ADULT LEARNERS, WRITING GROUPS AND REVISIONS by Mary Madden B.S., Indiana University, 1972 PROJECT SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF EDUCATION © Mary Madden, 2002 THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN BRITISH COLUMBIA July 2002 All rights reserved. This work may not be reproduced in whole or in part, by photocopy or other means, without the permission of the author. Adult Learners 11 ABSTRACT Five Adult Basic Education students took part in a study to determine whether peer feedback in writing groups encourages revision and improves audience awareness. The study was a pretest-posttest control group design. One group was designated to be the independent writers' group and the second became a peer feedback group. Pa.tiicipants were given two writing assignments, then they were asked to revise them using a checklist, either independently or within their peer group. The writings were evaluated on a ptimary trait scale designed to accommodate the students' current abilities. Because of the small sample size and the brief duration of the study, data analysis was adversely affected; however, students were interviewed at the end of the study and did generally offer positive comments about their experience in a writing group. Adult Learners TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract 11 Table of Contents lll List of Tables v List of Figures VI Chapter One 1 1 1 3 3 4 5 7 Introduction The Problem Why Don't Students Revise? The Purpose of the Study Design Theoretical Foundations Writing Revision Audience Awareness Writing Groups-Advantages Writing Groups-Disadvantages Summary 15 16 Chapter Two Methodology Participants Instruments Procedure 19 19 19 20 Chapter Three Results Data Collected Participant Interviews 26 26 29 Chapter Four Discussion Sample Size The Nature of the Task Incorporating Peers' Comments Objectivity and Writing Styles Length of the Study Use of Checklists The Value of Writing Groups Implications for Instruction Future Considerations Conclusion 32 32 33 33 33 34 34 35 36 37 38 8 HI Adult Learners Bibliography 39 Appendix 1 Writing Checklist 42 Appendix 2 Audience Awareness Evaluation Scale 43 Appendix 3 Student Feedback Questionnaire 44 Appendix 4 Letter of Introduction and Informed Consent Form 46 Appendix 5 Letter of Request to Dean 49 Appendix 6 Letter of Approval from Dean 50 Appendix 7 UNBC Research Ethics Board Letter of Approval 51 Appendix 8 UCC Research Ethics Board Letter of Approval 52 IV Adult Learners List of Tables Table 1 Audience Awareness Evaluation Scale Pretest Scores 26 Table 2 Audience Awareness Evaluation Scale Practice Scores 27 Table 3 Audience Awareness Evaluation Scale Posttest Scores 27 Table 4 t-Test: Two Sample Assuming Equal Variances 29 v Adult Learners List ofFigures Figure 1 Average Scores for Writing Groups and Independent Writers 28 vi Adult Learners Chapter 1 The Problem While the act of writing is generally a struggle for most students, writers in Adult Basic Education (ABE) classes (upgrading to the grade 12 level) often have an especially difficult time revising their compositions. Their typically poor reading and writing skills and their frequently negative prior experiences with school combine to make revision an intimidating and daunting task. In addition, because of their low reading skills, they often have not been exposed to many good examples of finished or polished writing. In my ABE classes we discuss the importance of revising, what to look for, and how to go about making changes, but students still tend to make few, if any, revisions to their writing. Although I encourage them to examine their writing from the point of view of a reader, or their audience, to see if it could be made more clear and understandable, the changes students make tend to be superficial and sparse. When I provide concrete suggestions for improvement, students generally make the indicated changes mechanically, with little thought or question as to why those recommendations were made. Why Don't Students Revise? Students may resist making revisions for a variety of reasons. One of the problems is that writers with little experience are often unsure of just what aspects of writing are most important. For example, White (1990) points out that adult writers often equate good writing with correct spelling. Adult Basic Education students frequently think that if they have checked the spelling in their rough draft, they are finished revising. In addition, students sometimes indicate that revising their writing is simply too Adult Learners 2 complicated, so they don 't even try. Students may not know how to break down the task of revision into manageable sections which can then be addressed individually. The literature suggests, however, that the problem of students not revising may be more complicated than simply not knowing what is important and how to approach the process (Dawe, Watson & Harrison, 1984; see also Bryan, 1996; Gere, 1990). Students may come to understand the important aspects of writing yet still be unable to look at their own writing and ascertain whether it is clear, organized, and understandable to their audience. Experienced writers, on the other hand, seem to have the ability to assume the role of reader and look at their writing from the point of view of the audience (Dawe et al., 1984). Another possible explanation as to why ABE students don't revise may be that writers, when familiar with a subject, have a natural tendency to infer information that is not actually stated. For example, I may write "milk" on my grocery list. From that, I know what brand of milk, what percent of fat, what size, and how many containers I want to buy. Most of the time, these mental shortcuts are convenient and beneficial; however, when audience understanding is necessary, writers need to be aware that they may be unconsciously, filling in gaps. They may think they have written something that is not actually there. In order for the audience to