peer-editing processes of some - summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf ·...
Post on 21-Aug-2020
10 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME
GRADE SIX STUDENTS
USING A STANDARD TEXT
Florida Ann Town
B.A. Simon Fraser University, 1980
THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF ARTS (EDUCATION)
in the Faculty
of
Education
OFlorida Town 1988
SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
July 1988
All rights reserved. This work may not be
reproduced in whole or in part, by photocopy
or other means, without permission of the author
APPROVAL
Name: Florida M. Town
Degree : Master of Arts (Education)
Title of Project: Peer-Editing Processes of some Grade Six Students using a Standard Text
Examining Committee:
Chairman: Gloria P . Sampson
S. de Castell Senior Supervisor
Prof B. Vng ssor
C. Mamchur Assistant Professor Faculty of Education External Examiner
Date Approved a?, /9R8
PARTIAL COPYRIGHT LICENSE
I hereby grant t o Simon Fraser U n i v e r s i t y the r l g h t t o lend
my thes is , proJect o r extended essay ( t h e t i t l e o f which i s shown below)
t o users o f t he Simon Fraser Un ive rs i t y L ibrary, and t o make p a r t i a l o r
s i n g l e copies on ly f o r such users o r i n response t o a request from the
l i b r a r y o f any o ther un ive rs i t y , o r o the r educational I n s t i t u t i o n , on
i t s own behalf o r f o r one o f I t s users. I f u r t h e r agree t h a t permission
f o r m u l t i p l e copying o f t h i s work f o r scho la r l y purposes may be granted
by me o r the Dean o f Graduate Studies. I t i s understood t h a t copying
o r p u b l l c a t l o n o f t h i s work f o r f i n a n c i a l gain sha l l not be al lowed
wi thout my w r i t t e n permission.
T i t l e o f Thesis/Project/Extended Essay
P e e r - E d i t i n g P r o c e s s e s o f some G r a d e S i x S t u d e n t s u s i n g a
- S t a n d a r d T e x t .
Author:
(s ignature)
F l o r i d a M. Town
( name
22% Jf (da te)
ABSTRACT
Peer editing is one of a number of editing techniques
used by experienced writers. In recent years, it has been
introduced into some elementary classrooms as part of the
writlng process, but has not always resulted in either improved
editing on the part of the editor nor improved writing on the
part of the writer. This study deals with the peer editing
behaviours of one class of Grade six public school students, as
they edited and rewrote a standard text. Analysis of the results
indicates the students in this group were much more concerned
with the mechanics of writing than with the contents, and their
peer-editing dealt almost entirely with error-correction. Some
students attempted to give positive feedback to the writer, but
their comments were vague and non-specific. Obvious deficiencies
in the story were not pointed out to the wrlter. Further, when - the student editors themselves rewrote the material, only one
made use of any editorial suggestions given to the writer in the
course of editing. The others ignored their own suggestions and
simply wrote a corrected copy of the story. This study suggests
that students need more direction in editing process to help
them become more effective in both peer-editing and
self-editing.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT :
This work is not the result of a project done in isolation
but rather, the result of many years of studying, writing, and
teaching. My thanks go to a number of people who encouraged,
assisted and instructed me during that time, in particular my
teachers -- professors, editors and mentors, both academic and professional. I am profoundly grateful for their guidance.
Richard Malinski and Brian Phillips of the Simon Fraser
University W.A.C. Bennett Library provided invaluable assistance in
helping me track down sometimes-elusive material.
Dr. Ulle Lewes, Wesleyan College, freely shared information,
and encouragement. Dr. Anne Ruggles Gere and members of the Puget
Sound Writing Project group at the University of Washington,
Seattle, generously allowed me to take part in many of their
discussion groups and meetings, and to attend workshops and
conferences. Their input was invaluable. - The administrators, staff and students at Lincoln Park
Elementary School, Coronation Park Elementary School and Porter
Street Elementary School, in Coquitlam; Stoney Creek Community
School, in Burnaby; and Lynda Loyie Philippson, resource person for
the Delta School District writing resource centre, deserve special
thanks for their cooperation.
Last, but not least, my thanks go to Hugh, who has been both
patient and supportive, and gave me more than my share of computer
time.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ................................................. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................... iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................... v CHAPTER ONE
Introduction ........................................ 1 Definition of terms ................................. 2 Role of editing in the writing process .............. 4 Public perceptions of literacy and writing pedagogy . 5 Attitudes toward editing ............................ 7
CHAPTER TWO Research in writing process ......................... 11 Need for standards .................................. 12 ..................... Differing perceptions of editing 14 Variations in editing ............................... 16 What constitutes good writing? ...................... 18 Writing as a self-taught skill ...................... 18 Traditional teaching methods ....................... 20 Similarities between experienced and novice writers . 22 Differences between experienced and novice writers . . 23 Factors affecting performance ....................... 24 Studies of the writing process ...................... 27 Donald Graves in the classroom ...................... 28 Analysis and observation ............................ 31 Changes in pedagogical methodology .................. 32 Discovery and prewriting ............................ 33
. Internal and external editing ....................... 38 How much is 'enough' editing? ....................... 41 Impact of teacher editing on student writing ........ 46 Editing expository writing and editing poetry : ...... 49 New model for editing and revising .................. 50 . Modelling editing in writing ........................ 52 Learn by writing. teach by correcting ............... 55 Summary ............................................ 58
CHAPTER THREE Description of the study ............................ 59 Editing behaviours .................................. 59 Rationale .......................................... 59 Participants ........................................ 60 Setting ............................................. 61 Instructions ........................................ 62 Procedure ........................................... 64 Scoring ............................................. 66 Results ............................................. 67 Summary ............................................. 75
CHAPTER FOUR Discussion .......................................... 78 Preferred editing strategies ........................ 78 Time factor in writing .............................. 80 Feedback in writing ................................. 84 Teacher evaluation provides direction ............... 85 Influence of writing models ......................... 86
v
CHAPTER FOUR (con.) Student attitudes toward editing .................... 92 Pre-editing activities .............................. 94 Suggestions for further study ....................... 95
APPENDIX I Standard text ....................................... 97 Student reponses ........................................... 98 APPENDIX I1 Editorial checklists (college level) ....................... 118 Editorial checklists (elementary level) .................... 132
BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................. 139
INTRODUCTION
There is a p o p u l a r mythology c o n n e c t e d w i t h w r i t i n g . The
myth s u g g e s t s t h a t some p e o p l e have a n a t u r a l 'way w i t h words '
o r a 'knack f o r w r i t i n g ' which a l l o w s w r i t i n g t o happen
e f f o r t l e s s l y . Another p a r t of t h e myth s u g g e s t s t h a t t h o s e who
have t h i s i n b o r n a b i l i t y need do l i t t l e more t h a n w a i t f o r
i n s p i r a t i o n and t h e p a r a g r a p h s w i l l f l o w (F lower , 1986; Young,
1 9 8 0 ) . Some of t h e h a l l m a r k s of good w r i t i n g a r e a n a t u r a l f low
and s e a m l e s s n e s s , b u t writers who p roduce t h i s s o r t of w r i t i n g
g e n e r a l l y do n o t p roduce i t e f f o r t l e s s l y , spend ing a g r e a t d e a l
more t i m e e d i t i n g and r e v i s i n g t h a n do less e x p e r i e n c g d w r i t e r s C
who produce less p o l i s h e d w r i t i n g ( T a t e , 1 9 8 1 ) .
Good w r i t i n g o f t e n g i v e s t h e i m p r e s s i o n of speech w r i t t e n
down, and i n t h e 1 9 5 0 s , Harvard s t u d e n t s , among o t h e r s , were
t a u g h t t h a t w r i t i n g was s imply an e x t e n s i o n of s p e e c h ( M a i l e r ,
1 9 8 1 ) . Even t o d a y a n o t i o n p e r s i s t s t h a t t h e a c i d test of good
w r i t i n g is whether i t sounds good when r e a d a l o u d . Good w r i t i n g
may w e l l have t h e r i n g of s p e e c h , b u t t h a t r i n g b e l i e s t h e
p r e c i s i o n of form and c o n s t r u c t i o n which u n d e r l i e i t .
T h e p r o d u c t i o n of w r i t i n g d i f f e r s from t h e p r o d u c t i o n of
speech i n many more ways t h a n t h e o b v i o u s d i f f e r e n c e i n medium:
speech is, of course, a linear process while writing offers
recursive opportunities, but one seldom considered difference is
the speed of production (I), which may influence the ability of
a writer to capture thought. Further, variables of speech such
as inflection, emphasis, tone, pace, volume, the addition of
facial expression or body language which are commonly used to
clarify or underscore a spoken message, are not available to
writers. Writing can and does have subtleties of its own, such
as graphics, format, and style of presentation, but these
factors are rarely encountered in the literature on teaching
written composition.
