college- oriented seniors and examined the impact within content, structure, paragraph structure, sentence structure, diction, and mechanics. The researcher further studied self-initiated student changes, praise, and corrections remaining for instructor marking. Finally, an inductively determined grouping of the student corrections was included in this research. Methods of the Study A sample population of college-oriented high school seniors was divided into groups and used a Check Sheet to evaluate their peers' papers. These comments on the Check Sheet were then recorded on note cards and computer cards, coded by student number to indicate sex, hour, grade level (the few juniors in the class were dropped from the study). type of writing, nature of response, Thelma Ludwig Jones general category of the response (content, structure, paragraph structure, sentence structure, diction, mechanics, and a few special notations), and the specific response within the category. From two sets of papers from one class, an inductive grouping of the student responses was made. This information, arranged and totaled by the computer, was analyzed to answer nineteen questions. The answers to these questions appear in "Major Findings of the Study." Major Findings of the Study 1. Students accept more criticisms from their peers than they refuse. 2. Seventy-two percent of the criticisms accepted and acted upon resulted in an improved paper, and, for a description, the students acted for an improved paper upon 76 percent of the criticisms accepted. 3. About 60 percent of the self-initiated revisions resulted in an improved paper. 4. Approximately five errors remained on each paper for teacher correction. 5. The students, through peer evaluation or self-initiated revision, corrected about 60 percent of their own errors. 6. Females tended to give more criticisms, to respond more favorably to criticism, and to revise with greater care. 7. The largest number of corrections and revisions for improvement were in the category of diction. Thelma Ludwig Jones 8. Those individual students who gave the most criticisms tended to receive the most criticisms. 9. Although a student may initially refuse to accept criticisms, his peers patiently continued to correct his papers. 10. Males tended to correct by asking questions and females tended to rewrite for their peers. Although students usually accepted more corrections than they refused, they tended to refuse more the broad suggestions about thesis structure and content. ll. Several subjective observations devolved from this study. The researcher noted the enjoyment of the students as they shared their writings. Furthermore, their participation in peer evaluation freed the teacher for individual conferences. This inter-communication among students and teacher provided a pleasant, sharing, classroom climate. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer wishes to express appreciation to two individuals who chaired her guidance committee: to Dr. Elizabeth Rusk for her early understanding and encouragement and to Dr. Ben Bohnhorst who tenaciously and patiently guided this research. The other members of my committee, Dr. Louise Sause, Dr. David Mead, and Dr. Charles Blackman, willingly met and counseled me during my years at the university. A special thanks goes to Dr. Troy Stearns, a committee member before his retirement, who transmitted a vision of the chal- lenges in education. Dr. John F. A. Taylor helped to form my philosophical foundations through his instruction in Philosophy of Education. Other contributions to this research came from outside of the university. The students in the three classes that provided the sample population gave of their papers and their cooperation in peer evaluation. Dr. Charles Townsend, Superintendent, Kalamazoo Public Schools, Kalamazoo, Michigan, provided the computer services by writing the program and by "walking it through" the computer. He graciously met my research needs before his program pressures. The Kalamazoo Public Schools offered the teaching opportunity necessary for this research. ii A special "thank you" goes first to Sarah, Elizabeth, Stephen, Martha, and Mary who gave of their home, their talents, and their loving support to make my study possible, and second, to my parents who laid the foundation with strong values and high goals. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi LIST OF APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii Chapter I. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM . . . . . . . . . . l Introduction l Need for Research . . . 1 Purpose of the Research . 4 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Procedures ll Summary 14 II. LITERATURE RELATED TO PEER EVALUATION . . . . . . 15 Literature About Participatory Learning . . . . 15 Literature About Grouping . . . . . . . . . 20 Literature About Shared Writing . . . . 23 Literature About Peer Evaluation and Its Effects . 32 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 III. RESEARCH PROCEDURES OF THE STUDY . . . . . . . 46 Introduction . . . . . . . . 46 Identification of the Population . . . . . . . 46 Development of Instrument . . . . . . . . . 47 Method of Procuring Data . . . . . . 49 Method of Developing an Open Atmosphere . . . . 49 Grouping Methods . . . . . . 50 Critiquing. A "Trial Run" . . . . . SO 1975- 1976 Assignments, From Which Data Were Drawn . . . . . . 52 Critiquing, Revising, and Rewriting . . . . . 54 Method of Classifying Data . . . . . . . . . 55 Analysis of the Data . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 iv Chapter IV. REPORTING AND ANALYZING THE DATA Introduction Summary of Design and Procedure Population and Sample . The Instrument . Methods of Procuring Data . . Method of Classifying the Data . Analysis of the Data . . . . An Analysis of Question One . An Analysis of Question Two . An Analysis of Question Three An Analysis of Question Four An Analysis of Question Five . An Analysis of Questions Six and Seven An Analysis of Question Eight An Analysis of Question Nine An Analysis of Question Ten . . . . An Analysis of Questions Eleven and Twelve . An Analysis of Questions Thirteen and Fourteen An Analysis of Question Fifteen An Analysis of Question Sixteen . An Analysis of Questions Seventeen and Eighteen An Analysis of Question Nineteen . . . Analysis of Inductive List of Corrections A Subjective Analysis of the Academic and Social Learning . . . Summary V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . Conclusions . . Implications of This Research. Recommendations for Further Study Reflections . . . . . APPENDICES SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY . Table sooowmm-hmm u—l—l—l—l—l—J—l—l Nmmwa-‘O l8. l9. 20. LIST OF TABLES Code of Responses Computer Code Items Response to Evaluation Percent of Corrections for Improvement Self-Initiated Changes Corrections Needed After Evaluation and Revision . Percentage of Errors Student Corrected Male/Female Corrections Received for Improvement . Male/Female Corrections Given for Improvement . Male/Female Self-Initiated Changes Needed Corrections Remaining An Analysis of Question Ten . Peer Corrections for Improvement by Category Self-Initiated Changes for Improvement by Category A Comparison of Criticism and Praise . Results of Ignoring Peer Criticism Observations of Ala Received, All Criticisms Given, and Bl . . . . Observations for Criticisms for an Improved Paper and Praise . . . . . . . . . Inductive Analysis of Corrections by Sex, Response, and Paper . . . . . . . . . Specific Inductive Analysis of Corrections by Sex, Response, andPaper . . . . . . . vi Page 57 65 67 68 69 7O 7O 71 7T 72 73 73 75 77 78 79 Bl 82 84 85 Appendix A. Check Sheet B. Peer Correction Groups C. Criticisms and Praise Received and Self-Initiated Changes Made for an Improved Paper . . D. Composition Check List for ..... High School . E. Check Sheet--Fa11 1975 F. Who Am I?--A Cocktail Mix G. Samples of Note Cards Recorded From Papers . H. Inductively Developed Code Sheets . I. Samples of Inductively Developed Grouping of Note Cards From Hour Four Narrative and Description Papers . . J. Sample Drafts of Paper LIST OF APPENDICES vii Page 99 101 105 110 113 115 117 121 130 136 CHAPTER I STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM Introduction On some ancient Egyptian tomb a line of hieroglyphics sup- posedly read, "This younger generation is going to the dogs." Other lines, some place in the same tomb, unable to be translated or crumbled with age, surely must have asked, "Why can't Johnny write?“ Various problems--the generation gap, or writing, or even peace-- continue to be recycled for each generation or period to face. Today the attainment of composition skills, or the lack of writing skills, challenges educators and citizenry alike, and the periodi- cals and journals air the problem for all to consider. At the University of California at Berkeley . . . nearly half of last year's freshmen demonstrated writing skills so poor that they were forced to enroll in remedial courses . . . . At Temple University in Philadelphia, the proportion of freshmen failing an English placement exam has increased by more than 50 percent since 1968. Need for Research The Education Commission of the States in its National Assessment of Education Progress in 1969-1970 discovered among young adults a strong reluctance to write at all; "twentyrnine percent of those who agreed to take part in the overall assessment refused to 1Merrill Sheils, “Why Johnny Can't Write," Newsweek, Decem- ber 8, 1975, p. 59. attempt the writing exercise." The accompanying revelation in this assessment of the lack of basic writing skills of those who did attempt the writing exercises indicates a need for research in the 2 However, Edmund Farrell in reporting entire area of composition. on the results of the National Assessment of writing skills warned against making definite judgments about the causes of these measure- ments. He concluded rather that further studies about the process of developing competency in various kinds of writing are needed.3 Furthermore, teaching of composition frustrates teachers.4 The frustrations and challenges of teaching composition may include areas such as motivation, methods of teaching composition, and the ever-present paper-commenting problems. Although Richard Braddock in Encyclopedia of Educational Research does not tabulate hours spent ‘ in preparation, he states that teachers tend to spend per week a median of nine to twelve hours correcting papers and seventeen to twenty hours in the classroom teaching.5 Teachers feel encour- aged to spend these hours on paper correction perhaps because 2"Writing Test Reveals Many Lack Basic Skills; National Assessment Report," School and Community, LIX (October, 1972), 11. 3Edmund J. Farrell, Implications of National Assessment Writing Results (Washington, D.C.: Department of Health, Educa- tion and Welfare, 1971), p. 7. 4Lillian Schiff, "Teaching Composition,“ Convention Concerns, Sixty-first Annual Meeting of the National Council of Teachers of English, ed. Stephen Judy (Urbana, Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English, 1971), p. 18. 5Richard Braddock, "English Composition," in Encyclopedia of Educational Research, ed. Robert L. Ebel, 4th ed. (New York: Mac- millan Company, 1969), p. 449. of the findings in certain research studies. Buxton, for example, states: College freshmen whose writing is graded and thoroughly marked and criticized and who revise their papers in the light of these matters can improve their writing more than college freshmen whose writing receives a few general sug- gestions but no gradgs or intensive marking and who do not revise their papers. Slow also notes: 1. Students in remedial English (college) wrote fewer class themes in high school that (sic) did students enrolled in regular English. 2. More remedial English students come from high schools in which teachers did not mark errors in themes. However, when teachers sense the magnitude of time involved in this intensive marking, they seek some relief. Although evaluation of composition, most would probably agree, includes more than marking errors, students can catch and correct three-fifths of their own errors.8 This peer correction alone may relieve some of the weekly hours of correcting papers, while at the same time freeing the teacher for small group instruc- tion and individual help. Thus, within the broad areas of composi- tion studies, the use of peer evaluation presents a possible oppor- tunity for needed experimental and exploratory investigation. 6Richard Braddock, Richard Lloyd-Jones, and Lowell Schoer, Research in Written Composition (Champaign, Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English, 1963), pp. 69-70. 7Ralph Slow, "Influence of Writing Experience in High Schools on Presence of Students in Remedial College English Compo- sitions," The Journal of Educational Research, LVII (July-August, 1964), 536. 8N. L. Gage, ed., Handbook of Research on Teaching (Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, 1963), p. 986. Effective use of peer evaluation may help to obviate the frustra- tions of cpmposition teachers. However, since "teaching the universe of discourse" involves writing for others, an exploratory study of the effects of peer evaluation may contribute also to overcoming the reluctance of people to undertake the task of writing. Thus, studies in peer evaluation may reveal ways to relieve the teacher of the burdens of correction, may free the teacher for individual stu- dent conferences, may reveal some possibilities of study for improving composition, and may contribute to the lessening of writ- ing frustrations by increasing the joy of sharing communication. Purpose of the Research The purpose of this research was to make an exploratory study of the impact on student writing of peer evaluation. Earlier research, discussed in Chapter II, Related Literature, shows that no significant differences in the development of writing skill have as yet been observed in comparing peer evaluation with teacher evaluation procedures. The purpose of this research was to explore the possibili- ties of an impact occurring on the student's paper from the correc- tions of his peers. Examination of the impact of peer correction on various types of student writing, such as narrative, description, and analysis, and in various categories such as content, structure, paragraph structure, sentence structure, diction, and mechanics was an additional purpose of the study. Sex of the student was another variable considered. The research was also designed to explore self-corrections made by the student in the revision process and the relationships of these corrections to the other variables, to explore the relationship of the teacher-determined errors remaining after peer correcting, student response, and revision to the other variables, and to explore the praise or commendation exchanged by the students. The research may prove valuable for its analytical explora- tion of these possible peer variables on student writing. To the teacher, the value may lie in finding a way to get some relief in correcting student writing, in determining types of writing in which peer evaluation appears to have the greatest impact, and in a method of encouraging writing as communication. Since the researcher recognizes that any impact in writing observed may not necessarily be the direct result of peer evaluation, the research simply pre- sents a procedure that was followed and the change, if any, that occurred. The researcher also proposes to include case examples to illustrate the changes that occurred. The researcher's inclusion of an inductively determined list of items to be examined affords possibilities of additional observations and possible conclusions of the effect of peer evaluation. The statistics gathered from this research offer possibili- ties for future additional research to determine possible impact on student writing in different areas and on various types of writing from editing of another's paper. Furthermore, hopefully this exploratory study may generate additional experimental studies of the effectiveness of editing, studies of causality and correlation. Objectives The research had the following objectives: 1. To determine the extent of the impact of peer cor- rection on twelfth grade student (male/female) writing. 2. To determine the extent of the impact on various types of writing (narrative, description, and analysis) of peer correction on twelfth grade (male/female) writing. 3. To determine on what type of writing and on what type of correction a teacher may expect peer evalu- ation to have the most impact. 4. To determine inductively the types of responses that students make. 5. To test further an instrument for peer correction for college-bound secondary students. The "extent of the impact of peer correction on student writing" was acknowledged as a broad term. During the process of gathering the data the researcher recognized the extensive possi- bilities for use of the data. Therefore, as will be indicated in Chapter III, Research Procedures of the Study, Analysis of the Data, this present study focuses only on certain specific areas of the data relating to the objectives stated above. Definition of Terms Three broad terms used in this research need further deline- ation. These are grouping, peer evaluation, and writing. "Grouping" here refers to organizing classes of twenty or more students into smaller groups of three to five. These smaller groups maintain their identities throughout the period of investi- gation. The grouping occurred within the classroom after some effort to develop a student's awareness and knowledge of his peers. These groups developed by student choice: no student was arbi- » trarily assigned to a group. The same groups basically remained intact throughout the research although some groups decreased in number. A student on rare occasions "crossed over" to evaluate papers from a student not in his own group. In "peer evaluation" the evaluation is not a ranking or grading device. Rather, evaluation is "criticism with the intention of teaching individuals how to improve their written expression." Using an analytic check sheet as the basis for examining each paper, each student in peer evaluation employs an analytic method of evalu- ation. This procedure, according to Cast, is almost uniformly the better method, since “general impression" evaluations tend to examine superficially.10 "Writing" for this research refers to expository or trans- actional writing which, according to Parker's definition, ". . . is writing that derives its validity from the evidence it presents about something, and so it is the typical language of science and of 9Dwight L. Burton and John L. Simmons, eds., Teaching Eng- lish in Today's High Schools (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1970), p. 375. 10Braddock et a1., Research in Written Composition, p. 13. intellectual inquiry, . . . of planning, reporting, instructing, informing, advising, persuading, arguing, and theorizing."n There are three sub-types of writing from which data for this research are drawn: narrative, description, and analysis. Moffett in A Student Centered Language Arts Curriculum, K-13 defined a non-fiction narrative as a true story derived from sensations and/or memories. The narrative focuses away from the author and narrates another's experience or the narrative may be 'author centered.12 Description . . . is the kind of discourse concerned with the appearance of the world. It tells what qualities a thing has, what impression it makes on our senses. It aims to suggest to the imagination the thing as it appears immediately before an observer." An analysis breaks a subject into its component parts. Anything that has parts may be analayzed, and all parts of the whole that are analyzed should be considered. Limitations Interactions which entail writing that arises from personal perceptions and experiences and the reading of that writing by a person with different perceptions and experiences do not fit with 1lRobert P. Parker, Jr., "An American in London," English Journal, LXIV (April, 1975), 14-15. 12James Moffett, A Student Centered Language Arts Curricu- lum, K-13: A Handbook for Teachers (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1973), p. 343. 13Cleanth P. Brooks and Robert Penn Warren, Fundamentals of Good Writing (New York: Harcourt Brace and Company. Inc.. 19501, p. 195. ease into any objective mold. Even Educational Testing Service noted in 1947 that the reliability of the readings on their College Entrance examinations ranged generally on six different tests from 14 The teacher and researcher also may bring personal .58 to .69. biases into any examination of another's writing. The human element for students and researcher is a real limitation or qualification in this research. The human limitations within this research invalved first the student's selecting his critiquing peers. Second, the cri- tiquing student faced two choices: whether or not to critique his peer's paper and how to critique it. Third, the receiver of the criticism chose to accept or to reject the criticism. Fourth, if the student chose to accept the criticism, he further decided how to respond to the criticism, how to change. Finally, the student determined whether or not to make changes on his own. Many factors such as time, emotions, and physical feelings contributed to these choices. The gathering and compiling of the data led the researcher to self-examination and revealed human limitations in this area. First, the researcher evaluated the quality of the student changes made. This included considering the probing question: Was there a tendency to believe that any change was better than no change? Second, the researcher labeled a student's decision to reject the 14Fred 1. Godshalf and Frances Swineford, The Measurement $56griting2Ability (New York: College Entrance Examination Board, , p. . 