Cyrano's nose: Variations on the theme of response

Phelps, Louise Wetherbee

doi:10.1016/s1075-2935(00)00018-0

Cited by 16 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In a discussion of what kind of competencies teachers need to support their students' writing education, Phelps (2000) points out the need for a pedagogical hermeneutics. An important part of the L1 teacher's expertise is the ability to read students' texts in an analytical way, and to understand their attempts at making meaning (Phelps, 2000;Igland, 2013).…”

Section: Writing Assessment As Writing Educationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Writing education and assessment in Norway: Towards shared understanding, shared language and shared responsibility

Matre¹,

Solheim²

2015

L1 Educational Studies in Language and Literature

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article reports on a study of writing and assessment in upper primary school, focusing on how teachers develop assessment competence through professional discussions in interdisciplinary groups. The empirical data consist of dialogues between teachers assessing and giving feedback on students' texts from different subjects. To support their evaluations, the teachers used and referred to a defined construct of writing and norms for expected writing proficiency. The analyses reveal a complex picture of the teachers' use of the assessment resources and their processes of appropriating a broader understanding of writing, including acquiring an extended meta-language. Three thematic categories are crystallised: an instrumental approach and a flexible and functional approach, appearing as two ideal typical points on a continuum, linked together by an overarching category labelled learning in progress. The article argues for an analytical reading as a basis for formative assessment in general writing education, and points to the need for knowledge on writing, text and linguistics -traditionally seen as domains for L1 teachers. The findings are discussed in light of the L1 teachers' responsibility for both the specific subject discourses of literacy and Bildung, and for providing students with general knowledge on language and text to support their overall writing competence. Critical implications of this double responsibility for the L1 subject are presented and reflected upon.

show abstract

Section: Writing Assessment As Writing Educationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…An important part of the L1 teacher's expertise is the ability to read students' texts in an analytical way, and to understand their attempts at making meaning (Phelps, 2000;Igland, 2013). This constitutes a relevant basis for formative feedback to the writer in question.…”

Section: Writing Assessment As Writing Educationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Writing education and assessment in Norway: Towards shared understanding, shared language and shared responsibility

Matre¹,

Solheim²

2015

L1 Educational Studies in Language and Literature

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…I conclude the chapter by noting that just as our response is affected by our reading, so too it depends upon our ability to craft a rhetorically reasonable and coherent message to our students. As Richard Miller (1994) and Louise Phelps (2000) have both noted, response to student writing is a crucial and neglected topic in composition scholarship. I hope this chapter can encourage an increased attention to response and its importance for the teaching of writing.…”

Section: ( R E ) a R T I C U L A T I N G W R I T I N G A S S E S S M mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It's important, then, that we become more conscious of our theories concerning assessment and how they affect not only our assessment practices but the entire act of teaching writing. Louise Phelps's (1989) practice-theory-practice (PTP) arc describes the way in which practice and theory work dialectically to move forward both our practice and the theories that guide us as writing teacher practitioners. In Phelps's PTP arc, a practitioner starts with a specific practice (the first P) that she is unhappy with.…”

Section: G R a D I N G T E S T I N G A N D A S S E S S I N Gmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…On the other hand, if we assume "that in literate activity, assessment is everywhere," then we need to begin a reflective inquiry to examine the problem with the practices we now use in assessment and to suggest practices that are more consonant with our theories. Phelps's (1989) arc represents the ways in which reflection can propel practitioners toward new and better practices.…”

Section: G R a D I N G T E S T I N G A N D A S S E S S I N Gmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Rearticulating Writing Assessment for Teaching and Learning

Huot¹

2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Effectiveness of Feedback for L1‐english and L2‐writing Development: A Meta‐analysis

Biber

Nekrasova

Horn

2011

ETS Research Report Series

102

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research project undertook a review and synthesis of previous research on the effectiveness of feedback for individual writing development. The work plan was divided into two main phases. First, we surveyed all available studies that have investigated the effectiveness of writing feedback, including both quantitative and qualitative research, for students who have learned English as a first language (L1‐English), students who have learned English as a second language (L2‐English), and students who have learned second languages other than English. The results of this survey are described in a narrative overview of previous research pertaining to the role of feedback in the development of writing proficiency. The survey also identified the major theoretical constructs used in this research domain, providing the basis for subsequent statistical analysis. Second, we built on this survey to carry out a meta‐analysis of empirical studies in this research area. The goal of the meta‐analysis was to provide a quantitative investigation of the extent and ways in which feedback has been effective, summarizing the findings of previous quantitative studies that have employed suitable statistical measures. Several analytical steps were required for the meta‐analysis: developing a coding rubric; analyzing the research design and adequacy of reporting in studies to determine if they were suitable for inclusion; coding each study for all relevant research design factors; computing effect sizes for each study; and analyzing and interpreting the general patterns that hold across this set of studies. The meta‐analysis compared the gains in writing development with respect to several different kinds of feedback. Overall, feedback was found to result in gains in writing development. Beyond that, there were several predictable findings (e.g., that written feedback is more effective than oral feedback for writing development) and several other more noteworthy trends (e.g., that peer feedback is more effective than teacher feedback for L2‐English students; commenting is more effective than error location; and in general, focus on form and content seems to be more effective than an exclusive focus on form).

show abstract

Cyrano's nose: Variations on the theme of response

Cited by 16 publications

References 10 publications

Writing education and assessment in Norway: Towards shared understanding, shared language and shared responsibility

Writing education and assessment in Norway: Towards shared understanding, shared language and shared responsibility

Rearticulating Writing Assessment for Teaching and Learning

The Effectiveness of Feedback for L1‐english and L2‐writing Development: A Meta‐analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About