如何指导学生互评互改作文

2009年10月,我参加了学校实施的作文互评互改课题研究实验,下面就谈谈教师指导学生互评互改作文的具体方法。一.评改前教师要作示范评改,让学生掌握评改的标准和方法,并统一、规范评改符号。要让学生评改作文,首先要让学生掌握评改的标准和方法,     

如何指导学生互评互改作文

2009年10月,我参加了学校实施的“作文互评互改”课题研究实验,下面就谈谈教师指导学生互评互改作文的具体方法。 一．评改前教师要作示范评改,让学生掌握评改的标准和方法,并统一、规范评改符号。     

培养学生评改能力的尝试

多写是提高学生作文水平的必由之路。可是学生作文写得多了,教师不仅无法精批细改,即使略改也难以做好。这使学生的多写事倍而功半。教师的评改由于缺乏学生的主动参与和消化。对提高学生的作文水平也收效甚微。因此应打破传统的作文评改方法,培养学生的评改能力,把评改交给学生,如何培养学生的评改能力呢?     

小学生作文自主评改能力的培养

作文评改是作文教学过程中的重要环节之一,是提高学生作文水平的必不可少的重要手段。然而,长期以来教师占据了评改这一舞台,独唱独演,忽视了学生的主体地位,殊不知在作文评改中真正的评价者、修改者应该是学生。叶圣陶先生曾说：“改与作关系密切,改的优先权应该属于作文的本人,所以我想,作文教学要着重在培养学生自改的能力。”新课程标准也指出：教师要重视引导学生在自我修改和相互修改的过程中提高写作能力。因此,教师在教学中只有把评改的权利还给学生,逐步让学生获得自主评改的能力,才能提高他们的作文水平。     

学生相互评改作文过程描述

我在作文教学中进行了这样的改革:教师基本不改作文,发动学生相互评改。 我为什么要采取这一措施呢?主要平时有感于教师评改作文费时费神太多,而到发给学生时,他们的注意力早已转移,不甚热心阅读思考,作文水平提高有限。改革就是要把教师从作文评改的繁重劳役中解放出来,让学生从相互评改中真正懂得作文之道,从而获得比教师评改更好的成绩。 作文互评互改的过程和方法是怎佯的呢? 首先,宣传作文相互评改的意义,让学生坚信,相互评改以至能自我评改是提高作文水平的金光大道。我讲名家主张,课本相关说法,教师评改的利弊     

运用多媒体网络培养学生作文评改能力

俗话说：“章不厌千回改”,“佳作常自改中来”,修改是写作的一部分,一篇好章的形成,离不开改的功夫。然而,长期以来,传统的作教学方法却是“学生包写作,教师包评改”。作教学只注重写作指导,忽视了培养学生的作评改能力。如何培养学生的作评改能力,大面积提高学生的作素质,     

在作文评改中共同成长

习作评改是作文教学的重点和难点之一。要把评改作文的主动权交给学生,让学生"自评互改""师生共同互改",教师给予恰当的引导和点拨,既激发学生的主体参与意识,培养学生的写作兴趣,又使学生在评改中逐渐摸索与领悟作文的技巧和方法?提高作文水平和鉴赏美文能力,使学生在习作互动评改中共同进步成长。     

好文章是改出来的

传统的习作评改中,教师是评改的主体和权威,教师改得很辛苦,但大多数学生只看分数,使得习作教学收效甚微。好文章是改出来的,课题组通过无数次的尝试,在习作修改方面提出了"学生自读自改—学生互读互改—教师评改"三部曲,并尝试运用奇招——"小改"和"大改",从方法和层次上提升了学生的评改能力,提高了学生的写作水平。     

评改作文三步曲

传统的作文评改是教师独自对学生的写作给予点评。在现时代的教育教学中对学生作文的评改也要出＂新＂。现时代的作文评改有很多方法,我始终以以下三步评改：学生自改、学生相互改、教师评改。     

学生互评互改作文的尝试及体会

<正>一直以来,高中学生的作文评改,大都由教师包办。教师花费大量的时间对学生的习作精批细改,而学生往往对教师的评改态度冷漠、无动于衷。作文评改一直成为语文教师的沉重负担,却未收到满意的效果。为了扭转作文评改的被动局面,我们进行了学生互评互改作文的尝试,使作文评改臻于学生自主自能操作。一、做好思想工作作文由学生互评互改,相当一部分学生思想有顾     

A digital tool set for systematic model design in process-engineering education

One of the objectives of the process technology curriculum at Wageningen University is that students learn how to design mathematical models in the context of process engineering, using a systematic problem analysis approach. Students find it difficult to learn to design a model and little material exists to meet this learning objective. For these reasons, a set of digital tools has been developed to support students when learning to design mathematical models. The set of tools enables a process engineering student to do each step in the systematic approach for designing models while providing feedback on the actions of the student.