be able to comprehend any text, some basic elements are necessary: a clear theme or topic, an appropriate amount and level of detail, and a logical order or progression of ideas (Armbruster, 1984). Unfortunately, students often lack the ability to examine their own writing and determine whether they are meeting those needs. Adult Learners 3 Purpose of the Study Adult Basic Education students have difficulty revising their writings because, at least in part, they are unable to see their writing from an outside perspective. The issue to be studied then, is how best to create that sense of audience awareness in a writer--the ability to get outside one's self and see one's writing from another person's point of view. While teachers can, to some degree, help students become aware of their audience when they write, many studies (Bruffee, 1985; Gere, 1985; Nystrand & Brandt, 1989) conducted with children and first-year university students as participants have demonstrated that peer group feedback, or discussion in writing groups, has a more positive influence on student w1itings than comments or suggestions from teachers. Few studies, however, have examined the effect of peer groups on the writings of individuals in ABE classes. The purpose of this study is to determine whether, at the ABE level, discussion in writing groups works better than working independently to increase the writer's awareness of audience. Design In an effort to study the effect of writing groups on audience awareness, I divided my ABE English class into two groups with similar writing scores. All students were given the same writing assignments and received a checklist (Appendix 1) which served as a revision guide (Dawe et al., 1984; Shurbutt, 1987; Spandel & Stiggins, 1990). One group worked independently to revise their writings based upon the criteria in the checklist. The second group took turns sharing and discussing their writings with the other members. The peer group was to discuss the writings using the checklist as the framework for their comments. All students then revised their compositions, either based Adult Learners on the work they did independently or as a result of their peer group discussions. Writings were evaluated on the Audience Awareness Evaluation Scale (Appendix 2), a researcher-prepared modification of various writing assessment tools (Dawe et al., 1984; Gomez, Parker, Alecio, & Gomez, 1996; Gregg, Sigalas, Hoy, Wienbaker, & McKinley, 1996). Theoretical Foundations Before examining whether peer discussion can have a positive effect on the development of audience awareness in ABE writers, it is important to establish the connection between discussion and writing. In order to do so, we need to examine the function oflanguage itself in the development ofhuman thought. Vygotsky (1986, cited in Hicks, 1996) argued that language is the means through which knowledge is constructed. Despite years of study and research, how discourse actually mediates learning is still not fully understood. Hicks, however, suggests that theorists working within a sociocognitive framework assume that learning is situational, both context and culture specific, and that it is mediated by language .... The melding of sociocognitive and sociocultural perspectives reconfigures learning and education as inherently messy phenomenacomplex, though not indescribable; something to be understood rather than explained causally through scientific inquiry. (pp. 3-4) Vygotsky theorized that communication occurs between people and is then internalized by the individual, thus serving as a catalyst for the re-organization of the person's thinking. McCarthy and Raphael (1992) summarize Vygotsky's thoughts by stating that ''the role of language and dialogue is critical since it is through speech and social 4 Adult Learners 5 interaction that the learner acquires new abilities" (p. 17). Bruner (1996) enlarges on the idea of the critical importance of language and discourse by suggesting: We do not learn a way of life and ways of deploying mind unassisted, unscaffolded, naked before the world. And it is not just sheer language acquisition that makes this so. Rather, it is the give and take of talk that makes collaboration possible .. ..And it is through this dialogic, discursive process that we come to know the Other and his points of view, his stories. We learn an enormous amount not only about the world but about ourselves by discourse with Others. (p. 93) Language then, is a critical precursor and catalyst for cognitive development and a "cultural and cognitive mediator of learning" (Hicks, 1996, p. 2). Since discourse can be either oral or written, the two are conjoined in the process of learning (Vacca & Linek 1992). The act of talking naturally stimulates thought; old information combines with new to produce revisions of previous understandings. Similarly, the act of writing also has the ability to enhance learning. The process of writing and reflecting on paper enables the formation of a relationship between the individual and what is being learned (Vacca & Linek, 1992). Writing, therefore, can function to clarify ideas and solidify new knowledge and understanding. Writing Revision While the writing process can be, and often is, recursive, it tends to follow a basic pattern: choosing a topic, generating ideas, writing a rough draft, revising, editing, and writing the final draft. In the classroom, teachers often break the process down into these or similar steps in an effort to make writing more approachable for students. According to Adult Learners 6 Bryan (1996), "one key to improving students' writing was for them to consider what was interesting and clear about other students' writing. I realized that in breaking down the steps in learning a skill, it is helpful for students to begin with recognition of the skill before applying it" (p. 189). Of those writing steps, Dawe et al. (1984) speculate that "revision may be the most critical component of the writing process" (p. 