WORK Improving feedback on student papers: a quantitative method which aids marking and gives valid feedback Donna M Wilson

A quantifying method of marking was developed to aid in consistent and thorough marking of student papers and to improve the manner and validity of feedback. This feedback is on common technical writing skills. Giving feedback on technical writing skills, as opposed to concentrating on critical thinking skills, is defended. The benefits and purposes of this marking method are further developed. Implementation of the method is outlined, and a completed Quantitative Feedback form is demonstrated. Through evaluation, the method has been found effective for aiding marking and for clearly identifying strengths and weaknesses in writing.

Evaluation on a number

INTRODUCTION Marking

a scholarly

any educator.

paper is a difficult

Marking

requires

large time commitment (Lutz, recognising writing strengths

task for

concentration,

a

1989), and skill at and weaknesses.

C:orrect analysis of the paper is required

to give

feedback

grade.

and to assign

an appropriate

Another

major consideration

ensuring

that the feedback

for the educator is helpful

student (Booth et al, 1984; Lutz, student’s writing in the future enhanced

by current

evaluative

is

for the

1989). The should be

feedback.

Little

research or literature assists the educator in the evaluation of writing (Lutz, 1989; Tarpey & Dally,

1989).

influenced educator.

Consequently, by

the

marking

individual

style

is largely of

the

Donna M Wilson RN MSN Assistant Professor, Faculty of Nursing, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada (Requests for offprints to DW) Manuscript accepted 27 August 1990

of the paper.

of a paper

may include feedback aspects or components

of different

An evaluative

method,

which has

consistently proved to be helpful to this educator and to her students, has been to give quantified feedback This

on common

paper

will start

requirements

for

technical

writing

by contrasting

scholarly

papers:.

writing skills and critical thinking Emphasis

and benefits back,

1983; Scull,

will be placed on the purposes

of the quantifying

implementation

evaluation

two

technical

skills (Allen et

al, 1989; Dawe et al, 1984; Hairston. 1987).

errors. the

method

of the method

of feedand

an

of the method.

TWO REQUIREMENTS SCHOLARLY PAPERS

FOR

‘Professional

write’

nurses

must

(Tarpev-

Murray & Dally 1989, p. 14). So must students learn to write. Gaining technical writing skills is the initial tnajor hurdle for students in writing scholarly papers. l‘echnical skills comprise the grammatical or structural

54

NURSE EDUCATION

basis for conveying paper. Writing critical thinking thinking

the theme

the analysis and integration

(Scull,

1987),

and thoroughness

and

in a scholarly

also be viewed

as evidence

gained

nursing

required

that

to write the paper

Students

improve

critical

Improvement

students

the

student

or content

(Hairston,

thinking

in critical

occurs with the development skills (Allen

of the

paper may

knowledge

in order

1983).

skills over

thinking

of technical

et al, 1981;

of

the completeness

of the development

theme. Critical thinking

time.

of the scholarly

a scholarly paper also requires skills (Dawe et al, 1984). Critical

includes

literature

TODAY

Kinneavy,

skills writing

1980);

as

are able to write what they intend

Furthermore, clearly

feedback

understood,

focus on insignificant ‘Students areas

need

on

or infrequent

frequency,

is

an

for students.

Students

benefit

common

writing

specific

remedial clearly

from

errors

the

knowing

what

are. Students

learning

when

nature

of their

textbooks

designed

little experience

in writing

& Wiener,

1985;

Three

particular

groups,

with

developing

grams.

technical

Diploma

nurses,

basic baccalaureate writing

have group,

who

students

entering

laureate

degree

students

are unprepared

level of writing required. require English

program.

assistance

third

papers. may also second

comprise

four

year

the

bacca-

Many of these basic to write at a university

group,

with technical

of individuals language

the post-

The

and for the amount

The

composed

basic

are pro-

generally

nurses

disuse.

assistance,

the

concentrate

with writing

from

require

skills, nursing

program,

skills of diploma

deteriorated

Scull,

on entering

degree

have had little experience The

writing

in our two baccalaureate

assistance

who

of writing generally

writing skills, is

who have difficulty with

skills.

