View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Full and Minimal Markup Both Help Students to Improve Their Writing

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Full and Minimal Markup Both Help Students to Improve Their Writing
Language: English
Authors: Tessier, Jack T. (ORCID 0000-0002-1662-6345), Tessier, Lisa M., Gashler, Daniel, Levitt, Cheryle (ORCID 0000-0002-9571-0130), London, Julie, West, Benjamin S., Winters, Nancy (ORCID 0000-0001-5388-045X)
Source: College Teaching. 2023 71(4):197-206.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 10
Publication Date: 2023
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Feedback (Response), Writing Instruction, Writing Improvement, Writing Skills, College Students, Student Attitudes, Grading, Writing Evaluation, Evaluation Methods
Geographic Terms: New York
DOI: 10.1080/87567555.2021.2010637
ISSN: 8756-7555
1930-8299
Abstract: College faculty faces decisions about how to provide feedback on written work. We compared the quality of student writing and student impressions of feedback from both full and minimal markup methods. There was only one significant difference in the quality of writing or content between full and minimal markup. Students scored the functionality of the two markup methods consistently in their ability to improve their writing skills. Student comments were overwhelmingly positive for both markup formats. We encourage teachers to make use of the approach that fits the best with the teaching and learning strategies and designs in their classes.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2023
Accession Number: EJ1395603
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGs2gZ5eH5MU-oKkh-rJDhmAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDDNtnB7wqph_d4FZOwIBEICBmwuakisqNq9hrKb_10uh6tEOJzZNI9xrloRK3WQDeMkYIMfzo8Kc_NPWKJIBTdprfXqxrQexmlZX1PDaTsH5jD-B-rqFIzgEITh_dDQVfR0Cb60cafgfUbbgpjk73vW_twD5tQ7VNz2RXwe_3f7bD-kwa61Kb5BdToOVE49tTj5COQUdg-1g7LLkrmtAVHGh-BZEMEzD9Y760HPM
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0172840111;cte01oct.23;2023Oct10.05:12;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0172840111-1">Full and Minimal Markup Both Help Students to Improve Their Writing </title> <p>College faculty faces decisions about how to provide feedback on written work. We compared the quality of student writing and student impressions of feedback from both full and minimal markup methods. There was only one significant difference in the quality of writing or content between full and minimal markup. Students scored the functionality of the two markup methods consistently in their ability to improve their writing skills. Student comments were overwhelmingly positive for both markup formats. We encourage teachers to make use of the approach that fits the best with the teaching and learning strategies and designs in their classes.</p> <p>Keywords: Feedback; grading; student writing; writing quality; written work</p> <hd id="AN0172840111-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Providing feedback on written work is a time-consuming and critical aspect of both college teaching and learning (Bryan and Clegg [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref1">5</reflink>]). Traditionally, teachers point out all of the mechanical errors and provide feedback about what is thorough and what is lacking in regard to the content of the work (Moxley [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref2">22</reflink>]; Speck [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref3">24</reflink>]). An alternative to this "full markup" approach involves the teacher pointing out where issues arise in the work, but leaving it to the student to identify what the problem is and how to address it (Haswell [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref4">17</reflink>]; McNeilly [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref5">20</reflink>]). This alternative approach is called "minimal markup" (Haswell [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref6">17</reflink>]). The idea behind minimal markup is that the student will learn more about writing by identifying and addressing the problem on their own (Haswell [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref7">17</reflink>]; McNeilly [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref8">20</reflink>]). This approach encourages responsibility from students by actively engaging them in their own learning and including them in the discovery process of self-improvement. When students diagnose and correct their errors, the active learning can lead to longer-term improvement in higher achievers (Mahmoud and Oraby [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref9">19</reflink>]). In addition, the minimal markup method allows the instructor to focus more on content and provide more comprehensive feedback encompassing content, writing structure, and format.</p> <p>Results from research into the effectiveness of full and minimal markup have differed among studies. For Composition students, Dolotallas and Perez ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref10">11</reflink>]) found that minimal markup did not help to improve the mechanics of student writing, but it did help with the other aspects of the writing (such as content, language, and organization). This study (Dolotallas and Perez [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref11">11</reflink>]) was a pre-post comparison within minimal markup and did not compare improvements between full and minimal markup. Among students learning English as a foreign language, Hajimohammadi and Mukundan ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref12">15</reflink>]) found that audio-taped feedback helped to improve students' writing while minimal markup did not. In contrast, McNeilly ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref13">20</reflink>]) found that minimal marking improved the grammar of Journalism students more than full markup. Each of these studies worked within a certain type of student, leaving open the question of how much college faculty can universally apply the findings. Certainly, full and minimal markup represent extremes in the myriad methods of providing feedback (Elbow [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref14">12</reflink>]; Bryan and Clegg [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref15">5</reflink>]), but discrepancies in findings of prior research indicate that further study is necessary to quantify the efficacy of minimal markup.