Definition of terms
One problem in discussing writing composition is the lack
of unanimity in the use of writing terminology. For purposes of r
this discussion the following definitions are used:
'Editing' refers to reading text in search of those areas
which can be improved by re-arranging or modifying the contents
of the text. Editing may include making suggestions as to how
those modifications may be made, may refer to strong points or
well-written passages in the text, or may point out deficient or
weak areas. Editing will not be used to refer to corrections in
(1) Hand writing averages 25 wpm, keyboarding between 60 - 120 wpm. Speech averages 160 - 180 wpm. The fastest recorded human speaker listed in the Guinness book of records achieved 560 wpm.
the mechanics or conventions of the writing, such as paragraph
indentation, spelling, etc.
'Proofreading' refers to examining text for errors and
accuracy: spelling mistakes, uniformity in numerical and other
references, following a format correctly, and so on.
'Revising' refers to alterating existing text content by
either expanding on the material, clarifying the meaning of the
existing text, deleting inappropriate material, adding new
material or otherwise re-working text which already exists.
'Rewriting' refers to creating a new piece of writing
which may either paraphrase the original or begin again, but
does not involve reworking the existing text.
Three major categories of editing will be discussed: self
editing, other editing, and peer editing.
self editing is an evaluative process undertaken by the
writer which may take place at any point in the writfng process
and involves examining the writing with a critical eye,
attempting to read it as others will read it. With experience,
writers usually become more demanding self editors. Other
editing is normally done by someone with more experience. In
classroom editing, this person is usually the teacher.
Peer editing is evaluation of text by a writer at the
same writing level as the author. Peer editing now gaining
wider acceptance in elementary schools differs from traditional
writers' workshops in that it is usually done by inexperienced
writers.
In future, computer programmes may be able to edit
writing but at present they perform only crude text corrections.
Spell-checking programs only measure input against programmed
lexicons and words not listed are rejected as incorrect. They
are unable to recognize incorrect usage of correctly spelled
words and the skills of human editors are required to recognize
the aptness of particular words in particular contexts.
Some writing programs record the numbers of words in
sentences, alerting writers when sentences are either longer or
shorter than average, but the computer can neither evaluate what
it is scanning nor 'understand' that short or long sentences may
intentionally be used for specific effects. While the use of
computers in writing classrooms is increasing, the major focus
of writing teachers remains with process, not technology.
Role of Editing in Writinq Process - References to classroom editing often place it at the end
of the writing process, as a sort of 'final step' in preparing
writing for the reader. The notion of editing as the last step
in writing may have stemmed from a widely quoted analysis of
writing, the 'watershed' report of Rohman and Wlecke (1964) , which used the descriptors "pre-writing, writing, and rewriting"
to separate the writing process into three components. Rohman
and Wlecke's recognition of these phases in the writing process
was probably not unique, and possibly only crystallized what
many writers, teachers and researchers had already recognized.
4
But the 'pre-write, write and rewrite' description they used to
refer to steps in the process, may also have been misinterpreted
as an implication that rewriting was done only as the last
stage, or the 'final step' in producing finished text.
If writing is regarded as a linear process, which a
pre-write, write and rewrite 'formula' might seem to imply,
there could be a logical case made for teaching writing by
formula: A produces B, which results in C and leads to an end
product, D. But if writing is seen as a recursive process, in
which there is no A, B or C, a linear formula would not work
and, indeed, a formula approach does not produce good writing.
Public perceptions of literacy and writing pedagogy
During the past thirty years, (,I) much media attention
has been given and continues to be given, to the problems of
functional illiteracy, in both the United States and-Canada. C
One response to this attention has been a search for ways
to improve classroom writing, and this has involved a great deal
of input from a great many sources. But teachers have at
times found themselves caught in a tug-of-war of opinions.
Attempts to make use of new pedagogy and new methodology and to
(1) In 1955, Newsweek magazine published Why Johnny Can't Read.
At intervals, tlie popular media has returned to the topic: the
latest account is a 1988 survey sponsored and published by the
Southam publishing chain, in six consecutive full-page features.
apply new techniques and technology sometimes met resistance
from parents, teachers, administrators and the general public.
An early attempt at making writing more accessible to
very young writers involved the Initial Teaching Alphabet (ITA),
using simplified orthography rather than the traditional
alphabet (Pitman, 1966). ITA appeared to offer a way of
permitting students to concentrate on the message without being
overly distracted by the medium. As students gained confidence
and proficiency in writing and reading skills, a 'natural
transition' was believed to take place, carrying students from
ITA to traditional spelling. However, it was sometimes difficult
to convince parents that these non- traditional products were
effective in teaching students to write.
One major objection to ITA was that students and
teachers -had to learn two methods of spelling: first with ITA
then with the traditional alphabet. What some educato~s saw as
innovative was seen by others as the doubling of work loads.
Discussions of writing and writing traditions appear to
be one of the topics in education which carry more emotional
baggage than almost any other. Adults discussing writing often
appear to be inextricably caught up in childhood memories and
schoolroom memories, along with writing memories. Nor is writing
a discrete subject, but rather a very complex activity,
involving as it does, spelling, grammar, handwriting, content,
ownership, style, and at times, personal risk taking.
One factor which appears to have received little
6
attention is that while proven ability as a writer is a
requisite for most teachers of writing at post-secondary levels,
teachers of writing in public schools have had "relatively
little training in writing or in how to teach it" (Daniels,
1985, p 15). In some cases writing appears to engender almost as
much stress for public school teachers as it does for public
school students (Gere, 1984; Gere and Smith, 1979). The lack of
writing experience may not only affect the ways in which writing
and editing are taught in elementary schools, but also account
for some of the differences between the ways in which writing is
taught at public school level and at post-secondary level.
Attitudes toward editing
Among experienced writers the process of editing and
revising -is regarded as the point where the 'real' writing takes
place (Donald Murray, 1968; Waldrep, 1985). Among inexperienced
writers there appears to be, if not a reluctance to do any
editing or revising, certainly a lack of understanding as to why
editing or revising should be done and what it can accomplish.
The problem is compounded by the fact that in many classrooms
(and in many textbooks) editing and revising have been equated
with error-correction.
Error correction is, unfortunately, all-too-familiar
ground to many parents, teachers and administrators and has
become almost an entrenched part of writing instruction in the
schools. It produces a measurable result which may appear in
some instances to be regarded as 'proof' that something has been
taught.
The result appears to be that in some classrooms, while
lip service is paid to the notion of editing, rewriting, and
revision, students in fact may be doing none of these things,
but rather, be involved in a didactic relationship in which the
teacher tells, instructs or gives rules, and the student
listens, absorbs and complies (Daniels, 1985, p 14). Given these
circumstances, the possibility of effective modelling of the
editing process or the formation of effective peer-editing
groups appears to be slim, and indeed, the peer-editing process
does sometimes appear to retain elements of the didactic
relationship with the difference that the 'correcter' is now
another student rather than the teacher. This type of writing
relationship, be it with a teacher or another student,-may make C
it difficult for students to escape what Stewig (1983) referred
to as the 'writing two-step' of writing a draft, then correcting
it.
If student peers are correcting errors rather than
editing writing, the anticipated improvements in writing quality
and in editing skills will likely not materialize, and this may
be what has happened in some classrooms where peer editing has
been introduced but peer correcting has taken place. The result
is often predictable: the enthusiasm of the teacher dims as one
8
more 'new' technique fails to produce the desired result, and
the task of searching for and implementing yet another method of
motivating and facilitating improvements in student writing
begins again.
Editing, whether self-editing, other editing, or peer
editing, is recognized by experienced writers as the heart of
the writing process. Ernest Hemingway was noted for his harsh
editing and diligent rewriting. His daily output of between 800
and 1,000 words was revised, edited and cut until it totalled
just about 200 words (Murray, 1968). Hemingway is quoted as
saying he rewrote the last page of Farewell to Arms 39 times,
and when he was asked what the difficulty was, he replied:
"Getting the words right.'' (Plimpton, 1963, p 222).
Hemingway was looking for the right words, but students
seem to-be looking for the correct words (Stewig, 1983). There
is an essential difference between the two. - The possibility that peer editing often seemed to be
concerned with correctness, rather than rightness, was the
starting point for this study.
