Spanish Teaching Fellow
University of Pennsylvania Graduate School of Education
Independent School Teaching Residency Program
Findings & Analysis: Explained
Learn - Do - Redo
Learn - Do - Redo (LDR) is effective because it requires students to interact with the feedback before moving forward. This strategy, alongside O’Donovan et al., (2016), Orsmond (2013) and Xiao et. al (2019) push for “draft-plus” and their acknowledgement for the lack of feedback processing in the classroom, influenced the role of LDR in my classroom. LDR, which in theory is feedback-loop, allows students to show learning and growth in the process versus receiving a grade without the opportunity of a discussion. This process has reduced the amount of same or similar writing mistakes.
Andrew Brown
Image A Image B
One example is Andrew Brown who in the first feedback-loop writing assignment made two out of the four same mistakes originally corrected. Image A highlights errors with gender agreement, definite versus indefinite articles, preterit and imperfect and certain vocabulary, and while there are errors in Image B, they were reduced by half. As time progressed, so did the length of his writing assignments, as Image C shows. Specifically for this writing assignment the student only made one error with gender agreement, one vocabulary word misused and small conjugation details that were discussed during the feedback process and not repeated in the final product. Demonstrating that not only was his writing improving, progressively throughout the year, but so were the amount and kinds of mistakes he was making. Note, the different colored text at the bottom represents information added after the initial feedback. Writing in the new section only had two errors, which were incorrect prepositions. Moreover, the length of his writing was much longer under the same condition. Students had about 10 minutes to brainstorm, begin writing in-class and then work on it for homework prior to turning it in. For both occasions, students received their feedback at the end of class after a couple of days. They were then given a few minutes to review the edits and have an opportunity to ask questions before editing and adding more as part of the feedback loop and LDR process.
A second example is Walter Green. who came in as a strong language student, and throughout the feedback loop process not only strengthened his writing, but also the length of his writing. Image A highlights three mistakes made by Walter Green, which include an incorrect vocabulary, an article mistake and a conjugation mistake between preterit and imperfect. Meanwhile his second try, Image B, was longer in length and only one mistake in the new section he added. It was evident that Walter Green understood and processed his errors as he made corrections, and the same errors were not repeated. This pattern continued throughout the months, and by the end of January, Walter Green was writing longer assignments, Image C, with very little grammar mistakes. As noted in Image C, most of Walter Green mistakes were corrections on using more accurate vocabulary and including a direct object pronoun. The repetition of writing, feedback and re-writing was helping him make fewer mistakes. It should be noted that for the assignment on Image C, there was no minimum, and I was surprised to see that he chose to write over three-pages of dialogue filled with humor.
Walter Green
Image A
Image B
Surveys
Surveys in October indicated that LDR/feedback-loop was helpful to eight out of nine students, the outlier being a strong language student. Students also had this sentiment during the February survey where they expanded and stated it was helpful because it gave them an opportunity to review their mistakes and make corrections. Everyone agreed that rewriting and processing the feedback was very time consuming, making it the one downfall. Even though not all the assignments in the course were part of the feedback-loop, students did not ask whether they were or not, which demonstrated to me they were putting their full effort from the start.
An additional discovery was seeing students naturally make connections in their writing to previous materials seen in the classroom. Walter Green’s Image C is an example of that since he connected the writing assignment to a CNN en español video we had seen previously discussed about Launch X. Moreover, what arose from the feedback loop cycle amongst strong language students was the desire to receive feedback on their oral presentations and pronunciation. While all students agreed that they wanted feedback on their pronunciation, stronger language students (four out of nine students specifically) craved to receive feedback on their “speech, fluidity and pronunciation.”
Summative assessments, without numerical repercussions, were used to allow students the opportunity to explore their writing styles.