</p> <p>Writing across the curriculum efforts emphasize the importance of writing skills and improve the -quality of students' writing (Bazerman, Little, and Bethel [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref16">3</reflink>]; Dansereau, Carmichael, and Hotson [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref17">9</reflink>]). Such efforts have gone on for several decades and incorporated many disciplines (e.g., Applebee [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref18">1</reflink>]; Metcalf [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref19">21</reflink>]; Devlin and Slaninka [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref20">10</reflink>]; Artzt [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref21">2</reflink>]; Peterson [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref22">23</reflink>]; Hanstedt [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref23">16</reflink>]; Yancey et al. [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref24">26</reflink>]). In having students practice their writing, we must consider the effectiveness of the type and quantity of feedback provided on their written work (Moxley [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref25">22</reflink>]; Beason [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref26">4</reflink>]; Hyland [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref27">18</reflink>]; Speck [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref28">24</reflink>]). As of yet, modes of feedback have not been evaluated by researchers within the context of a writing across the curriculum format, even while the wide range of disciplines in such a program provides an excellent opportunity to assess the effectiveness of full and minimal markup.</p> <p>We sought to compare students' writing quality when they experience full or minimal markup on their written work in writing across the curriculum format (e.g., Beason [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref29">4</reflink>]). We hypothesized that students' skills and thinking would improve more during a course with minimal markup due to them being required to think more about the issues identified in their writing. We predicted that there would be greater gains in writing mechanics and writing content in courses utilizing the minimal markup approach. In addition, student perceptions of feedback types were explored.</p> <hd id="AN0172840111-3">Materials and methods</hd> <p>SUNY Delhi is a small College of Technology within the State University of New York system. As of February 2020, SUNY Delhi's website shows that its enrollment is around 3000 students, with a diverse mixture from New York City, Long Island, and the rest of New York State. Academic programs include applied disciplines, such as Veterinary Science, Welding, Nursing, and Culinary, as well as liberal arts disciplines, such as General Studies, Sciences, and Environmental Studies. As shown on SUNY Delhi's website in February 2020, all AA, AS, BBA, BS, and BT degrees within the SUNY system require students to complete a general education requirement in Communication. At SUNY Delhi, this typically includes English 100, First Year Composition.</p> <p>The research in this study was approved in advance by the SUNY Delhi Institutional Review Board. Obtainment of formal, written consent for a student's data to be used in the study and completion of the questionnaire (see below) were conducted by a faculty member not teaching the course. Participation in the study was entirely voluntary and was not connected to any course content or grading.</p> <p>We defined "full markup" to mean fixing all grammar and spelling errors, structural and organizational issues, argument/rhetorical purpose weaknesses, and insufficiencies in citations and evidence at least the first time the issue occurred, and noting other occurrences of the same issue thereafter. In this full markup format, students were shown exactly what the problem was and how to fix that problem in future assignments. Therefore, students were clearly guided in how to make improvements to their writing. We defined "minimal markup" to mean highlighting locations where issues existed and indicating what kind of issue existed (grammar, argument, citation, etc.), at least the first time it happened, without making the actual correction. In the minimal markup format, students could see where a problem existed, but it was up to them to determine what the problem was and how to fix it. Therefore, students were guided in where to fix their written work, but they needed to take the initiative to diagnose and repair the problem to improve their writing. In both forms of markup, instructors were free to provide written, summary feedback about the student's work. This pattern of general feedback was consistent between full and minimal markup. Examples of full and minimal markup appear in the Results section.</p> <p>The nine courses included in our study were ENGL 100 Freshman Composition, HIST 130 History of Western and World Civilizations II, BIOL 110 Environmental Issues and Sustainability, ARTS 300 Art and Health, ARTS 310 The Art of Healing Landscapes, BIOL 310 Medicinal Botany, NURS 302 Principles of Nursing Research and Evidence Based Practice, NURS 402 Teaching and Learning in Nursing, and NURS 502 Advanced Nursing Research. These courses included lower and upper level courses in undergraduate programs, one graduate-level course (NURS 502), and a wide range of subject matter. Each course was taught twice during the study, once using full markup and once using minimal markup. The order in which each method was used varied among the courses to have roughly half of the sample starting with full markup and the other half starting with minimal markup to reduce bias related to which format a faculty member used first. Inevitably, more writing instruction occurred in some courses than others based on the level and subject of the course. However, all students had equal access to the College's Writing Center, where assistance is available for all kinds of written work.</p> <p>As each course was taught, we scored each piece of written work included in the study for the quality of the writing mechanics and content (Table 1). At the end of the course, we calculated the difference in each score between student's best and first writing assignment. The scores from the first assignment provided baseline data for what the student was doing at the beginning of the course. The scores from the best assignment represented what the student was capable of doing based on what they learned and what skills they developed during the course. At the outset of the study, the faculty involved in the project developed the rubrics together and agreed on their purpose and meaning. Each faculty member scored their own students' work to ensure that an expert in the field was scoring written work from each discipline and control for reliability of the data. Specifically, if a faculty member was scoring written work higher or lower than another faculty member, the differences were controlled for by examining the change in score from the first assignment to the best assignment within a reader.</p> <p>Table 1. Scoring rubric used to assess the quality of writing mechanics and content in an assessment of the efficacy of full and minimal markup in improving the quality of students' writing.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td>5 - Excellent</td><td>4 - Good</td><td>3 - Fair</td><td>2 - Poor</td><td>1 - Unacceptable</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Language Mechanics Score</td><td>Mechanics (grammar, spelling, organizational structure, etc.) are above the expectation for the level of the course.</td><td>Mechanics are generally well done, but there are some errors.</td><td>There are several errors with mechanics typical of student writing in the course.</td><td>There are many errors with mechanics making the work difficult to read and follow. </td><td>Mechanics are completely unacceptable for work of the course's level.</td></tr><tr><td>Content Score</td><td>Content (arguments, evidence, citations, etc.) is above the expectation for the level of the course.</td><td>Content is generally well done but with some issues.