Students,

who

have

English as a second language, commonly difficulty with writing (Scull, 1987 p. vii).

have

PURPOSES AND BENEFITS OF QUANTIFIED METHOD OF FEEDBACK The practice of quantifying

feedback

grew from

the finding that there are common errors in writing. Frequently, these errors are technical writing skills. Appendix 1 lists common technical writing errors. It is necessary that feedback on technical writing skills be given to students.

1987,

avoiding

the

1986).

common

form

(Eisenberg

8c DeBruyn, Students their

errors

of

writing in 1986;

are able to

next paper initially,

by

or by

them when proof-reading.

Students

also benefit (Lutz,

from receiving

writing

errors

are

receive

positive

technical

errors Benefits

achievement

positive

1989) when few or no technical

students papers.

in

for this purpose

on improving

eliminating

be

Messenger

Shaw,

these

feedback

may

under-

difficulties.

writing classes or studying

learning

their

can seek

they

Kemedial

apparent

of

teaching

attending

who require

paper’

or quantity,

appropriate

to

paper.

a few

in their

communicate (Tarpey-Murray & Dally, 1989). Many students enter nursing programs with a scholarly

not

errors.

to be able to identify

the

errors

method

specific,

should

1989 p. 25).

Feedback writing

be

and

that they can improve

(Sorrel&

stand

should

correct,

identified.

are of

Additionally,

feedback found

higher

on

when fewer subsequent

self-esteem

and

are possible when positive feedback

is received. Perhaps

the greatest

benefit

from using a quantification is having

clear guidelines

for the educator,

method

of grading,

for evaluating

scho-

larly papers (Allen et al, 1989; Tarpey-Murray

&

Dally, 1989; Sorrell, 1989). All levels of educators seek to give valid feedback on relevant aspects of writing

(Lutz,

1989).

Identifying

the

actual number of technical writing errors is specific valid feedback. Using quantitative feedback increases consistency of marking between papers.

Students

can perceive

that marking

is

valid when a quantified appraisal of the paper has been undertaken and there is an additional rationale for grading. Quantified feedback on technical writing skills also enhances feedback on critical thinking skills (Allen et al, 1989). For example; when sentence or paragraph structure errors are identified, the evaluator and students are able to determine

how an idea was not clearly developed. benefit of quantifying that

it separates

technical

technical

writing errors

writing

student

Another is

skills from

critical thinking skills, the other major ment of writing (Allen et al, 1989).

require-

IMPLEMENTATION OF QUANTIFYING METHOD OF FEEDBACK :\ recording

form,

back on Technical

entitled

page of the paper.

The

Feed-

writing errors on

total number

of similar

in the paper can also be tabulated

each horizontal

line. Completed

to all students, the common

across

number

technical

of errors

feed-

in each of

writing skill areas is out-

lined fin- the student. ‘l.echnical rrcorded

writing

are

1 is an example

form. Alternatively, (luring

errors

noted

and

on the form during the first reading of

the paper. Table

of a completed

the form may be completed

the second reading

ofa paper, so that an

clverview of the paper is obtained on the first I eading. Keviewing a completed form assists in tletermining

I hm writing

how well the student

of the paper. The frequency errors

assists

in

the conversation

paper.

a

111

was initiated b, was gained

All students reported that they feedback helpful. Primarily students

found the noted that

definable

areas

identified.

It was common

they

felt

needing they

development

were

for students

to sav

received

helpful

or that the evaluator

specific

had worked hard

improvement. finding over

A

second

was the reduction

fairness

of marking,

implementation over grading

ma_joland

has been received.

of feedback

concerns

grades.

of the form, not

that using the form increased reliability

evaluative

in student

Since

complaint

one

It would appear the validitv and

for srudents.

forms are given

along with other evaluative

back. ‘l‘he specific

the

to mark their paper and clearly outline areas for

its vertical axis and horizontal compartments for rrcording the number of errors found on each errors

on the form during

to discuss

the evaluator to ensure that feedback from all 72 students.

feedback,

Skills, was designed.

The form has a list of common

meeting

some instances

that

Quantitative

Writing

giving feedback

subsequent

advanced

the

of technical

determining

the

\luclent’s level of critical thinking.