10 change as wise or not so wise. Finally, the decision about further needed changes or remaining errors was made. Since writing evalu- ators traditionally rest on their developed and trained subjec- tivity, the researcher likewise trusted some eleven years of classroom experience in reading, training, and evaluating as the only available guide, limiting though it may be. Nevertheless, writing is shared communication: the greater the similarity of perceptions, the clearer the understanding commu- nicated. The need for further research on causality in peer cor- rection includes a study of this understanding between peers and its consequences. The population of this research was limited to above average, college-oriented high school seniors, and this was a significant objective limitation. Next, as an exploratory study only, a pro- cedure was observed and events were recorded, but no causal rela- tionships were proved. No comparisons were made to a control group. The research had further objective limitations. First, the research explored peer evaluation in only the expository writing of narrative, description, and analysis papers. Second, a period of only eighteen weeks of writing was examined. And, third, this research was conducted in an "average" classroom situation; and, therefore, the reader must recognize the limitations and uncontrol- lable variables imposed by the traditional classroom, i.e., fire drills, drop-outs, lunch breaks, varieties in class size, and the ' "end-of—the-day" syndrome. 11 Procedures The population for this research consisted of college-bound seniors. Those students at Loy Norrix High School, Kalamazoo, Michigan, who elected "Composition and Research Skills I" and were assigned by computer to the class in B-16 for the first semester of 1975-1976 composed the sample for the research. The sample was divided into three classes: first hour with twenty-six seniors, fourth hour with twenty-four seniors, and sixth hour with twenty- one seniors. Within each class the students were divided into cri- tiquing groups which remained stable throughout the research. Each student wrote a rough draft of a narrative, description, and analysis paper. After receiving peer corrections, each student revised his rough draft and wrote a final draft for each of the three papers. The papers varied in length from approximately two hundred to four hundred words. Work on all papers was preceded by instruc- tional and motivational techniques, as will be outlined in Chapter III. Rough drafts, peer corrections, and final drafts were all handed in and examined as data for this research. A classroom teacher who chooses to employ peer correction as a classroom method would, of course, need to receive only the final drafts. For the purposes of this research into the impacts of peer correction, how- ever, all the recorded data had to be collected and examined. The critiquing involved the use of carbon impregnated Check Sheets (see Appendix A). Each of the students critiqued two to three papers while others, in turn, critiqued his. Whether a stu- dent critiqued two or three others depended on many factors, the 12 main one being the size of his critiquing group. Each student received back the original of the critiques which others made on his writing, and he returned the carbons of the critiques he had made on the other writers in his group. Therefore, each student made two or three critiques of the papers of the students in his group and received two to three critiques from his peers on each narrative, description, and analysis paper. The major portion of the writing and critiquing was done in class. Since this research was conducted with an "average" sample of a population of college-oriented seniors, not all of the stu- dents always completed the writing assignments nor did each of the students always correct all of his peers' papers. Some variables influencing the students, in addition to their own choices, were such events as choir concerts, snow days, math tests, illnesses, and controlled organic chemistry experiments. Therefore, references to the numbers of papers written for each assignment and the numbers of Check Sheets completed for each assignment lack specificity throughout this paper. A comparison of the groups (see Appendix B) and of the corrections received (see Appendix C) shows the pattern of writings either completed or peer-evaluated for each student. After all papers were collected at the end of the semester, the information was tabulated on computer cards using the following known items for input: (1) an identification number for the stu- dent who wrote the paper being criticized; (2) the sex of the wri- ter; (3) grade level for the writer (but since only four juniors wrote, these were eliminated and only seniors participated); 13 (4) N (narrative), 0 (description), A (analysis) for identifying the type of paper written; (5) identification number for the student who gave the criticism; (6) sex of the critiquer; (7) grade level for critiquer (but juniors were eliminated from final observations); (8) the nature of the response made to the criticism (accepted or rejected) and the effect of that response; (9) the self-initiated changes of the writer of the paper; (10) the changes still needed, as noted by the researcher; (ll) praise given by peers, if any; (12) traditional classification of corrections offered or made (con- tent, structure, paragraph structure, sentence structure, diction, and mechanics); (13) a more specific classification of correction under the six major groups, i.e., spelling under mechanics or run-on sentences under sentence structure; and (14) an inductively deter- mined list of types of corrections formed from two papers (narrative and description) in hour four. A critique sheet (see Appendix A) was developed by the researcher, piloted during the fall term of 1974, and revised after student evaluation. The critique sheet is intended to aid students in analyzing the structure of their papers and in understanding and verbalizing grammatical structure. It is "reasonable that such an understanding of the structure of the language would enable a stu- dent to improve his writing skills."15 15Roy C. O'Donnel, "The Correlation of Awareness of Struc- tural Relationships in English and Ability in Written Com osition," The Journal of Educational Research, LVII (May-June, 1964), 466. 14 Summar Thus, the ever present need to improve writing skills and to decrease the paper correcting load from the teacher may possibly receive some assistance from this exploratory study of the impact of peer evaluation on student writing. The researcher also sensed an improved classroom climate provided by the students' more active participation, through peer evaluation, in the learning and evalu- ation process. Further chapters discuss some of the literature pertinent to peer evaluation, offer an exploratory design for observing one model of peer evaluation, and analyze the information accrued in the study of the procedure. The final chapter considers some conclusions and implications possible from observing this study. CHAPTER II LITERATURE RELATED TO PEER EVALUATION Literature related to the impact of peer evaluation resides in several areas. First, an understanding of peer evaluation bears on cooperative learning experiences in small groups, which includes (a) workshop learning, or participatory learning, and (b) grouping. Second, understanding peer evaluation of composition entails a basic understanding of composition and group experiences within composition, or shared writing. Finally, literature about pggy evaluation, in its various modes, furnishes additional specific information. Samples from each of the categories underscored above will be discussed in this chapter. The chapter closes with a summary. Literature About Participatory Learning Earl Kelley at Wayne State University magnified the workshop way of learning in teacher education. One of his six principles for favoring the workshop was the following: "Cooperation as a technique and as a way of life is superior to competition."16 Kelley developed the workshop method because he wished to employ methods for instructing teachers that they might copy in their 16Earl Kelley, The Workshop Way of Learning(New York: Harper and Brothers, 1951), p. 6. 15 16 classrooms. Workshop cooperation generated interdependency and con- fidence among the teachers: this type of c00peration builds con- fidence among students, too.17 The workshop method or participatory learning is based on one view of teaching and learning, terms which are often variously defined. Carl Rogers sees an exaggerated emphasis on teaching and prefers to emphasize learning. To him, learning occurs in a free- ing climate. It is a natural process which best occurs when stu- 18 dents have the freedom and opportunity to learn. Rogers believes that . . the goal of a democratic education is to assist stu- dents to become individuals who are able to take self- initiated action and to be responsible for those actions; who are capable of intelligent choice and self-direction; who are critical learners, able to evaluate the contribu- tion made by others; . . . who are able to cooperate efgec- tively with others in their various activities . . . . Working together in workshops or groups is not teaching, but more precisely a means of improving learning. The values of participa- tory learning increase through adolescence because the adolescent grows in use of the abstract. Therefore, his scope of participation possibilities expands.20 Participatory learning is a democratic 17 18Carl Ransom Rogers, Freedom to Learn; a View of What Edu- cation Might Become (Columbus, Ohio: C. E. Merrill Publishing Company, 1969), pp. 125-26. 19Carl Ransom Rogers, Student Centered Teaching (Toronto, Canada: Hogtown Press, 1972), p. 3. 20Herbert Ginsburg and Sylvia Opper, Piaget's Theory of Intellectual Development, an Introduction (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1969), p. 227. Kelley, The Workshop Way, pp. 7-10. l7 learning device particularly suited to allowing adolescents the freedom to grow, to develop. Use of group or participatory learning increases the aware- ness and use of the often unrecognized variety of resources available in students. As the climate becomes freer, more democratic, more sharing, these resources grow through their use.21 Not only is participatory learning more successful because of the humanizing, free climate, but also it produces results-- academically and socially. Cooperative learning, not competitive, is an important aspect of the academic achievement of the growing 22 individual. Peer evaluation, moreover, requires cooperation more than competition, for competition "breeds fear of failure."23 The individual who actively participates in the learning situation learns more rapidly, and his learned response tends to be more 24 Involvement in a task thus brings "about more "25 stably developed. As quoted earlier, Rogers sees 26 rapid and more stable learning. participatory learning developing "critical thinkers." He also 21Richard A. Schmuck and Patricia A. Schmuck, A Humanistic Psychology of Education, Making the School Everybody's House (Palo Alto, California: The National Press Books, 1974), p. 23. 22Ibid., p. 101. 23c. H. Patterson, Humanistic Education (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1973), p. 86. 24Gordon W. Allport, Pattern and Growth in Personality (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1961), p. 20. 25Ibid., p. 106. 26 Rogers, Student Centered Teaching, p. 3. 18 states that "the only learning which significantly influences behavior is self-discovered";27 students learn by doing, by partici- 28 pating responsibly. In a review of an Ontario-Montclair Tutoring Program it was concluded that the strongest positive findings from the research were the positive academic gains of tutor and tutee.29 Peer evaluation relates closely to tutoring and thus offers this same potential for academic gains, for learning growth. A secondary value of participatory learning relating closely to peer evaluation is the effect of this learning on evaluation. When students are involved in evaluating their own work, they ulti- mately develop a more positive attitude about the entire evaluative process.30 An evaluation process, which is not the prerogative of 3] Peer the teacher alone, involves the pupil, if it is meaningful. evaluation in this research also involves a measure of self- evaluation. In addition to academic results, participatory learning enhances social relationships. Primarily, the very social relation- ship enacted with our fellowman determines our character as well as 27Rogers, Freedom to Learn, p. 153. 281mm, p. 162. 29Linda Devin-Sheehan, Robert S. Feldman, and Vernon L. Allen, "Research of Children Tutoring Children: A Critical Review," Review of Educational Research, XLVI (Summer, 1976), 357. 30Carolyn Logan, "Myth and Method," English Journal, LIX (April, 1970). 550. 31J. W. Patrick Creber, Sense and Sensitivity (London: Uni- versity of London Press Ltd., 1965), pp. 222-23. 19 building relationships with peers.32 Rogers, previously quoted, states that democratic education builds effective cooperation with others.33 Educators like James sense that in education dialogue 34 "For students the 35 with persons is always an underlying value. peer group constitutes one of the most important social forces." One of the highest levels of social relationships is the I-Thou communion, as conceived by Martin Buber, which is opposed to the more objective, the measurable, the tangible I-It relation- ship. The I-Thou communion comes through grace, through relation. The It offers many essentials, basic necessities. ". . . [W]ithout It a human being cannot live. But whoever lives only with that is "36 Occasional glimpses of Buber's I-Thou relationships 37 not human. appear through larger group interactions. The teacher endeavors to build the atmosphere to abet the I-Thou actions. The teacher facilitates.38 James calls the role pastoral, and Dr. John F. A. Taylor in his philosophy of education 32Jack R. Frymier, "Teaching the Young to Love," Theory into Practice, XIII (December, 1974), 378. 33 34Charity James, Young Lives at Stake (New York: Agathon Press, 1972), p. 116. 35 Rogers, Student Centered Teaching, p. 3. Schmuck, A Humanistic Ppycholpgy of Education, p. 170. 36Martin Buber, I and Thou, trans. Walter Kaufman (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1970), p. 85. 37 Schmuck, A Humanistic Psychology of Education, p. 194. 38Rogers, Freedom to Learn, pp. 125-26. 20 identifies the skill as midwifery. Regardless of the particular label, "[tJeaching requires that the teacher in some way involve the 1earner."39 Literature About Grouping Herbert A. Thelen in his writings about grouping basically studies the grouping of school populations into classrooms. How- ever, many of the same principles and problems apply to within-the- classroom grouping. Thelen recognizes that grouping presents some difficulties, particularly if "objectively definable groups" are desired. The present research employed "subjective" grouping, i.e., groupings determined by the students themselves. Thelen also believes that "grouping makes sense only when the teacher has a clear and accurate idea of what to do with the special group." Therefore, grouping occurs to meet conditions or needs established for effective learning.40 Thus, although grouping offers some problems, it accomplishes several purposes. Not only does grouping meet needs established for effective learning, but also grouping meets a basic human need--interdepen- 41 dency. Through the group each member experiences personal 39 40Herbert A. Thelen, Classroom Grouping for Teachability (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1967), pp. 188-90. 41Nathaniel Cantor, The Dynamics of Learning (Buffalo, New York: Foster Stewart Publishing Corporation, 1946), p. 58. Patterson, Humanistic Education, p. 94. 21 inquiry.42 In peer evaluation, as each student reads the paper of another, he makes personal inquiry about the strengths of his peer's and of his own writing. Groups stimulate development of social organizational skills because the group grows in competence as time goes on.43 One purpose of grouping, particularly in peer evaluation, is to develop competence in evaluation; the pupil shares in the 44 But the teacher helps the student to recog- evaluation process. nize his need for interdependency and yet to employ self-criticism and self-guidance,45 important facets of self-evaluation. What has the literature said about methods of grouping? Ehly and Larson in their study about tutorial outcomes found that sex, feelings of tutor and tutee for each other, and peer acceptance or rejection were not factors that affected amount of learning or learning efficiency. "Only the tutee's entry ability level was pre- dictive of the amount of learning which resulted from the prognmnfl46 Whether the learning task demands grouping or an individual approach 42Herbert A. Thelen, Education and the Human Quest (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1960), p. 154. 431bid., p. 155. 44Creber, Sense and Sensitivity, p. 223. 45Cantor, The Dynamics of Learning, p. 179. 46Stewart W. Ehly and Stephen C. Larsen, "Tutor and Tutee Characteristics as Predictors of Tutorial Outcomes," Psychology in the Schools, XIII (July, 1976), 349. 22 depends upon the nature and complexity of the task and the nature and composition of the group.47 Once the need for grouping is determined, evaluating the effectiveness of grouping includes more than an objective measuring of academic success of the individual. Evaluation needs to consider the social interactions, for evaluation includes a look at activities that build social skills not just achieve grades.48 B. F. Skinner applies his response psychology to verbal behaviors. He finds that words are not used because those words earlier elicited punishment. But other words app selected because they were rewarded. Thus, in peer evaluation students learn the use of words to secure desired response both in their writing and 49 Kelly expands upon this: in their criticism. But every writer and every speaker needs an audience beyond the teacher, needs many responses to whatever he has to say on paper and in class. Everybody needs to be seen and heard by the group he is a member of; needs to feel thag he is an identifiable and worthwhile member of that group. 0 47S. S. Boocock, "Toward A Sociology of Learning: A Selective Review of Existing Research," Sociology of Education, XXXIX (Winter, 1966), 10. 48Janet Hanley Whitla, "Classroom-Centered Evaluation: A Humanistic Approach for the Social Studies," Social Education, XL (November-December, 1976), 568-69. 493. F. Skinner, Verbal Behavior (New York: Appleton- Century-Crofts, 1957), pp. 371-52. 50Lou Kelly, "Toward Competence and Creativity in an Open Class," College English, XXXIV (February, 1973), 648. 23 Literature About Shared Writing By being required to write only for an audience of one powerful adult, the student learns to write about whatever subjects and to use whatever language will please that adult. . . . [A]nd, indeed, if the medium is the message, he does not learn in school that writing is a means of sharing his own ideas and feelings in his own language with those peers who count most to the youngster every hour of the day except that spent in English c1ass.5l The literature on composition continually emphasizes the need of an expanded audience, and writers regularly recite their various methods for having students share their writings. However, before citing the uses and values of shared writing, some writers' views on understanding composition, its instruction and its evalu- ation, as it relates to shared writing or peer evaluation will be examined. James Moffett in Teaching the Universe of Discourse dis- cussed the verbal skills acquired by a person, beginning with speak- ing and concluding with writing. ". . . [WJriting is learned in the same basic way other activities are 1earned--by doing and by heeding "52 Thus, as a child learns to speak by sensing the what happens. reactions of his hearers, a child learns to write and to improve his writing by heeding how his readers react. The more one writes and the more one receives responses to what one writes, it may be that the better he will write. The lit- erature, however, differs on this point. McColly and Remstad claim 51R. Botts, "What Means This End? Some Unexamined Classroom Practices," English Journal, LX (January, 1971), 89. 52James Moffett, Teaching the University of Discourse (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1968), p. 193. 24 that it is "not tenable" that more writing means better writing.53 However, Lokke and Wykoff believe that if a person doubles the amount of writing, he increases his writing achievement.54 Nevertheless, businessmen throughout the United States agree that the ability to communicate is one of the most important assets of a professional worker. Westinghouse leaders believe that a "con- tinued upgrading of the general level of ability to utilize English would serve the best interests of the nation." Yale and Towne administration, according to Mersand, believe that "a love of Eng- lish and a command of English are prerequisites to success."55 Mersand then turned to colleges and universities for suggestions for achieving composition skill. More universities, from Alabama to Yale, recommended "more writing in high school."56 How, then, may this "more writing in high school" be accom- plished? Burton and Simmons recognize the need for further research in these areas. They ask, "What approaches or methods in rhetoric are most effective in developing skill in written composition? . . What are the conditions for effectively developing writing 53W. McColly and R. Remstad, "Comparative Effectiveness of Composition Skills Learning Activities in the Secondary School," Cooperative Research Project 1528 (Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin, 1963), p. 62. 54Virginia Lokke and George Wykoff, "Double Writing in Freshman Composition--an Experiment," School and Society, XLVIII (November, 1948), 437-39. 55d. Mersand, Attitudes Toward English Teaching (Phila- delphia, Pennsylvania: Chilton Press, 1961), p. 293. 56Ibid., p. 295. 