Relatively few studies exist which deal with the subject
of peer editing. Those which do usually describe the results of
peer groups editing their own work (Benson, 1979; Carter, 1982;
Christensen, 1982; Crowhurst, 1979a; Graves and Murray, 1980;
Karengianes, 1981; Lamberg, 1980; B. Newman, 1980). As students
were not editing the same material, it was difficult to compare
9
t h e i r work o r t o i d e n t i f y common d e n o m i n a t o r s i n t h e i r e d i t i n g
p r o c e s s e s . For t h a t r e a s o n , t h i s s t u d y examined t h e p e e r e d i t i n g
p r o c e s s e s of a g roup of s t u d e n t s e d i t i n g a s t a n d a r d t e x t w r i t t e n
by a s t u d e n t who, a l t h o u g h n o t a member of t h e c l a s s b e i n g
s t u d i e d , was of a p p r o x i m a t e l y t h e same a g e and l i v e d i n t h e same
g e n e r a l a r e a . I t was hoped t h e use of a s t a n d a r d t e x t would make
i t p o s s i b l e t o make more d i r e c t compar i sons of t h e e d i t i n g done
by members of t h e s t u d y group.
The s t u d y was d e s i g n e d t o f o c u s on o n l y a s m a l l p a r t of
t h e p e e r e d i t i n g p r o c e s s . I t under took t o d i s c o v e r whether
s t u d e n t s appeared t o b e more concerned- w i t h o f f e r i n g s u g g e s t i o n s
which would a f f e c t t h e c o n t e n t of t h e t e x t , o r w i t h c o r r e c t i n g
e r r o r s i n t h e t e x t . To t h i s end , t h e k i n d s of s u g g e s t i o n s made
by s t u d e n t s were s t u d i e d , and t h e way i n which t h e y e d i t e d t h e
s t a n d a r d t e x t was examined i n an a t t e m p t t o d i s c o v e r whether
t h e r e were any common d e n o m i n a t o r s i n t h e p r o c e s s and-, i f s o , t o
i d e n t i f y them a s c l e a r l y a s p o s s i b l e .
A n a l y s i s of t h e work of t h e s e s t u d e n t s s u g g e s t s s e v e r a l
avenues f o r f u r t h e r e x p l o r a t i o n i n t o t h e ways i n which p e e r
e d i t i n g is u n d e r t a k e n and f o r t e c h n i q u e s which migh t h e l p p e e r
e d i t o r s become more e f f e c t i v e i n h e l p i n g writers t o I g e t t h e
words r i g h t . '
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
"...I don't think it's possible to describe the creation of fiction. It's a very odd process, and if you begin to describe it, you begin to sound as though it were a mechanical process with the author as a transmitter and, of course, that's utter nonsense because it's not metaphysical."
Mavis Gallant (1988). p. 36
Research in Writina Process
A 1960-61 publication of the (American) National Council
of Teachers of English contained this comment on the instruction
of writing skills at the elementary level:
Study of the skills in writing has gone on since before the Civil War in this country and considerably longer in Europe. Composition has been studied as a whole; likewise the interdependent parts thereof have been subjected to analysis, experiment, and to evaluation. Indeed, it appears that somewhat more attention has been given to the mechanical aspects of writing than to the essential ones of invention or to children's basic motivation for writing.' (Burrows, 1961, p.5)
Examination of writing composition texts and handbooks
almost thirty years later shows that despite development of many
new pedagogic techniques to help students improve their writing
composition skills, the basic premise remains almost equally
true: less emphasis appears to be placed on what students
have to say, than on how they say it. (1) .
(1) The compositional focus outlined in the B.C. Ministry of Education Curriculum Guide (1987) and the 1987 provincial examinations in English composition deals almost entirely with form and format.
11
Need for Standards
While Burrows (1981) was expressing concern with the
emphasis placed on the mechanics of writing, others were
expressing concern with the ways in which some research had been
undertaken in the field of writing composition. Edmund (1961)
found much of the then-current research conflicting and
inconclusive, with a good portion limited in terms of the major
generalizations which one might derive from it.
An analysis of the methodology used in some research in
writing composition, undertaken by Braddock, Lloyd-Jones
and Schoer (1963) found that many studies lacked either
controls, a detached point of observation, a rigid definition of
terminology, or a specific objective. It would be naive to
suggest that all research done since that time has been
impeccable, and equally careless to suggest that no research c
undertaken prior to that date was sound. But it does suggest
that regardless of whether research was done prior to or
following Braddock, Lloyd-Jones and Schoer's study, the
methodology of the research should be considered equally with
the findings of the research.
This is particularly true in the field of writing
research, where at times, studies of similar topics appear to
present wide variations in findings. This may in part be
accounted for by inconsistent methodologies.
An example of inconsistencies in findings may be noted by
comparing studies dealing with correlation among the language
arts skills of reading and writing. There appears to be a sense
that high achievement in one language skill may be taken as an
indicator of high ability ln all language skills. Good readers
(an undefined term) could be expected to be good writers (also
undefined), and vice versa, (Artey, Hildreth, Townsend, Beery
and Bawson, 1954). This finding has been challenged on a number
of occasions (Loban, 1976; Martin, 1955; Winter, 1957).
Researchers today recognize that reading, writing and speaking
behaviours demonstrated by students may be differentially
influenced by a number of factors, such as socioeconomic
background, peer group, school emphases and many others
(Burrows, 1961; Clay, 1975; Hall, Moretz and Statom, 1976;
Heath, 1980; King and Rentel, 1981; Stubbs, 1980). Further, one
must weigh carefully any attempts to derive causations from c
statistical correlations between the various language skills.
While Birnbaum (1982) did indeed discover correlations between
the reading habits and writing products of students, such
correlations do not always indicate causes.
The assumption persists that children who read a lot of
good books are better writers than those who do not, and, as
children who read many books often do appear to be better
writers than children who read few books, it is tempting to seek
connections between the two. Writing, however, can not be shown
to be a product of reading. The relationship may relate instead
to a home atmosphere where good books are readily available,
reading and writing are modelled, and literacy and literature
play important roles in everyday life.
Differing perceptions of editinq
The lack of definition in writing terminology creates
major difficulties in comparing, contrasting and discussing
various studies. Editing, for example, has been referred to as
the outcome of exercises in correction (Braddock, 1963; Burrows,
1961). This notion is representative of much of the earlier
literature about composition process: editing is regarded as
something to be done after all other aspects of writing have
been tended to.
Among experienced writers, however, simple correction of
this sort is regarded as proof-reading. - The job of the editor is to ensure that a piece of
writing is clear, complete and, if possible, interesting and
that the writing is as free from error as possible (Canadian
Press handbook, 1983). Professional editors usually leave major
rewrites to the writer, but give very specific directions on how
the writing might be improved. Professional editors regard
over-editing as just as harmful to a story as under-editing, and
a prime directive for editors is that major rewrites should not
be attempted only because a story is not written the way the
14
editor would have written it (CP, 1983, p105).
Clearly, editing is not regarded by professional editors
in the same light as some researchers and many classroom
teachers view it: as the outcome of an exercise in correction.
The goal of the experienced editor is to help the writer achieve
the best possible presentation of the material, in the writer's
own style. The editor is usually looking behind the work in an
attempt to see what the writer really wants to say, and finding
ways to help the writer achieve that goal. In other words,
looking below the surface of the page (Rohman, 1964). Regarding
editing only as a process of error-correction lowers and limits
the potential of editing, and diminishes imagination, curiosity,
discovery, and speculation, by replacing a sense of 'wondering'
with mundane adherence to sets of rules.
A British Columbia Ministry of Education publication - The
Young Writers Project (1983) notes that editing is often the - "most challenging stage of the writing process" for both the
student writer and for the teacher, but convincing students of
this is not easy. Traditional classroom interaction (the student
writes, the teacher points out errors and the student corrects)
does little to add challenge or excitement to writing.
Complaining and proofreading, probably the two most widely
practiced modes of teacher response to student writing, have
turned out to be surpringly unhelplful and sometimes even
damaging (Daniels, 1985, p 31)
15
~diting may be more important to the writing process than
some educators might realize, and far from coming into play at
the end of the writing process, editing skills may even be
prerequisite to skills in writing (Lewes, 19881), and the
teaching of pre-editing skills is only beginning to be explored
(Beyer, 1979; Johannesson, 1982; Loyie-Philippsen, 1988).
Variations in Editing
There are many different kinds of writing, but whether
the writing is edited for a commercial publication, an academic
or other specialized journal, or a volume of poetry, the
processes have much in common. Two major stages in editing
undertaken by the writer are the internal editing done by the
writer for the writer during the processes of exploration and
discovery, and external editing, done by the writer for the
reader, after the topic has been clarified in the writer's own - mind (Flower, Hayes et al, 1985). These steps may or may not be
followed by peer-editing and/or other-editing.
