The Eli Review Blog

New tutorials, research, teacher stories, and app updates - Subscribe via our newsletter!

#4C17 – Panels on Feedback and Revision

Posted to the Eli Review Blog by Admin Eli on February 21st, 2017

The College Conference on Composition and Communication will meet in Portland, Oregon, from March 15-18.

We’ve compiled the sessions we’re most excited about. Some sessions relate to Eli Review directly, where presenters will share teaching or research stories, but we’ve also searched the online program for all of the sessions we could related to feedback and revision. Hope to see you there!

Quick jump to these sessions in these categories:

Note: the convention schedule is currently only available in PDF files or in the mobile app, but we will update this page with links to each session if/when a web version becomes available.

Sessions Related to Eli Review

Code Time Title Presenters
B.13 Thursday, 12:15–1:30 p.m. Cultivating Capacity: Developing Research-Based Support for Graduate and Faculty Writers
B.40 Thursday, 12:15–1:30 p.m. Cultivating Faculty Development via Online Writing Instruction: A Story of Mentorship and Collaboration
  • Doreen Deicke, San Francisco State University
  • John Holland, San Francisco State University
  • Tara Lockhart, San Francisco State University
  • Ron Richardson, San Francisco State University
  • Martha Rusk, San Francisco State University
  • Michael Shannon, San Francisco State University
G.24 Friday, 9:30–10:45 a.m Finding Leverage Points to Cultivate More Engagement in Online Feedback and Revision
H.47 Friday, 11:00 a.m.–12:15 p.m. Cultivating Writing Research via Corpus and Computational Collaboration
  • William Hart-Davidson, Michigan State University, “Closing the Loop: Using Machine Learning Techniques to Generate Formative Feedback from a Student Writing Corpus”
  • Lindsey Macdonald, Purdue University, “Using Corpora to Investigate the Impacts of Assignment Variation on Student Approaches to Writing”
  • Ryan Omizo, University of Rhode Island, “Closing the Loop: Using Machine Learning Techniques to Generate Formative Feedback from a Student Writing Corpus”
  • Shelley Staples, University of Arizona, “Intersections of Corpus Linguistics and Rhetoric and Composition”

About Peer Review or Grading

Code Time Title Presenters
I.47 Friday, 12:30–1:45 p.m The Role of Writing Criteria in Transparency, Agency, and Community-Building in the Disciplinary Writing Classroom
  • Megan Callow, University of Washington, “Assessing Assessment: Considerations for Research on Criteria and Scoring”
  • Julie Dykema, University of Washington, “Students Norming Student Papers: A Step toward Peer Review and Self-Assessment”
  • Carrie Matthews, University of Washington, Seattle, “Writing and Learning in a Discipline through Peer-Based Holistic Scoring: Context and Results”
K.08 Friday, 3:30–4:45 p.m. Peer Review Research, Latent Semantic Methods, and Writing Analytics Researchers from the Uni
  • Joe Moxley, University of South Florida, Tampa, “Collaborating and Researching with My Reviewers”
  • Rodger LeGrand, University of Pennsylvania, “Using NVivio to Research the Peer Review Corpus”
  • Lan Ngo, University of Pennsylvania, “Latent Semantic Analysis of the Peer Review Corpus”
  • Valerie Ross, University of Pennsylvania, “Review of Peer Review Research and Theoretical Groundwork”
M.03 Saturday, 12:15–1:30 p.m. Come Together: Innovations in Peer Review
  • Brent Chappelow, University of Southern California, “An Encomium to the Rough Draft: Student Peer Review as Epideictic Rhetoric”
  • Catherine Forsa, Roger Williams University, “Making ePortfolios Public: Spaces for Peer Review, Reflection, and Writing Communities”
  • Susan Richardson, Macomb Community College, “Creating Community in the Online Class through Peer Review”