The current paper describes both the system, the underlying design decisions and how one such case is used in a regular educational setting. Evaluation after use in a regular educational setting shows that students are very positive about the fact that there is feedback on every step of the design process and that there is no need to deal with complicated mathematics.     

Interplay among technical,socio-emotional and personal factors in written feedback research

The centrality of written feedback is clearly seen from the proliferation of research in the context of higher education. As an increasingly expanding field in research, the majority of written feedback studies have been interested in investigating the technical aspect of how feedback should be given in order to promote student learning. More recently, researchers have focused on the socio-emotional factors at work in the feedback process, and advocated a dialogic approach to giving feedback in order to increase students’ understanding and active participation in the process. Moreover, to empower students to reflect on and make sense of the written feedback they receive, students’ personal characteristics, such as their prior and current knowledge, also play an important role. Nevertheless, reviewing studies on written feedback in the context of higher education shows a lopsided focus on the technical factors of written feedback, with little attention paid to the socio-emotional and student factors. This commentary aims at providing a broader definition of written feedback and identifying the dominant factors reported in research. A conceptual framework for looking into the factors at work in the feedback process is proposed and future research directions are suggested.     

Students’ Interpretation of Formative Assessment Feedback: Three Claims for Why We Know So Little About Something So Important

If K‐12 students are to be fully integrated as active participants in their own learning, understanding how they interpret formative assessment feedback is needed. The objective of this article is to advance three claims about why teachers and assessment scholars/specialists may have little understanding of students’ interpretation of formative assessment feedback. The three claims are as follows. First, there is little systematic research of K‐12 students’ interpretations of feedback. Systematic research requires gathering substantive evidence of students’ cognitive and emotional processes using psychological methods and tools. Second, there is an overemphasis on the external assessment process at the expense of uncovering learners’ internal reasoning and emotional processes. This overemphasis may be due to vestiges of behavioral approaches and lack of training in social cognitive methods. Third, there are psychological tools such as the clinical interview, pioneered by Piaget and used by psychologists to “enter the child's mind,” which may be helpful in uncovering students’ interpretation of feedback and associated behavioral responses. If the purpose of formative assessment is to change student learning, and feedback is delivered as a conduit to help with this long‐term change, understanding students’ interpretation of feedback plays a central role in the validity of the process.     

Effects of feedback on collaborative writing in an online learning environment

The need for supporting student writing has received much attention in writing research. One specific type of support is feedback—including peer feedback—on the writing process. Despite the wealth of literature on both feedback and academic writing, there is little empirical evidence on what type of feedback best promotes writing in online environments. This article reports on research that tries to determine what type of feedback best improves the quality of collaborative writing and what the effects of feedback are on student learning in an environment based on asynchronous written communication. The results reveal that concerning the type of feedback, epistemic feedback or epistemic and suggestive feedback best improve the quality of collaborative writing performance. The nature of the feedback-giver (whether teacher feedback or teacher and peer) makes a difference to the final text only when the feedback is epistemic, or epistemic and suggestive.     

The Additional Effects of Process and Outcome Feedback Following Brief In‐service Teacher Training

Three primary school teachers attended a half‐day, in‐service training workshop which targeted instructional and managerial behaviours identified as being functionally related to students’ academic engaged behaviours in class. Following the workshop, daily observations showed only temporary changes in the teachers’ and their students’ behaviours with trends back towards baseline measures. After this period of ‘no feedback’, three conditions of in‐class performance feedback were introduced in different sequences to each teacher: outcome feedback (based on measures of a sample of their students’ academic engaged behaviour during lessons), process feedback (based on measures of the teachers’ own instructional behaviours), and a combination of both outcome and process feedback.