EVALUATION OF QUANTIFIED METHOD OF FEEDBACK I have used the quantitative feedback form for 2 years in the process of marking 72 student papers. Evaluation of the form’s effectiveness, mainly in identifying common technical writing skill errors, was determined through conversations with all 72 students. These conversations gene]-ally occurred spontaneously, with the

Table 1 Quantitative feedback on technical writing skills Note your writing strengths and areas that need development. Please plan to meet with me for an (optional) explanation of this form, and a discussion of your writing skills 1. Sentence

-

structure lengthy not clear not complete ‘This/These’ start

2. References -missing (needed)

(P8)

3. Punctuation - lack of - incorrect 4. Word Use _ slang, tone - use of ‘I’ or ‘We’ - past/present tense

(d4,

5. Paragraph structure - lengthy - brief -flow 6. Section -headings

needed

(P4)

7. Errors -typographical - spelling

&3(PL,

8. Formatting - incorrect

(Pl) (P2) (p4) (p7) (pig) &I,

9. Other

ii

i

ii

i

56

NURSE EDUCATION TODAY

A third evaluative

finding

was the perceived

positive nature of this type of evaluation. The form can delineate specific areas of writing strengths.

For

example

many

students

were

happy to note that they had no errors in a specific writing area. The form can also delineate of improvement.

Students

they felt they had been improving

The

evaluation

of the form’s

to immediate

noted by the students tinuing effects on future sought

on the form

this.

confined

known,

effectiveness

feelings

and educator.

the evalutative

development

What con-

method

of writing

may have

skills is un-

nor do we know how many remedial

learning

subsequent

technical

writing

comparing form’to

the

technical proof-read

papers

to eliminate

errors.

A longitudinal

feedback

of the

is a desirable

common study,

‘feedback

methods in increas-

ing writing skills, would determine feedback

students

to improve

effectiveness

traditional

is

of usefulness

writing skills, nor how many students their

that

in this specific

writing area and that the feedback confirmed

areas

also commented

method

if quantified

of teaching.

CONCLUSION Developing Assisting

writing skills is a life long endeavour. students

to develop

writing skill is a major

challenge

their

scholarly

for any nurse

educator.

Use of tools, such as the ‘quantitative

feedback’ evaluator

form, can be a means of assisting the to mark papers accurately and consis-

tently. More importantly, student areas of writing needing

Dawe A, Watson W, Harrison D 1984 Assessing English skills: writing. Continuing Education Division., Ministry of Education, Victoria BC Eisenberg N, Wiener H S 1985 Stepping stones: skills for basic writers. Random House, New York Hairston M 1983 The winds of change. Current Issues in Higher Education 3: 4-10 Kinneavy J 1980 A theory of discourse. Norton, New York Messenger W E, De Bruyn J 1986 The Canadian writer’s handbook 2nd ed. Prentice-Hall Canada Inc, Scarborough, Ontario Scull S 1987 Critical reading and writing for advanced ESL students. Prentice-H%1 Inc, Engcwood Cliffs, NJ Shaw H 1986 Handbook of English 4th ed. McGrawHill Ryerson Limited, Toronto Sorrel1 J M 1989 Responding to student writing. Nurse Educator 14,2: 24-26 Tarpey-Murray K, Dally D 1989 The write content: a guide for revising and grading texts and manuscripts. Nurse Educator 14, 4: 14-16.

it may clarify for the strengths and areas

improvement.

References Allen D G, Bowers B, Diekelmann N 1989 Writing to learn: reconceptualization of thinking and learning in the nursing curriculum. Journal of Nursing Education 28, 1: 6-l 1 Booth D W, Lashmar P, Schemenauer E 1984. Write away. Globe/Modern Curriculum Press, Toronto

APPENDIX Common

1 Errors in Technical Writing

1. Sentence structure (a) lengthy (run-on) uses extra words (not succinct) or contains too much information for one sentence. (b) message or ideas not clear (c) sentence is not complete (d) begins with ‘This’ or ‘These’ (sentence cannot stand alone) 2. References (a) missing (more needed)

3’ ~n~~~~t$~unctuation (b) incorrect punctuation 4. Word Use (a) slang used, tone not scholarly (b) personal writing (use of ‘I’ or ‘We’) (4 tense (past/present/future tense not consistent) 5. Paragraph structure (a) lengthy (more than one typewritten page), contains more than one paragraph’s information (b) brief (less than three sentences) (c) does not flow 6. Sections (a) titles or headings needed (not present) 7. Errors (a) typographical (b) spelling errors 8. Formatting (a) incorrect application guidelines

of format or style manual