47). For ABE students, it can also be the most difficult aspect of writing. For a variety of reasons, students are often reluctant or unable to revise their own drafts. They may simply be unaware of the weaknesses in their writing. Sometimes, the task of attending to the many concurrent aspects of writing such as spelling, grammar, organization, development, etc., can feel overwhelming. Some students therefore, may not even attempt the necessary revisions (Dawe et al. , 1984). The authors contend that "experienced and inexperienced writers differ significantly in their reading and revising strategies. Inexperienced writers often fail to revise their work. They also have difficulty rereading their writing from the perspective of a critical reader" (p. 48). Final drafts often end up looking like neatly written forms of their first draft. On the other hand, "experienced writers cope with the demand of the writing process by breaking the task up into manageable parts" (Dawe et al., 1984, p. 48). A common comment in the literature about novice writers is that "when asked to revise, inexperienced writers typically make only low-level mechanical and word-level changes" (Matsuhashi & Gordon, 1985, p. 227). So why, at the ABE level, is this such a common occurrence? Dawe et al. argue, "Many students are simply unable to see the need to improve the expression of the ideas. They may not even be aware of the options" (p. 48). While there are specific ways to make students more aware of their options, the problem may be much deeper than students simply not knowing what to do. Adult Learners 7 The inability to assume the perspective of the audience may lie at the heart of the revision issue. Audience Awareness From the standpoint of the audience, coherence (or the relationship of ideas) in writing is probably the most important element for understanding a text, and the organization or structure of that text is how coherence is achieved (Armbruster, 1984). Organization can be broken down into four basic components: an understandable structure with a beginning, middle, and end; a logical order or sequence to the presentation of ideas; an appropriate amount of information; and clearly presented thoughts and ideas. When these basic audience needs are ignored by a writer, the ability to understand the text is greatly impaired. For this reason, audience awareness is generally considered to be central to good writing (Dawe et al. , 1984; Gregg et al., 1996). Many researchers (Dawe et al., 1984; Gere, 1990; Matsuhashi & Gordon, 1985) believe that the ability to step outside one's self and view one's own writing from an alternate perspective is common to skilled writers and is lacking in inexperienced writers. Matsuhashi and Gordon ( 1985) suggest that the reason students have difficulty revising arises from the Piagetian notion of egocentrism, or the inability to perceive another's perspective. They maintain that nonrevisers are more egocentric and therefore have more difficulty viewing their writing with detachment. Spandel and Stiggins (1990) support that notion when they propose that "the toughest thing for student wtiters to acquire and the single thing most needed by a writer in revising his or her own work .... [is] perspective" (p. 155). ABE students need to be able to look at their writing from the perspective of their audience in order to Adult Learners 8 ascertain whether their writing is clear and understandable. Elsasser and John-Steiner (1980, cited in the British Columbia Ministry of Advanced Education and Job Training, [hereafter The Ministry] 1987) explain the issue of revision in a similar way: An essential problem for many students is their inability to 'decontextualize' thought--that is, to change language from an intrapersonal [within the person] to an interpersonal [between persons] process. Since the writer is unaware that he or she is mentally filling in the gaps, the end result is writing that is sketchy, general, apparently unorganized, and largely meaningless to a reader who approaches it from outside the writer's context. (p. 256) The Ministry (1987) points out that writing is a complicated process, requiring the writer to continually switch roles from writer to reader, then back to writer in order to see what the audience sees, then address any problems that may have come to the writer's attention. The Ministry suggests that one of the best ways to enhance the ability to see from an external perspective is for students to talk about what they are writing. Writing Groups-Advantages The act of writing is a complicated and non-linear process; however, it can be broken down into smaller units and clarified through discussion. Vacca and Linek ( 1992) contend that to be most effective, writing should be reinforced by talking and listening. Gregg et al. (1996) stress that there are three essential components of effective writing: sense of self, sense of audience, and linguistic competence. Through discussion, students can come to understand the importance of each and how they interact to stimulate new thinking and refine unclear ideas. Vacca and Linek point out that ''talking and writing enable students who are not naturally reflective to become involved in the same thinking Adult Learners 9 processes better students use routinely" (p. 150). For ABE students, discussion groups can therefore help them to get into the habit of critically examining their writing by listening to feedback from peers. Bruffee (1985) explains that writing is both a social and collaborative act, and he argues that while a certain level of discourse can occur between teacher and student, peer discourse is actually more effective. He maintains that ''productive conversation for all of us is most likely to occur with people we regard as equals, members of our own community" (p. 4). Over many years of study, peer groups have been shown to provide many positive effects upon students' writing. Sainsbury (1992) contends that small and large group