25 57 Teachers and researchers recognize "there are many 58 abilities?" and that research in compo- 59 ways of teaching writing effectively," sition is especially difficult because of its subjective nature. A teacher of composition seeks "to cultivate in the student a bafflingly complex intellectual skill. Instruction in it does not "60 Thus, shared wri- proceed in a systematic sequential way, . . . ting, or peer evaluation, is only one of the methods possible, and this research simply observes what happens in its particular use in one situation. In considering shared writing and peer evaluation, the researcher also examined evaluation of writing. This, too, is a complex subject, since it has been demonstrated that one paper judged by five different people might possibly receive five differ- 6] Theories or methods of evaluation vary from holistic ent grades. to analytic. But the major question to which this study was seeking an answer was: How does peer evaluation (and shared writing) aid or contribute to evaluation? 57Dwight L. Burton and John S. Simmons, eds., Teaching Eng- lish in Today's High Schools (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1970), PP. 15-16. 58Glen A. Love, "World Views of Composition," College Compo- sition and Communication, XXII (February, 1971), 33. 59J. J. DeBoer, "Composition, Handwriting, and Spelling," Review of Educational Research, XXXI (April, 1961), 161. 60A. R. Kitzhaber, Themes, Theories, and Therapy: The Teaching of Writing in College (New York: McGraw Hill Book Company, 1963): p. 89. 61 Kitzhaber, Themes, Theories and Therapy, p. 69. 26 A first principle is that evaluation should apply to the here and now and avoid the idea of correcting in order to do "bet- ter next time." Judy maintains that directing evaluation toward the future may actually inhibit writing.62 Peer evaluation is a "here and now" act which allows the student to receive immediate response from his peers about the effectiveness of his immediate communication. V Diederich in Measuring Growth in English found that teachers consider five areas significant in evaluating writing: (1) ideas; (2) sentence structure, which includes usage, spelling, and punctu- ation; (3) organization; (4) wording (vocabularY); and (5) style.63 The present research examines the first four of these five areas. Without an understanding of the evaluation process being applied to his writing, the student may develop frustrations which handicap his writing. By contrast, pupil correction through shared writing should help evaluation and help writing by increasing through direct participation an understanding of the evaluative process.64 If students are to write more, as the colleges and univer- sities desire, the burden for evaluation is likely to devolve upon. 62Stephen Judy, Explorations in the Teaching_of Secondany English (New York: Dodd, Mead, 1974), p. 102. 63Paul Diederich, Measuring Growth in English (Urbana, Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English, 1974), pp. 7-8. 64Loren V. Grissom, "Student Leadership in Evaluating Composition," English Journal, XLVIII (September, 1959), 338. 27 the high school English teacher. Squire ptyal, have estimated that if the students write once each week, approximately 250 words per pupil, merely reading and grading one paper takes 3.5 minutes or 8.8 hours per week for 150 students. If the teacher marks to encourage thinking, each paper requires 8.6 minutes or 21.5 hours. Further, if the student revises (and he should), this additional checking takes 2.8 minutes or seven more hours per week. After adding to this the regular hours in the classroom and in other teaching-related activities, Squire finds that "it would take about seventy hours per week to do the job as it should be done."65 Various methods of employing shared writing procedures have been offered. Edna McGuire questioned college freshmen about their writing experiences by asking, "Should students read one another's papers?" The students answered that this should be done only some- times and anonymously. They felt that they could not catch the errors and wished the teacher to mark after the student reading.66 However, James Moffett recommended using peer correction groups without direct teacher supervision. Teacher-led class discussions furnished a model for the peer groups and reinforced them.67 Karrfalt at Edinboro State College, Edinboro, Pennsylvania, used groups for peer correction by having the group work alternately on 65James R. Squire et al., The National Interest and the Teaching of English (Champaign, Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English, 1961), pp. 92-94. 66Edna McGuire, "College Freshmen on Writing in High School," English Journal, LI (April, 1962), 258. 67 Moffett, Teaching the Universe of Discourse, p. 197. 28 one student's paper thoroughly and turn that paper in for a group 68 Sauer used shared writing by anonymous duplication of each 69 grade. student's writing for consideration by the class. Katz described a fbrm of shared writing through workshops. The University of South Carolina provided tutors for aiding students. Some students came as often as forty or fifty times, but usually five visits were suffi- cient. The directors planned to explain the service to high school 70 teachers and to expand the program at the university. Bruffer directed the students to write evaluative critiques of each other's papers,7] while Hawkins reacted to all student criticism after the student rewrote the paper.72 The experience of sharing student writing was instructive to their instructors. Bruffer felt that "[pJeople themselves learn 73 when they teach others." Hawkins found the group process an "enhancing environment for active, socially realistic learning,"74 68David H. Karrfalt, "Writing Teams: From Generating Compo- sition to Generating Communication," College Composition and Commu- nication, XXII (December, 1971), 377-78. 69Edwin H. Sauer, "The Cooperative Correction of Paragraphs," in Essays on the Teaching of English: Reports of the Yale Confer- ence on the Teaching of English, eds. Edward Gordon and Edward Noyes (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1960), p. 139. 70Molly Katz, "A Blueprint for Writing," hange, VIII (November, 1976), 46-47. 71Kenneth A. Bruffer, "Collaborative Learning: Some Practi- cal Models,“ College English, XXXIV (February, 1973), 638. 72Thom Hawkins, "Group Inquiry Techniques for Teaching Wri- ting," College English, XXXVII (March, 1976), 641-42. 73 74 Bruffer, "Collaborative Learning," p. 641. Hawkins, "Group Inquiry Techniques,” p. 637. 29 75 and he felt that the students enjoyed the process. Karrfalt stated that he could show only that attendance improved. He observed that the students seemed to open up and to experience a 76 Morsey observed that stu- situation for writing that was social. dents check for weaknesses and strengths, work better for a student audience, and improve their editing ability by reading capable wri- tings of their peers.77 Hawkins offered the following specific instructions for shared writing: (1) Read the paper at least twice; (2) talk with your peers about the paper to determine the congruity of perceptions; (3) write the feedback and include the larger view and the smaller errors; (4) the student corrected rewrites the paper. He also recommended using the groups for other tasks, such as grammar study.78 Bruffer saw the teacher role in shared writing as an organizer of groups for the experience.79 He recommended that the teacher help the students grow in shared learning by giving the groups problems of increasing generality.80 75 76 77Royal J. Morsey, Improving English Instruction (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1965), p. 75. 78 79 8OIbid., p. 642. Ibid., p. 641. Karrfalt, "Writing Teams," pp. 377-78. Hawkins, "Group Inquiry Techniques," pp. 641-42. Bruffer, "Collaborative Learning," p. 637. 30 Not only is shared writing used to achieve academic results but the process also offers other commendable values. James Cole- man found traditional and highly structured schools conflicting and unsatisfactory. His ideal learning environment included these four points, all of which appear to inhere in peer evaluation: (1) Freedom to act and to make mistakes (students write); (2) feel consequences of mistakes (peers respond with criticisms or ques- tions); (3) have consequences small enough not to discourage (peers do not have authority to grade); and (4) provide an environment to "induce the desired learning" (students rewrite with help of cor- rections).8] Moffett senses a strong student interest in the lives of their peers, a keen desire to know each other better. This social motive is tied to writing.82 Shared writinq stimulates the feel- 83 This audience B4 inqs of the student audiences and entertains them. response to a student's writing stimulates him to more writing. Further, the group discussions and evaluations furnish material for class discussion of critical points.85 81James S. Coleman, Adolescents and the Schools (New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1965), p. 108. 82James Moffett, A Student Centered Language Arts Curricu- lum, K-l3: A Handbook for Teachers (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1973), p. 373. 83Herbert J. Muller, The Uses of English: Guidelines for the Teaching of English from the Anglo-American Conference at Dartmouth College (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1967), pp. 100-1. 84 Moffett, A Student Centered Language Arts, p. 386. 85Grissom, "Student Leadership in Evaluating," p. 339. 31 This sharing method which is used often in the primary schools should move into the secondary schools.86 The workshop or shared writing helps the "pupils to realize that the excellence of their work must be measured in terms of the effect of their efforts upon their audience and point[s] out the causes of their (usually 87 Muller believes that students would partial) success or failure." possibly improve in their composition skills by working in groups, writing for one another; "but I suppose no experiment could conclu- sively prove this."88 Although Muller believes that no experiment could conclu- sively prove that a group writing process improves student writing, Lyman in an experiment showed that students found and corrected three-fifths of their errors, a partial improvement in the writing process.89 However, Martin feels that student correcting offered "little or no gain in economy of time for the teacher, since he must check the corrections." But he feels that the students profit by editing their peers.90 As one method of shared writing, Grissom 86John Dixon, Growth Throngh English (Edgerton, Huddersfield, Yorkshire, England: National Association for the Teaching of Eng- lish, 1969), p. 98. 87W. W. Hatfield, Experience Curriculum (New York: Appleton Century, 1935), p. 136. 88 Muller, The Uses of English, p. 102. 89R. L. Lyman, "A Cooperative Experiment in Junior High School Composition," School Review, XXXIX (December, 1931), 754. 90Freedom and Discipline in English, H. C. Martin, chairman (Princeton, New Jersey: College Entrance Examination Board, 1965), p. 101. 32 9] And Hayakawa 92 suggests that students work out their own criteria. even recommends that "the grading be done by the student." But all see strong positive values for shared writing and peer evaluation. Literature About Peer Evaluation and Its Effects The literature examined in this section refers to several controlled research projects on individual peer evaluation. Other writings cited in this section include studies based on subjective observations. Researchers in peer correction differ on one positive value of the process, improvement of writing achievement. In research with freshmen at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, the researchers concluded that a workshop instructional method affected the writing achievement. The workshop method used by the experi- mental group included "daily, intensively supervised writing prac- tice." All themes were written in class. Instruction, which usually occupied only the first ten to twenty minutes of the hour, began with the word and moved to sentences and paragraphs with the other basic rhetorical concepts added. The students then wrote an assignment supporting the brief instruction while the instructors worked individually. Small group assignments included reading 91Grissom, "Student Leadership in Evaluating," p. 338. 925. I. Hayakawa, "Linguistic Science and the Teaching of Composition," ETC: A Review of General Semantics, VII (Winter, 1950), 102. 33 papers of their peers, and the students were free to help one another while writing. Although this experimental/control research did not isolate peer evaluation as the sole factor in improved achievement, the research does suggest that the use of peer evaluation improves writing.93 Ray Maize in his experimental/control study at Purdue Uni- versity included other variables in addition to peer correction and also clearly showed compositional superiority of the experimental group. His control group studied grammar and wrote fewer papers. The experimental group wrote more and the papers were "read and cor- rected during class time by the students under the guidance of the teacher."94 Sager's study involved sixth graders for a period of ten weeks. She concluded that overall the writing improved and that the 95 Her scale included four divi- girls improved more than the boys. sions which each student used in rating his peers. A student rated his peer from zero to three on each division with the highest pos- sible total grade being twelve. Each section included helpful expansions of the division topic. For example, under "Elaboration" 93Virginia J. Haas et al., "English Composition by Work- shop," The Journal of E_xperimental Education, XL (Spring, 1972), 33-34. 94Ray Maize, "A Study in Two Methods of Teaching Composi- tion" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Purdue University, 1952), p. 88. 95Carol Sager, "Improving the Quality of Written Composition Through Pupil Use of Rating Scale" (paper presented at the 63rd meeting of the National Council of Teachers of English, Philadel- phia, Pennsylvania, November 22-24, 1973), pp. 4-5. 34 appeared the supporting explanation, "An abundance of related "96 The scale encouraged no individual comment or suggestions ideas. for improvement. Thus, each student received an "objective" evalu- ation from his peers. Jean R. Lagana wished to individualize instruction and to reach students affectively through peer groups. Therefore, she developed a model for instruction using individual assignments to meet student needs discovered through the STEP Writing Test.97 She also designed permanent peer groups based on student strengths and weaknesses. Each group chose its topic for writing, shared the writings, and graded each other's papers. The teacher arbitrated, when necessary.98 Overall, the experimental group surpassed the control group, but the experimental group wrote more papers, also.99 No emphasis was made on student rewriting of papers, and the stu- dents wrote the pre- and post-test on the same topic. In his study for the University of Oklahoma, Bob W. Ford served as the only evaluator of his pre- and post-tests. He designed his research on peer editing to give teachers released time 96Carol Sager, "Improving the Quality of Written Composi- tion Through Pupil Use of Rating Scale" (unpublished Ph.D. disserta- tion--Chapter IV, Construction of the Revised Scale, on microfiche, National Council of Teachers of English Committee on Research), pp. 78-81. 97Jean R. Lagana, "The Development, Implementation, and Evaluation of a Model for Teaching Composition Which Utilizes Indi- vidualized Learning and Peer Grouping" (unpublished Ph.D. disserta- tion, University of Pittsburgh, 1972), pp. 4-5. 981bid., pp. 37-41. 991bid., p. 99. 35 in order Undevote more time to student conferences and to allow stu- 100 dents to write more. In his experimental/control groups all instruction was the same except the experimental group had two ses- 101 sions to train in theme rating. The experimental group, which used peer editing, surpassed the control group on the Language 102 Knowledge Test and on pre- and post-test themes. The students used an evaluation check list which gave points and grades to the students.103 In 1955 Aggie Boyet found no significant growth in classes using student editing. However, she labeled her research inconclu- sive because of certain variables. She recommended that teachers grade after peers edit, that the students edit fewer themes (her structure called for editing five papers), and that students have a criteria for editing.104 Although Haas, Maize, and Sager concluded that students gained in achievement in writing, Pierson found no significant dif- ference in writing achievement between peer correction groups and teacher-corrected groups. In his experimental/control study his 100Bob Wayne Ford, "The Effects of Peer Editing/Grading on the Grammar-Usage and Theme Composition Ability of College Freshmen" (unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, University of Okalhoma, l972),rL 28. 1O‘Ibid., p. 50. 102 103 Ibid., p. 73. Ibid., p. 118. 104Aggie Boyet, "The Effect of Student Group Editing of Themes on the Improvement of Writing in Freshman English Composi- tion" (unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Oklahoma Agricultural and Mechanical College, 1955), pp. 106-7. 36 experimental groups were trained in correcting the papers of their peers and frequently used guide sheets for correction. His measure- ment device was the STEP essay test.105 Putz in her study in New York University asked the students to write eight compositions on ditto masters. These papers were then discussed in class in order, or the class selected the three best and the three worst and discussed in small groups. The stu- dents were pre-tested and post-tested by three papers for each test, and each paper was rated holistically on a scale from one to three. 106 She found no measurable change in writing ability. Sutton and Allen in a Cooperative Research Project through Stetson University used peer evaluation, but they made "no con- trolled experimental studies on the variable of peer evaluation."107 However, their hypotheses dealt with frequency of writing and peer evaluation. Their procedure used six pre- and post-tests. With so many tests withoUt reenforcement, their student response on the 105Howard Pierson, "Peer and Teacher Correction: A Compari- son of the Effects of Two Methods of Teaching Composition in Grade Nine English Classes" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, New York University, 1966), p. 79. 106Joan M. Putz, "When the Teacher Stops Teaching--an Experiment with Freshman English," College English, XXXII (October, 1970), 51-54. 107.1oseph T. Sutton and Eliot 0. Allen, "The Effect of Prac- tice and Evaluation on Improvement in Written Composition," Cooperative Research Project 1993 (Delano, Florida: Stetson Univer- sity, 1964), p. 9. 37 evaluation instruments lacked motivation. Motivation was lessened also because the topics were not student selected.108 In addition to the above research procedures, other instruc- tors have tried different methods of using peer evaluation and have simply recorded their subjective observations. Snipes, with college freshmen, combined peer evaluation and student teaching. Each student served on a committee and was responsible for teaching a concept and for evaluating themes written by other students with final evaluation resting with the instructor. Snipes recommended attempting a process that removed evaluation from the instructor and placed it on a committee of five working with a student-developed evaluation scale.109 Witbeck used peer correction in teaching English to speakers of other languages. His procedure included, first, all students correcting one paper together. Second, students read papers of others and gave their peers the opportunity to correct before the teacher read the papers. Finally, on some occasions the teacher assigned specific errors to be searched for during the reading. We observed many positive but intangible results from his use of peer evaluation.no 108Sutton and Allen, "The Effect of Practice and Evaluation on Improvement in Written Composition," p. 51. 109Wilson Currin Snipes, "An Inquiry: Peer Group Teaching in Freshman Writing," College Composition and Communcation, XXII (May, 1971), 171. noMichael C. Witbeck, "Peer Correction Procedures for Intermediate and Advanced ESL Composition Lessons,” Teachers of Eng- lish to Speakers of Other Languages Quartenly, X (September, 1976), 323—25. 38 In the Los Angeles City Schools' manual for instruction of composition, peer correction was recommended. Students were to organize themselves in groups to read each other's papers, and one paper was to be selected from the group to be read to the class.]]] The manual also included a highly structured check sheet with items to be marked with a plus or minus. The check sheet omitted any reference to lines to help locate the problem and also omitted any suggestions or comments.112 Dyess recommended students' reading their papers to their classmates while they use a check list based on items included in class instruction. He also suggested revision after the criti- cisms.H3 Hipple used smaller groups and suggested two possible procedures. First, the group might work on one paper for improve- ment. Or, the student might attach an evaluation sheet to his paper for all comments. Thus, a student not only commented on the original 114 paper but possibly commented on the criticism of others. Platt used individual groups meeting out of class with the instructor to 111Division of Instructional Planning and Services, Compose Yourself: A Plan for Instruction in Written Composition, Grades 7-12 (Los Angeles, California: Los Angeles City Schools, 1976): p. 61. "zrbid., p. 66. 113Joseph T. Dyess, "Composing: Epiphany and Detail," Cpl: lege Conposition and Communication, XV (December, 1964), 261. 114T. W. Hipple, "Grader's Helpers; Colleagues, Peers, Scorecards," English Journal, LXI (May, 1972), 692. 39 read a paper projected by means of an opaque projector. The stu- dents then corrected the paper.