Revising, editing and rewriting are terms which have been
used almost interchangeably throughout the literature, and
between Braddock (1963) and Flower (1986), a generation of
researchers used some 30 different terms to refer to text
alterations. Flower and Hayes (1985, 1986) deal with text
(1) In a personal letter to the writer, Lewes commented,'' in
d short, good editing often precedes good writing.
16
alteration with a precision not previously demonstrated, using
definitions which leave no room for confusion. Whether one
agrees or disagrees with what they say, there is no doubt at all
about what they are discussing.
Editing, rewriting and revising appear to be regarded as
much the same thing in many accounts in the literature, but
Flower and Hayes (1984) see each of these as very precise,
identifiably different functions. By providing those very
precise definitions, they preclude the dilemmas created in
earlier studies, articles and reports, when the reader was often
left to guess at what exactly was meant by any particular
reference. It is unfortunate that not all researchers have
followed Flower and Hayest lead in providing such precise
definitions for terminology used in their texts, as this move
enables the reader to understand clearly the point under
discussion. - The range of 'writing process' terminology may be
demonstrated by examining some of the various usages of the word
'revision'. Experienced writers do not always impute the same
meaning to 'revision' as do teachers and students (Spear, 1982) , but use it in the sense of looking over the material again and
questioning what they read: What is right with this? Is this
logical? Is this connected? Is this exactly what I want to say?
Will this be clear to the reader? Can I make it more effective?
More easily understood? What can I build upon?
Teachers and students, in contrast, often use revision
in the sense of looking over the material again and asking: What
is wrong with this? Is the spelling correct? Is punctuation
correct? Is the grammar correct? Do short sentences need
combining? (Spear, 1982) .
What constitutes Good Writing?
If there is a demonstrable lack of agreement regarding
descriptors for the various stages in producing writing, there
is a concomitant lack of definition concerning the 'goodness' or
worth of the end product, and this may contribute to one of the
major problems encountered in teaching writing: text evaluation.
Mechanical aspects (spelling, grammar, and writing
conventions) are measurable in the sense that there is usually
an objective aspect allowing them to be categorized as being
either correct or incorrect. But these are not the essential - factors in producing effective compositions. Good writing C
demands much more than simply arrang ing properly spelled words
in grammatically correct sentences and evaluation of the writing
necessarily becomes more subjective. Perfectly correct writing
can make perfectly dreadful reading.
Writing as a Self-taught Skill
Clarity of expression, density of material, flow, style,
image-provoking strategies, and organization of material are all
18
important aspects of writing, but are neither easy to teach nor
to evaluate. Murray (1968) referred to writing as a self-taught
skill produced mainly by rewriting, and more often learned than
taught. (1) If, as Elbow (l973), Murray (1968) and others insist,
revising and rewriting are keys to good writing, the challenge
must lie in finding ways to reveal those keys to students
(Gundlach, 1982) . And while teachers seem to agree that
revision and rewriting are worthwhile, there are no agreed-upon
systems of evaluating either revision or rewriting (Bracewell,
1978; Beach, 1986; Scardemalia and Bereiter, 1978; Ziv, 1984).
No common agreement exists about what rewriting is (Braddock,
1963; DellaPiana, 1978; Flower and Hayes, 1985, 1986; Murray,
1968) much less on how to teach it.
If, as Donald Murray (1978a) suggests, revising is one of
the "least researched, least examined, least understood and
(usually) least taughtt' areas in writing process, it also - appears to be viewed as one of the least creative, least
enjoyable, and least worthwhile parts of the process (Calkins,
1980a; Graves, 1975, 1979). A key to this attitude may lie in
composition texts: a study of these manuals might lead one to
(1) Sloan Wilson (1976) whose father founded the School of
Journalism at New York University, claimed his father was
always embarassed by students who thanked him, as he believed
writing could not be taught, only learned (p. 39).
19
believe that good writing is little more than a process of
elimination: remove/correct enough 'wrong' things from the text,
and what remains must be 'right.'
As has already been noted, the production of good writing
is far more involved and proactive than a simple process of
error correction, but in many cases, the writing of compositions
appears to be taught and evaluated, at levels ranging from
kindergarten through college, on the basis of error correction.
Studies cited in an NCTE position statement (1984), and by Bonds
(1980), Searle and Dillon (1980), and Ziv (1984) show that
emphasis on error detection/correction is one of the factors
which makes evaluation of writing so difficult.
The problem is double edged: emphasis on correction,
along with a lack of criteria poses a problem for teachers
faced with evaluating the writing, and for students who, because
they lack clearly defined standards against which to measure - their work, may be distracted by the temptation to undertake C
surface corrections rather than consider text content.
Traditional Teaching Methods
One traditional method of instructing novice writers in
the nuances of their craft is exposing them to classics in
writing (Daugherty, 1984). But Rohman and Wlecke (1964) did not
believe exposure to good prose was particularly effective as a
teaching method.
20
If we train students how to recognize an example of good prose (the rhetoric of the finished word), we have not given them a basis on which to build their own writing abilities. All we have done, in fact, is to give them standards to judge the goodness of their finished effort. We have not really taught them how to make that effort. (Rohman and Wlecke, 1964, p. 17)
Students soon learn what is important to the teachers who
mark their work, and students who achieve the better marks often
greatly valued (Butler, 1980; Bereiter and Scardamalia (1981).
But while this may have a positive effect on student marks, it
does not always improve their writing abilities or the quality
of their writing. Teachers' marking at times appears to follow
hidden agendas or make use of undisclosed criteria (S. Freedman,
1984). The existance of these undisclosed criteria was suggested
in a blind study involving experienced writers and regular
students who completed the same classroom writing assignment. - Teachers marking the assignment were not made aware that
non-student writers were participating in the project, ana the
marking neither singled out the work of the experienced writers,
nor rated it significantly higher than the student work (S.
Freedman, 1984).
This was an indication to the researchers that teachers
may not necessarily have been marking only for the quality of
the writing but rather, may have been measuring it against
another set of stanuards of which the experienced writers were
unaware. The researchers did not suggest what the identity of 21
those standards may have been and the teachers' criteria for
marking were not explained.
Two questions arise: how well would the professional
writers have performed had they been aware of those criteria?
How well would students have performed had they been able to
write under conditions normally enjoyed by professional writers:
free to choose subject matter, voice, genre, writing time and
place? And, if the professional writers were able to write well
without responding to the criteria used by the teachers, how
important to the end result were they? What, then, were the
teachers trying to teach? Did the marks they awarded truly
reflect levels of achievement? If not, what were they marking?
Similarities between Experienced and Novice Writers.
The writing process of some very young writers appears to
be strikingly similar to the process followed by many - experienced writers (Graves and Murray, 1980). In a joint C
project which compared and analysed Murray's own work along with
the work of students between the ages of six and nine years,
Graves and Murray (1980) were able to demonstrate that both used
writing for discovery, and that both worked in a sequence in
which addition was the initial response, deletion was the second
response, and reordering was the third response. Graves referred
to this as the developmental order in which children learn
revision.
Another point of similarity between the two groups was
the on-going nature of the editing, and the recursiveness of the
work. Neither divided the material into discrete segments, but
re-entered the work repeatedly, reviewing and/or rewriting it a
number of times.
Differences between experienced and novice writers
There are many points of difference between experienced
and novice writers: experienced writers take a global view of
their work, novice writers take a word, phrase, or line-level
view (Flower and Hayes, 1985, 1986; raves and Murray, 1980; Hull, 1984; Sommers and McQuade, 1984) . Experienced writers use a number of problem-solving strategies, but novice writers often
appear to have no idea how to solve problems or even in some
cases that a problem exists (Flower and Hayes, 1985, 1986). The
writing of experienced writers generally matches the mental
image they have of it, but novices sometimes appear to believe - they have written something different to what appears on the C
paper (Olson, 1977b). Perl (1978, 1979) demonstrated this belief
in a study of miscue analysis, showing some inexperienced
college writers who read their work aloud, read complete
sentences where only partial sentences had been written.
Incorrectly written word endings, plurals, past tenses, etc.,
were read correctly. Perl (1979, 1978) suggested student
writer/readers may have been blinded to discrepancies between
written and verbalized words by preoccupation with meaning.
Experienced writers may be more accustomed to actually looking
23
at what they have written than inexperienced writers, who often
appear to express their thoughts in a reduced form of writing.
Per1 suggested these sorts of 'errors' may not have been made
through ignorance, but rather through eagerness. This eagerness
may continue to blind inexperienced writers during revision and
editing, so they literally do not see digressions or gaps.
Factors affecting performance
Other factors which may lead to performance differences
between experienced and inexperienced writers deal with the
application of rules. Inexperienced writers at times apply rules
incorrectly: they may apply the right rule wrongly, the wrong
rule rightly, or may even apply non-existant or erroneous rules
(Shaughnessy, 1977). Experienced writers, on the other hand, at
times appear to ignore rules or create their' own rules
(Daugherty, 1984; Taylor, 1984; Tchudi, 1983; Waldrep, 1985).