discussions contribute to a sense of competence and confidence in students. He argues that students need time to talk, explore, and negotiate with each other. Gere (1985) encapsulates the findings of numerous studies by outlining four advantages of peer writing groups: (a) students become more aware of their audience, (b) teachers are no longer seen as the sole authority, (c) students are exposed to various writing styles, and (d) they develop a sense of community. As a result of his own research, Hillocks (1992) argues that "student-led small-group discussions ... can have a powerful impact on individual writing when the students work together in those discussions to solve problems parallel to those they will confront in the individual writing" (p. 63). He maintains that discussions in such groups can be up to four times more effective than feedback received from teachers. Nystrand and Brandt (1989) point out other benefits of writing groups: For years we have conducted research . .. examining the effectiveness of peer conferencing in college freshman writing instruction ... . [and] it is clear that students who write for each other not only learn to write better, but also that they Adult Learners 10 learn to write differently than students whose sole audience is the instructor. (p.209) Several studies indicate an improved attitude about writing and revision as a result of the use of writing groups. In one study, Nystrand (1986) noted that students who shared their writing in peer groups displayed a more positive attitude toward writing, and they came to view writing as an opportunity to communicate, rather than as something to be evaluated. Bouton and Tutty (1975) studied two high school English classes and compared their performance on writing assignments which were evaluated either by the teacher or by their peers. They found that the writings of the peer-evaluated group generally showed greater improvement. Bouton and Tutty commented that "although [peers'] corrections may not be as professional as the teacher's they will be much more thorough, and in most cases, much more constructive" (p. 67). The authors' interpretation was that the negative comments of peers were less threatening and therefore more acceptable than teachers' comments. Gere (1990) puts forward a similar sentiment expressed by students about the revision process by saying that "a student who bears her peers say that they do not understand is much more likely to want to revise her work than the student who bas been admonished by the teacher to polish a draft" (p. 123). Weeks and White (1982) conducted a study comparing the effect of peer feedback to teacher feedback on written composition with fourth and sixth grade students. They noted a trend toward improvement in the peer feedback groups' writings, and they also noticed an improvement in attitude toward writing and self-confidence in the peer feedback groups. They commented that "students were more eager and more excited about writing for their peers. They expressed a desire Adult Learners 11 to write and edit" (p. 18). Weeks and White also indicated that the students in groups wrote more and "became better judges of the quality ofwriting" (p. 18). The researchers attributed the lack of significant results to small sample sizes and the short duration of the study. A common observation made by students and researchers notes the difference between the nature of teacher and student feedback. Teachers tend to make general comments about the quality of the writing, whereas peers frequently offer concrete suggestions as to word choice, whether there are too many or not enough details, and whether the writer's point is clear and understandable. They also tend to focus on specific details of the text and how the writer might say certain things differently. While students rarely employ the technical language used by teachers in editing, they will usually recognize that something isn't quite right and eventually get their point across. Peers will often ask what the writer plans to do next, thereby prompting the writer to focus on the sequence of steps in the revision process. Gere (1990) emphasizes that through the discussion of each others' writings, students learn the metalanguage of writing and they are encouraged to pay attention to the process of writing itself. The timing of the discussion also aids in the development of audience awareness. When writing groups meet after the rough draft stage, students can get early feedback about their ideas. According to Gere (1990), "The immediacy of writing groups ... fosters students' audience awareness. They learn that what is clear to them is not necessarily clear to an audience, and as a result, they learn to take audience needs into account as they write" (p. 123). In three separate studies, Nystrand and Brandt (1989) looked at the role of peer groups in the revision process, and they concluded that "revisions are text Adult Learners 12 hypotheses of sorts and ... learning results when writers are able to test their efforts in the crucible of reader response ... writers are never far removed from a functional writerreader context" (p. 226). Rather than the student having to wait for the finished product to be evaluated at some later date by the teacher, writing groups serve the purpose of an immediate audience. In general the act of sharing a piece of writing within a small group and getting feedback on what is and is not working encourages students to move outward from their own perspective and consider the reader's needs. Through group feedback, writers can learn whether or not their writing needs more detail, explanation, or clarification. Nystrand and Brandt (1989) assert that "intensive peer review works largely because it establishes reciprocity between writer and reader ... it heightens writers' awareness of the balance their texts must strike between their own intentions and their readers ' expectations" (p. 21 0). Sensitivity to audience can be enhanced