Since responding to student work on-line demands significantly more of an instructor's time than responding on paper does, the question arises of when and how the practice adds value to instruction. In what situations does responding on-line offer clear advantages over responding on paper? Does responding on-line lead to improved revisions and contribute to students' writing development over time, and if so, in what ways? And finally, what new opportunities might on-line responding offer the teacher-researcher for examining the multi-faceted processes of student writing? To begin to explore these questions, I carried out research with students in two writing classes. This narrative explains my motivations for moving to on-line responding, describes my approach, and discusses some of the pedagogical outcomes.

Some background

My research involved 37 students in two classes in Purdue's undergraduate Professional Writing major: 19 students in English 306, Introduction to Professional Writing, and 18 in English 203, Research Methods in Professional Writing. Both classes met twice a week in a classroom equipped with Power Mac computers, a variety of software, and access to the Internet. The primary goal of the Professional Writing classes--to help students develop the abilities needed to work as technical writers, editors, and writing/publishing specialists in different organizations--included acquiring expertise in a range of writing-related technologies. Both classes were organized around a number of writing projects, with each project involving the production of a series of related documents. Some of the writing was done individually and some collaboratively.

My main purpose in introducing on-line responding in my classes was to see whether it might help students learn to use feedback more effectively and thus develop more rapidly as writers. As well, I wanted to expand the range of my own pedagogy as an instructor. My approach to responding on-line functioned as follows: students would send their written work to me electronically as an e-mail attachment; I would then annotate the electronic copies with comments, questions, and suggestions and return these copies to the students, again on-line. In the case of drafts, the students would (I hoped) use my feedback to produce an improved final version of the document. In addition to providing regularly scheduled feedback during the project cycle, I established the groundrule that students could submit any part of a draft of any document to me for feedback (without the work being graded) and I would provide quick a turn-around, giving them a chance to revise the text before the deadline.

I responded to texts on several different levels, with all the feedback being rhetorically framed, part of a larger on-going conversation with the students about producing reader-centered texts. My response might, for example, convey a concern about the writer's awareness of audience; indicate places in a text where I couldn't understand the meaning or line of argument; or comment on issues such as organization, coherence, sentence structure, word choice, format conventions, visual presentation, or mechanics (gram- mar, punctuation, and spelling). (Please see Appendix A for a sample annotated student text.)

The research

I was interested in accomplishing three things through the research: learning about the students' perceptions of when, and in what ways, on-line responding offers advantages over feedback on paper; identifying the types of revisions students would produce and the kinds of improvements they would make to papers; and seeing what larger gains in learning might be realized.

In researching these questions I relied on three sources of data: questionnaires filled out by students in the two classes, textual analysis of sequential drafts of student work, and my own observations over the course of the semester. (Please see Appendix B for the questionnaire .)

The findings (so far)

After initial analysis of the data, I can point to a number of recurring themes in the students' perceptions about on-line responding:

On-line feedback on drafts, with an opportunity to revise a paper prior to submitting a final version, was very helpful; however, on-line feedback on a final product was more or less irrelevant (presumably because the students didn't bother to look at it).

The convenience factor was important: students could e-mail me drafts whenever and from wherever (home or school) they wished, my feedback on the drafts was more timely, and the students could access that feedback more quickly. Further, because much of the research required for class projects could be done on the Internet, getting on-line feedback meant that students had access to everything they needed through the computer when sitting down to work on a piece of writing.

Receiving on-line feedback helped to counter procrastination because the draft--feedback--revision cycle tended to encourage more continuity in students' work.

On-line feedback was easier to work with in making revisions than on-paper feedback, for a number of reasons: it was easier to read than my handwriting; the feedback seemed more immediate and "live" than comments on paper; the feedback was right there on the computer screen along with the draft, so the student didn't need to look back and forth from a paper copy to the screen; and comments inserted into the body of the text rather than in the margins were easier for students to understand.

Students were conscious of making the following kinds of revisions: adding new information, reorganizing content, adding or changing headings, and correcting grammar errors.

My feedback appeared to be of a higher quality (it was more "in-depth") when provided on-line in the form of annotations to a draft.

On-line feedback is best when it is in color and formatted differently from the student's text, so that it stands out more clearly.

Saving paper was viewed as important.

While it is fair to say that, on the whole, the students found on-line responding to have clear advantages over feedback on paper, there were some dissenting opinions. These included the views that on-line responding disadvantaged students without access to email from home and that it is easier to work with feedback on paper because opening and closing documents on the computer is cumbersome.