“5 Not only did peer correction produce positive attitudes and some results indicating improved writing achievement, but also it produced other tangible by-products: various check lists, a convic- tion of teacher grading relief, a method of assistance to the begin- ning teacher, better attendance, and more writing. Nearly all the findings, except the check lists, were based primarily on subjective observations or perceptions. The check sheet developed by Haas g§_nl, was for the stu- dent's use while writing. It included seventeen questions or imperatives, such as "5. Do your sentences have continuity?" or "116 The guide sheet recommended by "17. Omit unnecessary words. Pierson varied according to the assignment, and the sheet was coop- eratively developed by students and teacher. This instrument moved toward specifics by asking the corrector to cite numbers of the lines referred to.]]7 The Los Angeles Instructional manual contained a highly structured evaluation and check sheet. On this the reader simply checked the errors committee by the writer. The sheet made no HSMichael Platt, "Correcting Papers in Public and in Pri- vate," College English, XXXVII (September, 1975), 23. 116 117Howard Pierson, Teaching Writing (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1972), p. 27. Haas et al., "English Composition by Workshop," p. 34. 40 reference to specifics by line and had no space for comments.”8 Dyess also used a student check sheet containing lists of the major topics taught in the class.”9 Sager tested the effectiveness of her list with teachers and students. This list provided four general areas and included guid- ing questions. The reader scored each section from zero to three with a maximum grade of twelve.120 The first check list published by Hipple in 1970 was an interdisciplinary evaluation list used by teachers. This, he believed, shortened the evaluation time by allowing the teacher to simply note the number of the student's error. The student then referred to the check list to understand the error.121 In 1972 Hipple wrote only to English teachers and recommended simply attach- ing a sheet for evaluation to the writer's paper. The readers wrote about the paper on the evaluation sheets. They also might write about the comments of others.122 Four of the studies or procedures noted the time-saving characteristic of peer evaluation. Pierson found that "peer 1180ivision of Instructional Planning and Services, Compose Yourself, pp. 63-66. Iigoyess, “Composing: Epiphany and Detail," p. 261. 120Sager, Chapter IV, Construction of the Revised Scale, pp. 78-81. 121 T. W. Hipple, "Student Compositions: A Schoolwide Policy for all Written Work," The Clearing House, XLIV (May, 1970), 525. 122Hipple, "Grader's Helpers," p. 692. 41 correction used only an eighth of the time after hours that teachers I.123 devoted to correction. Sager felt that the procedure freed the teacher,124 while the Los Angeles schools listed the procedure as a 125 Maize in his study notes that in the control group , “Time Saver." the instructors graded the papers out of class while the papers for the experimental group "were read and corrected during class time "126 This by the students under the guidance of the instructor. procedure obviously saved teacher hours. However, the studies made no comment on the increased in-class time necessary for peer evalu- ation, though the teachers concerned apparently considered the pro- cedure of sufficient importance to merit this use of class time. One writer recommended peer evaluation particularly to beginning instructors, because the procedure minimized beginning teacher inexperience. If the student disagreed with the critics of his paper, he called them together for an explanation. In this situation the critics also gave grades. Thus, the beginning teacher instructed and facilitated the group experience.127 123 124 Pierson, Teaching Writing, p. 27. Sager, "Improving the Quality of Written Composition," 125Division of Instructional Planning and Services, Com ose Yourself, p. 61. 126Maize, "A Study of Two Methods of Teaching Composition," p. 88. 127Francine Hardaway, "What Students Can Do to Take the Burden Off You," College English, XXXVI (January, 1975), 577-78. 42 Other tangible gains in peer evaluation include productivity and attendance. Maize believes that the students in peer evalu- ation groups wrote more128 while Haas et a1. noted an increase in 129 However, some of the spe- attendance in the experimental group. cific instructions for those experimental groups might have pressured students to attend: only final drafts of the themes written in class could be made up and "those would have to be done under the instructor's guidance at school."130 The supporters of peer evaluation also observed certain intangible possibilities. Sutton and Allen believe that peer evalu- ation might be more potent in control over student's desire to 131 improve than the comments of the teacher. Hipple agrees that the peers' opinons might be considered more significant than the teacher's.132 Nemanich felt that several peer notations of an error were more convincing than one teacher comment. He also felt that students liked to read what others do and liked to receive the reac- tions of their peers.133 Evans noted that "careful analysis of 128Maize, "A Study in Two Methods of Teaching Composition," p. 88. 129 n . . . u Haas et al., English Compos1t10n by Workshop, p. 36. 13olbid., p. 34. 131 Sutton and Allen, "The Effect of Practice and Evaluation on Improvement," p. 692. 132 133Donald Nemanich, "Preparing the Composition Teacher,“ College Composition and Communication, XXV (February, 1974), p. 48. Hipple, ”Grader's Helpers," p. 692. 43 another's writing frequently gives a student insight into his n."‘34 ow Platt felt that groups meeting and correcting each other's papers with the instructor present created a sense of fellowship and 135 decreased the possible feeling of teacher as antagonist. Sager found that peer evaluation used with sixth graders made rewriting an automatic process. She also felt that the process promoted security and confidence among students.136 Witbeck in using peer evaluation with English students who also spoke other languages listed four specific advantages. First, peer evaluation gave students necessary skills for self-editing and revising. (The present research also examines this question.) Second, peer evaluation promoted student-student and student-teacher 137 oral communication. (Moffett reminds us that talking precedes ‘38 Third, one student's correction of another's effective writing.) error expanded the first student's understanding of grammar. Finally, peer evaluation helped students see that "errors are . . . probably a necessary part of the process of learning rather than merely indications of failure to learn."139 134William H. Evans and Jerry L. Walker, New Trends in the Teaching of English in Secondary Schools (Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, 1966), p. 58. 13512mm, "Correcting Papers in Public and in Private," p. 25. 136$ager, "Improving the Quality of Written Composition," 137Witbeck, "Peer Correction Procedures," p. 322. 138Moffett, Teaching the Universe of Discourse, p. 33. 139Witbeck, "Peer Correction Procedures," p. 322. 44 Summar In their study of research in composition evaluation Jerabek and Dieterich note that classes receiving teacher correction by marginal comments show no gain. They observe that research and opinion deals with how (not whether) to respond. Teachers continue to believe that response is necessary. But the question how best to 140 The literature examined in this chapter respond still persists. argues for peer evaluation. Researchers found that writing achieve- ment improved or that peer evaluation succeeded as well as teacher evaluation. Furthermore, the literature indicated tangible results such as check sheets, teacher time saved, more writing, and improved attendance. The users of peer evaluation also noted positive social and psychological results. The literature failed to point out that peer evaluation consumed in-class time. However, the effectiveness of the procedure to these writers appeared to merit the use of peer evaluation. None of the existing studies to date appear to have inves- tigated as yet the specific interactions which take place when one student evaluates and "corrects" another students' writing. What specific types of corrections do students' peers make on one another's papers? How frequently do student writers accept sug- gestions from their peers in making changes in their drafts? Do 140Ross Jerabek and Daniel Dieterich, "Composition Evalu- ation: The State of the Art," College Composition and Communication, XXVII (May, 1975), 183-84. 45 the accepted changes result, in fact, in improved drafts? If so, how frequently? These and other questions of similar specificity are the concern of the present research. The following chapter discusses the procedure used for this examination of peer evaluation. CHAPTER III RESEARCH PROCEDURES OF THE STUDY Introduction Analyzing the data for this research involved identifying a population, developing a critique sheet for student use in peer cor- rection, determining the methods for procuring and classifying the data from the critique sheets, and deciding upon procedures for analyzing the data. The analysis also involved labeling of the cri- tiquing responses of the students on the writings of their peers. This chapter examines in detail each step of this process. Identification of the Population The population for this study included high school seniors who were college oriented. College in this research generally referred to a four-year institution. However, students inclined to a community or junior college were not necessarily eliminated. This population included students interested in composition for its pri- mary value or for its secondary value in furthering achievement in other fields. The sample population for this study included those seniors electing through personal choice or counselor guidance Composition and Research Skills I (now College Composition and Research SkillsI) at Loy Norrix High School, Kalamazoo, Michigan. The sample was 46 47 narrowed further to include those assigned by computer to the researcher's classes in the fall semester of 1975-1976. Although eight juniors were included in the original assignment, the sample was limited finally to seniors only because four of these eight juniors did not write any of the papers assigned for the research. The sample of the population met the class during first hour (twenty-six seniors), during fourth hour (twenty-four seniors), and during sixth hour (twenty-one seniors). The class met every weekday for fifty-five minute periods. For purposes of critiquing, each class was divided (by a procedure to be discussed later) into small groups of four or five (see Appendix 8). Development of Instrument The critique sheet used by the sample in the evaluation of their peers' writing was developed by the researcher in the fall of 1974 and piloted by the students in the Composition and Research Skills classes in the fall semester of that year. The original sheet was developed from the researcher's revision of a check list by T. W. Hipple in "Student Compositions: A Schoolwide Policy for All Written Work," The C1earing_House, May, 1970 (see Appendix D)J4] The researcher grouped the items into categories for the first check sheet (see Appendix E). The positive response of these three classes from the fall semester of 1974 sparked the determination to pursue the research. These classes further offered suggested 141Hipple, "Student Compositions," p. 525. 48 revisions of the critique sheet. The final model "Check Sheet" was developed and used (see Appendix A). The Check Sheet is carbon impregnated, NCR paper, for the purposes of this study. The top or original copy was given by the person correcting to the student whose paper he corrected. The stu- dent correcting kept the carbon and submitted it to the researcher as part of the student's materials which he handed in. Although the carbon copy is not a necessity, it offers sev- eral advantages. First, the second copy is available if the first is lost. Second, the second copy gives the corrector the oppor- tunity to examine his own corrections when he begins revising his paper. Third, the instructor who desires may examine readily the corrections given and the corrections received by any one student, if the carbon sheets are used. This further encourages peer par- ticipation. However, if cost is a factor, as it often is, the second copy is not mandatory. A teacher using peer correction could dispense with these carboned records. The Check Sheet attempts to encourage positive responses and specificity. The suggested questions and divisions are merely guides. No student is expected to answer all questions. Therefore, the response columns are separated from the questions to encourage free response. Often the student thus develops his own pattern of peer evaluation, completely divorcing himself from the divisions on the left. The questions often serve as only a beginning aid. 49 Method of Procuringypata This section of Chapter III, procuring the data, includes the methods of developing an open, communicating atmosphere, the process of grouping itself, the initial or "trial-run" for the use of the Check Sheet in grouping, and the in-class activities with the types of assignments given. After writing and after receiving the Check Sheets from their peers, students made their final drafts and, in most cases, made their own corrections. Then the second stage--out-of-classroom data collection and classifying--began. These data, rough draft, check sheets from their peers, and the final draft, had to be recorded by the researcher, grouped, and recorded for the computer. The data collection proce- dure also included a secondary grouping and the procedure of devel- Oping questions for the computer. Method of Developing an, Open Atmosphere Developing a warm classroom atmosphere often challenges teachers at the beginning of a new semester, and many activities enhance this communication. The researcher uses the traditional devices to encourage sharing, but "A Cocktail Mixer" also adds to the regular "tell the class one thing about yourself" format. This procedure allows free and relaxed mixing as well as conversational groupings. (See Appendix F.) 50 Grouping Methods After the class members developed a measure of relaxation with their peers, the instructor explained peer correction by refer- ring to research by Pierson and others giving evidence that students whose papers were corrected by their peers improved as much as stu- dents whose papers were corrected only by their teacher. The stu- dents were also told, however, that the instructor also read their papers; therefore, they were told that they had a double opportunity to improve their writing skills. The instructor also reminded the students that peer correction increased their audience, challenged their communication skills, and made their writing, thus, more worthwhile. Furthermore, the students received the opportunity to see how others wrote, which also is a learning experience. Since some students were sensitive about who read their papers, they selected their own peer critiquing groups. The instructor simply circulated a sheet, and the students signed. Cross-group peer correcting was discouraged, although such peer interaction did occur. Some students "dropped out" and some shift- ing during the term had to be made. (See Appendix B.) Critiquing: A "Trial Run" To insure greater ease in using the Check Sheets, the instructor staged a "trial run" early in the fall of 1975 with the students writing and critiquing a definition paper. This type of writing was not included in the writings examined for this research. The students wrote a paper in class following classroom instruction. 51 The students returned to class the next day and received their own papers and a Check Sheet. Following the instructions on the Check Sheet, the instructor noted the need for numbering lines and the initial directions encour- aging positive responses as well as corrections and encouraging spe- cific comments. The instructor elicited examples of positive comments and of specific comments. After reviewing the questions on the Check Sheet the instructor reminded the students that all ques- tions were not to be answered for each paper. The questions were to serve as guides. The instructor also recognized that a comment, such as "line 15, doesn't sound right," was appropriate. The instructor further explained that all correcting goes on the Check Sheet. The instructor then fielded any questions and reminded the students that more than one reading of a paper often was necessary. The students began correcting in a manner comfortable to them. Some collected together in groups because they thus were free to question legibility or to exchange sheets with greater ease. Talking about the corrections was discouraged, not only for the sake of the research, but also for the sake of writing the correction and thus preserving it: a spoken correction is often lost by busy memories. Because some students were absent, because not all students worked at the same speed, and because some papers demanded more time than others, an arbitrary system was established for the mechanics of correcting, rewriting, and turning in. No paper was ever "late." (The instructor felt that no student should be punished for the 52 problems of another.) Some papers were critiqed out of class. But two hours of class time were set aside for critiquing, revising, and rewriting. Flexibility was necessary, but papers were expected in before the next paper was assigned. Since the students were basically responsible, busy students, the "system“ worked well. Since the sample was not atypical of a population of college-oriented seniors, some students failed to complete the assignment, and some neglected to critique all of their peers' writ- ings. Therefore, references to numbers of papers written and total numbers of Check Sheets completed lack specificity. Appendix C shows the criticisms received by each of the students for each of the assignments, but the Appendix does not show the reasons for a zero in the column. 1975-1976 Assignments, From Which Data Were Drawn The assignments critiqued and classified for this research included a narrative paper for hours one, four, and six; a descrip- tion paper for hours one, four, and six; and an an analysis paper for hours four and six. In addition, the students wrote and cri- tiqued an argumentative/persuasive paper. The other class assign- ments included about thirty-six journals, two book reviews (written in class), and two research papers (the first, a thesis paper, and the second, a problem-solving paper). Instruction for the narrative writing acquainted students with the concept of literary point of view, use of tense and voice in verbs, and above all, intent, for "you cannot separate the tale 53 from the telling. Beneath the content of every message is intent. And form embodies that intent. Intuitively or not, an author "142 Motivation for chooses his techniques according to his meaning. the narrative included telling experiences, viewing those experi- ences from different points of view, and then alternating the points of view to fit the intent of the story for varied audiences. Finally, models of narratives were used as materials which might also motivate. The assignment directions imposed only one limitation: the intent of the story encompasses not only the simple reporting but also the evoking of a specific response, emotion, or reaction. The instructor, without apology, varied approaches to the different classes, drawing experiences from the students and selecting those models, whether from the Atlantic, from texts, or from Xeroxed materials, that seemed most appropriate to the students. For writing a description, instruction included movement through a ladder of abstractions with several general words, group practice in narrowing subject and sharpening focus, clarification of connotation and denotation of words, and study of models to observe selection of impressions for effect. Motivation further included listing many descriptive words for an object and then selecting the groups that could be used for a desired effect, mood, tone, or sense stimulation. Again, the instructor varied the approaches for the three different classes to adapt to the needs of the students. Furthermore, the instructor found that attempting 142Moffett, Teaching the Universe of Discourse, p. 145. 