A time‐series, multiple baseline across subjects design was employed which allowed comparison of measures of teachers’ and students’ behaviours during the immediate post‐workshop period and during periods of the three types of feedback. The results showed that the introduction of performance feedback had the immediate (and cumulative) effect of increasing the behaviours targeted in the workshop to high rates that were maintained even when feedback was withdrawn. There were, however, no differences in the comparative efficacy of outcome, process or outcome/process combination effects.

The study builds upon existing research which has shown performance feedback to be an essential component of effective professional development and staff training packages that target workplace behaviour change. It also adds to the limited research that has examined the efficacy of different types of performance feedback and suggests other variables, such as who presents the feedback, may be important.     

网上异步答疑的反馈策略之探讨

异步答疑与同步答疑的区别在于时间的开放性,“异步”克服了远程教育由于师生时空分离导致的教与学分离的时间限制。为学生提供及时的反馈是保证答疑成功,维持学生学习动机的首要条件。然而在实际的教学过程中,远程教师如何克服“工作量大,时间紧”与“提供及时反馈”之间的矛盾?本文通过案例研究分析了学生参与网上异步答疑的时间分布情况,了解学生上网的时间特征,从“整体规划”和“时间管理”两个角度为教师提出反馈策略,以期为进一步完善学习支持服务管理机制提供参考。     

反馈电路性质与类型的简易判别方法

利用反馈元件与电路输入、输出端的连接方式,来简化反馈类型的判别过程,并根据电压和电流的相互转换关系,采用“瞬时电流法”判别反馈电路的性质．通过对四种反馈电路的分析,来证明该方法的可行性和优越性．     

Adult beginner distance language learner perceptions and use of assignment feedback

This qualitative study examines perceptions and use of assignment feedback among adult beginner modern foreign language learners on higher education distance learning courses. A survey of responses to feedback on assignments by 43 Open University students on beginner language courses in Spanish, French, and German indicated that respondents can be classified into three groups: those who use feedback strategically by integrating it into the learning process and comparing it with, for example, informal feedback from interaction with native speakers, those who take note of feedback, but seem not to use it strategically, and those who appear to take little account of either marks or feedback. The first group proved to be the most confident and most likely to maintain their motivation in the longer term. The conclusion discusses some of the pedagogical and policy implications of the findings.     

When peers agree,do students listen? The central role of feedback quality and feedback frequency in determining uptake of feedback

Prior research on the complex process of revision based upon peer feedback has focused on characteristics of each piece of feedback in isolation. Multipeer feedback allows for feedback to be repeated (or not), which could be a signal of feedback quality or be especially persuasive to peers. Separately, little research has examined how well peers select more impactful and accurate peer feedback in their revisions, whether repeated or not. We analyzed almost 2,000 peer comments received by 107 students in a secondary writing course in the US to determine whether feedback quality and feedback frequency predicted feedback implementation. Controlling for other feedback features and context factors, students were much more likely to implement feedback as both feedback quality and feedback frequency increased, surprisingly with no interaction (i.e., even low-quality comments were more likely to be implemented when repeated). However, low-quality comments often partially overlapped with high-quality comments, providing a potential explanation for the lack of an interaction. Finally, consideration of feedback frequency and feedback quality provides new insights into which feedback features are actually related to implementation. The results generally allay concerns about the blind-leading-the-blind in peer feedback as well as pushing for peer feedback arrangements that produce more overlapping comments.     

Feedback in Hong Kong secondary writing classrooms: Assessment for learning or assessment of learning?

While much of L2 teacher feedback research has focused on the effectiveness of feedback and its impact on student revision and writing, little has been done to examine teachers’ feedback in the larger classroom context of teaching and learning to ascertain the functions teacher feedback serves from an assessment-for-learning perspective. Using multiple sources of data from 26 secondary teachers’ written feedback to 174 student texts, interviews with six of the teachers and 18 students, the present study investigates the nature of teacher feedback and the functions it serves in the teaching-learning-assessment process in the writing classroom. The findings show that teacher feedback focuses largely on assessing writing summatively, primarily serving the purpose of assessment of learning, rather than assessment for learning – i.e., using feedback as a pedagogical tool for improving the teaching and learning of writing. The study calls for greater attention to the implementation of assessment for learning in the writing classroom, and specifically the use of feedback for formative purposes.