Numerous interviews and anecdotal accounts focus on experienced - writers, revealing behaviours ranging from practical to C
eccentric. The Paris Review, for instance, interviewed more than
200 established writers on their writing. These wide-ranging
interviews formed the basis for six volumes edited by George
Plimpton (1963, 1967, 1976 and three others), revealing writers'
literary habits, personal philosophies, discussions of peers,
commentaries on world or local situations, and a number of other
topics, and recounting a variety of idiosyncratic behaviours in
various writing processes. Other accounts have dealt with the
writing habits of post-secondary level teachers of writing
(Tchudi, 1983; Waldrep, 1985) . These experienced writer/teachers noted quite seriously
that they 'needed' such things as lined, yellow, legal-sized
writing pads, pencils of a certain hardness, fountain or
ball-point pens in particular colours of ink, specific makes or
models of typewriters, certain kinds of word processors and
programs, paticular light levels, sound levels, surface
materials on desk or table tops, and so on (Waldrep, 1985). Yet
while these idiosyncratic behaviours were viewed by individual
writers as being of undeniable importance to their comfort
level, there was no way of measuring what impact any of these
factors may have on their actual writing processes.
Defining this impact becomes a matter of concern if the
behaviour of experienced writers is to be taken as a model by - inexperienced writers. Flower and Hayes (1981) warn that
searching in the behaviours of experts for patterns can run the
risk of following those patterns without understanding the
motivation. Thus students who mimic the action of a writing
model without understanding it may confuse the need for green
ink and lined, yellow, legal-sized pages and the strains of
Verdi's Four Seasons on the stereo with more important but less
visible parts of the process, such as the connectedness,
density, or organization of the writing and thus unwittingly
create a parody of writing process (Flower and Hayes, 1981).
Researchers note that there may exist as yet unsuspected
problems dealing with student perceptions of the writing
process. Petty (1984) drew attention to one area which he felt
had been overlooked in research: the behaviour of literate
non-writers. Petty believed attempts to establish reasons for
non-writing behaviour might help provide insights into some of
the problems experienced by novice writers, and a better
understanding of the behaviour of literate non-writers might
suggest strategies for improving the performance of minimal or
reluctant writers. Another area of limited research which has
received only scant attention from reviewers deals with literate
blind or deaf students (Ewoldt, 1984; Gormley and Sarachan-
Deily, 1982). Understanding how the writing processes of these - students differ from or conform to the writing processes of
other students may provide additional insights into writing
problems.
Technology may also be affecting the ways in which
writers write: word processors and computer terminals appear to
offer many advantages to writers, but we do not yet know
precisely how, or if, they influence either the writer or the
writing (Papert, 1980).
Studies of the Writing Process
A classic approach in teaching students to generate
writing is the three-stage process known as 'pre-write, write,
and rewrite'. As noted, one of the early references in the
literature to this particular process appears to have been made
by Rohman and Wlecke (1964). Upon the paradigm of a plant, they
imposed the concept of line (writing as a linear act) as a
useful way of 'freezing' the growth pattern of the plant
metaphor into a static yet structured whole which could then
be analyzed point by point. Having in effect immobilized their
specimen for study, they were then able to divide it into two
main parts: that which occurs before words appear on the page,
and that which takes place after words are written on a page.
The former they called pre-writing, the latter would be further
divided into writing and re-writing.
Writing was more than a simple linear process, but it was - so complex and involved it could not be studied in a functioning C
state, so Rohman and Wlecke's (1964) technique of immobilizing
it allowed them to study the internal patterns in the writing.
References to the linearity of their 'frozen' specimen, however,
appear to have led to a belief that Rohman and Wlecke saw
writing itself as a simple linear process, but by their own
account they recognized that much in writing took place 'under
the surface of the page'.
D. Murray (1968) adopted a similar three part description
27
of the writing process, but used in his description the terms
prevision, vision, and revision. Oddly, Murray's division of the
writing process aid not appear to be regarded by researchers as
linear, while Rohman and Wlecke's did.
A number of researchers each evolved his or her own
particular way of dividing the writing process (Bartlett, 1982;
Belanger and Rodgers, 1983; Berkenkotter, 1984, Murray, 1968;
Sherwood, 1980; Sommers and McQuade, 1984; Sudal, 1982) but in
general, each of these descriptions acknowledged some form of
activity prior to the physical writing process, the recursive
nature of the writing process itself, and the provision of some
method of altering what had been written. These views of the
writing processes contrasted with earlier methods of teaching
writing, which placed emphasis on the product of the writing,
rather than on the process of the writing. writing-as-product
teaching methodology customarily involved such techniques as - directed writing, rote writing, memorization and recopying,
writing from dictation, and substitution writing, none of which
is generally found in the writing-as-process teaching
methodology.
Donald Graves In the Classroom.
Donald Graves (1975, 1979) has completed a number of
studies which show that even very young children have something
to say and can produce quite competent writing, given the
opportunity to write on topics which are personally meaningful.
28
Graves is not only a noted researcher in the field of writing
process, but is also a teacher of writing. Working with young
children (and later, with teachers of young children) he
demonstrated, as well as taught, writing. Whether done on large
flip-sheets or on regular letter-slzed paper, his work was
readily visible to the students he taught. His questions about
the children's writing encouraged them to ask questions about
his writing. Graves freely shared his writing with students in
an attempt to de-mystify the writing process, and readily
allowed children to see that he had changed his mind, had added
to the writing, substituted, amplified, deleted and otherwise
edited text (Walshe, 1983) . He did not refer to his work as 'wrong' nor to what he
was doing as error correction, but rather as finding a different
way of looking at a subject, a different way of expressing a
thought, or a different way of connecting ideas. His - nonpejorative attitude was enabling for students, who were made
free to edit and revise their work in an exploratory manner,
making use of the potential for discovery provided by revision.
Donald Graves at all times stressed the value of content
and intention of the writing over conventions of composition.
Donald Graves' writing process could have been the model
for a description by another prolific writer and highly regarded
teacher, Donald Murray (1978), whose comments about the writing
process underscored the fluid nature of writing-in-progress.
29
The w r i t i n g p r o c e s s i s t o o e x p e r i m e n t a l and e x p l o r a t o r y t o b e c o n t a i n e d i n a r i g i d d e f i n i t i o n ; wri ters move back and f o r t h th rough a l l s t a g e s of t h e w r i t i n g p r o c e s e s a s t h e y s e a r c h f o r meaning and t h e n a t t e m p t t o I t is a l s o t r u e t h a t most writers d o n o t d e f i n e , d e s c r i b e , o r p o s s i b l y even u n d e r s t a n d t h e w r i t i n g p r o c e s s . T h e r e ' s no r e a s o n f o r them t o know what t h e y a r e do ing i f t h e y d o i t w e l l , any more t h a n w e need t o know grammat ica l terms i f w e speak and wri te c l e a r l y . ( p 86)
Graves ' young wri ters d i d n o t , of c o u r s e , u n d e r s t a n d what
t h e y were d o i n g i n t h e s e n s e t h a t t h e y were a b l e t o l a b e l t h e i r
a c t i o n s o r p r o v i d e p r o c e s s f l o w c h a r t s , b u t w i t h c o n s t r u c t i v e
encouragement , t h e s t u d e n t s were a b l e t o wri te i n a f r e s h ,
v i g o r o u s and e n t h u s i a s t i c manner, More t o t h e p o i n t , t h e y a l s o
e d i t e d and r e v i s e d t h e i r own work, and i n d e p e n d e n t l y under took
t h e r e w r i t i n g o f m a t e r i a l a s t h e y f e l t i t was r e q u i r e d . These
young writers c o n t r a s t e d s t r o n g l y w i t h t h e s t u d e n t s obse rved by
Rohman and Wlecke (1964) who appeared t o ' t u c k away' t h e i r own - s e n s e o f r e a l i t y a s p e r s o n s and "echo a l l t h e p a t p h r a s e s of
t h e i r c u l t u r e i n e s s e n t i a l l y m e a n i n g l e s s combinat ion ." Rohman
and Wlecke (1964) b e l i e v e d t h a t
... b o t h o u r c u l t u r e and our p e d a g o g i c a l methods have encouraged o t h e r - d i r e c t e d s e l f - images which h i n d e r ( s e l f - a f f i r m a t i v e ) w r i t i n g and which, i n f a c t , h i n d e r any k i n d of w r i t i n g . A s a r e s u l t , w e have a l m o s t a n a t i o n a l n e u r o s i s a b o u t w r i t i n g w i t h no o b j e c t f o r our a n x i e t y e x c e p t a vague and i n c r e a s i n g l y d i s c r e d i t e d code o f ' c o r r e c t n e s s ' . A s one i s e x p e c t e d t o write a c c e p t a b l e grammar, and a s one i s e x p e c t e d t o choose a c c e p t a b l e d i c t i o n , s o one is e x p e c t e d t o t h i n k a c c e p t a b l e t h o u g h t s and f e e l a c c e p t a b l e f e e l i n g s . ( p . 2 2 )
~ n a l y s i s and o b s e r v a t i o n
The p r a c t i c e of a n a l y z i n g t h e p r o d u c t o f w r i t i n g h a s been
q u e s t i o n e d by some r e s e a r c h e r s , who b e l i e v e t h e f o c u s of
r e s e a r c h s h o u l d be on w r i t i n g b e h a v i o u r s r a t h e r t h a n p r o d u c t s
(Melas , 1974; P e t t y , 1984; Sawkins, 1970; S t a l l a r d , 1 9 7 4 ) . To
d a t e , no method h a s been found which w i l l p e r m i t r e s e a r c h e r s t o
r e c o r d t h e m u l t i v a r i a t e i n f l u e n c e s , b o t h o v e r t and c o v e r t , which
a f f e c t w r i t e r s a s t h e y work. 'Th ink-a loud ' p r o t o c o l s t u d i e s c a n
r e c o r d what t h e writer s a y s , b u t n o t t h e a c t u a l t h o u g h t s which
a r e t a k i n g p l a c e a s h e o r s h e writes. S i m i l a r l y , t h e r e s e a r c h e r
c a n o b s e r v e t h e w r i t i n g p r o c e s s , n o t e v a r i o u s b e h a v i o u r s a s t h e y
happen, and a n a l y s e t h e r e s u l t s of t h o s e b e h a v i o u r s , b u t c a n n o t
be p r i v y t o t h e i m p u l s e s which g e n e r a t e d them.