Over the semester, I myself observed a number of pedagogical advantages to on-line responding: The students did much more revising of documents than in previous paper-bound classes I had taught, and generally the revisions appeared to be more substantive and meaningful and to reflect a greater awareness of audience. I also observed that many students got used to taking the initiative in asking for feedback where this was a voluntary step for them, appearing to see themselves as being more in control of their own composing process. As well, some students seemed to develop a new understanding of how writing works: because they were able to revise different parts of a document at different times, students appeared to view writing as both process and artifact, to see a text as evolving organically over time; to see how the different parts of a document fit and function together as an integrated whole; and to see the instructor's feedback as instrumental and helpful rather than only evaluative.

Plans for further analysis and research

I intend to do more analysis of the data gathered in the two classes. For example, I will look more closely at the types of revisions the students made to their written work and consider the kinds of feedback that appeared to be most effective in prompting students to improve their texts. I will also look for patterns of growth in the students as writers over the course of the semester, to see what gains in learning might be attributed to the practice of on-line responding. In similar research with future writing classes, I plan to interview students in order to supplement and explore the information provided by the questionnaires. ?

Note: This paper was originally presented as part of Writing at the Interface, an on-line conference on writing and technology, hosted by Purdue University in December 1999.

Appendix A: Annotated Student Draft

Overall, you've made very good progress with this report over the last week. Below I've annotated the draft with a number of comments, questions, and suggestions for you to consider as you produce your final version. Let me know if you have any questions.

Memorandum

To: Professor Graham Smart, Instructor, English 306

From: Student, English 306

Date: April 25, 1999

Subject: Recommendation Report: Draft

[In the final version of the report, use a more specific subject line--something like "A Recommendation to Improve the Professional Writing Major."] As you have requested, I have taken a look at the feedback I've been given on the problem analysis, alternative solutions, and requirements/constraints sections of the Recommendation Report. I have thought about how these sections might be further developed. Additionally, I have drafted each of these three sections and now submit them to you for additional comments.

Problem Analysis: What's wrong with ENGL 305? [A good descriptive title--though, as you'll see below, I don't think it really reflects the nature of the problem you're trying to get at.] The problem with English 305: Introduction to Creative Writing (ENGL 305) has nothing to do with its curricular content. The problem with this course lies in its relation to the rest of the courses offered in the Professional Writing (PW) program at Purdue University. As the program is currently designed, there are two paths a student can follow. One option is to pursue Creative Writing [The option is actually referred to a "Writing for the Arts."] and take courses that emphasize topics in that area. The other option is to follow a sequence of courses that emphasize[s] Technical Writing. Before choosing one of these paths and following it, all students in the PW program must take three courses. English 203, Introduction to Research in Professional Writing, English 306 Introduction to Professional Writing, and English 305, Introduction to Creative Writing.

ENGL 305 places an unequal emphasis on the Creative Writing portion of the Professional Writing curriculum [Does 305 do this, or is it the design of the PW major?] It is that inequality which causes the problem. All PW majors are required to take ENGL 305, but there is no required course that emphasizes the Technical Writing side of the PW curriculum. There is not an equal emphasis on both sides of the program in the required initial courses. This has several implications. Among these a curriculum that produces well-rounded writers, student choice, and preparation for upper-level PW courses are of the utmost concern. [I find this paragraph a little confusing. I'm not sure what you're getting at. Can you clarify your meaning?]

The first and perhaps the most obvious problem with is that students who choose to study Technical Writing are forced to take a class in the Creative Writing area. Students who follow Creative Writing path are not required to take a course in the Technical Writing area. What is the reasoning behind cross-area requirements? If the idea is to make students well-rounded, by offering a course outside of one's concentration, why is there no introductory course in Technical Writing that is required for all students in the PW Program?

Second comes the responsibility of the program to provide the opportunity for students to become informed and make decisions based on information, rather than be told what classes to take, or forced into taking classes which do not meet their needs. [I find this somewhat confusing as well. Can you elaborate on your view here a little? ]

Finally, preparation for upper-level courses in the PW curriculum is compromised by the current arrangement of courses. This is done both by only offering ENGL 305 and not an Introductory Technical Writing Course, and by ENGL 305 being required by all students in the PW major. [You're circling around a problem in this section, but it's not at all clear what it is. I think that in part this is because you've announced that the problem is English 305, when actually you're pointing to what you see as a problem in the PW major as a whole. For your report to work, you must present a clear representation of the problem in this section.]

Alternative Solutions: Possibilities in the PW curriculum

[You've made a good start on this section, but you need to develop it further. You want to convey the impression that you've put considerable thought into identifying several feasible alternatives and analyzing the pros and cons of each.] The Professional Writing Program at Purdue is far from horrible, and certainly worth improving. There are several ways [How many are you going to present?] one could go about changing the way classes in the PW curriculum are presented in order to make it even better. It could be left as it is, without changes [see my comment below]. ENGL 305 could change from a required course to a "recommended" course. A new course, which emphasizes Technical Writing, could be added. Any of these solutions has both advantages and disadvantages.