</td><td>Content has several issues typical of student writing in the course.</td><td>Content includes many issues, making the work difficult to understand and appreciate. </td><td>Content is completely unacceptable for work of the course's level.</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>We also asked students to complete a questionnaire describing their impressions of the type of feedback they experienced. Students were not informed about which markup method they were experiencing to avoid bias in their comments. Near the end of the semester, students took a physical survey in on-campus classes and a digital version of the same survey in online courses. The survey, designed for this study and administered by a faculty member not teaching the course, asked the following questions:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> In what semester are you completing this questionnaire?</item> <p></p> <item> For what course are you completing this questionnaire?</item> <p></p> <item> To what extent did the feedback on your written work affect your writing ability: 5 - High Improvement, 4 - Some Improvement, 3 - Feedback Made No Difference, 2 - Worsened, 1 - Greatly Worsened</item> <p></p> <item> Please add comments to explain your response from question 3.</item> <p></p> <item> What kind of feedback would best help you improve your writing skills?</item> </ulist> <p>For the quantitative analysis, we used Minitab version 19 (Minitab, Inc., State College, PA) at α = 0.05. A t-test was used to compare the mean change in score for both writing content and mechanics for the full dataset and separately for the face-to-face classes and the online classes between full and minimal markup. A t-test was also used to compare student responses to how much they felt that the feedback helped their writing between full and minimal markup. The sample size within each discipline (as few as three for Arts) was not sufficient to conduct a meaningful comparison among the different disciplines.</p> <p>The qualitative analysis used an adapted "grounded-theory" approach whereby patterns were identified in the written survey responses through an inductive process of cycles of coding, reflection, refinement of codes, and looking for larger themes occurring across the data or within a particular treatment (minimal versus full markup) using the "constant comparative method" (Charmaz [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref30">6</reflink>]; Charmaz [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref31">7</reflink>]; Corbin and Strauss [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref32">8</reflink>]; Glaser and Strauss [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref33">14</reflink>]). Following this method, coding schemes were created from the data prior to reviewing the literature on the topic (Charmaz [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref34">7</reflink>]; Taylor and Bogdan [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref35">25</reflink>]). Throughout the process, one response could be identified with more than one code as needed to fully reflect the statement (Taylor and Bogdan [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref36">25</reflink>]). Online data and face-to-face data were received in different formats (digital versus article survey) and thus analyzed separately, but minimal and full markup treatments were not sorted until after the coding was in place to prevent interpretive bias. Once codes were finalized and entered into Excel, the relative frequency that each code repeated was noted. Sample quotes are reported with edits only to remove potentially identifying information.</p> <p>In the full grounded theory method, data analysis typically occurs simultaneously with data collection so that preliminary findings may impact the collection processes of sampling and questioning (Charmaz [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref37">7</reflink>]; Corbin and Strauss [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref38">8</reflink>]). However, for the purposes of meeting IRB requirements for protecting students' anonymity, we made adjustments to ensure that all questions were IRB-approved, analysis occurred after course grades were submitted, and sampled populations were predetermined.</p> <hd id="AN0172840111-4">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0172840111-5">Participation</hd> <p>Among all courses, 362 students were enrolled in the courses and could potentially allow their data to be used in the study, 184 of which were taking face-to-face classes and 178 of which were taking online classes. Of those 362 students, 155 students chose to take part in the study. Therefore, 310 pieces of written work were included in the study (155 first-best pairs). Of the 155 students, 120 were from face to face classes (65.6% participation) and 35 were from online classes (19.6% participation rate). For the qualitative portion of the survey, there were 142 participants that answered question 4 (78 minimal, 64 full), and 148 participants answered question 5 (86 minimal, 62 full).</p> <hd id="AN0172840111-6">Examples of full and minimal markup</hd> <p>The two markup formats resulted in clearly different feedback for students. Full markup gave clear and specific guidance for improving the written work, while minimal markup challenged the student to determine what the problem was and how to fix it.</p> <p>The first two examples are from written works that were marked using the full markup approach. The student's work is in regular text, areas highlighted by the instructor as having issues are underlined, and comments/corrections from the instructor are in parentheses.</p> <p>While watching this documentary already knowing and reading up about all the plastic built up in the ocean I am constantly thinking about ways (reasons) that we can not (cannot) do that. There really is a way that we can do it that is economically feasible, socially desirable, and ecologically viable to our society. See there are a lot of places around us that if you read up about our towns and communities say that they do not recycle. (Are you trying to say that many communities do not recycle?) Not everywhere in this world is it illegal to not too like for instance (Read this phrase aloud. Can you think of a smoother and clearer way to say it?) in my town on Long Island you can get fined if the town finds out if we are not recycling. So a way to fix this massive problem that is occuring (occurring) in our oceans is by everyone recycling and bringing your plastic containers to a dispensory (dispensary) where they will then get rid of the waste in an environmentally friendly way.</p> <p>Another thing that effects (affects) our environment from golf courses are the chemicals we use to keep pesticides (pests) and fungus (fungi) off our course. The superintendents of the golf courses are always spraying different chemicals to kill off the diseases that can damage our course but they are also spraying different chemicals because bugs and (other) pesticides (pests) evolve so quickly that they become immune to that chemical so the superintendent must change up the chemical so those bugs and (other) pesticides (pests) don't damage the course. The other reason the chemicals are so bad for the course is that its (they are) used for a certain type of grass and then kills (kill) anything around it(,) which means that sometimes the chemical spreads to the woods and kills the (herbaceous) plants and trees that were not intended to be bothered with. The positives to having a golf course is that it opens homes for animals that won't damage the course including aquatic animals in ponds or lakes around the course.