through interactions within writing groups. Gere (1987) suggests that ''writing groups reduce the distance between writer and reader" (p. 3). When students are writing with their audience in mind, they are self-monitoring and their writing is more clear and detailed. It appears then that collaborative peer groups can help students become more aware of the needs of their audience and help them make the necessary revisions so that the writing meets those needs. Gere ( 1990) comments that writing groups can assist students in the revision process because "talk helps them identify and solve problems at many levels--word, sentence, paragraph, and whole piece of writing" (p. 117). One of the main benefits then, of peer feedback discussions, is that writers can gain an outside perspective on their writing. According to Gere ( 1990): Adult Learners 13 Students who participate in writing groups learn about the nature of writing. They develop a language to describe what they and others do to write, they learn about audience needs and expectations, and they develop criteria by which to evaluate writing. (p. 117) As a result of a study of 25 college freshmen which looked at the development of audience awareness through the use of writing groups, Darling (1992) concluded that "students learned to concentrate on organization of thought and on clarity of expression" (p.1 0). In addition, he argued, "Peer review helps students to grow more sensitive to the need to communicate with an audience and to anticipate its responses" (pp. 5-6). One interesting outcome of peer discussion is the activation of the writer's internal critic as heard through the voice of his/her peers. As a result of her research, Gere (1990) states: Many students claim that they internalize the voices of individuals in their writing groups so that, when they are writing, they imagine what a given person might say about the piece. This internalization of audience moves students one step closer to being effective critics oftheir own writing. (p. 124) She therefore contends, "By imagining what a writing group member might say in response to a selection of writing, students broaden their critical capacities and develop a better ear for their own writing" (p. 124). This interim step in the student's thinking process of hearing others' voices may help to explain how writing groups are able to activate audience awareness in inexperienced writers. It may be the beginning of the movement of language from the intrapersonal (within the person) to the interpersonal (between persons) (The Ministry, 1987). Adult Learners 14 Other researchers have also found various benefits ofwriting groups. David (1985) studied 17 inexperienced college writers and how they approached the composition and revision process. She found that student writings improved as a result of peer evaluation. Students who worked in writing groups demonstrated increased autonomy-the recognition that they ultimately were responsible for their revisions, and that they were capable of solving their own problems within their own writings. Students said that they had benefited from watching others experiment with revisions. David adds, "They get ideas of what to add, what to drop, and what to leave alone" (p. 33). Again, students indicated the value of the immediacy of response of the peer group. When reading aloud to the group, some writers could identify immediately what didn't make sense in their compositions. In another study, Coleman (1987) observed five inexperienced college fi:eshmen in a writing class which employed peer response groups. She found that by the end of the course, students were self-monitoring and critically evaluating their own writings--activities they weren't doing before working in writing groups. O'Donnell et al. ( 1985) compared the performance of college students who worked independently with those who worked cooperatively on the task of writing instructions. They found that students in the groups wrote more communicatively; in other words, the purpose of the writing was clear, it was organized according to steps, and it was arranged in a logical order. The researchers also noted that there seemed to be a carry-over effect in that students who worked cooperatively in the experimental group in the beginning also wrote more communicatively than did members of the control group later on when they worked independently. Gere ( 1990) summarizes the findings of many researchers when she suggests that ''writing groups foster audience awareness, Adult Learners 15 enabling student writers to move away from their own perspectives and consider what information their readers will need" (p. 123). Some of the potential benefits then of peer discussion groups are that they can help foster audience awareness by exposing inexperienced writers to new ideas and ways of approaching the task; groups can enable students to gain an outside perspective on their writing; and writers can learn what the reader needs from them in order to be understood. Writing Groups-Disadvantages There is not, however, total agreement among researchers that peer discussion groups are beneficial. Some studies have found neutral or even negative effects of peer evaluation upon students' writings. In her survey of research, Herrmann (1989) cites a 1985 study by Gere and Stevens which indicated there were wide individual differences in student responses to peer feedback, with some students even becoming hostile during the discussions. Herrmann examined a 1985 study by Russell in which some students became dependent upon peer comments for their revisions. She also reviewed a study by Rijlaarsdam ( 1987) which showed no differences between 11 classes of students, half of which received peer feedback and half which received no feedback. Other studies have also demonstrated disadvantages. For example, Craig (1982, as cited in Hillocks, 1986) studied college freshmen in composition classes and investigated the effects of peer discussion at three