Julie Reynolds, Biology

One of the most significant challenges of working with student writers is communicating the subtleties of how their writing is perceived and understood by readers. In this presentation, I will demonstrate some of the ways in which I have tried to address this challenge. I will demonstrate our use of FlipVideos to record interviews of faculty discussing what makes an honors thesis exceptional, and I will discuss how we used these videos in class to deepen our understanding of readers’ expectations. I will also demonstrate how we used the software Voicethreads and Jing to respond to student writing, and describe how these technologies gave reviewers an efficient way to explain some of the nuances of their comments. Finally, I will present preliminary results of a study in which I examine the effectiveness of these technologies at improving students’ understanding of the feedback offered by faculty and peer reviewers.

Cary Moskovitz, Thompson Writing Program

The Duke Writing in the Disciplines program and Office of Alumni Affairs are collaborating in this unique educational initiative. Students in participating classes get feedback on drafts of a class writing assignment from a Duke alum or employee who has professional experience relevant to their assignment. Through this project, members of the broader Duke community help our students learn to anticipate the needs and expectations of readers and to revise their writing to make it more effective for the intended audience - key communication skills for both professional and civic life. Participants have three main interactions: First, student and reader get together - in person or by web conference - to meet and to discuss the aim and scope of the student project. Second, the student e-mails a draft to the reader, who uses a Wimba voice tool to record a “think-aloud response”, reading the student paper (or parts of the paper) aloud, pausing frequently to describe their reaction to what they are reading. Third, the student revises the paper with the reader’s comments in mind, followed by a second meeting to discuss the revised draft.