</p> <p>The second two examples are from pieces of written work that were marked using the minimal markup approach.</p> <p>The career that I have chosen to pursue would be an agent. Either an agent for the CIA, DEA, or FBI. (Grammar) I want to pursue this career because I find myself very interested in the subject of Criminal Justice. Now since every career has an effect on the environment, of course this career also has an impact. The impacts this career has on the environment would be that the amount of cop cars used aren't good for the air we breathe due to the pollution the cars causes (Grammar). Another impact that can occur would be that during chases between someone in authority and a perpetrator, there can be a lot of damage that can happen in between those chases which can cause there to be a lot of objects, or garbage that can pollute the world much further then how much it already is (Wording).</p> <p>(New Paragraph). This career can be conducted in a more sustainable manner by using more smarted technology (Grammar) and cutting down using cars as much. There are technologies used in law enforcement like license plate readers, drones so then that way, while using them we won't have chase perpetrators down or put out more pollution into the world we live (Wording).</p> <p>Growing up in New York City is a hustle and bustle, home to over 8 million people with over more than 3 million housing units it is a constant rush. (Grammar) People fill the streets racing to work, with crowded subways and traffic congested streets it isn't (Grammar) easy being a New Yorker. As we race through the streets filled with numerous fast food chains and hot dog vendors flooding the streets with processed foods it is hard to notice (Syntax) the effect we have on the world.</p> <hd id="AN0172840111-7">Quantitative results</hd> <p>There was no significant difference in change in writing quality (content or mechanics) between full and minimal markup for the full data set, face to face classes, or online classes (Table 2). The only significant difference in change in content quality between full and minimal markup was within the online classes, where full markup led to more improvement than minimal markup; there was no significant difference for the full data set nor the face-to-face classes (Table 2). There was not a significant difference between full and minimal markup in regard to how much students felt that the feedback improved their writing for the full dataset, online courses, and face-to-face courses (Table 3).</p> <p>Table 2. Quantitative results of comparison of full and minimal markup for students' writing and content quality. N represents the number of first-best pairs of written work.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Course Type</td><td>Rubric</td><td>Change in Score for Full markup</td><td>Change in Score for Minimal markup</td><td>N for Full markup</td><td>N for Minimal markup</td><td>T</td><td>P</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Online</td><td>Mechanics</td><td char=".">0.82 ± 0.21</td><td char=".">0.29 ± 0.29</td><td char=".">17</td><td char=".">7</td><td char=".">1.51</td><td char=".">0.156</td></tr><tr><td>Online</td><td>Content</td><td char=".">0.97 ± 0.22</td><td char=".">0.00 ± 0.22</td><td char=".">17</td><td char=".">7</td><td char=".">3.05</td><td char=".">0.007</td></tr><tr><td>Face to Face</td><td>Mechanics</td><td char=".">0.79 ± 0.18</td><td char=".">0.68 ± 0.14</td><td char=".">47</td><td char=".">62</td><td char=".">0.51</td><td char=".">0.609</td></tr><tr><td>Face to Face</td><td>Content</td><td char=".">0.73 ± 0.20</td><td char=".">0.64 ± 0.11</td><td char=".">47</td><td char=".">62</td><td char=".">0.36</td><td char=".">0.720</td></tr><tr><td>Full Dataset</td><td>Mechanics</td><td char=".">0.80 ± 0.15</td><td char=".">0.64 ± 0.13</td><td char=".">64</td><td char=".">69</td><td char=".">0.86</td><td char=".">0.394</td></tr><tr><td>Full Dataset</td><td>Content</td><td char=".">0.78 ± 0.16</td><td char=".">0.58 ± 0.10</td><td char=".">64</td><td char=".">69</td><td char=".">1.09</td><td char=".">0.280</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Table 3. Quantitative results of comparison of full and minimal markup for students' impression of how much the feedback helped their writing. Data on a Likert scale of 1 = greatly worsened, 2 = worsened, 3 = feedback made no difference, 4 = some improvement, and 5 = high improvement. N represents the number of first-best pairs of written work.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Course Type</td><td>Student Score for Full markup</td><td>Student Score for Minimal markup</td><td>N for Full markup</td><td>N for Minimal markup</td><td>T</td><td>P</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Online</td><td char=".">4.44 ± 0.17</td><td char=".">4.47 ± 0.17</td><td char=".">18</td><td char=".">17</td><td char=".">0.11</td><td char=".">0.914</td></tr><tr><td>Face to Face</td><td char=".">4.06 ± 0.08</td><td char=".">4.16 ± 0.06</td><td char=".">51</td><td char=".">70</td><td char=".">1.06</td><td char=".">0.293</td></tr><tr><td>Full Dataset</td><td char=".">4.16 ± 0.07</td><td char=".">4.22 ± 0.06</td><td char=".">69</td><td char=".">87</td><td char=".">0.66</td><td char=".">0.512</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0172840111-8">Qualitative results</hd> <p>No major differences between codes for online and face-to-face population responses were noted, so results are combined (Table 4). Likewise, while responses from minimal markup and full markup populations were eventually sorted in the analysis process, few differences were found between these groups. Where differences were found between treatment groups, they are noted.</p> <p>Table 4. Qualitative coding summary for how feedback affected writing ability (Question 4).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Codes</td><td>Minimal markup</td><td>Full markup</td><td>Representative Quotes</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Positive Perceptions of Feedback</td><td>high</td><td>high</td><td>"Telling me what I'm doing incorrectly helps me adjust for next time." "Getting feedback helps you make corrections on your work to improve it. Having a professionals opinion helps you feel more comfortable continuing your work." "The feedback my professor gave me for every writing assignment helped me understand what I was doing wrong." "At first I accidentally plagiarized, now I know how to write a report without doing that." "The writing tutor's and professor's feedback is very helpful in correcting the writing flaws, and excelling my writing skills." "The feedback always gives me a better idea of what was expected. Sometimes I do not fully understand what is expected as a response to certain questions."</td></tr><tr><td>Negative Perceptions of Feedback</td><td>low</td><td>low</td><td>"Feedback in discussion posts was not individualized. It seemed to follow a grid or checklist specific to hitting certain points in the posts but without actually facilitating improvement in the writing." "It doesn't really help when we get feedback but then never go over that topic again." "Everything in this class is done online, so when I receive back work with online edits and notes sometimes I don't understand."