I made this finding more recently as students started to explore the possibility of choosing how they wanted to represent their understanding for a short-story called, “Adiós mamá.” They were able to pick whichever option they wanted and later reflect on why they chose that option. I had two students choose to work together, one created a rap (students who have not worked as a pair this year for a major assignment), and a pair that choose to make a skit and act it out. Then five students who choose to write a composition, three of which decided to add more context to the story and include dialogue.
The pair that chose to do a rap stated they liked the creativity, and that while it was not easier, it was much more fun than writing a summary of what happened. Meanwhile the pair who chose to do a skit had actually worked together for major projects, and they opted for a skit because it was something they were comfortable with, and liked that they could work together. Two students who wrote a composition stated they opted for that option because with the prompt it made more sense for them, but that they liked the freedom and depending on what the prompt asks for they would like the opportunity in the future. Overall, all nine students expressed in a class discussion that they liked the opportunity of presenting the material creatively and would want that opportunity in the future because it gives them flexibility.
The feedback loop provided students with ongoing feedback on summative assessments and encouraged students to be more creative and reduced anxiety. This opportunity also allowed them to discuss their ideas and try news things they could get feedback on before receiving a grade.
Feedback-loop cycle improved student attitude and approach to feedback in my classroom.
At the beginning of the year students associated feedback with the following words, nervous (five out of nine), relieved (two out of nine), and anxious (two out of nine). And three students indicated that their attitude and word association with feedback was dependent on their grade. Meanwhile a survey given four months later indicated that more than half the class had words that expressed a more positive outlook on feedback. By February, some positive words students were associating feedback with were happy (1), hopeful (1) determined (1) motivated, relieved (1) and constructive criticism (1), meanwhile nervous (1), tense (1), and pessimistic (1) were still used. And so while all students were not associating feedback with positive descriptors, many of them were, highlighting a change in attitude towards feedback. If grouped, about six out of nine students were using positive words, meanwhile three were still describing feedback as tense or with negative words. Ironically enough, “tense” and “pessimistic” were used by two very strong language students and I would consider them outliers to the process.
While this was not something I anticipated or prepared for, it seems like the active feedback culture set in the classroom helped change students' attitude and association with feedback for the better. Demonstrating a potential connection between an open-dialogue and a change of attitude and environment in the classroom.
Direct and specific hand-written feedback is effective, specifically a two-column feedback strategy.
Early on in the year I decided to give feedback in a two-column style that highlighted what students had done well and what they should continue working on, alongside the regular highlighted errors in the paragraph. An example of this two-column style is highlighted here, Image A. It should be noted that Image A has two writing examples completed by the same student with only two-days to process the corrections before embarking another writing assignment. And while not discussed here, O’Donovan (2006) and others highlight the impact timing could have on students, and it is evident in this example that this student requires more time to process the information as many of the same mistakes were repeated. This was not a major trend, but an outlier for two students who struggle more in the language.
While Bunyan (2008) and McCune (2004) agreed that oral feedback was more effective than written feedback since it allowed teachers to say more in a short period of time, in-class discussions and a survey in January highlighted otherwise for students in my classroom. Alongside O’Donovan (2016) research which also indicated that passive feedback was not effective, and students tended to repeat the same mistakes. My students identified written feedback as their preference because they could go back and review their mistakes. In fact, four out of nine specifically indicated that they used this feedback when writing other assignments later on in the course. Meanwhile two students indicated they used this feedback to review for assessments and as a conversation starter for extra help sessions. Moreover, an in-formal class discussion led to students identifying that they liked the two-columns better because it was easier to look at and see what they needed to review. While students did identify online feedback corrections, via Google Docs, as useful because it saved them a lot by accepting “suggestions” versus rewriting, they did not have the flexibility to go back and look at their errors with “restoring” the document.
Oral feedback and corrections continued throughout the year in my classroom, but my field observations concluded that students still made the same mistake even minutes after. These corrections included pronunciation, grammatical tense or vocabulary. It strengthened my belief, alongside my students' response, that written feedback was more effective because they could study it on their own time versus listening to a correction in class. I do not advocate for excluding oral feedback as it is important for students to receive immediate feedback, but it is important to recognize that written feedback has a stronger impact long-term, as identified by the students and my observations.
