1. 1 A Comparison of E-Response Two Experiences, Two Perspectives: One Conclusion Terry Tannacito & Frank Tuzi ttannacito@frostburg.edu & ftuzi@yahoo.com

2. 1 Research Overviews Electronic Peer Response Groups: Case Studies of Computer-Mediated Communication in a Composition Class (Terry) How E-Response Impacts Second Language Writiers’ Revisions (Frank)

3. 1 Audience native vs. non-native country of origin languages spoken age range computer ability purpose in college

4. 1 Group Structure fixed vs. flexible group formation responsibilities response anatomy

5. 1 Response Guidance training & coaching instructing practicing Modeling class workshopping individual guiding

6. 1 Response Time synchronous vs. asynchronous time constraints reflection & thoughtfulness pressure participation level

7. 1 Response Type annotations vs. emails relationship to application implications for responder implications for writer general & specific

8. 1 Electronic Context networked vs. internet software accessibility storage location security

9. 1 Response Application commercial vs. developed modifiability cost learning curve research capabilities

10. 1 Implications Introduction to Implications of Our Two Experiences Even though we were using e-response with different audiences and in different ways, we found that we had basically the same findings and, therefore, implications. This was fairly surprising to us since we really expected at least some of these differences to affect our outcomes significantly. Although we worded them a little differently in our findings, we discovered that we share 3 primary implications: 1.Our students liked using computers for e-response. 2.Our students gave writer-affirming compliments. 3.Our students gave essay-improving suggestions. As a result of these very positive implications, both of us, Terry and Frank, strongly recommend that teachers of both native and non-native students utilize e-response to improve students’ writing.

11. 1 Implications--Terry liked using computers for e-response felt they built supportive communities gave writer-affirming compliments gave essay-improving suggestions made suggestion-associated revisions improved quantity/quality of comments with each workshop

12. 1 Implications—Frank was universally accepted resulted in more macro-level changes encouraged better writing reduced student excuses was easy to use

13. 1 The Applications CommonSpace AWE-som

14. 1 CommonSpace

15. 1 AWE-som

16. 1

17. 1 Changes We’ve Made new application paperless responses new groupings enhanced environment

18. 1 Conclusion & Recommendations One Conclusion Now that we have explored our two experiences, we present our one conclusion: e-response improves students’ writing.

19. 1 References