</td></tr><tr><td>Positive & Negative Perceptions of Feedback</td><td>low</td><td>n/a</td><td>"Well rubrics can tell you what areas you need help but not in enough detail to help you fix it whatever the issue is." "I made some improvement because some of the feedback I didn't understand how to make my writing better."</td></tr><tr><td>Positive Self-Reflection</td><td>low</td><td>low</td><td>"I tried harder and improved slightly." "It affect[s it] somehow, my writing didn't need much improvement."</td></tr><tr><td>Negative Self-Reflection</td><td>low</td><td>low</td><td>"Haven't done work." "Sometimes I would get the feedback and not apply it." "I am not a great writer so having feedback really helps." </td></tr><tr><td>Positive & Negative Self-Reflection</td><td>low</td><td>low</td><td>"I wasn't the best writer before college, but now I see where I have improved."</td></tr><tr><td>Positive Reflection about Professor/Class</td><td>low</td><td>low</td><td>"The professor really helped my writing by giving me great feedback and criticism. Instructor = great feedback/help."</td></tr><tr><td>Negative Reflection about Professor/Class</td><td>n/a</td><td>low</td><td>"I felt like I explained what my weaknesses are and that the professor didn't really help during the conferences." "class wasn't revolved around writing. Wasn't fair."</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 <emph>Note.</emph> Minimal markup qualitative respondents N = 78; Full markup qualitative respondents N = 64. N represents the number of respondents. High frequency responses are the most-cited codes, totaling 66 respondents on minimal markup surveys and 49 respondents on the full markup surveys. Low-frequency codes ranged from 7-1 respondent(s) for both surveys.</p> <hd id="AN0172840111-9">Extent of feedback</hd> <p>The first open-ended question asked students to explain their answer ranking the extent that the feedback affected their writing ability. The major coding pattern identified perceptions of feedback as positive, negative, or a combination, and then within each of these codes, subcodes explaining these perceptions were examined. Additionally, some codes emerged that were self-reflective, and some focused on perceptions of the professor.</p> <p>Our main finding was that for both the minimal markup group and the full markup group, students overwhelmingly provided positive statements about the feedback they received using words like "helped," "improve," "good," "like," "useful," and "better" to express their appreciation for feedback regardless of feedback type. The main explanation that students gave for appreciating feedback was that it helped them better their work with several students noting appreciation for feedback that helped them identify and then fix specific errors. A handful of students also mentioned how making improvements aided their understanding of grades or bettered grades.</p> <p>The next most common reason for appreciating feedback in both types of markup took this idea of improvement a step further and explained how feedback would be applied beyond fixing one assignment to more broadly improve writing skills, allow the student to feel more comfortable with the writing process, or better their future work. For example, one student stated "receiving feedback on my work improved my writing skills, mostly by making it easier to write," while another explained "reading feedback helps me fix my mistakes and avoid doing them again."</p> <p>Another benefit attributed to the feedback in low numbers of respondents in both groups was aiding understanding of the writing process or expectations. A couple students also mentioned how feedback encouraged/motivated them, as one explained, "Feedback on my written work helped improve my work ethic in class."</p> <p>Some students connected two or three subcodes to explain their appreciation for feedback. For example, identification of issues and future growth/skills were sometimes combined and one connected the subcodes of identifying errors, improving work, and feeling encouraged. Another linked identifying errors, future growth, and understanding grades in stating, "The comments & discussion showed what was wrong, how it could be better so I do not make the same mistake & know why I received my grade."</p> <p>In terms of the quality of feedback, three in the minimal markup group appreciated the feedback for being detailed and specific, and three in the full-markup group praised the feedback for being clear. In terms of the specific type of feedback appreciated, the comments were sorted into high order (e.g., content, ideas, organization, support), and low order (e.g., mechanics, spelling) based upon typical classification of writing feedback used in English such as the Purdue Online Writing Lab website. Higher order feedback was appreciated the most in both groups, followed by high- and low- order combined, and finally by praise for lower order feedback.</p> <p>In both treatments, limited negative perceptions of feedback were found with some explanations for this negativity being the same between treatments, and a few reasons varying by treatment. In terms of similarities, each of the following critiques was made by a different respondent: writing was not emphasized enough, that they did not receive much or any feedback, and that they were not able to fully understand some of the feedback. In the minimal markup group, additional issues were noted by one respondent each such as not having individualized feedback, receiving different feedback from the tutor and professor, receiving repetitive, negative feedback despite perceived self-improvement, and getting feedback that lacked enough detail to help fix errors. In the full markup group, one respondent noted each of the following issues: not covering the same topic again to allow application of the feedback received, not receiving constructive feedback, not receiving help in one-on-one meetings, and a perception that the class was unfair. Finally, a few students in the minimal-markup group simultaneously provided both positive and negative perceptions of the feedback received.</p> <p>In both treatments, low levels of positive, negative, and combined positive and negative self-reflection were found. In some cases, the reflections evaluated one's perception of themselves as either a "good" or "bad" writer. In some cases, the respondents described how they increased their effort, as one noted "I tried harder and improved slightly." In other cases, respondents took ownership for not doing the work or for not applying the feedback they received. Similarly, a handful of students praised the professor/class in both treatments, and a few critiqued the professor/class in the full markup group.</p> <hd id="AN0172840111-10">Kind of feedback</hd> <p>The second open-ended question asked students to explain what kind of feedback would best help them improve their writing skills. Similar to the responses to the prior question, students first asked for higher order feedback, but this was followed by lower order, and finally calls for combined higher and lower order feedback. In the minimal markup group, nearly equal numbers of respondents requested assistance with the following: explaining errors, identifying errors, and fixing errors. In the full markup group, students wanted assistance identifying errors, followed by explaining and fixing errors in equal numbers of requests. Sometimes students identified wanting two, or all three of these kinds of feedback.