Willingness to participate amongst students helped create a relaxed classroom environment that was conducive to peer-feedback.
As the year progressed, students were more willing to share their work, ask their peers questions and receive feedback. At first this was not something done by all students since some indicated in the survey that they valued the teachers' feedback more than their peers. As an educator, I wanted to promote less student dependency on the teacher and instead redirect them to their peers. This allowed students to realize that I was not the only one with the answers. At first this took time and I had to strategize on who I was picking to make sure they understood the material, but about six weeks in, students were getting more comfortable asking one another questions. There was one activity, “a paragraph of errors,”designed to help students display themselves as leaders. It required students to go to the board and correct all the grammatical and vocabulary mistakes we’ve learned up to then. Students were willing to go to the front and lead the class in correcting a sentence or two, and if a mistake was made, hands were raised to suggest a correction. This activity became very collaborative and demonstrated student patience as they were all working through the paragraph together. My only role was to stand on the side and take classroom observations, and then add one final correction they all missed in the title. Students expressed that they really enjoyed it because it helped them have a critical eye and think about every sentence. One suggestion was to do it in small groups in the future so that they could get more chances at the board.
El Niágara en bicicleta
Moreover, a song analysis of “El Niágara en bicicleta” by Juan Luis Guerra helped all students share their ideas on the various themes or trends they were seeing, even if they were not sure it was correct. For this activity, all nine students participated in sharing what they thought each verse meant, and I observed others asking questions to clarify or to counter-argue what they were saying. Students, without being asked, led an informal discussion on the song that demonstrated to me they felt comfortable and safe in the environment to share their ideas and work together.
Lastly, in March students were asked to provide their peers feedback on an oral presentation, and about five out of nine were very specific with their feedback, including some pronunciation corrections. At the end of each presentation students were required to share something their peer did well and something they could work on, and all students participated in this process and were not afraid to give constructive criticism. Additionally, students had to fill a form, with the goal of the presenter receiving all the feedback in written form versus an oral feedback process at the end of the presentations. The classroom environment felt relaxed and students' comments meant they were not afraid to praise what a student did well, but also to get honest and provide something specific they could work on for next time. Students described this activity as time consuming and challenging because they had to write down the feedback instead of just sharing it aloud, but my hope is that the written feedback will allow students to return and review the notes before the next oral presentation.
Student collaboration and peer-review helped students become more independent as learners.
Classroom observations throughout the weeks noted that students started to ask me less questions and started to steer their questions towards their peers without being asked to. I noticed this by mid-November when students were working in pairs and as a pair was debating the answer, another student offered to help and jumped in the conversation from across the room and explained the correct grammar point. After this, the students confirmed their answer with me. From here on, I started to notice students ask one another more questions, and observed they were less likely to confirm their answer with me. In fact, in a more recent assessment where students were required to work in groups of three, each having a specific role, not one group asked me to clarify their script or review anything for them. They divided their roles and started to get to work, and as a group read through the script and made their own edits prior to recording. It was impressive to see students working together and not only seeking my approval, as a real-world scenario where they would be required to speak Spanish would not include me. They reflected and stated that the activity was very helpful because they were able to collaborate together and ask questions when they were confused. This sentiment was strongest amongst students who struggle to recognize their written mistakes. This was the beginning of our journey as a class to build student trust. I am not arguing that students are more trusting in one another, my argument is that these activities have been working towards that goal and my field observations demonstrate that students have been asking more clarifying questions to one another as the year progressed versus directing them at me. This finding agrees with Xiao et. al (2019) research which insists that students benefit from sharing classroom responsibility as it helps them understand feedback. Teaching, learning and a safe classroom environment is done best as a whole group, collaboratively and not separately as a teacher and students, and throughout the year this inquiry highlighted just that. Collaboration is not only important and encouraged in the classroom, but necessary.