54 to repeat the same thing the same way was not only impossible but also tended to be deadly. Preparation for the analysis paper began with three basic steps in an analysis: finding a clear basis of division; follow— ing the basis of division consistently; and carrying out the divi- sion until it includes all the basic parts. This also led to the realization that any whole can be analyzed in different ways, depending on how it is seen. The next instructional step was listing typical subjects for analysis. Perhaps the best motiva- tional technique for an analysis was to organize as a class one or two stimulating subjects similar to the following: steps in explaining a speeding ticket (crushed fender) to Dad; reasons Playboy should be sold in the school store; or the causes of the Civil War. For pre-writing on all papers the students prepared a modi- fied outline page which included the central purpose or impression to be communicated, the basic topic ideas in each paragraph, and the structure or oganization to be used in that paragraph. The instructor periodically checked these pages to insure thought and preparation for writing. Changing outlines was perfectly acceptable, but the paper was to follow the outline and to accomplish the pur- pose stated. Critiquing, Revising, and Rewriting The students followed the critiquing procedure discussed in Critiquing: A "Trial Run." When each student received the correc- tion sheets from the members of his group (and, in turn, distributed 55 his corrections to his peers), the student was ready to consider the corrections, to accept them, to reject them, and/or to make further corrections on his own. If the student accepted a peer correction, he accepted it in one of several possible ways. First, his correction possibly resulted in an improved paper. Second, the change perhaps made no significant difference. Finally, changing because of the suggested correction possibly created a greater deficiency in the paper. This deficiency perhaps occurred because of the inadequate criticism of the corrector, the inadequacy of the writer, or a combination of both. A second possibility was rejecting the criticism. Here the student perhaps determined that the original writing was ade- quate. Either the student's rejection was wise: his original writing na§_adequate. Or the rejection was unwise: his peer's suggestion, although rejected, offered an opportunity for improve- ment. Further, while re-reading his rough draft, the student pos- sibly noted other areas, not noted by his peers, where he now deemed change might be desirable. He sometimes made a change, which either improved the paper, made no significant improvement, or degraded the paper. Method of Classifying Data At the close of the semester the researcher collected all the papers, rough and final drafts, and peer correction sheets, and 56 grouped the papers by hour and by type of writing: narrative, description, analysis. The researcher recorded for each student for each type of paper nll_corrections given and received on a large five inch by eight inch file card. Each peer correction for each paper was recorded on a small note card. The information on the large card included a summary of the corrections and response codes noted on the small cards. This sum- mary provided a valuable check to ascertain the recording of all information. This information also offered possibilities for comparing criticisms given and received for any one student. However, this information is not part of this research; therefore, the appendices include no sample and this discussion contains no further reference to this large card. The information for peer corrections recorded on the small note cards included the student numbers for the student giving and for the student receiving the correction (see Appendix G). The cor- rection made received a label for the type of correction, such as content, structure, paragraph structure, sentence structure, dic- tion, or mechanical error. The researcher also coded the response according to the coding in Table 1. The researcher also recorded on the card the suggestion made by the critiquer, the passage referred to as it appeared in the rough draft, and the change, if made, in the final draft. In addition, the researcher wrote other clarifying remarks, such as "Making and trying out are not the same." (See Appendix G for samples for each coded type.) 57 TABLE l.--Code of Responses. Code Meaning Ala Response accepted for improved paper Alb Response accepted; no significant change Alc Response accepted to detriment of paper A2a Response refused to detriment of paper A2b Response refused, wisely Bl Student initiated response for improved paper 82 Student initiated response; no significant change 83 Student initiated response to detriment of paper C Teacher corrections made on final draft 0 Praise given by peer The students themselves often made corrections acting inde- pendently without any recorded comments from their peers. These corrections were labeled 8, coded according to Table 1, and put on cards with the number of the student making the change. The informa- tion on the card included the type of correction, the passage or word from the rough draft, and the change made on the final draft. In addition, those corrections which in the researcher's judgment still needed to be made were recorded by the researcher and were labeled C. The instruction included rules for formal writing and close punctuation. Errors were so noted according to these rules. The card noted the student number, the type of correction, a sample of the word or passage, and a comment on the needed change. 58 Finally, the students often complimented their peers. This, too, was recorded by student number of student giving and receiving the compliment and with the comment of the student. Next, information on the small cards was coded and recorded on computer sheets. The responses were grouped into six broad types of corrections as noted above:* content, structure, paragraph structure, sentence structure, diction, and mechanics. Under these broad categories the corrections were put into an inductively developed code sheet. (See Appendix H for code sheets.) Finally, the cards for the narrative and description papers of the fourth hour class were arbitrarily selected for a further grouping based on the nature of the response given. The responses grouped themselves into four broad categories: recommended mechani- cal changes, suggested stated revisions, broad declarative sugges- tions, and questions. The broad declarative suggestions seemed to divide further into statements about content, statements about con- fusion, lack of clarity or need to define terms, comments about thesis and other organizational or structural areas, comments about redundancy and repetition, suggested single word changes, comments about sentence structure, and comments about paragraph structure. (See Appendix I for samples of above.) These divisions were then coded for computer processing. Analysis of the Data The amount of data collected afforded monumental analysis possibilities because of the numerous variables. The problem lay 59 in determining the most significant to the researcher. Other possi- ble questions were set aside for further research. The following major questions developed: 1. 10. 11. 12. 13. What were the total number of peer suggestions made and accepted and made and refused for narrative, description, analysis? Of the total number of suggestions made and accepted what percentage of these resulted in an improved paper, according to the teacher judgment, for a narrative, for a description, and for an analysis? What was the total number of self-initiated changes made by the students for a narrative, for a descrip- tion, for an analysis? What percentage of these changes resulted in an improved paper? How many corrections remained for the teacher to identify? What percentage of the total corrections were the students able to correct? 00 males more than females give corrections that their peers act on for the improvement of their paper? 00 males more than females receive corrections that their peers act on for the improvement of their paper? 00 males make a larger number of self-initiated changes during the revision process? 00 males leave a larger number of remaining possi- ble corrections? Are males or females more generous in their praise? In which categories do students receive criticism and act to improve their papers more? On what specific types of correction in these categories do students receive the most correction and act for improvement? In what categories do students make the most self- initiated corrections that result in an improved paper? 60 14. On what specific types of corrections in these categories do students make the most self-initiated corrections that result in an improved paper? 15. 00 those students who give the most criticisms that are acted upon for an improved paper receive the most total criticism, give or receive the most praise from their peers? 16. 00 those students who receive criticism and do not choose to act upon it (A2a) on a narrative continue to receive criticism from their peers on subsequent papers? 17. 00 those students who receive criticism that they accept for the improvement of their paper also make a large number of self-initiated changes? 18. 00 those students who give the most criticisms also make the most successful self-initiated changes? 19. 00 those students who make the fewest improvement corrections receive the most praise? 20. What other relationships may be noted by observing totals of various variables? Data securing involved basically an observation of totals of types of corrections for each type of paper, totals of responses of students to the corrections, totals of pupil initiated change, of ‘ praise, and of teacher corrections. Percentages which may be employed on any variable were used on some. Sex differences were noted. But no statistical analysis of correlations involving any formulas were employed. Summary The research procedures of the study included identifying the sample as college-oriented seniors; the sample included those enrolled in the researcher's Composition and Research Skills classes during the fall of 1975-1976. The students were divided into peer 61 correcting groups. The researcher compiled the Check Sheets used by the students in correcting the narrative, description, and analysis papers of the peers in their critiquing group. Corrections sug- gested, the response, the students receiving and making the correc- tions, a classification of the response, self-initiated corrections, and peer praise were all noted on note cards and then transcribed to computer cards. After the critiquing, revising, and rewriting of the students and after the notations of these processes by the researcher on note cards and computer cards, the information was given to the computer and the variables were grouped and totaled. These statistics furnished the answers to certain basic questions. Chapter IV will look closely at these analyses and at the answers received from a study of these statistics. CHAPTER IV REPORTING AND ANALYZING THE DATA Introduction Out of the chaos of the multiplicity of variables the researcher attempted to order a cosmos, not determined by divine plan, but determined by the subjective interests of one classroom teacher. Therefore, from the many possible groupings of variables, the researcher analyzed only those necessary to answer the questions considered in Chapter III. Summary_pf Design and Procedure The research involved a selected population, college-oriented seniors, who formed critiquing groups of four to five students within the classroom. The size of the groups varied according to the size of the class. For example, for a class of twenty-fix, there were four groups of four in each group and two groups with five in each group (see Appendix B). These students used a Check Sheet (see Appendix A) to comment on the narrative, description, and analysis writings of their peers. From these papers and critique sheets the researcher recorded the criticisms, the responses, the praise, the self-initiated changes, and the needed corrections remaining. This information was key-punched, programed for the computer, and analyzed. 62 63 Popnlation and Sample The population was limited basically to college-oriented seniors, although some of the tables recorded in this research include information received from juniors. The sample included seventy-one seniors assigned to the researcher for three different periods during the fall semester of 1975-1976. These students selected and formed within the classroom peer groups of four to five members. The size of the groups varied (see Appendix B). The con- sistency of the performance of each student in writing and in cri- tiquing varied also (see Appendix C). The Instrument The Check Sheet developed by the researcher included ques- tions to guide the student in the correction of his peers' papers and space for specific student criticism and praise.' The student correcting retained the carbon and gave the original of the Check Sheet to the student whose paper he had corrected. Therefore, for this research each student was assigned a narrative, description, and analysis (Hours Four and Six only), a rough draft, a final draft, three Check Sheet originals received from his peers, and three carbons of the Check Sheet from the students whose papers he had corrected. Methods of Procuring Data The student groups were formed after several introductory, sharing activities. To acquaint the students with the use of Check Sheets, the researcher used a definition paper as a trial run for 64 the peer evaluation process. This paper was not a part of this research. The instructor also graded all papers after peer evalu- ation and student revision. TWO days of class time were set aside for peer evaluation and rewriting for each paper. Papers were turned in when peer evalu- ation and revision were completed. No paper was ever penalized for being late, and some papers were evaluated out of class. However, each paper was expected before the next assignment, and the students basically cooperated well. i The assignments for the writing included initial classroom instruction for the narrative, the description, and the analysis. Each student also generally organized before writing. Writing was done in class. When each student received the corrections from his peers, he decided to accept or to reject the criticism. His acceptance possibly improved the paper, made no significant change, or acted to the detriment of the paper. His refusal to accept the criticism was wise or unwise. The student then revised the paper, making any changes he deemed necessary. (See Appendix J for a sample rough draft and final draft.) Method of Classifying the Data The data from the Check Sheets and from the papers were recorded on small note cards, and the student response was coded according to Table 1, Chapter III. The notations were further coded by type of correction: content, structure, paragraph structure, 65 sentence structure, diction, mechanics, and special problems. The responses for the narrative and description papers for Hour Four were inductively grouped into four broad categories: recommended mechanical changes, suggested stated revisions (rewriting), broad declarative suggestions, and questions (see Table 20). All this information was coded, key-punched, and analyzed according to the items listed in Table 2. TABLE 2.--Computer Code Items. Item No. Identification of Item 1 Identity of student receiving criticism or praise or making self-initiated changes Sex of student in item 1 Hour of student in item 1 Grade level of student in item 1 Paper type: narrative, description, or analysis Identity of student giving the criticism or praise Sex of student in item 6 Grade level of student in item 6 \DmNONU‘I-th Response code: see Table l .—4 C General category of correction: content, structure, paragraph structure, sentence structure, diction, mechanics, special problems 11 Specific correction under item 10. Example: spelling under mechanics 12 Inductively determined grouping. See Table 20. 66 Analysis of the Data The program for the computer was divided into six parts. Part one examined each coded response (item 9), as coded in Table 1, with the variables of sex (item 3), type of paper (item 5), type of correction (item 10), and grade level (item 4). Part two examined each response (item 9), with the variables of sex (item 7), type of paper (item 5), type of correction (item 10), and grade level (item 8). Part three again looked at the response (item 9) with the type of correction (item 10) and the specific correction error (item 11). Part four looked at each student individually (item 1), considering response code, type of paper, type of correction, and grade level. Part five examined each student individually (item 6), considering response code, type of paper, type of correction, and grade level. Part six showed the inductive grouping of item twelve by sex, grade level, type of paper, and response code. An Analysis of Question One What was the total number of peer suggestions made and accepted and made and refused for narrative, description, and analysis? Table 3 indicates that students accept more criticism from their peers than they refuse, that they generally make changes that seem to improve the paper, and that their refusals to accept the criticism balance between the wise and the unwise. Students noted more errors per paper that were accepted for the improvement for the analysis papers than for the description or narrative papers. 67 TABLE 3.--Resp0nse to Evaluation. Criticisms Made Criticisms Made Type of and Accepted and Refused Paper Ala Alb Alc Total A2a A2b Total Narrative 334 109 21 464 183 188 371 (N=71) If 5.03 1.54 0.30 6.54 2.58 2.55 5.23 Description 324 109 26 423 168 148 316 (N=71) 7' ' 4.32 1.03 .37 5.96 2.37 2.08 4.45 Analysis 320 126 19 465 154 129 283 (N=45) X' 7.11 1.77 0.38 10.3 3.42 2.87 6.29 An Analysis of Question Two Of the total namber of suggestions made and accepted, what percentage of these resulted in an improved paper, according to teacher judgment, for a narrative, for a description, and for an analysis paper? A study of Table 4 shows that although efficiency in find- ing errors and accepting the criticism may have increased from a mean of 5.96 for description to a mean of 10.3 for analysis, as shown in Table 3, the percent response for an improved paper decreased slightly from description to analysis. An examination of Table 3 shows that one reason may be the increase in (Alb), viz., those corrections which were accepted but which made no significant change in the quality of the paper. Nevertheless, the students accepted 72 percent of the criticisms for the improvement of their 68 papers, and description receives the highest percent, 76.6 percent. It may be that students respond no better than this to corrections which come solely from their teachers. TABLE 4.--Percent of Corrections for Improvement. Total Criticisms Number Accepted for Type Of Paper Made and Accepted Improved Grade Percent Narrative 464 334 71.9 Description 423 324 76.6 Analysis 465 320 68.8 Y 72.4 An Analysis of Question Three What was the total number of self-initiated changes made by the students for a narrative, for a descrip- tion, for an analysis? What percent of these changes resulted in an improved paper? An observation of Table 5 shows that students who critique their own papers do revise them, and that about 60 percent of these changes are, according to teacher judgment, to the improvement of their papers. The researcher notes, in addition, that peer evalu- ation provides the structure that demands revision. This enforces Buxton's conclusion in his research, as recorded by Braddock, that revision is one component, along with careful marking and criticiz- ing, that improves writing.143 143Braddock, Research in Written Composition, pp. 69-70. 69 TABLE 5.--Se1f—Initiated Changes. Percent of Self- Initiated Changes Total Self— for an Improved ngeegf 81 82 83 Initiated Paper p Changes 81 Bl + 82 Total Total Narrative 177 84 38 299 59.2 87.3 (N=7l) 1’ 2.49 1.18 0.54 4.21 Description 88 27 21 136 64.7 84.6 (N=7l) 7' 1.24 .38 .30 1.92 Analysis 85 45 22 153 55.6 85.6 (N=45) 7' 1.89 1.02 .49 3.4 X’ 59.8 85.8 An Analysis of Question Four How many errors remained for teacher correction? Although the total of the errors remaining seems large, the mean places the total in perspective, as Table 6 shows. Teachers usually rejoice at only approximately five errors per paper. The larger number of errors may have remained on the analysis papers because of the increased difficulty and increased length of this assignment. Similarly, the description may have had the fewest remaining errors because of its general brevity. 70 TABLE 6.--Corrections Needed After Evaluation and Revision. Number of Corrections Type Of Paper Needed After Revision X Narrative (N=71) 388 5.46 Description (N=7l) 277 3.90 Analysis (N=45) 279 6.20 An Analysis of Question Five What percent of the total errors were the students able to correct? Table 7 supports the results of the experiment conducted by Lyman and also recorded in Gage, Handbook of Research on Teach- .144 Students pnn_find and correct about three-fifths of their 189 own errors. One may also question whether students would correct and revise without some structure, such as peer evaluation. TABLE 7.--Percentage of Errors Student Corrected. Total Percent of T e of Corrections Corrections ggper Ala 81 Ala+Bl c Needed Made by Students —-—.i;:;i1. Narrative 334 177 511 388 899 56.8 (N=71) Description 324 88 412 277 689 59.8 (N=7l) Analysis 320 85 405 279 684 59.21 (N=45) ' 144N. L. Gage, ed., Handbook of Research on Teaching (Chi- go: Rand McNally and Company, 1963), p. 986. 71 An Analysis of Questions Six and Seven 00 males more than females receive corrections and act for the improvement of their papers? 00 males more than females give corrections that their peers act on for the improvement of their papers? Although an observation of the totals in Tables 8 and 9 may seem to indicate that females receive and give more corrections than males, tests of statistical difference failed to support this. A t-test was performed, and the mean difference was found to be not significant at the .05 level for both corrections received and given. TABLE 8.--Male/Female Corrections Received for Improvement. Total Corrections Sex Accepted for _Me%n Improvement Male (N = 35) 446 14.86 Female (N = 30) 532 15.2 TABLE 9.--Male/Female Corrections Given for Improvement. Total Corrections Given Mean Sex That Were Accepted for '7 Improvement Male (N = 38) 506 ' 13.32 Female (N = 33) 442 13.39 72 An Analysis of Question Eight 00 males make a larger number of self-initiated changes during the revision process? Again, although an observation of the means as shown in Table 10 seemed to indicate that females made a larger number of self-initiated changes during the revision process, a statistical analysis was made. A t-test was performed, and the mean difference was found to be not significant at the .05 level. TABLE lO.--Male/Female Self-Initiated Changes. Self-Initiated Self-Initiated Self-Initiated Sex Changes for Changes: No Changes: To Total Improvement Significant Detriment of Improvement Paper Male 177 79 43 299 (N=35) X" 5.06 2.26 1.23 8.54 Female 173 78 38 289 (N=30) T 5.77 2.6 1.27 9.6 An Analysis of Question Nine 00 males leave a larger number of errors for teacher observation? Here, too, a t-test was run, and the difference between the male and female means shown in Table 11 was statistically signifi- cant at the .01 level. The females left fewer errors for teacher correction. 73 TABLE ll.