The Effect of Procrastination on Multi-Drafting in a Web-Based Learning Content Management Environment

Introduction The traditional approach to assigning and evaluating written work at the undergraduate level focuses on the final product, the single copy of a written assignment that is handed in to the lecturer. The instructor typically acts as both editor and judge, rarely allowing students an opportunity to rethink, rework, or expand on the paper based on feedback (Koffolt & Holt, 1997). The centrality of feedback to student-writers is well documented within academic literacy literature (Benesch, 2000; Hyland & Tse, 2004). Winnips (2000) relates feedback to different points in the learning experience and sees it as a tool for scaffolding learners toward more self-regulation. A very important skill for any instructor is being able to give feedback to students on their performance (Russell, 1994). Giving feedback via a web-environment to a series of assignments seems to be a good response to some of the challenges described above. It has the advantage of flexibility; an instructor does not have to be in his or her office in order to support a student and can turn to student submissions and provide feedback wherever the instructor has access to a networked computer (Collis, De Boer & Slotman, 2001) . Using a Web-Based Learning Content Management Environment (LCM) enables the lecturer to supply constant feedback on the student's assignments through the multi-drafting teaching method. During the 2003-2008 school years, a multi-drafting teaching method was tried and formalized in a rural college in Israel. The method offers the student the opportunity to submit a written assignment digitally as many times as needed during a defined time frame. Throughout that period, the assignment is graded and suggestions for improvement are offered by the lecturer, who in practice acts as a tutor. In this way the student can refine his work through a continuous dialogue with his lecturer. A digital portfolio (Bobak, 2004; Wiedmer, 1998) of the student's work is created along with the lecturer's remarks and suggestions. The multi-drafting process uses the Britannica HighLearn web-based learning content management, which is a Hebrew-language, Web-based course-management tool that allows lecturers to develop and deliver academic courses via the Internet. HighLearn is password protected, thus students and lecturer log on with their real identity, allowing transparent information flow. It generates and displays the student's grading, thus enabling him or her to appreciate the improvement with each refined draft. The student writes the assignment using Microsoft Word, which allows a two-way feedback process, using the Track Changes and Comment functions, thus constructing the student's knowledge and understanding through continuous formative evaluation for every given assignment. The process described here allows the student to reject or accept changes and improvements offered by the lecturer and, thus, promotes a continuous dialogue between them. On each assignment, the lecturer's assistance is offered through the multi-drafting technique, thereby providing the opportunity to refine the work. The incentive offered by the lecturer is maximum grading; furthermore, the students are assured that if their work is submitted in a timely manner, utilizing to the maximum the timeframe defined for the assignment, the drafting process will continue until satisfactory results are achieved. This method is also beneficial for the lecturer, since it gives him or her assurance that it is undoubtedly the student's original work (Barrett, 2007) and that no plagiarism is involved. There is little or no evidence of research on multi-drafting as a teaching technique in subjects other than English as a foreign language and writing classes. Multi-drafting is used by lecturers of writing and language skills in order to enhance students' learning and improve their writing proficiency (Yang, 2006), and it is most beneficial if the student has time to revise and send the draft to the lecturer (Chryssafidou & Sharples, 2002) in order to receive meaningful feedback. …