</p> <p>With respect to comments about the quantity and quality of desired feedback, similarities and differences are noted between the minimal and full markup treatments. In both groups, a handful of respondents asked for constructive/honest feedback, and specific/detailed feedback, while two students from the full markup treatment and three students from the minimal markup treatment asked for clear/straight-forward feedback. Several in the minimal markup group requested positive feedback, and four in the full-markup group also requested that the feedback not only point out errors, but also encourage or use a positive tone. In the minimal markup group, one requested feedback to challenge the student, one asked for better explanation, three asked for more/a lot of feedback, and one requested a full-markup. In the full-markup group one asked for "an easier outline to understand", and another requested "feedback that is manageable."</p> <p>Students also discussed preferred modes for receiving feedback beyond written comments, with a handful in both treatments noting they liked 1-on-1 meetings with their professor, and one in each group suggesting that the Writing Center provided positive support. One student in the minimal markup group stated they preferred verbal feedback and two students in the full-markup group preferred in-class discussions of work. One respondent expressed concern about the mode of feedback in the minimal markup group, noting a discrepancy between feedback received from professors in classes and the tutor regarding APA style.</p> <p>Finally, as reported in summarizing the results for the first qualitative question, a few respondents offered self-praise (e.g., "I think my writing skills are pretty good...") and self-critique ("My writing skills are not up to par...") in this question. A few also praised or critiqued the professor/class format with one in the full markup group for example, requesting less lecture and more time to practice writing.</p> <hd id="AN0172840111-11">Discussion</hd> <p>Both full and minimal markup led to improvements in the writing mechanics and content for students' written work in this study (Table 2). The change in scores were positive for every category of method of delivery (online and face to face) and measure (mechanics and content) with the exception of change in content using minimal markup in online courses, for which there was no change (Table 2). This was the only comparison for which full markup made significantly greater improvement than minimal markup (Table 2). Similar to Haswell ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref39">17</reflink>]), we found positive change in the quality of the written work for students experiencing minimal markup. These results contrast with those of Dolotallas and Perez ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref40">11</reflink>]), who found that minimal markup helped with content but not mechanics. Our results were moderate between those of Hajimohammadi and Mukundan ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref41">15</reflink>]), who found that minimal markup was less effective than audio feedback, and those of McNeilly ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref42">20</reflink>]), who found that minimal markup was more effective than full markup.</p> <p>One critical difference in these studies is that McNeilly ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref43">20</reflink>]) and Haswell ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref44">17</reflink>]) had students rework an individual article, whereas we expected students to apply what they learned in one piece of written work to the next piece. It could be that minimal markup is effective when students are able to work on a specific problem that has been identified in their writing, but are not able to retain and apply understanding from one writing task to another. Further research should seek to quantify this possibility, and identify ways to help with the transferability of writing skills from task to task.</p> <p>Students felt that the feedback they received improved the quality of their written work, regardless of the type of markup they experienced (Table 3). All mean scores for student perception of the feedback were between "some improvement" and "high improvement". These results suggest that either approach to feedback is viewed positively by students and both have legitimacy for teaching and learning (Hajimohammadi and Mukundan [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref45">15</reflink>]; McNeilly [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref46">20</reflink>]; Dolotallas and Perez [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref47">11</reflink>]).</p> <p>Given that respondents overwhelmingly praised the feedback they received regardless of treatment (Table 4), it does not seem that the type of feedback method impacted their perceptions very much. Providing feedback is an important part of the teaching-learning process, thus students' strongly positive comments validate the faculty effort to provide feedback to encourage learning. The value of feedback is indisputable, and this study examined students' perceptions in how varying methods of feedback can guide their learning. It was noteworthy that students not only appreciated the feedback to identify and make immediate fixes to assignments, but that some saw this feedback as valuable for their future work and growth as a student. Other positive assessments of feedback included that it helped: improve grades, understand writing, and encourage the student.</p> <p>However, a handful of students in the minimal markup approach noted that it did not satisfy their desire for detailed feedback, and several more requested fuller explanations in the minimal markup group than in the full markup group. Meanwhile, the full-markup approach may have been too much to process and understand for a couple respondents. These findings remind us that perceptions are individual, and that both approaches have their drawbacks.</p> <p>For the most part, since both types of feedback were viewed favorably, it seems that using the minimal style could save faculty time and still provide student satisfaction. It is important to note that minimal markup should not be used simply as a means of reducing time spent grading, but rather as a deliberate technique paired with over-arching comments about the work to help students to improve their writing. While the full markup style would painstakingly identify all lower-order edits, students seemed to be most interested in receiving higher order comments about content. Faculty may want to consider prioritizing higher order comments over lower order concerns to direct efforts to what students consider most helpful. Furthermore, several respondents in both groups underscored the importance of providing constructive and positive feedback.