--Needed Corrections Remaining. Total Corrections Needed Sex After Rewriting (C) Mean Male (N = 35) 565 16.14 Female (N = 30) 383 12.77 A study of Tables 8, 10, and 11 tends to reinforce Sager's research in which she concluded that in the sixth grade girls improved in composition more than their male peers. Although this research makes no effort to determine improvement of writing, females accept the corrections of their peers for the improvement of their papers and revise the papers on their own; and, thereby, the difference between the male and female corrections remaining for teacher correction is statistically significant. It appears that females leave a paper with fewer errors, or more improved, than their male peers. An Analysis of Question Ten Are males or females more generous in their praise? TABLE 12.--Praise Given by Male/Female. Sex Total Commendations Given Mean Male (N = 38) 229 6.03 Female (N = 33) 250 7.56 A t-test was performed on the data in Table 12, and the mean difference was found to be not significant at the .05 level. 74 An Analysis of_Questions Eleven and Twelve In which categories do students receive criticism and act to improve their papers more? On what specific types of corrections in these cate- gories do students receive the most corrections and act for improvement? Table 13 shows that students made suggestions that their peers acted upon for an improved paper most often in the general category of diction. Within this broad category they most often noted and received a correction response with regard to the need for more precise wording. The researcher questions whether this same pattern would occur in other samples. Or does teacher emphasis influence here? In the category of mechanics, 7O divisions were listed (see Appendix H, Code Sheet 6). For example, spelling was narrowly classified into eight separate categories. The one category, spelling-incorrect, with a total of 89 errors noted and corrected outranked all other errors. However, all spelling errors, noted and corrected, combined, totaled 105. Note, too, that all comma errors, noted and corrected, combined, totaled 35. The special problems category include diverse communications such as student 65's comment to student 80 about the condition of her pretty legs or student 26's promise to explain orally a correc- tion. Another special problem was the conflicting criticism of two peers on the paper of a third member of their group. 75 TABLE l3.--Peer Corrections for Improvement by Category. Total Correc- . Number Category tions for Percent Thrfigslyggie;nNgzzggory ofEach Improvement Type Content 141 13.68 More facts needed to 62 support content Unnecessary content 32 Needs correct content 19 Structure 59 5 72 Conclusion needed 13 of paper ° Point of view; instruct 12 to use third person Point of view used can- 10 not know this Paragraph Topic sentence; vague, structure ‘04 10°08 imprecise ‘7 Shifts verb tense 16 Ideas fail to follow 9 logically Sentence Awkward 19 structure 196 19°01 Run-on sentence 19 Content unclear l6 Fragment 16 Diction 305 29.59 Poor word choice; 30 1mprec1se Poor word choice; wrong 30 1mage Excess words 25 Mechanics 223 21.63 Spelling incorrect 89 (Total spelling 105 errors) (Total comma errors) 35 Pronoun--no antecedent 8 (Total errors, 19 pronouns) Subject-verb agreement 11 Special 3 29 Conflict of suggestions 1 problems ' - between peers Total 1,031 76 An Analysis of Questions Thirteen and Fourteen In what categories do students make the most self- initiated corrections that result in an improved paper? On what specific types of corrections in these cate- gories do students make the most self-initiated cor- rections that result in an improved paper? Not only do the students receive comments and respond for the improvement of their papers in the general category of diction, but they also make the most self-initiated corrections for the improvement of their papers in this category, as shown in Table 14. However, the category that receives the second largest number of self-initiated changes for improvement is content, with the specific category most often revised being the adding of supporting details. The special problem here was a completely rewritten second rough draft and a final draft based on the second rough draft. How- ever, all student check sheets responded to the initial rough draft. An Analysis of Question Fifteen 00 those students who give the most criticisms that are acted upon for an improved paper receive the most criticisms? 00 those students who give the most criticisms that are acted upon for an improved paper give or receive the most praise? A tenuous observation appears from an examination of Table 15. Those students who give the most criticisms that are acted upon for an improved paper tend to receive the most criticisms. No rela- tionship appears to exist between the other variables. A comparison of Table 15 with Appendix 8 shows that students 40, 45, and 56 are members of the same peer group during fourth hour and that students 77 TABLE l4.--Se1f-Initiated Changes for Improvement by Category. Total Self- . . . Number In1t1ated Three Types 1n Category Category Changes for Percent Most Often Noted ofEach Improvement ype Content 88 25.14 More facts needed to 59 support content Unnecessary content 16 Needs correct content 6 Structure 15 4 29 Needs to be organized 2 of paper ' chronologically Needs to be organized 2 logically Conclusion needed 2 Conclusion too abrupt 2 Paragraph 2] 6 0 Lacks topic sentence 4 structure ' Two ideas in one paragraph 3 Needs transitions within 3 paragraph Shifts verb tense 3 Sentence Wordy 10 structure 73 20°86 Sentences choppy; combin- 10 ing needed Sentence order 10 Diction 115 32.86 Poor word choice; 42 1mprec1se Lack of precise verb 22 Excess words 8 Mechanics 37 10.57 Spelling--incorrect 15 Use words for signs (5, d) 4 Comma fault 2 Comma for emphasis 2 Special 1 0 29 Paper completely rewritten problems ‘ for rough and final 1 draft Total 350 78 58, 65, and 80 are members of the same peer group during sixth hour. Therefore, one may observe that those students cooperated closely in peer evaluation. TABLE 15.--A Comparison of Criticism and Praise. Gave Criticisms .Total Praise _ . Acted Upon for Cr1t1c1sms Received Pra1se G1ven Improvement Rece1ved 22:. 3:28;. 32:; “at 22:; "a" 32:; ”2%" NO- iiiiileié’it NP- iéil‘i NO- P3233 NP- P5112: l 11 12 21 8 7 8 6.5 14 ll 22 15 9 7 9 55.5 26 10.5 24 17 13 4 10 5.5 40 9.6 28 24.3 19 7.5 12 5 44 11.3 33 22 34 4.6 19 9.5 46 15.6 36 21 49 8 36 4.6 56 13.6 40 25 50 12 43 4 58 18.3 42 30.6 58 12 49 6.6 65 13.6 46 22.6 70 4.6 52 5 74 9 56 20 54 4 79 9 58 25.3 59 4 80 10.6 77 25.6 65 4.3 80 31.6 80 4.3 79 An Analysis of Question Sixteen 00 those students who receive criticism and do not choose to act upon it (A2a) on a narrative continue to receive criticism from their peers on subsequent papers? The researcher asked this question to ascertain if a student who refused to accept the criticism of his peers was snubbed by them on the following papers. The figures in Table 16 seem to show con- tinued peer support and criticism, although the criticism on the first paper was generally ignored. TABLE 16.--Results of Ignoring Peer Criticism. iiiiiiiiis .Tstil .Tstil Student Received and Cr1t1c1sms Cr1t1c1sms Comment No. Received on Received on Ignored on . . . Narrative Descr1pt1on Analys1s 3 7 4 Analysis not checked for 17 7 8 Hour One 29 16 5 4 36 7 29 (lAla) 29(16A1a) A1a = criticism accepted for improved paper 38 7 20 25 41 8 14 14 53 14 19 -- No critique of analysis 58 8 25 22 78 8 l3 8 No criticism unwisely ignored on analysis 80 A subjective examination of several students offered some interesting observations. For example, student 36 waited until the analysis paper and then used peer suggestions extensively for the improvement of the paper. Student 78 followed the same pattern, but student 41 continued to ignore peer suggestions. However, in most cases, students patiently continued to correct their peers. An Analysis of Questions Seventeen and Eighteen 00 those students who received criticism that they accepted for the improvement of their paper also make a large number of self-initiated changes? 00 those students who give the most criticism also make the most successful self-initiated changes? An observation of Table 17 shows that out of the 28 students listed who have the highest mean in one of the three categories to be observed that only one student ranks in the top ten in all three categories and only six students rank in the top ten in two cate- gories. Of these six students who rank in the top ten in two cate- gories, four of them are in the top ten in criticisms received for an improved paper and in total criticisms given. Two students, numbers 13 and 74, are in the top ten in criticisms given and self- initiated changes. Therefore, no significant discernible pattern appears in ability of this sample to give criticisms to their peers, to act on their peers' evaluation for improvement, or to make self-initiated changes. 81 TABLE l7.--0bservations of Ala* Received, All Criticisms Given, and 81**. Student X'of Ala X'of Total of All X of 81 Number Rece1ved Cr1t1c1sms G1ven 1 7 15.5 2.5 5 5 11 4.0 + 12 11 + 5 2 13 5.5 19 4.0 + 14 5 16 3 18 6 4.0 + 24 9 3.5 l 28 12.6 + 14.6 2.3 30 8.3 6.6 2.6 33 9.3 18.3 4.3 + 34 8.3 13.6 1.3 ’ 37 1.6 10.3 4.0 + 40 13.6 + 19.0 + 3.6 + 42 11.3 + 15.0 .3 43 6 22.6 + 3.0 44 8 30.3 + .3 46 10.3 34 2.0 54 4.0 7 6.0 + 55 3.0 15 8.3 + 56 9.6 + 24.3 + 1.3 58 10.6 + 32.3 + 2.3 65 8 31.3 + 2.0 72 8 13 3.3 74 8 19 + 3.6 + 75 8.3 16 6.0 + 77 10.6 + 12 2.3 79 11.3 + 17 3.3 80 19.6 + 22.6+ 0.0 *Ala = Criticisms given and accepted for an improved paper. ** 81 = Self-initiated changes for an improved paper. Those in top ten in each category are marked by a +. 82 An Analysis of Question Nineteen 00 those students who make the fewest improvement cor- rections receive the most praise? In Table 18 of the six students in Hour One who made the lowest responses to peer corrections for improvement, three received above the mean of praise. Their mean for praise was the highest in Hour One while their correction response to the criticism was the lowest. However, no conclusions can be reached from these observa- tions because of the number of possible reasons for this occurrence. TABLE 18.--Observations for Criticisms for an Improved Paper and Praise. Student X'of Criticisms Acted on X'of Praise Number for an Improved Paper Received 3 2 2 8 2 7 9 0.5 7 11 0.5 3 19 2 7 27 0.5 0 37 2.5 2 49 4 8 52 2.5 2 61 0.5 3.6 71 3 3 76 1 3 78 2.3 1.6 Average of the Mean for Hour 1 = 3.5, for Hour 4 = 3.8, for Hour 6 = 3.8. 83 In Hour Six the student with the lowest mean number of cor- rections acted upon for an improved paper received slightly less than the mean for praise given. The student who received the highest amount of praise in Hours Four and Six had only a mean of four cor- rections acted upon for an improved paper while Table 17 reveals that the highest mean was 19.6. Again, no conclusions are possible. The researcher proposed this question because she hypothe- sized that the weaker students received extensive encouragement and praise from their peers. However, few corrections acted upon for an improved paper may occur because of the paucity of corrections needed. Therefore, the hypothesis seems to have no basis, and no conclusions are possible. Analysis of Inductive List of Corrections The researcher selected the cards giving criticisms in Hour Four for narrative and description papers and observed the types of comments made. These comments seemed to group themselves, as shown in Table 19, into four broad categories: suggested stated revisions (rewriting for peer); questions; mechanical corrections; and broad declarative suggestions. The last two categories were further grouped into specific areas (see Table 20). Appendix I gives samples for each of these categories. An examination of Table 19 presents some interesting obser- vations. Males tended to offer their suggestions by asking ques- tions while females tended to revise for their peers. One notes 84 TABLE 19.--Inductive Analysis of Corrections by Sex, Response, and Paper. Sex Response Paper Category of Correction Refuse Refuse M F Accept Wisely Unwisely Nar. Des. Mechanical corrections 95 48 82 40 21 6O 83 Broad declarative 280 175 248 103 114 228 227 suggestions Stated revisions 11 29 23 7 10 25 15 (rewriting) Asks questions 38 11 28 12 9 25 24 also that only the mechanical corrections increased from the narra- tive to the description paper. An examination of Table 20 shows that some types of correc- tions were more often refused than accepted for an improved paper. These include under mechanical corrections "grammar (3)“ and "point of view," and under broad declarative suggestions "sentence struc- ture," "paragraph structure," "thesis structure for entire paper," and "content." Suggested revisions (rewriting) are also more often refused than they are accepted for an improved paper. This tendency to refuse more corrections than are accepted contradicts the general trend (students tend to accept more criticisms than they reject) noted in Analysis of Question One. 85 TABLE 20.--Specific Inductive Analysis of Corrections by Sex, Response and Paper. Specific Sex Response Paper Category, -———————— Computer M F Accept/ Refused Refused Nar. Des. Coded Improve. Wisely Unwisely l Verb tense 14 2 11 3 2 11 5 2 Spelling 35 15 26 18 3 21 29 3 Punc., cap., 29 l7 19 10 11 18 28 grammar 4 Change words 39 34 35 16 15 26 47 5 Sentence structure 48 31 21 19 24 44 35 6 Paragraph structure 32 17 19 10 13 31 18 7 Transi- tions 2 4 4 2 O 5 l 8 Point of view 15 10 10 7 5 5 20 9 Thesis , structure 23 21 10 14 12 24 20 10 Content 41 12 ll 17 18 26 27 11 Confusing, unclear 36 29 33 8 19 33 32 12 Not needed, redundant 61 31 49 19 13 44 48 13 Suggests revision 11 29 12 7 10 25 15 14 Asks questions 38 11 23 12 9 25 24 Mechanical corrections: 1, 2, 3, 7, and 8. Broad declarative suggestions: 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, and 12. 86 The increase in total number of corrections noted in point of view from the narrative to the description paper perhaps occurred because the assignment for the description required the writers to remove themselves from the thing described, i.e., to avoid first person. This task proved difficult. A Subjective Analysis of the Academic and Social Learning Although few definitive observations were made, the researcher continues to believe that peer evaluation enabled the students to grow academically. In addition, groups that began as critiquing groups to fulfill a classroom assignment continued beyond the classroom in some cases, and the learning atmosphere appeared warmer and more relaxed. However, no opinion survey was made of the classes asking for their reactions to peer evaluation. An academic survey of this class list shows some of the students enrolling out-of—state at Ball State, Williams College, Intermont College in Virginia, Oberlin, Syracuse, Iowa State Uni- versity, University of Indiana, and University of Arizona. All of these out-of-state alumni have "checked in" with the researcher sometime in the intervening year and have reported success (8 or above) in their English classes. (The researcher recognizes, of course, that these students were high achievers and highly motiva- ted before contacting peer evaluation.) Within the state, Michigan State University received eight, and the University of Michigan received at least five. Four attended Kalamazoo College. Most of the 87 others went to Western Michigan University and other smaller c01- 1eges within the state. The students during the semester had often engaged in heated defense of the content of their papers. Thus, instead of discussion moving back and forth in one direction--teacher to pupil to teacher-- the interaction was widespread and, presumably, so were the learning experiences. This interpersonal contact continued; when the students returned for a visit to the researcher, often they came with those who had been in their peer evaluation group, or they asked about them. Summary The observation of the impact on student writing of peer evaluation supported two earlier researchers by showing that stu- dents can correct as much as three-fifths of their own errors and by showing that girls, because they leave fewer needed corrections on their papers, tend to improve their papers more than males. I The answers to the questions asked in Chapter III yielded some new observations. These are discussed in the Sumary in Chapter V. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary This study proposed to explore the impacts on student writ- ing of peer evaluation. Demands of popular magazines, educational journals, and citizens at large on the schools to improve writing represent currents of pressure which encouraged this research. Some of the literature indicated that increased writing experience improved achievement. Requiring more writing, however, generates the need for relief for the teacher from the burden of additional paper marking duties arising from increased writing assignments. Furthermore, the researcher sought to meet a need for shared peer learning and to create a superior classroom climate, and some of the literature had indicated that students also need a wider audience for their writing. A study of the impact of peer evaluation on stu- dent writing appeared to offer some new directions for advancing practices on these concerns. The literature pointed to peer evaluation as a way for improving writing and for relieving teachers of some grading chores by allowing students to discover their own errors. Other literature supported participatory learning, and many teachers had shared their feelings of success with various modes of peer evaluation. 88 89 Conclusions The research tends to support the following generalizations: 1. Students accept more criticism than they refuse, and their refusals generally balance between wise and unwise. 2. Of all the criticisms accepted and acted upon, 72 per- cent result in an improved paper. The highest rate of acceptance of suggestions for improvement was observed for descriptive writing-- 76 percent. 3. After peer evaluation and during revision, the students also make self-initiated revisions. About 60 percent of these revi- sions result in improvement of the paper. 4. An average of approximately five errors remain per paper for teacher correction after peer evaluation and student revision. 5. The students, through peer-evaluation or self-initiated revision, are able to note and to correct about 60 percent of their errors. 6. Females generally give more criticisms, respond more favorably to criticism, and examine their own papers with greater care, leaving fewer errors. 7. Students seem to note changes needed in diction more than in any other category in the papers of their peers and on their own papers and to accept these criticisms more and to make more changes for the improvement of their papers with respect to diction. 8. Those individual students who give the most criticism acted upon for an improved paper tend slightly to receive the most criticism. 90 9. Although a peer may initially refuse to accept cor- rection, his peers nevertheless continue to correct his papers as carefully as they do the papers of students who accept their suggestions. 10. An observation of an inductively grouped list of cor- rections showed that males tended to correct by asking questions while females tended to rewrite for their peers. Students tended to refuse more than to accept broad suggestions about thesis struc- ture and content, although, as noted in Observation One, students tend to accept more suggestions than they refuse. 11. No definitive generalizations, however, are yet possi- ble from these data on individual impact of peer evaluation. There remain a multiplicity of possible variables as yet uncontrolled which may be operating. Nevertheless, the above generalizations do appear to represent an advance in level of specificity regarding description of the processes of interaction involved. A student using peer evaluation begins his writing assign- ment with an awareness of a wider audience. Therefore, the compos- ing process considers not only the teacher reaction but also the peer response to his content. These broader communication demands tend to expand and to increase the writing skills of the student. However, simultaneously with the demands incurred from the expanded audience comes the assurance that this writing is the rough draft; his peers are a source of assistance for improvement. He knows the possible strengths of his peers and can somewhat rest upon their ability to shore up his weaknesses. 91 The critiquing process affords to each student more than an exercise in correcting, however. Peer evaluation opens to the stu- dent a slice of another's life. He learns the views, feelings, and values of his peers. In addition, he readily and often sees his writing in comparison to his peers' writing. He thus strengthens his overall evaluation skills and grows in self-evaluation. Too, he has the opportunity to further his development, his knowledge, and his personal relationships. Peer evaluation is a vehicle moving the writer toward increased communication skills. As the student notes the differing styles of his peers, he questions them. Conversation ensues. Too, using the peer group in pre-writing exercises or in grammar practice further enhances these communication skills. The habit of peer evaluation is a worthy one to consider carrying throughout further education and in most communication experiences. Testing ideas and modes of expressions on peers before facing the supreme "trial by fire“ of that important paper or speech is generally a wise practice. Through peer evaluation a student learns that others express their ideas differently, and he tends to accept their suggested changes. After his peers' evaluations the student then revises on his own, and this, too, generally improves the paper. Why this procedure tends to show these results is not known. But an observa- tion of peer evaluation groups at work shows students busily read- ing, recording, revising, and rewriting. They appear to work purposefully. They seem to take pride in their work, and their 92 determination to save their papers for future use seems to acknowl- edge this pride. Further evidences of their personal satisfaction and of their delight in continued accomplishment are evidenced by their return to report their successes. Implications of This Research Since this research employs exploratory observation only, any statement of implication must be taken as tenatative. Neverthe- less, the following comments appear worthy of consideration. First, the composing process, the peer evaluation, and per- sonal revision of the composition can occur productively in large groups with little teacher supervision. Dora Smith originally reported on this fact in 1931.145 If one adds to these processes audio-visual material for instruction and assignment, the use of lay readers, and clerical help, one teacher can effectively instruct a large group in composition. If peer evaluation includes peer grading, the lay readers may not be necessary. However, using the large group process tends to remove the teacher from participation in shared learning and from the stu- dent's affective experience. One might question the value of so doing. The teacher has a significant contribution to make to the dialogue which is necessary before beginning writing. Second, peer evaluation used with flexibility offers many varieties for meeting individual student needs and particular 145Dora Smith, Class Size in High School English (Minneapo- lis, Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press, 1931), p. 82. 