About Reflection, Metacognition, Self-Regulation or Transfer

Code Time Title Presenters
A.09 Thursday, 10:30–11:45 a.m “What’s SRL got to do with it?”: Strategies and Tools for Self-Regulation in the Writing Classroom
  • Amy Ann Metcalf Latawiec, Wayne State University
  • Ryan Roderick, Carnegie Mellon
  • Joel Schneier, North Carolina State University
A.17 Thursday, 10:30–11:45 a.m. Tracing Transfer: Examining Teaching for Transfer in Three Curricular Sites
  • Matt Davis, University of Massachusetts, Boston
  • Liane Robertson, William Paterson University
  • Joyce R. Walker, Illinois State University, Normal
  • Respondent: Kathleen Blake Yancey, Florida State University
A.25 Thursday, 10:30–11:45 a.m Google Classroom Hacks: How Technology Can Help Writing Instructors Cultivate Students’ Reflection, Metacognition, and Transfer of Learning
  • Kelsey Hixson-Bowles, Indiana University of Pennsylvania
  • Marissa McKinley, Indiana University of Pennsylvania
  • Roger Powell, Indiana University of Pennsylvania
C.07 Thursday, 1:45–3:00 p.m. Places and Spaces
  • Brandie Bohney, Indiana Tech, “Use Your Words! Audio and Video Feedback for Better Student Revisions”
  • Jens Lloyd, University of California, Irvine, “Campus Connections: Rewriting Pedagogical Environments in Lower-Division Courses”
  • Scott Rogers, Pacific Lutheran University, “‘You Are Here’: Exploring Space and Difference via Interactive New Media Composing”
C.15 Thursday, 1:45–3:00 p.m. What Transfers? Developing Research Instruments to Assess Whether Comparative Genre Analysis Helps Students Transfer Rhetorical Knowledge across Contexts
  • Ana Cooke, Carnegie Mellon University, “‘Troubling’ Comparative Genre Analysis”
  • Danielle Wetzel, Carnegie Mellon University, “Do Students Perceive Comparative Genre Analysis as a Transferable Method?”
  • Laura Wilder, University at Albany, SUNY, “Describing the Signposts That Signal Positive Transfer”
  • Joanna Wolfe, Carnegie Mellon University, “Does Comparative Genre Analysis Prepare Students to Analyze Unfamiliar Writing Prompts?”
F.51 Friday, 8:00–9:15 a.m. Cultivating Transfer with the Teaching-for-Transfer Writing Curriculum: A National Multi-Institutional Study
  • Sonja Andrus, University of Cincinnati/Blue Ash College, OH
  • Sharon Mitchler, Centralia College
  • Tonya Ritola, University of California Santa Cruz
  • Kara Taczak, University of Denver
  • Howard Tinberg, Bristol Community College
H.21 Friday, 11:00 a.m.–12:15 p.m. The Discourse of Self-Commentary: What We Learn When Students Talk about Their Own Writing
  • Chris Anson, North Carolina State University
  • Chen Chen, North Carolina State University
  • Meridith Reed, North Carolina State University

About Instructor Feedback

Code Time Title Presenters
C.43 Thursday, 1:45–3:00 p.m Composing with and Responding to Audio and Written Feedback in Technical and Professional Communication
  • Shuwen Li, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, “Cultivating Students’ Ethos: Using Performative ePortfolio in Professional and Technical Writing Class”
  • Judith Szerdahelyi, Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, “Speaking Out about Listening In: Cultivating Capacity for Audio Response on Students’ Written Assignments”
  • Megan Voelkel, George Mason University, “Constantly Drafting: Workplace Writing and Feedback”
F.22 Friday, 8:00–9:15 a.m. Cultivating Online Pedagogy: Feedback, Workshops, and Experiential Learning in First-Year Composition
  • Jennifer Cunningham, Kent State University at Stark, “Online Composition Students’ Responses to Instructor Feedback”
  • Steve Edgehouse, Stark State College, “Vlogshopping: Using Video to Enhance Online Writing Workshops”
  • Lauren Garcia-DuPlain, The University of Akron, “Monoculture Course Design: An Experiment in Online, Experiential English Composition”
F.48 Friday, 8:00–9:15 a.m. Understanding Writing Students’ Perspectives on Instructor Feedback
  • Andrea Beaudin, Texas Tech University, “Student Reception and Application of Instructor Feedback: A UX Analysis”
  • Amanda Brooks, Florida State University, “(Un)Sure Writers: SelfEfficacy Fluctuations and the Writing Process”
  • Tyler Carter, Purdue University, “A Corpus Analysis of FYC Student Perceptions of Written Teacher Feedback”
  • Laura Gabrion, Oakland University, “Nurturing Self-Efficacy: Using Revision Plans to Enhance Instructor Feedback”
  • Suthathip Thirakunkovit, Mahidol University, “A Corpus Analysis of FYC Student Perceptions of Written Teacher Feedback”
G.33 Friday, 9:30–10:45 a.m. Research on Responding to Student Writing: What Comments Do
  • Speakers: Darsie Bowden, DePaul University Carolyn Vos, DePaul University Bridget Wagner, DePaul University
G.42 Friday, 9:30–10:45 a.m Strategies for Implementing Feedback and Assessment
  • Daniel Ernst, Purdue University, “Writing Assessment and the New College Admissions”
  • Joyce Inman, University of Southern Mississippi, “Understanding Work and Change in the Composition Classroom via Course Contracts”
  • Maria Treglia, Bronx Community College, New York, “Cultivating
  • Marginal Feedback: Are Students and Teachers on the Same Page?”
K.01 Friday, 3:30–4:45 p.m. Cultivating Response: Seeing Teacher Comments through Students’ Eyes Responding to students’ writing
  • Chris Anson, North Carolina State University
  • Nancy Sommers, Harvard University
  • Howard Tinberg, Bristol Community College
M.14 Saturday, 12:15–1:30 p.m. Researching Meaningful Feedback in Assessment Ecologies
  • Chair: Kara Mae Brown, University of California, Santa Barbara
  • Kara Mae Brown, University of California, Santa Barbara
  • Kristen Getchell, Curry College Jennifer K. Johnson, University of California, Santa Barbara
  • Nicole Warwick, University of California, Santa Barbara