</p> <p>The higher effectiveness of full markup relative to minimal markup for writing content in online courses leads to a series of new questions to address. First, why would there be a difference in the efficacy of the two approaches for content but not writing mechanics? Second, do informal interactions paired with minimal markup in face-to-face settings improve writing in ways that online settings cannot? Third, are there differences in the learning patterns between students who choose online versus face-to-face classes? It is also possible that the small sample size in our online, minimal markup data (7 for minimal markup vs. 17 for full markup) resulted in a non-representative sample. Regardless, our data do not shed light on the possible mechanism of this difference, and further study is necessary.</p> <p>There are several limitations in this study, including individual instructor styles of providing feedback and additional resources for writing assistance, differing levels of student ability in writing, and varying levels of writing skill development across programs. Some programs include more emphasis on writing, such as nursing versus applied disciplines such as welding and culinary, so students' perceptions of feedback may relate to their own prior experiences and comfort with academic writing as well as the level of expectations within the discipline. The learning curve with academic writing was likely higher in lower division classes than upper divisions. The expectations for context, content, and quality of writing in Writing across the Curriculum courses may be very different than courses without this designation. The inclusion of face-to-face and online classes was an inclusive sampling approach, however, more equivalent groups are recommended in future studies.</p> <hd id="AN0172840111-12">Conclusion</hd> <p>Given the lack of difference between full and minimal markup, teachers should make their own decisions about which approach to use. We encourage teachers to take into consideration the students' perceived comfort level and experience with academic writing, the teacher's own preferences, and the temporal and spatial settings of their teaching and learning designs in choosing which markup approach to use (Fink [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref48">13</reflink>]). As in all course designs, tailoring the design to the institution, students, and teacher is the wisest and will be the most successful approach.</p> <hd id="AN0172840111-13">Acknowledgments</hd> <p>The authors thank the students who permitted their data to be used in the study and two anonymous reviewers who provided constructive comments on the manuscript.</p> <hd id="AN0172840111-14">Declaration of interest statement</hd> <p>The authors have received no monetary benefits from the outcome and applications of this study.</p> <hd id="AN0172840111-15">Data availability</hd> <p>Data from this study are available at 10.6084/m9.figshare.13242146.</p> <ref id="AN0172840111-16"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref18" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Applebee, A. N. 1977. " ERIC/RCS Report: Writing across the Curriculum: The London Projects." The English Journal 66 (9): 81 – 5. doi: 10.2307/815293.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref21" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Artzt, A. F. 1994. " Integrating Writing and Cooperative Learning in the Mathematics Class." The Mathematics Teacher 87 (2): 80 – 5. doi: 10.5951/MT.87.2.0080.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref16" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Bazerman, C., J. Little, and L. Bethel. 2005. Reference Guide to Writing across the Curriculum. Anderson, SC : Parlor Press LLC.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref26" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Beason, L. 1993. " Feedback and Revision in Writing across the Curriculum Classes." Research in the Teaching of English 27 (4): 395 – 422. https://<ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/40171241">www.jstor.org/stable/40171241</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref1" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Bryan, C., and K. Clegg. 2006. Innovative Assessment in Higher Education. New York, NY : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref30" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Charmaz, K. 1983. " The Grounded Theory Method: An Explication and Interpretation." In Contemporary Field Research: An Interpretation of Cultures, edited by R. M. Emerson, 109 – 26. Prospect Heights, IL : Waveland.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref31" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Charmaz, K. 2008. " Grounded Theory as an Emergent Method." Handbook of Emergent Methods. New York, NY : The Guildford Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref32" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Corbin, J., and A. Strauss. 1990. " Grounded Theory Research: Procedures, Cannons and Evaluative Criteria." Zeitschrift Für Soziologie 19 (6): 418 – 27. https://<ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/23845563">www.jstor.org/stable/23845563</ulink>. doi: 10.1515/zfsoz-1990-0602.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref17" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Dansereau, D.,. L. E. Carmichael, and B. Hotson. 2020. " Building First-Year Science Writing Skills with an Embedded Writing Instruction Program." Journal of College Science Teaching 49 (3): 66 – 75. https://<ulink href="http://www.nsta.org/journal-college-science-teaching/journal-college-science-teaching-januaryfebruary-2020/building">www.nsta.org/journal-college-science-teaching/journal-college-science-teaching-januaryfebruary-2020/building</ulink>. doi: 10.2505/4/jcst20_049_03_66.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Devlin, K., and S. C. Slaninka. 1981. " Writing across the Curriculum." Journal of Nursing Education 20 (2): 19 – 22. doi: 10.3928/0148-4834-19810201-05.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dolotallas, A. C., and E. F. Perez. 2015. " Minimal Markup: Its Effect on Students' Composition Writing." Journal of Education and Social Policy 2 (2): 132 – 7. doi: 10.30845/jesp.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Elbow, P. 1993. " Ranking, Evaluating, Liking: Sorting out Three Forms of Judgment." College English 55 (2): 187 – 206. doi: 10.2307/378503.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fink, L. D. 2013. Creating Significant Learning Experiences: An Integrated Approach to Designing College Courses. Revised and Updated Ed. San Francisco, CA : Jossey-Bass.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Glaser, B. G., and A. Strauss. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago, IL : Aldine.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hajimohammadi, R., and J. Mukundan. 2011. " Contrasting Audio-Taped Feedback with Minimal Marking Feedback in EFL Writing." Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities 19 (1): 17 – 24. <ulink href="http://psasir.upm.edu.my/id/eprint/57735/1/JSSH%20Vol.%2019%20(1)%20Mar.%202011%20(View%20Full%20Journal).pdf#page=22">http://psasir.upm.edu.my/id/eprint/57735/1/JSSH%20Vol.%2019%20(1)%20Mar.%202011%20(View%20Full%20Journal).pdf#page=22</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hanstedt, P. 2012. " Reforming General Education: Three Reasons to Make Writing across the Curriculum Part of the Conversation." Liberal Education 98 (4): 48 – 51. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ994667.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Haswell, R. H. 1983. " Minimal Markup." College English 45 (6): 600 – 4. https://library.ncte.org/journals/ce/issues/v45-6/13616. doi: 10.2307/377147.