93 teacher capabilities. A teacher may simply use peer evaluation as a sharing or discussion device for reviewing papers, or a teacher may use a model similar to the one in this research. Adding the evaluation of the correction instrument is another possibility. Or, as some literature recommends, the students may complete evaluations and grade their peers' papers. The writing of group papers is an additional way for making use of peer evaluation. This study shows that peer evaluation can succeed with college-oriented high school students. One implication may be that other students at other ability levels and at other grade levels may possibly use it fruitfully, too. Some research has been done in this area which indicates promise in wider uses of peer evaluation procedures. The final two implications to be cited here are wholly subjective in nature. First, students appear to wish to participate actively in the learning process. They enjoy evaluation, they grow through using it, and they benefit from aiding one another. Sec- ond, learning is not easily divided into closed compartments. The students nnp§e_about many issues-~social, economic, and even chemical issues. The nppge intently to each other. Their peppep- tual fields expanded, touched, and overlapped. Yet the class was in the English Department and was labeled Composition and Research Skills I. 94 Recommendations for Further Study 1. More research is needed to determine still further the effectiveness of peer evaluation methods, coupled with a composition model including individualized instruction, lay readers, and cleri- cal help, in teaching composition to large groups. Any evaluation of such a process needs to include an examination of the affective growth in such a classroom situation. Dora Smith's study, for example, needs updating. 2. The use of peer evaluation methods at several levels of ability and several grade levels needs to be researched. Some of this has been done but more definitive work is needed. 3. Development of other instruments or check sheets is probably needed to meet the abilities of learners at different levels. Terms like transition, subordinate, or cliché possibly need rewording for these learners. 4. If peer evaluation is used at various grade levels, investigation of a developmental program of peer evaluation from grade nine/ten through twelve is also a possible need. 5. Are two levels of instruments perhaps more effective than one? Would the students perhaps polish their critiquing skills by first using an instrument to evaluate content and organi- zation thoroughly and then using a second instrument to evaluate paragraph structure, sentence structure, diction, and mechanics? Research is needed here. 95 6. Further research is needed in the use of peer evalu- ation for grading. Can students develop their own criteria and reliably and validly grade their peers? 7. Many varieties of peer evaluation have been used, such as conference and group writing. Controlled studies are needed to investigate the relative effectiveness of different methods. 8. Some students responded with excitement and zeal to the peer evaluation process. Can research show the causes why peer evaluation succeeds with some and not with others? 9. Research is needed to determine the types of classroom instruction needed to increase the ability of the students to cor- rect their peers. 10. The personalities of the group are crucial in peer evaluation. Therefore, research is needed into more effective peer grouping. Writing and research on peer evaluation have been quite extensive for several years; yet so far the studies--inc1uding this one--have barely "touched the hem of the garment." Reflections A researcher often raises more questions than he answers. Many avenues for consideration, too, were only glimpsed by the researcher in this study, but various satisfactions were also gained. The study of literature gave practical variations of peer evaluation and composition instruction methods. But, more 96 significantly, reading literature allowed the researcher to touch hands with those who have committed, with integrity, their time and their being to that sometimes mystical experience, teaching composi- tion. Hopefully, this research provides similar satisfaction to the reader. The collection process afforded a sense of accomplishment to the researcher, because the students evidenced enthusiasm and pleasure growing with each peer evaluation experience. They enjoyed both the mechanics of the process and the exchange of the content. Spending the classtime in peer evaluation freed the teacher for individual contacts. And, the papers, after peer evaluation and student revision, were easier to read. The completion of this research also opens new challenging areas. Since peer evaluation is effective, how may one best share the procedure with others who may teach similar college-oriented students or who may teach students of differing abilities? In a peer evaluation inservice, the teachers need to examine first the motivational level of the students, and the students need the moti- vation to write before they need the motivation to evaluate. Once this concept is hurdled, the teachers are ready to continue inservice in peer evaluation. Although asking teachers in an inservice program to write a paragraph or a brief essay offers certain trepidations, such a pro- cedure is more desirable. A second possibility is dividing the teachers into groups of four each, furnishing each "peer evaluation" group with four sample student compositions, and then asking the 97 teacher members of each group to go through the critiquing process. This, then, generates the same desired shared communication experi- ences of the students. Samples shared further by use of an overhead projector continue the sharing process. The challenge of exploring this inservice area is a future possibility. The researcher in a peer evaluation is offered the chal- lenges of refining the process, of adapting the procedure to differ- ent grade and ability levels, and of sharing the procedure with others. Its use provides students with a variety of participatory learning experiences. Peer evaluation provides warm personal inter- action through helping peers and through sharing ideas. And the process offers to the teacher not only academic gains but also the satisfaction of observing these participatory learning experiences. APPENDICES 98 APPENDIX A CHECK SHEET 99 APPENDIX A CHECKSHEET Yourname ................................................................................ .. Date ....... . ............ . .......................................... ............ . . Paperwrittenby...... ................................................ . .............. Paperwrittenonldate) .............. . ............... ..... Note the good first; then comment on suggested improvements and corrections. Be specific. Refer to line number or paragraph number in the paper. CONTENT: What is the purpose/direction of this paper? Is subject discussed intelligently and logically? Generalizations supported? Terms defined? Sensitive to audience? Other? Make specific suggestions and give your personal reactions to content. STRUCTURE: Organized effectively? Ideas present- ed in logical order? Are lesser ideas subordinate? Are transitions effectively used? Others? Note need- ed changes. PARAGRAPH: What is the topic sentence? Is paragraph developed with logic, conciseness, and unity? Is there a variety of paragraph structure? Note needs for correction, if any. SENTENCE: Which sentences seem well construct— ed. Note need, if any, for variety of sentence patterns and for changes in sentence construction. DICTION: Note words particularly appropriate for audience and topic. Note changes that may be needed for appropriateness. Note, if any. cliches used. MECHANICS: Note errors, if any, in spelling, capitalization, and punctuation. 100 APPENDIX B PEER CORRECTION GROUPS IO] Group A Student #3 #6 #l6 #22 Group C Student #l0 #13 #12 #2 #14 Group E Student #25 #26 #24 #l Male - Male Female Female - Female - Female - Female - Female - Female - Female - Female - Female - Female APPENDIX B PEER CORRECTION GROUPS Hour One Group 8 Student #19 #5 #7 #8 #9 Group D Student #4 #ll #l5 #2l Group F Student #27 #17 #18 #20 102 Female Male Male Female Male Male Male Male Male Female Male Male Male Group A Student Group C Student Group E Student Group G Student #29 #54 #55 #47 #46 #28 #40 #56 #33 #34 #36 #44 #49 #37 #38 #39 Male Female Female Male (Junior) Male Male Male Male Male Female Female Male Female Female Male Male 103 Hour Four Group B Student #35 Group D Student Group F Student #42 #43 #51 #30 #32 #31 #48 #53 #41 #50 #52 Female Female Female Female (Junior) Male Male Male (Junior) Male Male Male Male Female Group A Student Group C Student Group E Student #70 #59 #61 #63 #76 #79 #75 #77 #66 #58 #67 #80 #65 Female Male Male Female Female Female Female Male Female Male Female Female Male 104 Hour Six (Junior) (Junior) Group 8 Student #78 #68 #69 #71 Group 0 Student #57 #60 #72 #74 Male Male Male Male Male Female Female Male APPENDIX C CRITICISMS AND PRAISE RECEIVED AND SELF-INITIATED CHANGES MADE FOR AN IMPROVED PAPER 105 APPENDIX C.-—Criticisms and Praise Received and Self-Initiated Changes Made for an Improved Paper.* A N D A N D A Total Bl D D D A** N D A N Student Ala Ala Ala Alb Alb Alb Alc Alc Alc A2a A2a A2a A2b A2b A2b No. N 19 14 13 18 23 14 11 11 14 14 106 17 10 1O 42 10 ll 13 12 13 14 17 18 19 20 21 12 11 22 20 23 19 20 13 12 15 10 14 APPENDIX C.-C0ntinued. N D A N D A Total 81 D A D A D D A** N N Student Ala Ala Ala Alb Alb Alb Alc Alc Alc A2a A2a A2a A2b A2b A2b No. N 3O 34 13 19 22 11 24 25 26 27 73 26 10 17 12 28 29 16 107 52 66 11 10 11 30 11 13 '12 33 14 50 47 13 34 35 63 15 16 36 37 12 1O 52 36 75 38 39 40 41 1O 11 12 19 10 41 92 14 14 12 14 42 11 3O 43 APPENDIX C.-Continued. A N D A N D A Total Bl D D D A N D A N Student Ala Ala Ala Alb Alb Alb Alc Alc Alc A2a A2a A2a A2b A2b A2b No. N 39 68 4O 36 41 15 44 11 15 46 48 49 24 12 50 52 19 39 26 25 6O 23 76 34 4O 29 46 14 53 108 18 25 54 55 11 12 56 57 12 1O 13 58 59 60 61 11 11 15 65 68 69 49 14 23 7O NNNNch< 11 < :owuawgumma o z m>mumggmz .nmuou No: No: N Lao: com Nmama Nwmzpmcm mspea .moou copuumgcou NoN N mpnmh mama 109 N o NN N N N N N a N o o a o N NN N: NN 8 N N: NN N: N N N N N N o N N N N NN N N NN N N NN N N N o N N o N o N o N a N o NN N N NN N a N N N N o N o N N a NN S N NN N o NN N o o a N o o o o N o o N N o NN N NN 3 N a N o o N o o o N o N NN o N NN N NN Ne N N a N o o o o o a N N N N N E N N: 3 N N N o N N N N N N o e NN N N NN N a NN N N N NN NN N o N o o N o a o N K NN :32 N N. z < N. z .< N. z < N. z < N. z , .oz NNNN NNN NNNNN NN< NN< NN< 02 oz 02 a: a: NE NE NE NE 2253 .umacmucouii.u x~ozmmm< APPENDIX D COMPOSITION CHECK LIST FOR . . .‘. N HIGH SCHOOL 110 APPENDIX D COMPOSITION CHECKLIST FOR ..... HIGH SCHOOL The numbers placed on your written compositions will indi- cate that you have made the errors mentioned in the corresponding ' questions below. It is suggested that you go over these questions prior to completing thefinal copy of your paper. These numbers will be used throughout the school. 1. 2. 3. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. Does your paper have a title? Should it have one? Have you introduced your topic adequately? Is each paragraph of your paper unified? Does each state and develop one central idea? Are your ideas arranged in a logical way? Do you have transition (a) between paragraphs? (b) within paragraphs? Is your paper complete? Have you included all necessary refer- ences, sources of data, tables, etc.? Have you worded each sentence so that your reader cannot possi- bly misunderstand your meaning? Have you carelessly run two sentences together? Have you any sentence fragments? Have you varied the sentence structure, length, and beginning? Have you avoided trite words ("nice," "a lot") and trite phrases ("one can plainly see," "all in all")? Have you considered alternative word choices? Does each of your verbs agree with its subject? Does every pronoun agree with its antecedent? 111 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 112 Is the reference of each pronoun (especially "this,” ”they," and "it") to its antecedent clear? Have you selected the appr0priate form of homonym--"to,“ “too," "two" and "their," "there"? Have you used the appropriate form for pairs of words which are confusing? Have you looked up the spelling of any word about which you are doubtful? Have you placed the correct mark of punctuation at the close of each sentence? Have you used an apostrophe to show possession and to indicate contractions? Have you used a comma (a) to set off terms in a series? (b) to set off an introductory adverb clause or participial phrase? (c) before the conjunction joining the two parts of a compound sentence? (d) to set off interrupting words like "however," "neverthe- less," etc.? Have you proofread? SOURCE: Theodore H. Hipple, "Student Compositions: A Schoolwide Policy for All Written Work," The Clearing House, XLIV (May, 1970), 525. APPENDIX E CHECK SHEET—-FALL 1975 113 PLEASE NOTE: Page 114 has very light and indistinct print. Filmed in the best possible way. UNIVERSITY MICROFILMS. 114 CHECK SHEET Your name Paper written by Date Paper written on (date)"__ Note the good first; then comment on suggested improvements and cericctions. Be specific. Refer to line number whm possible. CONTL’ 31': Papa have purr '3 3 and direction? Subjcct discussed intelligently? __ GJOC' -lirutions run; v' 'tcd? _._..N.._v-_ _._ Tu ms (lift. .01? Oi‘ifiinalhy? Iv... It: oi Lucien“? __ STTlL131LIF.E: O:'z_;r.:.iztw;’ r fir'ctir.":l‘,'? --- _ _._ _ All i'lzar. relevant? _-_ _ _-_ Itie: 1; presented it: I’Tgicul (HUGH-fl. ________ _._- Ar01(fr’.ff,‘l' iclccs 51:7:m'clin'itL-Lmfla” .,,.__,”______,_____,__._ ,, _c .. . .. Tra:i:.ilirv'i:.?.~ ___.__ . ,__ _ ___ ___ . _- PAR;‘4»".1‘£.\.”! I: Fowrinr; S"lll?flfi’~‘?__-__ _ _. _ DCYLiupiZJ logicali‘,'? ---_ __ m--. _._ Unity? _ _-_ -_ ______.__--__.-__.. - _ Vari, 2y OI 0.17.17.21.11 manure?” _, __ -._ -___ - - SEN-TH . Gl{",2:l1"r."-t “7““ ____ ,____,___ _~__,,_____.-.._._- .--.._._._- .N—..-—-~--—- --- ——-‘ —--—-' Vat 1i; _ of ‘Z-f‘flli'il .;,- :3..l terns? .__________.-....., _________ ____ ________-__, _“u 0'0”de c|;cll.’.:.> ___*______g___,__-_ ,_“______ _,____________,g __ _... .. _ _._ V.’t:i,.y(il".t"vf;:ll. ,l?__v__ .___.NN---_.- ,_ __,_,-_,_____... __,_ ,.,___,-._ _ __-_,- _ - Aiiii"-Z~'l "; ‘ w W ’ ___“__7 _7 _ _-_"-.. _ -. ___-____ ____ _ g 7 _ _____ W ‘.5:Cl l."..‘..'iC."j: (,(lllli‘t'li'dli'Jll?M ....___ ,_ _ ‘ _--- , ___,__ _ _ _ ,2 - _ - _ - Sp “Wm? _ ___ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ ___ ______ *_ _ _ _ l‘umxuutimi) - APPENDIX F WHO AM I?--A COCKTAIL MIX 115 Time required: APPENDIX F WHO AM I?--A COCKTAIL MIX approximately 20-30 minutes. Materials used: paper, pin or paper clip for each participant. Process: SOURCE: 1. Participants receive the materials and are allowed five or ten minutes in which to write four or five things about themselves that will help others begin to know a little about them. Hobbies, interests, likes and dislikes are possible topics. Each parti- cipant's name should be at the top of his list. The completed lists are pinned to the front of each participant. As soft music plays in the background the participants circulate in a cocktail party fashion but without speaking. Participants should be encouraged to read everyone's list. After this nonverbal phase, the participants are told to return to two or three different people they thought would be interesting. They may now speak to each other. A general discussion following the exercise could be used to share reactions to the experience the group has just had. J. William Pfeiffer and John E. Jones, A Handbook of Structured Experiences for Human Relations Training, Volume 1 (San Diego, California: University Associates Press, 1974), pp. 19-20. 116 APPENDIX G SAMPLES OF NOTE CARDS RECORDED FROM PAPERS 117 APPENDIX G SAMPLES OF NOTE CARDS RECORDED FROM PAPERS 4OD ’34D Diction - from 56 Ala "Being in a hurry does not necessarily mean anger." — from check sheet Rough draft: "He was in a hurry and the fiery red bulb above him only increased his anger." Final draft: "Roger could not help feel- jflg_anxious for the light to turn green." Sentence Structure - from 33 Alb "Structure of line 5 sentence is awkward" - from check sheet Rough draft: "Likewise, when eaten it serves not merely as a 'filler' but a treat to enjoy." Final: Likewise when eaten it serves not merely as a 'filler' but an enjoy- able treat. Further changes needed. - teacher comment 118 49D 58A 63A 119 Content - from 37 Alc "l. 34 - sentence is confusing” - from check sheet Rough draft: Smiling paper faces hide under inked stars. Omitted in final draft. Teacher comment: Really adds to nostal- gia of details of old elementary papers with smiley faces and stars. Paragraph Structure - from 80 A2b Par. 2 - thesis is not thoroughly sup- ported by paragraph. Change thesis to more of the physical aspects of the start. Thesis: Backstroke start differs tre- mendously from those of the . . . strokes. (Par. continues by giving position of body, listening for gun, beginning - concluding sentence - A fast start will usually propel one into the lead within a few short seconds.) Diction - from 61 A2a Look for better choice of words. Dough gets to be a little repetitious. (No changes made in word use in final draft. Yes, changes are needed.) 65A 72A 60A 43D 560 120 Adds Bl Rough: As a person becomes more experi- enced . . . more weight can be added ....... it isn't a bad idea to push yourself slightly . . . . (Adds) Only the individual knows how he feels and what he is capable of doing. Diction 82 l. 102 These can be gained by being an outstanding athlete in a certain sport. to . . by being a good athlete Paragraph Structure 83 In rough draft one paragraph discussed walking a horse and a new paragraph dis- cussed trotting. In final draft both are combined. Should not have been. Punctuation Needed C Stillness filled the field enclosing the area like a sanctuary against the outside world. Comma needed after field. - from 40 0 "Extremely well done. Tension builds inside a person. Ends abruptly. Good." APPENDIX H INDUCTIVELY DEVELOPED CODE SHEETS 121 APPENDIX H INDUCTIVELY DEVELOPED CODE SHEETS FOR: Content - 01 BLANK 01 Needs more contentg.points not considered 0 = good 02 More facts needed to support content 0 :_good 03 Needs correct content 04 Unnecessary content present 05 Boring 06 Suggested criticism too indefinite 07 Thesis stated; more unnecessary 08 Suggested criticism contradictory, 09 Audience awareness 10 Repetitious 11 Well developed and suppgrted (D) 12 Informative and interesting(D) 13 "Good - - -" (D) 14 Lacks feeling and life_(D = good) 15 Title 16 Good description 17 Has feeling, mood, life(See l4)_ 18 Show; don't tell * l9 Tells actions - no feelings 20 Difficult to understand (0 = good) 21 I liked it 22 Facts best stated elsewhere 23 24 25, etc. 122 FOR: 123 Structure of entireppaper (02) BLANK 01 02 03 O4 05 06 07' 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32, Suggested criticism too indefinite Needed thesis (0 = good) Needs new outline Needs further developing (D = good) Changes from thesis stated Needs to be organized by time (D =good) Needs to be organized by spatial (D = good) Needs to be organized by logic (0 = good) Organized in wrong order (0 = good) Lacks unity Lacks purpose and direction (0 =good)__ Contradictorygpoints Point of view shifts (D = maintained) Point of view can't know this Conclusion needed_(D = good) Point of view — instructed to use 3rd Fails to follow outline (D = follows) Point of view :gyou Smooth and clear (0) Bestgpaper written by you Written well Needs organization Limit subject Generalizations need developing Introduction needed (0 = good)pp Conclusion too abrupt Too broad etc. FOR: 124 Structure - Paragraph - 03 BLANK Ol 02 O3 O4 05 06 07 08 O9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32, Suggested criticism too indefinite Two ideas in onegparagraph Repetitious Lacks topic sentence Needs transition at beginning (0 = good)_ Needs transition within paragraph Ideas fail to follow logically (D =ggood); No variety ig_paragraph structure (0 =ggood) Lacks unity Shifts verb tense (D =ggood) Two ideas in thesis Needs developingg(D = developed) Topic sentence vague, imprecise (D =good) No new paragrgph needed Good (0) Clear (0) Worded well (0) Concluding sentence (0 = good) Paragraph too long Not structured as outline states Paragraph for each speaker in dialogue Organized etc. FOR: 125 Sentence structure - 04 BLANK 48, Suggested criticism too indefinite Awkward Confusing Content unclear Dangljngymodifier Misplaced modifier Notyparallel structure Adj, clause; make an ad‘. oryprep. phrase Verb phrase; make an ad ective Make lesser idea subordinate Run-on sentence Two sentences neededi Fragment Compound verb; needs two clauses Should use active, not passive, verbs Use_passive verb; active shifts force Use more precise verbs Avoid beginning sentence with ”it"y__ Avoid begjnningysentence with "there" Wordy No variety in sentence structure (0 = good) Compound verb; should be two clauses (see 141' Verbgphrase - should be adj. clause Excess use of will, could, would, should; should use pres. or_past Sentence too long Sentences chgppl; combining needed Sentence order (0 = good) So Adv. clause after linking verb Specific Conjunction at beginning Add words Irrelevant_parts Too many subordinate conjunctions Use of question for effectiveness Use of dialpgue - cut Wrong verb tense Good Use an appositive Not needed Effective short sentences; forceful Add words to sentence (see 32) Verb phrase as adj.; should be adv. clause Prepositionalyphrase to adj. Needs developingy etc. FOR: 126 Diction -105 BLANK Suggested criticism too indefinite Purplejpassage_]too impressive) Redundant Excess words Verbose Poor word choice - imprecise (D :ygood) Wrong word form Poor analogy (D = good) Word omitted Cliche (D =_good) Sort of, kind of a lot Generalization - needs tentative word Slang Overuse of one word, phoneme Uses form of word to define word Awkward Overuse of the_pronoun ”one" Lack of precise verb (0 = good)__ Poor word choice - wrong imageylp = good) Avoid contractions Varietyj Avoid overuse of to be Avoid judgmental words Wrong conjunction Mixed metaphors Wrong_pronoun Too many_pronouns Difficult to understand Too descriptive Good adjectives Seemed to Tog_professional sounding Asllike the fact that 127 FDR: Mechanics - 06 BLANK 01 Criticism too indefinite Pronoun agreement - case Pronoun agreement - number . Pronoun - no antecedent Pronoun - incorrect antecedent Sub‘.