Given t h e wide r a n g e of f a c t o r s i n f l u e n c i n g t h e writer a t
any g i v e n - p o i n t i n t h e w r i t i n g p r o c e s s , one must q u e s t i o n
whether t h e a d d i t i o n o f one more i n f l u e n c e , t h e p r e s e n c e o f a - r e s e a r c h e r , may n o t a f f e c t t h e r e s u l t s o b t a i n e d by t h a t
r e s e a r c h e r . The writer who c h e r i s h e s s o l i t u d e may f i n d t h e
s i m p l e p r e s e n c e of a n o t h e r p e r s o n t o b e d i s r u p t i v e , and t h a t
d i s r u p t i o n may a f f e c t t h e w r i t i n g p r o c e s s of t h a t writer . Flower
(1985) is one o f t h e few r e s e a r c h e r s t o even a l l u d e t o t h e
p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t s u b t l e a l t e r a t i o n s i n t h e w r i t i n g may t a k e
p l a c e b e c a u s e of t h e r e s e a r c h p r o c e s s . Flower (1985) b e l i v e s
t h a t writers who a r e a sked t o comment on work d u r i n g t h e a c t u a l
p r o c e s s of w r i t i n g a r e n o t d i s t u r b e d by t h i s p rocedure .
No r e f e r e n c e h a s been made t o t h e p o s s i b l e e f f e c t on t h e
work of an a u t h o r who p r e f e r s w r i t i n g w i t h a 2B p e n c i l on l i n e d
s h e e t s of l e g a l - s i z e d y e l l o w p a p e r , b u t , f o r r e s e a r c h p u r p o s e s ,
h a s a g r e e d i n s t e a d t o u s e a n e lec t r ic s t y l u s on a s e n s i t i z e d
e l e c t r o n i c pad. Does awareness of t h e t a p e r e c o r d e r f a i t h f u l l y
c a p t u r i n g t h e words o f a writer a s h e o r s h e writes a f f e c t t h e
pe r fo rmance of t h a t w r i t e r ? Does t h e p r e s e n c e of a v i d e o camera
a c t u a l l y a b l e t o c o n c e n t r a t e f u l l y on t h e t a s k a t hand i f he o r
s h e is a l s o v e r b a l i z i n g t h e p r o c e s s -- o r i s t h e w r i t e r pay ing
a t l e a s t some a t t e n t i o n t o t h e t a s k of o b s e r v i n g t h e p r o c e s s ,
and t h e r e b y i n some undef ined way, a l t e r i n g i t ? These a r e
i m p o r t a n t c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , b e c a u s e t e c h n o l o g y i s more and more
o f t e n b e i n g i n t r o d u c e d i n t o t h e r e s e a r c h p r o c e s s ( B e c h t e l , 1979;
Crowley, 1981; and o t h e r s ) and w h i l e t h e s e t e c h n o l o g i c a l t o o l s
have t h e r e a s s u r i n g q u a l i t y o f ( somet imes) p roduc ing m e a s u r a b l e - r e s u l t s , one must a l s o c o n s i d e r t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t r e s u l t s may
be i n f l u e n c e d , s u b t l y and/or s i g n i f i c a n t l y by t h e v e r y
mechanisms set i n p l a c e t o measure them.
Changes i n P e d a g o g i c a l Methodology
I n r e c e n t y e a r s , numbers of t e a c h e r s have acknowledged
t h a t t e a c h i n g w r i t i n g p r o c e s s i s more e f f e c t i v e t h a n t e a c h i n g
p r o d u c t ( B u t l e r , 1983) and t h a t freedom is e s s e n t i a l t o
development o f a c h i l d ' s w r i t i n g (D. Graves , 1979, 1975, 1 9 7 3 ) .
32
. ..the idea that students should be able to . . . generate an exuberance of ideas accords well with our understanding of children's creativity and the building of a child's self-concept through the expression of personal experiences, feelings and values (Butler, 1983) .
While some teachers may have accepted these ideas, there
appears, at times, to be a guerilla movement going on in writing
pedagogy, with 'underground' writing produced in the classroom
eyes of administrators and parents" (Butler, 1983) who may be
dismayed by the messiness and untidiness of students' ideas
"discovered in a rush of excitement"
Discovery and Prewriting
Along with previously noted studies revealing differences
between the ways in which experienced and novice writers handle
writing is the finding that inexperienced writers do not seem to
share a sense of writing as discovery (N. Sommers, l98O), and in the
revision process often fail to see incongruities which exist between C
their intention and their execution (Sommers, 1980).
Pre-writing appears to be more intense and more meaningful
for experienced writers than for the inexperienced writer: editing
and revising, according to anecdotal accounts by experienced writers ,
begin long before the writing stage begins. Except for classroom
situations, there appears to be no great rush to capture ideas on
paper. Instead, experienced writers appear to have a need for time
to 'mull over' ideas and let them simmer on a back burner while
they proceed with other tasks. The classroom writer, on the other
33
hand, often appears to regard the pre-writing period as a time
concerned only with the gathering of ideas in an effort to find
something to write about, and once an idea has been identified,
immediately begins to write about it.
Experienced writers, however, appear to require time for
letting ideas 'bounce around' in the back of their heads
(Bartolomae, 1985) or simply stopping to sit and think (Bloom,
1985) before beginning to write. Some steep themselves in their
subject, letting the material stew in their subconscious before
writing (Corbett, 1985) before seeing how it looks on a page or
testlng it against the original thought (R. Graves, 1984) . Experienced writers appear to be aware of the importance of
prewriting for beginning writers, but feel they, themselves,
perform prewriting chores intuitively as part of their daily
lives (D.- Murray, 1968, Phelps, 1985), composing without
conscious effort and banking this pre-composed material to be
drawn upon when needed (Brent, 1985). They sometimes refer to
writing as being first of all an internal act, in which solitude
and reflection are as important as word processors (R. Graves,
1984).
Writers describing their own writing processes use
interesting analogies: along with process terminology, they
borrow terms from the kitchen, the crafts, and the arts, thus
writing has been variously described as a process in which ideas
are sketched out, roughed out, fitted together, then fermented,
stewed or simmered before they become ready for use (Guth 1985).
34
Exper ienced wri ters a r e n o t a lways a n a l y t i c a l a b o u t t h e i r
w r i t i n g , w i t h some a v e r r i n g t h e y d o n ' t know where t h e words come
from, much less where t h e i d e a s come from (Knoblach, 1 9 8 5 ) . Some
may a t t e m p t t o d e l i b e r a t e l y s t a r t t h e i n t e r n a l e d i t i n g p r o c e s s
o r ' g e t t h e j u i c e s f l o w i n g ' ( a f r e q u e n t l y used t e r m ) by f i r s t
d o i n g mundane, r o u t i n e work s u c h a s i n t e r n a l e d i t i n g o r m e n t a l
r e h e a r s a l ( L u n s f o r d , 1 9 8 5 ) , l i k e n i n g t h i s p a r t of t h e p r o c e s s t o
"menta l jogging" (Lloyd-Jones , 1985) . The p r e - w r i t i n g phase
a p p e a r s t o b e commonly acknowledged among e x p e r i e n c e d w r i t e r s
(Milic, 1 9 8 5 ) .