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hyland, K. 1990. " Providing Productive Feedback." ELT Journal 44 (4): 279 – 85. doi: 10.1093/elt/44.4.279.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mahmoud, S. S., and K. K. Oraby. 2015. " Let Them Toil to Learn: Implicit Feedback, Self-Correction and Performance in EFL Writing." Theory and Practice in Language Studies 5 (8): 1672 – 81. doi: 10.17507/tpls.0508.18.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McNeilly, A. 2014. " Minimal Marking: A Success Story." Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 5 (1): 7. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1045973.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Metcalf, J. 1979. " Teaching Writing in Physical Education." Journal of Physical Education and Recreation 50 (9): 38. doi: 10.1080/00971170.1979.10621172.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moxley, J. M. 1989. " Responding to Student Writing: Goals." Methods, Alternatives." Freshman English News 17 (2): 3 – 11. https://<ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/43518811">www.jstor.org/stable/43518811</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Peterson, S. S. 2007. " Teaching Content with the Help of Writing across the Curriculum." Middle School Journal 39 (2): 26 – 33. doi: 10.1080/00940771.2007.11461621.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Speck, B. W. 2000. Grading Students' Classroom Writing: Issues and Strategies. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report 27. Washington, D.C.: Office of Educational Research and Improvement.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Taylor, S. J., and R. Bogdan. 1998. Introduction to Qualitative Research Methods: A Guidebook and Resource. 3rd ed. New York, NY : John Wiley & Sons, Inc.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yancey, K. B., M. Davis, L. Robertson, K. Taczak, and E. Workman. 2018. " Writing across College: Key Terms and Multiple Contexts as Factors Promoting Students' Transfer of Writing Knowledge and Practice." The WAC Journal 29 (1): 42 – 65. https://wac.colostate.edu/docs/journal/vol29/yancey.pdf. doi: 10.37514/WAC-J.2018.29.1.02.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Jack T. Tessier; Lisa M. Tessier; Daniel Gashler; Cheryle Levitt; Julie London; Benjamin S. West and Nancy Winters</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref48"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1395603
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Full and Minimal Markup Both Help Students to Improve Their Writing
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Tessier%2C+Jack+T%2E%22">Tessier, Jack T.</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1662-6345">0000-0002-1662-6345</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Tessier%2C+Lisa+M%2E%22">Tessier, Lisa M.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Gashler%2C+Daniel%22">Gashler, Daniel</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Levitt%2C+Cheryle%22">Levitt, Cheryle</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9571-0130">0000-0002-9571-0130</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22London%2C+Julie%22">London, Julie</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22West%2C+Benjamin+S%2E%22">West, Benjamin S.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Winters%2C+Nancy%22">Winters, Nancy</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5388-045X">0000-0001-5388-045X</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22College+Teaching%22"><i>College Teaching</i></searchLink>. 2023 71(4):197-206.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 10
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2023
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Feedback+%28Response%29%22">Feedback (Response)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Writing+Instruction%22">Writing Instruction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Writing+Improvement%22">Writing Improvement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Writing+Skills%22">Writing Skills</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Students%22">College Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Attitudes%22">Student Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Grading%22">Grading</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Writing+Evaluation%22">Writing Evaluation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Evaluation+Methods%22">Evaluation Methods</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22New+York%22">New York</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/87567555.2021.2010637
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 8756-7555<br />1930-8299
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: College faculty faces decisions about how to provide feedback on written work. We compared the quality of student writing and student impressions of feedback from both full and minimal markup methods. There was only one significant difference in the quality of writing or content between full and minimal markup. Students scored the functionality of the two markup methods consistently in their ability to improve their writing skills. Student comments were overwhelmingly positive for both markup formats. We encourage teachers to make use of the approach that fits the best with the teaching and learning strategies and designs in their classes.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2023
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1395603
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1395603
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/87567555.2021.2010637
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 10
        StartPage: 197
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Feedback (Response)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Writing Instruction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Writing Improvement
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Writing Skills
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Grading
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Writing Evaluation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Evaluation Methods
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: New York
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Full and Minimal Markup Both Help Students to Improve Their Writing
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Tessier, Jack T.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Tessier, Lisa M.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Gashler, Daniel
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Levitt, Cheryle
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: London, Julie
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: West, Benjamin S.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Winters, Nancy
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2023
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 8756-7555
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1930-8299
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 71
            – Type: issue
              Value: 4
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: College Teaching
              Type: main
ResultId 1