-verb agreement - number Capitalization - not needed Cap. needed - sentence beginning Cap. neededy- proper nouns Spelling - i.e., words Sp. - there, their, they're Sp. - plural incorrect Sp. - plural not made Sp. - a lot .Punc. - no apostrophe; should be Punc. - apostrophe used unnecessarily Punc. - comma fault Punc. - comma after two + intro prep. phrases Punc. - comma after intro ad clauses Punc. - comma before and in series Punc. - comma used for no reason -Punc. - comma for appositive Punc. - comma for dates Punc. - comma for addresses Punc. e_period used for comma Punc. - nojperiod; should be; sentence Punc. syperiod needed for abbreviation Punc. - colon needed after followingyy Punc. - colon needed in sentence Punc. - colon incorrectly_used Punc. - semi-colon needed; two ind. clauses Punc. - semi-colon needed; series Punc. semi-colon incorrectly used Spelling - incorrect Spelling - where, were Punc. - comma, gerund phrase Use words for signs, some numerals Comma for emphasis Comma for parenthetical expression Use of preposition for conjunction Comma and conj. for two independent clauses Spelling for to, too, two Possessive before gerund of for have Comma for words, adjectives in series No ( ) (see 50) FOR: 91, 128 Mechanics - 06, continued Improper word division Add commas (see 38), Comma before dialogue Use ( ) (see 46) Use " " or not? ? Off of Split infinitive Comma - intro partigjpial phrase Comma - intro infinitive phrase Correction due to illegjbility, Period Pronoun - antecedent ambiguous, unclear Use of hyphen Excessive exclamation points Verb - supjunctive No comma needed (see 21). Period within ( ) or " " Mechanics -_ggod (D) No abbreviation Dash Etc. Apostrophe misplaced Comma misplaced etc. 129 FOR: Special - Unclassified information - 07 BLANK 01 Extraneous, unrelated comments 02 Shows oral help pf 03 Completely rewritten rough draft and final draft 04 Conflict of suggestions between two peers 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32, etc. APPENDIX I SAMPLES OF INDUCTIVELY DEVELOPED GROUPING OF NOTE CARDS FROM HOUR FOUR NARRATIVE AND DESCRIPTION PAPERS 130 APPENDIX I SAMPLES OF INDUCTIVELY DEVELOPED GROUPING OF NOTE CARDS FROM HOUR FOUR NARRATIVE AND DESCRIPTION PAPERS 33D Verb form - from 36 Ala line 8 — penetrate should have '5' added. 33 add '5' to penetrate. Mechanical Corrections - Spelling 300 Spelling - from 48 Ala Rough Final 1. 5 though --------- thought 1. 9 climed --------- climbed 1. ll inocent -------- innocent Mechanical Corrections - Capitalization punctuation grammar errors 510 Punctuation - from 35 Ala 1. 36 - You need a comma after the word courtyard. In classes overlooking the courtyard windows rattled. (Comma added.) 131 132 Mechanical Corrections - Transitions A1a 490 Transition - from 37 A2a Last Paragraph - transition could be made a little smoother. (No transition - paper just jumps from top of desk to drawers.) Mechanical Corrections - Point of View 460 - from 28 Ala "When I.see limited omniscient and you're using we, I immediately think you will tell another persons (sic) thoughts by what they have told you." (But he doesn't.) (In final draft all we's and other first person pronouns are omitted.) 2 Makes Broad Suggestions - Word Changes 280 Diction - from 46 Ala 1. l9 - "boulders" - #46 says to "try something else that's soft!" (#28 changes and uses 'globs') Makes Broad Suggestions - Sentence Structure 300 Sentence Structure (Fragment) - from 48 Ala 1. 6 - "Sentence starting line 6 is not complete - should be put with preceding sentence by a comma.“ Rough: "Just relaxing, no pressures, nothing to do . . . ." Final: "He could just relax, no pressures, noth- ing to do . . . ." 133 Makes Broad Suggestions - Paragraph Structure 410 Paragraph Structure - from 50 Ala Topic of your first paragraph is oil and then the popcorn but in your first sentence that break isn't noticeable. (First with and then with, transitional words, are added to first sentence to make division of content clear.) Broad Declarative Suggestions - Thesis 44N Structure - from 34 A2a Might want to have an introductory paragraph to introduce subject to the audience. (Would strengthen paper, but 44 does not.) Broad Declarative Suggestions - Content 46N Content - from 40 Ala "Rather technical in parts - I think you assumed reader should know that you're talking about." Rough: "Since they were the affirmative team, they were first . . . ." (This is changed. This eliminates presupposition that reader knows order of debate.) 134 Broad Declarative Suggestions - Confusing, Unclear 40N "Confusing" - from 46 Ala Paragraph 5, 11. 10-11 - Rough: "Even though I like the job so very much, I will still have to do it." Final: Sentence omitted. (This was part of 40's.attempt at sarcasm. Best omitted.) Broad Declarative Suggestion - Redundant 33N Diction - from 34 Ala "Talk to me, not see me - see me repetitious - " Rough: . . . Mr. Sikkema comes in and asks to see me. I didn't have the foggiest notion why he would want to see me. Final: . . . came in asking to speak to me . . . . didn't . . . to see me. Suggests Rewording; Stated Revisions 35N Word Order - from 51 Alc 51 says - "Put 'without looking Up' before 'I finally.” Rough: I finally got my feet together and begin (sic) to make my way across the street, without looking up. Final: I finally . . . street. (Leaves out "without looking up" which, as written in rough, adds to embarrassment.) 44N 135 Asks Questions Detail Needed - from 33 Ala In paragraph 3, "what is second thing you try to accomplish?" Rough: Final: There are two things . . . to accom- plish . . . . The main thing . . . is pickups . . . . Upon arrival at Fair Oaks, two final steps of preparation were necessary before the repeats. Approximately five pickups were done alternately with calisthenics. APPENDIX J SAMPLE DRAFTS OF PAPER 136 APPENDIX J SAMPLE DRAFTS OF PAPER Rough Draft of Description Paper of Student Fifty-Eight The first rays of light parted the early morning fog and the massive creature was revealed. Indeed so enormous that men sur- rounding the structure were dwarfed. Lifelessly the airplane rested, bound by the pull of gravitation to the earth. A true miracle would be required to lift the sullen mass of sheet metal into space. The formation of the plane was amazing. The structure was long, oh how very long, so long that one thousand men could be placed side by side and still not equall the length. The heighth of the plane made it reach seemingly forever in the heavy morning air. What little light there was became dissapated in the dull sheen of metal. Amazingly the plane progressed forward, enough so the many intricisies of the exterior could be observed. Row on row of bolts flashed by and the entire framework seemed to depend on each tiny bolt. The exact placement of the parts matched the most magnificent of spider webs. Up close it was possible to see each tiny scratch on the plane, which was many. The large vehicle no longer gleamed but emitted a strange glow. As the plane moved the many joints moaned and screeched [word illegible]. 137 138 Suddenly with a burst of light overwhelming everything in the vicinity the plane came alive. The roar was equal to the roar of Niagra Falls only much more intense and concentrated. Final Draft of Description Paper of Student Fifty-Eight Pre-dawn Flight The first rays of light parted the early morning fog and the massive creature was revealed. The surrounding men were dwarfed by its enormous size. Lifelessly the airplane rested, bound by the pull of gravitation to the earth. A true miracle would be required to lift the sullen mass of sheet metal airborne. Long and sleek with rounded curves, sharp angles, and jutting corners, the structure of the machine was not lacking in beauty. The dull sheen of metal dissapated what little light materialized from the horizon. Amazingly the plane progressed forward, enough so that the many intricisies of the exterior could be observed. Row on row of bolts flashed by and the complex arrangement of the parts equalled the most magnificent of spider webs. From a short distance the finish of the metal appeared to be worn and scratched. The many joints moaned and screeched in harmony with the motion of the plane. Suddenly with an immense outburst of energy the plane came alive. The sound was deafening and the light intensity was blinding. The black stubby nose of the plane thrust itself forward and the mag- nificent machine accelerated into a streaking blur of silver and grey. In a final gesture of supremacy, the tiny wheels departed from solid concrete to be lifted into a misty morning sunrise. SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 139 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY Allport, Gordon W. Pattern and Growth in Personality. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1961. Boocock, S. S. "Toward a Sociology of Learning: A Selective Review of Existing Research." Sociology of Education, XXXIX (Winter, 1966). Botts, R. "What Means This End? Some Unexamined Classroom Prac- tices." English Journal, LX (January, 1971), 88-92. Boyet, Aggie. "The Effect of Student Group Editing of Themes on the Improvement of Writing in Freshman English Composition." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Okalhoma Agricultural and Mechanical College, 1955. Braddock, Richard. "English Composition." Enoyclgpedia of Educa- tional Research. 4th ed. Edited by Robert L. Ebel. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1969. Braddock, Richard; Lloyd-Jones, Richard; and Schoeb, Lowell. Research in Written Composition. Champaign, Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English, 1963. Brooks, Cleanth, and Warren, Robert Penn. Fundamentals of Good Writing. New York: Harcourt Brace and Company, Inc., 1950. Bruffefi, Kenneth A. “Collaborative Learning: Some Practical Models." College English, XXXIV (February, 1973), 634-43. Buber, Martin. I and Thou. Translated by Walter Kaufmann. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1970. Burton, Dwight L. "Some Important Research Gaps in the Teaching of Secondary School English." Needed Research in the Teaching of English. Proceedings of a conference held at Carnegie Institute of Technology, prepared by Edwin R. Steinberg, May 5-7, 1962. Burton, Dwight L., and Simmons, John 5., eds. Teaching English in Todayfs High Schools. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Win- ston, 1970. 140 141 Cantor, Nathaniel. The Dynamics of Learnigg. Buffalo, New York: Foster Stewart Publishing Corporation, 1946. Coleman, J. S. Adolescents and the Schools. New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1965. Creber, J. W. Patrick. Sense and Sensitivity. London: University of London Press, Ltd., 1965. De Boer, J. J. "Composition, Handwriting, and Spelling." Review of Educational Research, XXXI (April, 1961), 161-72. Devin-Sheehan, Linda; Feldman, Robert 5.; and Allen, Vernon L. "Research of Children Tutoring Children: A Critical Review." Review of Educational Research, XLVI (Summer, 1976), 355-85. Deiderich, Paul B. Measuring Growth in Engljsh. Urbana, Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English, 1974. Division of Instructional Planning and Services. Compose Yourself: A Plan for Instruction in Written Composition, Grades 7-12. Publication No. SC-74l. Los Angeles, California: Los Angeles City Schools, 1976. Dixon, John. Growth Through Engjish. Edgerton, Huddersfield, Yorkshire, England: National Association for the Teaching of English, 1969. Dyess, Joseph T. "Composing: Epiphany and Detail." CollegeCompo- sition and Communication, XV (December, 1964), 260-2. Ehly, Stewart, and Larsen, Stephen C1 "Tutor and Tutee Character- istics as Predictors of Tutorial Outcomes." Psychology in the Schools, XIII (July, 1976), 348-9. Evans, William H., and Walker, Jerry L. New Trends in the Teaching of English in Secondary Schools. Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, 1966. Farrell, Edmund J. Implications of National Assessment Writing Results. Washington, D.C.: Department of Health, Education and Welfare, 1971. Ford, Bob Wayne. "The Effects of Peer Editing/Grading on the Grammar Usage and Theme-Composition Ability of College Fresh- men." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, University of Okla- homa, 1972. Frymier, Jack R. "Teaching the Young to Love." Theory Into Prac- tice, XIII (December, 1974), 376-79. 142 Gage, N. L., ed. Handbook of Research on Teaching. Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, 1963. Ginsburg, Herbert, and Opper, Sylvia. Piaget's Theory of Intel- lectual Development, An Introduction. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1969. ,Godshalf, Fred 1-, and Swineford, Frances. The Measurement of ' Writing Ability. New York: College Entrance Examination Board, 1966. I,Grissom, Loren V. "Student Leadership in Evaluating Compositions." ‘ English Journal, XLVIII (September, 1959), 338-39. Haas, V. J.; Childers, Perry R.; Babbitt, Elizabeth; and Dylla, Sandra M. "English Composition by Workshop." The Journal of Experimental Education, XL (Spring, 1972), 33-37. Hardaway, Francine. "What Students Can Do to Take the Burden Off You." College English, XXXVI (January, 1975), 577. Hatfield, W. W. Experience Curriculum. New York: Appleton Cen- tury, 1935. Hawkins, Thom. "Group Inquiry Techniques for Teaching Writing." College English, XXXVII (March, 1976), 637-46. Hayakawa, S. I. "Linguistic Science and the Teaching of Composi- tion." ETC: A Review of General Semantics, VII (Winter, 1950), 97-103. .Hipple, T. W. "Grader's Helpers; Colleagues, Peers, Scorecards." Engljsh Journal, LXI (May, 1972), 690-3. _________ "Student Compositions: A Schoolwide Policy for All Written Work." The Clearing House, XLIV (May, 1970), 523-26. James, Charity. Young Lives at Stake. New York: Agathon Press, 1972. , Jerabek, Ross, and Dieterich, Daniel. "Composition Evaluation; The State of the Art." College Composition and Communica- tions, XXVII (May, 1975), 183-86. Judy, Stephen. Explorations in the Teaching of Secondary English. New York: Dodd, Mead, 1974. Karrfalt, David H. "Writing Teams: From Generating Composition to Generating Communcation." College Composition and Communi- cation, XXII (December, 1971), 377-78. 143 Katz, Molly. "A Blueprint for Writing." Change, VIII (November, 1976), 46-47. Kelley, Earl. Workshop Way of Learning. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1951. Kelly, Lou. "Toward Competence and Creativity in an Open Class." College English, XXXIV (February, 1973), 644-60. Kitzhaber, A. R. Themes, Theoriesy and Therapy: The Teachingygf Writing in College. New York: McGraw Hill Book Company, Inc., 1963. Lagana, Jean Remally. "The Development, Implementation, and Evalu- ation of a Model for Teaching Composition Which Utilizes Individualized Learning and Peer Grouping." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, 1972. Logan, Carolyn. "Myth and Method." English Journal, LIX (April, 1970), 548-50. Lokke, Virginia, and Wykoff, George. "Double Writing in Freshman Composition - An Experiment." School and Society, XLVIII (November, 1948), 437-39. Lyman, R. L. "A Cooperative Experiment in Junior High School Compo- sition." School Review, XXXIX (December, 1931), 748-57. Maize, Ray. "A Study in Two Methods of Teaching Composition.“ Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Purdue University, 1952. Martin, H. C. Freedom and Discjpline in English. Princeton: College Entrance Examination Board, 1965. McColly, W., and Remstad, R. Comparative Effectiveness of Composi- tion Skills Learning Activities in the Secondary School. Cooperative Research Project 1528. Madison: University of Wisconsin, 1963. McGuire, Edna. "College Freshmen on Writing in High School." English Journal, LI (April, 1962), 256-58. Mersand, J. Attitudes Toward English Teaching. Philadelphia: Chilton Press, 1961. Moffett, James. A Student Centered Language Arts Curriculum, K-13, A Handbook for Teachers. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin Company. 1973. . Teaching the Universe of Discourse. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1968. 144 Morsey, Royal J. Improvinngnglish Instruction. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1965. Muller, Herbert J. The Uses of English: Guidelines for the Teach- ingyof English from the Anglo-American Conference at Dart- mouth College. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1967. Nemanich, Donald. "Preparing the Composition Teacher." Colle e Composition and Communication, XXV (February, 1974 , 46-48. O'Donnell, Roy C. "The Correlations of Awareness of Structural Relationships in English and Ability in Written Composition." The Journal of Educational Research, LVII (May-June, 1964), 464-67. Parker, Robert P., Jr. "An American in London." English Journal, LXIV (April, 1975), 14-15. Patterson, C. H. Humanistic Education. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1973. Pfeiffer, J. William, and Jones, John E. A Handbook of Structured Enperiences for Human Relations Training, Volume 1} San Diego, California: University Associates Press, 1974. Pierson, Howard. "Peer and Teacher Correction--A Comparison of the Effects of Two Methods of Teaching Composition in Grade Nine English Classes." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, New York University, 1966. . Teaching Writing. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1972. Platt, Michael. "Correcting Papers in Public and in Private." College English, XXXVII (September, 1975), 22-27. Putz, Joan M. "When the Teacher Stops Teaching - An Experiment With Freshman English." College English, XXXII (October, 1970), 50. Rogers, Carl Ransom. Freedom to Learn; A View of What Education Might Become. Columbus, Ohio: C. E. Merrill Publishing Company, 1969. . Student Centered Teaching. Toronto, Canada: Hogtown Press, 1972. Sager, C. "Improving the Quality of Written Composition Through Pupil Use of Rating Scale." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, 1973, Boston University. 145 Sauer, Edwin H. "The Cooperative Correction of Paragraphs." Schiff, Essays on the Teaching of English: Reports of the Yale Conference on the Teaching of English. Edited by Edward Gordon and Edward Noyes. New York: Appleton-Century- Crofts, 1960. Lillian. "Teaching Composition." Convention Concerns. Sixty-first Annual Meeting of the National Council of Teachers of English. Edited by Stephen Judy. Urbana, Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English, 1971. Schmuck, Richard A., and Schmuck, Patricia A. A Humanistic Pey- Sheils, chology of Education, Making the School Everybody's House. Palo Alto, California: The National Press Books, 1974. Merrill. "Why Johnny Can't Write." Newsweek, December 8, 1975. PP. 59-66. Skinner, B. F. Verbal Behavior. New York: Appleton-Century- Crofts, 1957. Slow, Ralph. "Influence of Writing Experiences in High School on Presence of Students in Remedial College English Composi- tion.“ The Journal of Educational Research, LVII (July- August, 1964), 534-37. Smith, Dora. Class Size in High School English. Minneapolis, Snipes, Squire, _Sutton, Thelen, Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press, 1931. Wilson Currin. "An Inquiry: Peer Group Teaching in Fresh- man Writing." College Composition and Communication, XXII (May, 1971), 169—74. James R., et al. The National Interest and the Teaching of English. Report of the Committee on National Interest, National Council of Teachers of English. Champaign, Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English, 1961. Joseph T., and Allen, Eliot D. "The Effect of Practice and Evaluation on Improvement in Written Composition." Coopera- tive Research Project 1993. Delano, Florida: Stetson University, 1964. Herbert A. Classroom Grouping for Teachability. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1967. . Education and the Human Quest. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1960. 146 Whitla, Janet Hanley. "Classroom-Centered Evaluation: A Humanis- tic Approach for the Social Studies." Social Education, XL (November-December, 1976), 568-73. Witbeck, Michael C. "Peer Correction Procedure for Intermediate and Advanced ESL Composition." Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Language Quarterly, X (September, 1976), 321-26. "Writing Test Reveals Many Lack Basic Skills: National Assessment Report." School and Community, LIX (October, 1972), ll.