There is always the possibility of leaving the program the way it is. This has the advantages of being easy to implement and having known outcomes. However, nothing can improve by staying the same. Change is required for growth. Leaving the PW program structured exactly the same has the disadvantage of not exploiting the opportunity to become better. [Given that above you've discussed the problems with the status quo, I wouldn't include it as an "alternative solution."]

[Use a formatting device such as subheadings or numbering to indicate where the discussion of each alternative solution begins.]

[I'd suggest starting with a topic sentence saying something like, "One alternative solution would be to ."] By changing the nature of ENGL 305 from a required course to a recommended course, the advantage is gained of easy implementation. [?] Students have a choice as to whether they take ENGL 305 and become introduced to Creative Writing, or they have the option of taking a [another?] course that will strengthen their plan of study if they are following the Technical Writing side of the curriculum. Unfortunately, this option does not provide a clear direction in which to travel. That is, students would have to choose a course to replace ENGL 305. This has the disadvantage of not giving students the direction they might need in choosing such a course [I'm not sure what you're getting at here.].

Yet another solution would be to create a new course. It could have a title like "Introduction to Technical Writing." This course, Introduction to Professional Writing, could be offered as an alternative to English 305: Introduction to Creative Writing. This solution has the advantage of keeping the things about ENGL 305 that are positive, like providing an opportunity for PW students to become more well-rounded. It also has the benefit of creating a course which can better prepare students for upper-level Technical Writing courses just as ENGL 305 does for upper level Creative Writing Courses [It's more a question of preparing students for the "writing in the Arts" strand of the major.]

Requirements / Constraints: Restrictions on implementation

[This section should deal with the requirements or constraints that any acceptable solution would need to address. Look through it and pull out any ideas that follow this theme; as well, look carefully to see whether some of the material would fit into other parts of the report.] Each of the proposed solutions has some restrictions on its implementation. Regardless of which solution is chosen, there are some problems with curriculum change in general that are addressed below:

(Should I include my concerns about implementation with each solution?)

Assuming that a change would be made to the curriculum, how should the change be made? Should a course be removed, added, or modified? If a course is added, how will it fit into the current plan of study?. How will students who are currently in the PW program be affected by the change? These are all questions that have to be answered before a change to the curriculum can be made.

(Should I address each of the questions above in a separate paragraph?)

As a student in the Professional Writing program, I have asked myself, "If I am studying to be a Technical Writer, why do I have to take Introduction to Creative Writing? Why isn't there a course that serves as an introduction to Technical Writing"? This issue begs the question, how valid is student opinion? Should the English Department act on research done by a student who is currently in the program?

A change in the curricular requirements will affect students in the program. Some solutions will only affect students studying Technical Writing. Other solution will affect students in both Creative Writing and Technical Writing programs. Additionally, changes in the courses offered will change the way that faculty administers the courses. If courses are added, instructors must teach more classes or additional instructors must be hired [Some research here, such as an interview with a faculty member, would have told you that neither of these options are possible, given the demands on faculty to do research/publish and the constraints on hiring.]

Technical Writing is a more recent development in curriculum than Creative Writing. Is there a possibility that Technical Writing just hasn't had time to develop coursework that might have a parallel structure to that of Creative Writing? How does the fact that PW courses are offered as a "service courses" for students who are not in the PW major to take as an option to fill their requirements affect the content of the courses. How would a change in the curriculum affect those students and their curriculums?

Some of the more far-reaching implications that might restrict how this problem is solved involve development trends in Technical Writing curriculum. Other Technical Writing programs have all the courses in the major whereas our program must augmented with minor or an additional concentration. Our program may in fact be of a better design. Changes that detract from the positive aspects of our curriculum are not necessarily for the best. [As I'm sure your aware, you need to add a final section laying out your recommendation and providing a rationale for it.]

As I mentioned at the beginning of the draft, you've made really good progress on this project. I think you're in very good shape now to produce your final version of the report.

Appendix B: Questionnaire on On-Line

Responses

Over the course of the semester you have received feedback on your written work from me on-line. I would like to get a sense of how well this has worked for you. Getting your perspective will help me decide how to employ this practice in the future. I would appreciate your taking a few minutes to respond to the questions below.

1. At what points in the writing process do you find it helpful to receive feedback on-line. In other words, when do you see "added value" over getting feedback on a paper copy of your work?

2. Do you see any clear advantages to receiving on-line feedback (compared to on-paper feedback)?

3. Could you say something about the ways in which you've been able to use my on-line responses to revise and/or edit work-in-progress?

4. Do you see disadvantages to getting feedback on-line rather than on paper?

5. Do you have any other comments about receiving feedback on-line?