points in the writing process: before the first draft, after the first draft, and after the final draft. She found no significant differences in students' writings between the three methods. Similarly, in their study of grade six children, Weppler and Moore (1996) found no differences between individuals and pairs in terms of writing improvement. Adult Learners 16 One possible explanation for the differences in results of the various studies is the complex nature of writing. The writing process varies widely depending on the type of writing task being undertaken. In addition, the composition and organization of the writing groups themselves is central to their success. Tebo-Messina (1993) proposes that writing groups are microcosms of society with their own unique sets of rules and behaviors. Group members negotiate their own rules and have distinct forms of communication. All these factors combine to impact on the effectiveness of each group, which in turn influences the writings of its members. In a study of cooperative writing groups in a community college setting, Bryan (1996) found that the establishment of a safe atmosphere through team building is crucial to the success of groups. She also discovered that clear and specific guidelines and objectives are essential in order for students to receive constructive and useful feedback on their writings in peer groups. Each writing group then, has its own nature and structure which affects each member of the group and influences the results of any study about their effectiveness. Finally, the measures used to determine writing improvement vary widely between the cited studies. Due to the complex nature of our language, most measures of writing proficiency are highly subjective, despite numerous efforts to make them less so. Summary While overall results of studies into the efficacy of writing groups are mixed, there is still the widespread belief in the field of education that they do enhance the development of audience awareness. Imel (1994) reminds us that we never learn something so well as when we teach it to someone else. She suggests that "both learners are likely to understand the material better by applying it in the peer tutoring setting" Adult Learners 17 (p. 3). Perhaps then, writing groups actually benefit the person giving the feedback more than the one receiving it. However, since students in groups generally rotate positions, taking turns as both the writer and the giver of feedback, the benefits are shared among the group members. The act of talking and listening within peer groups has the potential, not only of improving writing skills, but also of increasing cognitive development. Gere ( 1985) suggests that "collaborative learning is particularly effective in writing instruction because talking gives students an opportunity to internalize language which can later be re-externalized in writing" (p. 364). On the other hand, Bruffee (1985) points out a problem inherent in the act of discussing writing when he asserts: Using language to make decisions about language complicates the problem because in order to think about the subject we are judging .. .we also have to think about how our minds are working, how we are using language to make that judgment. This process can feel as awkward as trying to cut our own hair while looking in a mirror. The only way we can work our way through the tangle of language used to talk about language is to try to get outside our personal, unshared biases and preconceptions. We must try to see the world as other people seem to see it. (p. 6) One of the best ways to do so appears to be through discussions in groups of our peers. Vacca and Linek (1992) contend, "Talk helps students put thinking into words and ensures that thinking about new ideas actually happens" (p. 150). For those who have difficulty revising, writing groups can have important benefits. Peers can offer encouragement, show what portions of the writing are unclear, Adult Learners 18 and give feedback as to whether there is either too much or not enough detail. Due to its specificity, writers often feel that peer feedback is more genuine and more helpful than teachers' comments. Through group discussion, fellow members can learn other styles of writing and alternate methods of approaching the process. Perhaps most importantly, students can develop an awareness of the needs of their audience through the internalization of the voices of their fellow students. On the whole, ABE students have difficulty revising their writings. While much research exists pointing to the effectiveness and the potential advantages of writing groups for children and for those with more advanced skills at the college and university level, little research bas been done with ABE students. The question to be looked at then is whether, for ABE students, peer feedback in writing groups is more effective in encouraging revision and increasing audience awareness than working independently. Adult Learners 19 Chapter 2 Methodology Participants Ten adult students (eight females and two males) who were enrolled in a fundamental level (Grades 1-9) English class at a university college in British Columbia were invited to participate in the study. Due to work obligations and illness, two students were unable to participate, and three others chose not to become part of the study. Out of the ten, five female students joined the study, and they all remained until its conclusion. Participants ranged in age from 18 to 43, with their average age being 34. The participants were already familiar with one another and had worked frequently on various tasks in groups of different combinations for two months prior to the study. This was, however, the first time they had peer-conferenced about revising their writings. Instruments The Writing Checklist (Appendix 1) was designed to be used by participants as a revision guide for their essays. The Writing Checklist is an adaptation of similar tools by Dawe et