B e f o r e I wr i te , I w r i t e i n my mind. The more d i f f i c u l t and complex t h e w r i t i n g , t h e more t i m e I need t o t h i n k b e f o r e I write. ... While I walk , d r i v e , s w i m and e x e r c i s e , I am t h i n k i n g , p l a n n i n g , w r i t i n g . I wri te , r e v i s e , rewrite, a g o n i z e , d e s p a i r , g i v e up, o n l y t o s t a r t a l l over a g a i n , and a l l t h i s b e f o r e I even b e g i n t o p u t words on p a p e r ( L u t z , 1 9 8 5 ) .
While some w r i t e r s " c o l l e c t and mul l " b e f o r e w r i t i n g
(Donald Murray, 1985) o t h e r s l i t e r a l l y v i s u a l i z e t h e w r i t i n g
( P a t r i c i a Murray, 1 9 8 5 ) , s e e i n g words, p h r a s e s , s e n t e n c e s , and
p a r a g r a p h s t a k e shape on s c r e e n s i n s i d e t h e i r heads .
Tchudi (1985) r e f e r s t o a "Write I d e a " which sounds
v e r y much l i k e t h e s t e r e o t y p i c a l l i g h t b u l b i n t h e b r a i n o f t e n
used by c a r t o o n i s t s t o d e n o t e i n s p i r a t i o n . However, Tchudi
n o t e s t h a t c o n s i d e r a b l e i n c u b a t i o n g o e s on b e f o r e t h e l i g h t b u l b
a p p e a r s .
Some mental writing consists not in figuring out what the
writer wants to write before clothing thoughts in words but in
letting ideas happen, letting them 'spark' each other, and
listening to voices speaking dialogue (Warnock, 1985). Warnock
says her head is "always working on a current project" and this
inner writing seems to enrich her life (Warnock, 1985). Others
literally visualize work in their mind, tacking up a theme or
topic on a mental wall and "walking around it, pondering,
thinking" (Weathers, 1985).
while a number of writers freely discussed what was
involved in their own writing: prewriting, internal editing,
writing, self-editing, revising, re-editing, rewriting -- few expressed even minimal concern with the conventions of writing
and grammar during the generative phases of their work. They
were concerned firstly with the wider idea -- with the possibilities inherent in the original notion -- and ggve only passing attention to 'correcting' work while it was in progress.
One may argue that the grammar and spelling of
experienced writers is likely on a higher level of correctness
than that of novice writers, and this is probably true, but the
point must be made that even when experienced writers did make
errors in spelling or grammar during the early stages of
writing, there was no reflection of a sense of concern with the
correctness of the mechanical aspects of writing. Exploration,
internal editing or discovery was of paramount importance. The
descriptions provided by experienced writers dealing with
36
their own working processes and text revisions clearly reveal
that the global aspects of their work were of primary
importance, and conventions of writing at this stage were given
only passing attention (Waldrep, 1985; Daugherty, 1984). This
prioritization is exactly opposite to that demonstrated by the
inexperienced writer. (Flower and Hayes, 1981a, 1985, 1986).
One other point of difference is that experienced writers
often seem able to solve problems by drawing on stored problem
representations containing not only a conventional definition of
the situation, audience, and the writer's purpose, but also
including quite detailed information about solutions, even down
to appropriate tone and phrases (Flower and Hayes, 1980). This
type of reference bank may account for the ability of "in-house"
writers to deal quickly and easily with formula writing, while
sometimes- experiencing difficulty in dealing with new material:
they have stored such a wide range of strategies it may
sometimes be difficult for them to decide which of these
strategies will be the most appropriate (Applebee, 1984).
Another of the more evident differences between
experienced and inexperienced writers is that experienced
writers, who appear to have internalized a series of markers, or
a sixth sense which indicates when 'something' needs revising,
seem to more easily recognize a need for editing than do
inexperienced writers, who do not appear to have developed that
awareness or sensitivity.
I n t e r n a l and e x t e r n a l e d i t i n g
A s h a s been n o t e d , e x p e r i e n c e d w r i t e r s make u s e of
s e v e r a l d i f f e r e n t t y p e s of e d i t i n g : i n t e r n a l e d i t i n g , which
h e l p s t o p r o v i d e b o t h f o c u s and framework (Flower and Hayes,
1986. See F i g . 1) and which may t a k e p l a c e b e f o r e o r a f t e r words
a r e p l a c e d on p a p e r ; s e l f - e d i t i n g , which a l l o w s t h e writer t o
t a k e t h e s t a n c e of t h e r e a d e r ; and e x t e r n a l e d i t i n g , done by a
p r o f e s s i o n a l e d i t o r , a c o l l e a g u e , o r some o t h e r p e r s o n ( D .
Murray, 1978a, 1 9 7 8 b ) .
Exper ienced writers a c c e p t and r e c o g n i z e t h e v a l u e of
e x t e r n a l e d i t i n g , b u t t h e s t u d e n t wr i t e r ' s most u s u a l e d i t o r is
t h e t e a c h e r and most s t u d e n t s appear t o view t e a c h e r s ' comments
on p a p e r s a s a form of punishment ( L e w e s , 1 9 8 1 ) . Whatever t h e
r e a s o n f o r t h i s p e r c e p t i o n , i t d o e s n o t s u g g e s t t h a t s t u d e n t s
r e g a r d t e a c h e r s a s u s e f u l r o l e models f o r t h e w r i t i n g p r o c e s s ,
nor do s t u d e n t s a p p e a r t o r e g a r d t e a c h e r s ' c o n t r i b u t i o n s a s
h e l p f u l i n t h e w r i t i n g p r o c e s s . C
The aim of t e a c h e r e d i t i n g is u s u a l l y two-fold : f i r s t l y
t o improve t h e work i n hand, and s e c o n d l y t o h e l p t h e s t u d e n t
w r i t e r improve h i s o r h e r s e l f - e d i t i n g s k i l l s . There a r e s e r i o u s
i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r t e a c h i n g i n t h e c o n c e p t of i n t e r n a l e d i t i n g ,
n o t t h e l e a s t of which is t h e n o t i o n t h a t a r t i c u l a t e , v e r b a l ,
g l i b s t u d e n t s who a r e c u s t o m a r i l y over- rewarded f o r f i r s t - d r a f t
w r i t i n g may b e " r e l e a s e d from t h e p r i s o n of p r a i s e and h i g h
g r a d e s and encouraged t o write much better" ( D . Murray, 1 9 7 8 a ) .
FIGURE I
THE WRITER'S LONG-TERM MEMORY 1
Knowledge of Topic. Audience. b
and Writing 1 '
- TASK ENVIRONMENT
THE RHETORICAL TEXT PROBLEM
Topic PRODUCED Audience Exigency SO FAR
Plans
WRITING PROCESSES
PLANNING TRANSLATING
i
t 1
-
REVIEWING
+ + I MONITOR
A model of cognitive processes in writing. From
"Detection, Diagnosis, and the Strategies of Revisionw by Linda
S. Flower, John R. Hayes, Linda Carey, Karen Schriver, and James
Stratman, published in College Composition and Communication,
February 1986, Vol. 37. copyright 1986 by the National Council
of Teachers of English. Reprinted with permission.
Editing skills do not often appear to be taught to
student writers however, possibly because they seem to be
unconscious (automatic) processes which may not require teaching
(Christensen, 1982).
Internal editing plays an important and little understood
role in writing (Rohman, 1964) and this phase of the writing
process is quite different from the correcting, or proofreading
mode, which occurs much later in the process (Britton, 1975; D.
Murray, 1978a). If external editing which at least offers a
visible product, is difficult to teach, how much more difficult
must it be for the teacher to explain to students an undertaking
which is invisible in the composition process, unrecognized in
the writing process, and unrewarded in the marking process?
Internal editing, or 'shaping at the point of utterance'
was regarded by Britton (1978) as a crucial aspect of writing.
(Results of experiments) were consistent - with the belief that we focus on the end in view, shaping the utterance as we write; and when a seam is 'played out' or we are interrupted, we get started again by reading what we have written, running along the tracks we have laid down. (Britton, 1978, p. 24).
