Communication skills workshop 26 (CSW26) 14.09.2013 Helsinki University students in Finland attend language courses to gain professional and academic language proficiency. Currently, across all Aalto University disciplines, English is the most popular language chosen by students. This case study focuses mainly on the experiences in commenting and feedback given during writing courses offered by the Language Centre at Aalto University to participants from various fields of engineering, arts and economics. Feedback rich blended courses have been running since 2008. During these years valuable information has been collected on the benefits and drawbacks of the various commenting methods used for providing students with feedback on their writing. Students produce several reports, essays and other written documents, as a part of their studies. In language and communication courses, the students often engage in a process writing approach by creating reports or essays in smaller steps to better support the learning of writing. Currently, these documents are submitted into multiple electronic platforms and commented by the teacher either using contemporary tools (pen and paper), or electronically (word processor and/or commenting/annotation tool). Each of these systems has their strengths and weaknesses. Our assumption was that students benefit from personal, detailed and rich feedback and clear explanations for improvement. This has led to systematic use and development of a text commenting protocol. The writing teachers using these methods conducted a series of surveys 2010-2013 given to the students in the course using the commenting tools. The questionnaires were used to gather students’ perceptions of commenting software for providing feedback on writing and rich feedback in general. The surveys also indicated that students had not previously received extensive feedback in their other classes. To address this need, we participated in designing a new, more flexible and user-friendly tool, known as KungFu Writing (KFW), for giving feedback on student writing. Since the survey results also suggest students were overall pleased with the feedback they received and felt it helped them to improve their writing, feedback has been adopted as a method of teacher - student communication several other languages.

1. 1

2. 2
Ken Pennington / Juhana Nieminen
Language Centre (Otaniemi Campus)
Aalto University
Mastering the KungFu of Writing

3. 3
Course
Kie-98.1114 Communicating Technology
• Undergraduate engineering students
• Compulsory foreign-language requirement
• 36 hrs contact + 36 independent study
• 12-week course (6-week writing component)
• 3 ECTS

4. 4
Course
Kie-98.1114 Communicating Technology
Recommendation report:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Cumulative writing task:
Introduction (problem-solution)
Extended Definition (Solution)
Comparison-contrast (Evaluation)
Conclusion (Summary + Recommendation)

5. 5
Students
• Mostly Finnish speakers
• CEFR B2-C1
• Confident speakers of English
• No writing in their disciplines
• Lack clear models
• Lack audience awareness
• Over 50% write master's thesis in English
• Overestimate writing skills

6. 6
Students
• Mostly Finnish speakers
• CEFR B2-C1
• Confident speakers of English
• No writing in their disciplines
• Lack clear models
• Lack audience awareness
• Over 50% write master's thesis in English
• Overestimate writing skills
How to
motivate these
students?
Opportunity to
receive
feedback !!

7. 7
Tool: Internet feedback platform

8. Benefits: Teacher
8
 Chronological listing of students submissions
When feedback is
ready, KFW
automatically
informs students by
email.

9. 9
Benefits: Teacher
 Uses annotation buttons or right-click function
selecting and inserting comments into students' texts.

10. 10
Benefits: Teacher
 Uses
annotation
buttons or
right-click
function to
comment
on
students'
texts.
Comments can be
deleted or
modified on-the-fly

11. Benefits: Teacher
11
 Customizable dynamic commenting of text
All teacher work is
AUTOMATICALLY
saved

12. Benefits: Teacher
12
 Comments can overlap.

13. Benefits: Teacher
13
 Courses are archived after course ends

14. Benefits: Teacher
14
 Track performance for course development: key errors

15. Benefits: Teacher
15
 Track performance for course development: key errors

16. Benefits: Teacher
16
 Track performance for course development: key errors

17. Benefits: Teacher
17
 Track performance for course development: key errors

18. Benefits: Teacher
18
 Track performance for course development

19. Benefits: Teacher
19
 Comparison tool enables quick check how and
whether students responded to comments.

20. Benefits: Teacher
20
 Easy to create new courses.

21. Benefits: Teacher
21
 Easy to add new assignments

22. Benefits: Teacher
22
 Easy to add students to course using email addresses.
Sends students an
automated email
with temporary
password

23. 23
Benefits: Student
The KFW system:
• Intuitive, user-friendly system
• available online 24/7, independent of time or location
• Device independent (desktop, laptop, tablet, smartphone)
• Operating system independent (Windows, iOS, Linux,
Mac, Android)
• Unambiguous marking of text
• Commented text downloaded as a pdf copy
(with statistics, explanations and examples)
• Statistics help to evaluate strengths and weaknesses
• Possibility to receive feedback on same text from multiple
teachers.

24. 24
Benefits: Student
Comments:
• Receive uniform comments
• Clear explanations and solutions to problems
• Concrete examples that help learning and understanding
• Use of color and formating in comments helps to
visualize language features.
• Links to additional resources online
• Internet allows Googling with wild card symbol (*) and
context surrounded by quotation marks (")
• Unlike correction, identfying problems rather than answers
engages students in an active thinking process that
promotes independent learning.

25. 25
Lessons learned?
• Examples form a vital part of comments.
• Use of Praise and questions in feedback appears to be
less effective in gaining student responses to comments
• Comments need to be modifiable on-the-fly in order to
cope with different texts.
• Most learning likely occurs through feedback from both
peers and teachers.
• The best buttons are those that encourage students to
explore the language using tools such as google scholar.
• Students succeed in responding correctly to comments
66% of the time.
• However, some comment types are more difficult for
students to respond to than others.

26. 26
Lessons learned?
MORE IMPORTANTLY:
• Having a feedback tool encourages teachers to discuss
and form a common view of language through the
sharing of button sets.

27. So, why aren't more teachers
using tools like KFW?
27
1. Giving feedback is time-consuming!
Nevertheless, pinpointed formative
feedback is more effective than
summative feedback ("Good
work!") for improving texts.

28. So, why aren't more teachers
using tools like KFW?
28
1. Giving feedback is time-consuming!
2. Creating comments takes time to plan and
find examples.
Five years to
create 225
comment buttons.
The process enables teachers
to builds up expertise and
confidence, as well as
develop as teachers.

29. So, why aren't more teachers
using tools like KFW?
29
1. Giving feedback is time-consuming!
2. Creating comments takes time to plan and
find examples.
Identifying problems has a
knock-on effect, leading to
inclusion of these into
teaching materials

30. So, why aren't more teachers
using tools like KFW?
30
1. Giving feedback is time-consuming!
2. Creating comments takes time to plan and
find examples.
3. Not suitable solution for organizational
problems (e.g., CARS model) in text.
Face-to-face
peer review
sessions are more
effective

31. 31
Thanks to feedback
platforms, like KFW, we
won't have to suffer
through this ever
again…
Nor will
students…