About Evidence-Based Assignment Design

Code Time Title Presenters
A.30 Thursday, 10:30–11:45 a.m. Reconsidering Revision and Reflection: Two Studies of the (Dis)Connections between Revision Knowledge and Practice
  • Martin Camper, Loyola University Maryland, Baltimore
  • Heather Lindenman, Elon University
  • Justin Lohr, University of Maryland, College Park
B.17 Thursday, 12:15–1:30 p.m. Making Language Visible in Composition: Investigating the Role of Language in the Training and Practices of Writing Instructors
  • Laura Aull, Wake Forest University, “Language Use and Peer and Instructor Evaluation”
  • Zak Lancaster, Wake Forest University, “Making Stancetaking Language Visible: Opportunities and Challenges for Instructor-Readers”
  • Christine Tardy, University of Arizona, “Locating Language in Writing Teacher Education: An Analysis of Trends and Materials”
  • Madelyn Tucker, University of Arizona, “Locating Language in Writing Teacher Education: An Analysis of Trends and Materials”
  • Respondent: Amy Devitt, University of Kansas, Lawrence, “Response: Addressing the Challenges of Making Language Visible to Writing Instructors”
C.09 Thursday, 1:45–3:00 p.m. Research on Alternative Genres and Methods in the Writing Classroom
  • Lindsay Illich, Curry College, “Reading the Work of Others: A Study on Meaningful Peer Review”
  • Jamie Peterson, Kent State University, “Who Says What and Why It Matters: A Look into College Writing Classroom Assessments”
  • Mary Lourdes Silva, Ithaca College, “Anchoring in Patchwriting: An Exploratory Study of FYC Student Citation Practices”
H.46 Friday, 11:00 a.m.–12:15 p.m Engaging Assignments, Engaging Writers
  • Mary Soliday, San Francisco State University, “Metaphors for Effective Design”
  • Linda Swanson, San Francisco State University, “Cultivating New Ways to Design Assignments”
  • Jennifer Trainor, San Francisco State University, “Assignment Design and Student Engagement”
L.36 Saturday, 10:45 a.m.–12:00 p.m. Redesigning the Introductory Technical Communication Course: Cultivating Better Writers and Better Teachers
  • Kelli Cargile Cook, Texas Tech University, “Mentoring to Cultivate Better Teachers: Affordances and Constraints”
  • Ashley Edlin, Texas Tech University, “The Graduate Student Curriculum Committee: How Graduate Students Can Effect Change”
  • Amy Hanson, Texas Tech University, “Introduction to Technical Communication: A Service Course with 100 Disciplinary Needs”
  • Kylie Jacobsen, Texas Tech University, “A National Perspective: Assessing Introductory Technical Communication Course Syllabi”

About Professional Development

Code Time Title Presenters
I.11 Friday, 12:30–1:45 p.m Linking Assessment to Faculty Development and WAC/WID: How One Change Leads to Another For WPAs, institutional assessment creates faculty development
  • John Bean, Seattle University, “How Writing-Based Assessment
  • Across the Disciplines Promotes Faculty Development as Well as Evidence-Based Pedagogical Research”
  • Carol Rutz, Carleton College, “WAC/WID Challenges in Small Schools”
  • Stephen Wilhoit, University of Dayton, “WID Infiltrates Gen Ed: The Role of Assessment and Faculty Development”
G.39 Friday, 9:30–10:45 a.m. Cultivating Knowledge to Foster Program Development: Utilizing Data from a Five-Year Study of a Large Advanced Writing Program
  • Dana Ferris, University of California, Davis
  • Hogan Hayes, California State University, Sacramento
  • Sean McDonnell, University of California, Davis

Cover photo credit: Michael Silberstein

#4C17 – Panels on Feedback and Revision was published to the Eli Review Blog in the categories Conferences, Presentations, Professional Development.

Sign up for a Professional Development Workshop to learn how Eli works! Sign up now!