al. (1984); Shurbutt (1987); and Spandel & Stiggins (1990). Unlike those checklists, however, the Writing Checklist does not include such aspects as spelling and sentence structure since participants were not expected to know how to make those kinds of corrections. Also, it was felt that a focus on mechanics might distract students from the intended emphasis on meaning; only the aspects that pe11ained to audience needs were selected (Armbruster, 1984). Items on the checklist were wtitten in simple language that was easy for the participants to understand, and only the aspects of writing Adult Learners 20 that we had already discussed in class were included on the checklist (Appendix 1). For example, the use of transitions was not included in the checklist since that information had not been covered in class prior to the study. The Audience Awareness Evaluation Scale (Appendix 2) is an adaptation of several writing assessment scales: the Sense of Audience Primary Trait Scale (Gregg et al., 1996), the English Placement Test (Dawe et al., 1984), and the Analytic Rating Scale (Gomez et al., 1996). A primary trait scoring tool was chosen because, according to Dawe et al. (1984), "Primary trait scoring is based on the notion that the effectiveness of a piece of writing is related to the effectiveness of the writer in fulfilling his or her intentions in terms of an audience" (p. 7). The criteria adopted from the aforementioned assessment tools are ones which have been identified as audience needs (Armbruster, 1984). They were also criteria which fell within the students' range of abilities. As with the checklist (Appendix 1), mechanical aspects ofwriting such as sentence structure, spelling, punctuation, and use oftransitions (Dawe et al, 1984; Spandel & Stiggins, 1990) were not included in the evaluation since, for the purpose of this study, they were not central to the measurement of audience awareness (Armbruster, 1984). The Student Feedback Questionnaire (Appendix 3) was used at the close of the study to interview the participants about their experience. Procedure Prior to the Study. A letter outlining the purpose of the study and requesting permission to use the data collected from the students' writings was sent to the university college campus dean (Appendix 5), and he responded with a letter of permission Adult Learners 21 (Appendix 6). Approval to conduct the study was obtained from the ethics committees of the two institutions involved (Appendices 7 and 8). Prior to the study, a second evaluator was recruited in an effort to achieve a greater consistency of measurement. The evaluators both scored a set of fifteen anonymous student writings using the Audience Awareness Evaluation Scale (Appendix 2) in order to establish inter-rater reliability. Reliability between the two evaluators was 98.6%. Participant Recruitment. Initial contact with the participants took place during the students' normally-scheduled English class. Students were informed of the nature and purpose of the study and what would be expected of them as participants. Students were given assurance that their class standing would not be affected if they chose not to participate, and they were informed that they could withdraw from the study at any time. They were assured that their anonymity would be protected by the use of identity numbers in place of their names on their writings. Also, it was explained that their writings and the evaluation of them would be kept in a locked file cabinet in the researcher's office. Students were given a copy of the introductory letter and the informed consent form (Appendix 4). The researcher read aloud the letter and the consent form while the students followed along. Students were given time to ask questions about the study. The five who chose to participate signed the consent form and received a personal copy of it later that day. The Pretest. The study was set up so that the control group would work independently to revise their writings with the help of the Writing Checklist Adult Learners 22 (Appendix 1). The experimental group would discuss each others' writings using the checklist as the format for their discussions. The next step then was to assign the students to one of two groups. Participants were given an initial writing assignment--the pretest--to describe a special trip they took or a special event they attended. The task of describing an event was chosen because it "is considered to be the easiest form of written text structure for inexperienced writers" (Gregg et al., 1996, p. 127). Students were given the choice to either write their first draft directly onto the computer or to write it out by hand and then type it on the computer. They were given whatever time they needed to revise their writings but did not receive feedback or help in that activity from their instructor. They were also asked not to converse with other students about their writing. With the exception of one student who did not have access to a computer and who turned in a hand-written copy, participants provided a computer printout of their writing to the researcher. Students took approximately one hour to complete this first writing assignment. The participants' writing samples were evaluated on the Audience Awareness Evaluation Scale (Appendix 2) by the two evaluators. The range of possible scores on this scale is from 7 to 35. The scores for each participant were averaged and ranged from 21 to 27. The two evaluators' averaged scores were within one point of each other on this initial assessment. The average scores were then put in order from highest to lowest. The two highest scores were paired, and a coin was flipped to determine in which group the students would be placed. The same procedure was followed for the second pair. The coin was flipped to determine the placement of the fifth participant. The group of three Adult Learners 23 was chosen to be the experimental group--the writing group. The group of two became the control group--the students who worked independently on their revisions. The Practice Test. The following week, during their normally-scheduled writing time, students were given a list of their names and were asked to choose a number and place it beside their name. They were instructed to use this number on the next two writing assignments in place of their name. One student agreed to keep this list in case participants forgot their identity numbers. (The researcher and the other evaluator did not have access to the list until all assignments had been evaluated.) Participants were informed as to which group they had been assigned. The subjects were then given copies of the Writing Checklist (Appendix 1). The checklist was read aloud by the researcher, and the terms and concepts were reviewed and discussed with the participants. Both groups were then given a second writing assignment--the practice test--to describe a scary moment or close call they had experienced. Students wrote their rough drafts by hand. Subjects in the control group were instructed to go through the Writing Checklist independently and make revisions to their writings based upon their own responses to the checklist. When they finished, they typed their final draft on the computer. Students were allowed as much time as they needed for these various writing tasks. Both students completed the assignment in less than 1.5 hours. When the participants in the experimental group finished their rough drafts, they went into a room by themselves and were given extra copies of the checklist. They were instructed to take turns reading their stories aloud. They were then to discuss each item on the checklist as it related to the individuals' writings. Students were offered the option Adult Learners 24 ofhaving photocopies of the writings to look at while going through the checklist. They all declined the offer, indicating that they preferred to only listen to the person read their story. Participants were encouraged to write comments on the checklist and give them to the person when they were finished, but they were not required to do so. The writers were also encouraged to take notes during the discussion of their stories for future reference. They were informed that it was their choice whether or not to incorporate the suggestions or comments they received fi·om the group into their writings. The subjects were allowed to take as much time as they needed to discuss the writings. Participants in this group took approximately 2 hours to create their first drafts, discuss them, and then revise their writings. Participants from both groups printed their final drafts, using their identity numbers instead of their names and then placed them in a designated envelope near the door of the room. On the front of the envelope was a list of their names, and they marked off their names as they left the room. The Posttest. The next week, the same procedure was followed for another writing assignment--the posttest-which was to tell about a funny or happy childhood event. Evaluation Methods. All ofthe writings were then assessed on the basis of the Audience Awareness Evaluation Scale (Appendix 2) by the two evaluators. In addition, because of the small sample size and the nature of the study, participants were interviewed following the posttest using the Student Feedback Questionnaire (Appendix 3). The perceptions of the students and their attitudes toward the various activities were as important as the quantitative information gathered in this short study. A semi- I Adult Learners 25 structmed format (McMillan & Schumacher, 1997) was chosen. The questionnaire consisted of specific questions but allowed for a wide range of individual responses. Adult Learners 26 Chapter 3 Results Data Collected Table 1 lists the scores obtained on the pretest writing assignment for all participants. The averaged scores for the control group were 23 and 27 with a mean of 25. For the experimental group, the averaged scores ranged from 21 to 26.5 with an overall mean of24.2. The evaluators' average scores for all five participants were within one point of each other on this test. Table 1 Audience Awareness Evaluation Scale Pretest Scores Score of Evaluator I Individual Writers 30 1 2 23 Average 26.5 Writing Grou~ 1 2 3 Average 20 23 24 22.3 Score of Evaluator 2 Mean 24 23 23.5 27 23 25 22 27 29 26 21 25 26.5 24.2 Table 2 lists the scores obtained on the practice writing assignment for the participants. The range of averaged scores for the control group was from 22.5 to 25 with the mean being 23.8. For the experimental group, the average scores ranged from 20 to 28.5 with an overall mean of23 .5. The evaluators' average scores for all five participants were within .4 of a point of each other. Adult Learners 27 Table 2 Audience Awareness Evaluation Scale Practice Scores Score of Evaluator 1 Individual Writers 1 23 2 26 Average 24.5 Writing Grou12 1 2 3 Average 28 21 19 22.7 Score of Evaluator 2 Mean 27 19 23 25 22.5 23.8 29 23 21 24.3 28.5 22 20 23.5 Table 3 contains the scores from the posttest. The control group's average scores ranged from 19.5 to 26.5 with a mean of23 . The experimental group's range was from 22 to 26 with an overall mean of24.7. The evaluators' average scores for all participants were within 2 points on the posttest. Table 3 Audience Awareness Evaluation Scale Posttest Scores Score of Evaluator 1 Individual Writers 26 1 2 23 Average 24.5 Writing Grou12 1 23 2 26 3 27 Average 25 .3 Score of Evaluator 2 Mean 27 16 21.5 26.5 19.5 23 21 26 25 24 22 26 26 24.7 Adult Learners 28 The scores for the two groups were averaged, and the differences between the pretest and the posttest scores for each are shown in Figure 1. Figure 1. Average Scores for Writing Groups and Independent Writers 25.5 ,................................................................ ......................................................................................... . 25 ..§ -; ::I "ii > 24.5 Ul Ill Ill ~ ...ca ...0u Q) Ill cQ) Q) ~