Internal editing may be related to what Flower (1986)
recognizes as writer-based prose -- a sort of interior monologue created by the writer, which may include intuited but
unarticulated connections. The writer then converts this
'saturated language' into ideas which may be communicated
to others, as reader-based prose (Flower, 1986).
Internal editing is a valuable part of the discovery
process, during which the writer may investigate, try out, test,
challenge and manipulate ideas. And, as the writing process is
not divided into small, discrete compartments but interconnects
and overlaps, internal editing becomes not an activity which
happens solely in the compartment marked 'internal editing' but
one which intertwines with external editing as well. Both in
self-editing and peer editing, this discovery phase may even
help reveal opportunities for development which could lead
away from the original direction of the writing (Rossi, 1982;
D. Murray, 1978a).
There is another important area of editing: external
editing, or editing performed by some other person. This usually
falls into one of two categories: the editing performed by an
editor distanced from the writer (usually by authority or
experience, as in the cases of professional editors or
teacher-edi tors) or editing per formed by peers.
In recent years, peer editing has been given an
increasingly important role in writing process in the classroom
and is a technique which many teachers have attempted to
introduce. The subject of peer editing will be dealt with at
length in the next chapter.
How Much is 'Enough' Editing?
One area which often seems to proviae difficulty for the
inexperienced writer (and for those who teach inexperienced
41
writers), is the question of how much revision is required in
any given piece of text. Inexperienced writers are often
accustomed to the 'writing two-step': write a draft, submit it
for marking, then re-wr i te to accommodate any corrections
(Stewig, 1983). This single-draft, single-revision approach is
far removed from the editing habits of experienced writers.
Inexperienced writers' involvement in editing and
revising appears often to depend upon a number of factors, most
of which are externally controlled: Is the work authentic or
inauthentic? What is the purpose of the work? How much time is
allowed for the work? Why has the teacher assigned the work?
What are the criteria to be met? What mark is required to pass?
(Flower, 1986; Fulwiler, 1982; D. Murray, 1978a). In many cases,
it appears the point for teachers is not teaching students to
recognize-when sufficient editing and revision has been done,
but encouraging students to get something down on paper in the
first place (Paulsen 1984).
There may be other reasons as well why students feel a
single revision is sufficient: writing apprehension, which can
have a measurable impact on student performance, may inhibit
performance (Daly and Miller, 1975). An overwhelming fear of
error dominates the minds of some students, to the detriment of
any creative thought (Shaughnessy, 1977). Even the student who
is not affected by writing apprehension may be inhibited by
teaching that is so meticulous in detail that little room is
l e f t f o r s t u d e n t - i n i t i a t e d e x p e r i m e n t a t i o n o r c r e a t i v i t y
(Holdaway, 1979) . Lack o f e x p e r i e n c e combined w i t h l a c k o f w r i t i n g r o l e
m o d e l s may b e a n o t h e r c o n t r i b u t o r y f a c t o r . C r o w h u r s t (1983 ,
1 9 7 9 b ) , B u t l e r ( 1 9 8 0 ) and o t h e r s h a v e commented on t h e b e l i e f s
e x p r e s s e d by s t u d e n t s t h a t good writers know how t o wri te , and
t h e r e f o r e d o n o t h a v e t o e d i t and rewrite a t a l l , a l t h o u g h t h e y
may g o t h r o u g h one f i n a l r e a d i n g t o c h e c k f o r s p e l l i n g e r r o r s .
C r o w h u r s t (1983 , 1 9 7 9 ) n o t e d t h a t t h i s b e l i e f was g e n e r a l among
s t u d e n t s i n e l e m e n t a r y g r a d e s and o f t e n p e r s i s t e d up t o and
i n c l u d i n g s e n i o r s e c o n d a r y l e v e l .
TV i n t e r v i e w e r and p e r f o r m e r J o a n R i v e r s ( l 9 8 5 ) , a
B a r n a r d C o l l e g e g r a d u a t e w i t h a m a j o r i n E n g l i s h l i t e r a t u r e ,
g i v e s a n example o f t h i s b e l i e f when s h e d i s c u s s e s h e r r e a c t i o n
w h i l e w a t c h i n g pre-Broadway t r y o u t s o f T e n n e s s e e W i l l i a m s ' - The
N i g h t o f t h e I g u a n a . R i v e r s was "mesmer ized t o see a b i g ,
l u m b e r i n g p l a y b e i n g r e d o n e -- whole c h u n k s p u l l e d o u t , s p e e c h e s C
r e w r i t t e n , d i r e c t i o n s changed.. . ' ' a d d i n g t h a t s h e had no c o n c e p t
t i l l t h e n o f t h e i n c r e d i b l e d e d i c a t i o n o f ( s t a g e ) writers. " I
had a l w a y s t h o u g h t h e ( T e n n e s s e e W i l l i a m s ) s a t down i n h i s room
and w r o t e A S t r e e t c a r Named Desire and b r o u g h t i t t o somebody
who s a i d , " T h i s is v e r y good. I ' l l p r o d u c e it." But t h e r e was
t h i s P u l i t z e r P r i z e w inne r ... working l i k e a b e g i n n e r w i t h h i s
f i r s t p l a y . . d a y a f t e r d a y , . . . c u t t i n g and f i x i n g and p r u n i n g
and c h a n g i n g and s w i t c h i n g . " W i l l i a m s was n o t work ing l i k e a
b e g i n n e r w i t h h i s f i r s t p l a y , b u t v e r y much l i k e t h e e x p e r i e n c e d
writer he was, and t h e chang ing and s w i t c h i n g were e v i d e n c e o f
t h e more g l o b a l a s p e c t s of h i s e d i t i n g .
J u s t a s R i v e r s was s u r p i s e d by t h e amount o f t i m e
Wi l l i ams ' s p e n t on r e v i s i n g , many i n e x p e r i e n c e d w r i t e r s p r o b a b l y
have no c l e a r i d e a of what p r o p o r t i o n o f a w r i t e r ' s t i m e is
s p e n t on less o b v i o u s a s p e c t s of w r i t i n g , such a s p r e w r i t i n g o r
i n t e r n a l e d i t i n g .
Exper ienced writers u s u a l l y spend more t i m e on
s e l f - e d i t i n g and r e v i s i n g t h a n t h e y d o on t h e i n i t i a l w r i t i n g
( G o r r e l l , 1985) and one writer e s t i m a t e d t h a t of 30 h o u r s s p e n t
on a not -yet -comple ted e s s a y , 20 h o u r s had been s p e n t i n e d i t i n g
and r e v i s i n g and a n undetermined p o r t i o n of t h e remain ing 10
h o u r s h a s . been t a k e n up i n p r e - w r i t i n g a c t i v i t i e s ( B r e n t , 1975) . There i s , - o f c o u r s e , no c l e a r - c u t r a t i o between t h e v a r i o u s
a r e a s of w r i t i n g p r o c e s s -- some writers spend more t i m e i n
p r e - w r i t i n g a c t i v i t i e s o r ' a g o n i z i n g ' o v e r e a r l y d r a f t s
( G o r r e l l , 1985) b u t f e e l by t a k i n g more c a r e i n t h e p r e l i m i n a r y
s t a g e s , less r e v i s i o n is r e q u i r e d i n f i n a l d r a f t s .
Y e t a n o t h e r d i f f e r e n c e between s t u d e n t writers and
e x p e r i e n c e d writers way b e t h e way i n which t h e y r e g a r d
i n t e r m e d i a t e d r a f t s . S t u d e n t s may n o t r e g a r d d r a f t work a s
v a l u a b l e o r wor th k e e p i n g , s o t e a c h e r s may n o t have a c c e s s t o
e a r l y d r a f t s c r e a t e d by t h e s t u d e n t , i f indeed such d r a f t s e v e r
e x i s t e d . Thus t e a c h e r s a r e n o t a lways a b l e t o t r a c k t h e work
th rough a number of d r a f t s . Exper ienced writers, on t h e o t h e r
hand, a r e more a p t t o r e t a i n what t h e y have w r i t t e n u n t i l t h e
p i e c e is comple te . Some wri ters keep a l l d r a f t s of e v e r y t h i n g
t h e y write and r e s e a r c h e r s a r e a b l e t o s t u d y s e q u e n t i a l d r a f t s
t o t r a c e t h e growth of t h e work. For e v e r y wri ter l i k e Agatha
C h r i s t i e o r S a u l Bellow, who, a l t h o u g h t h e y d o a good d e a l of
i n t e r n a l e d i t i n g , commit l i t t l e t o paper p r i o r t o t h e f i n a l
copy, t h e r e a r e o t h e r s l i k e I r v i n g Layton o r Malcolm Lowrey, who
write numerous hard-copy d r a f t s . Few, however, d i s p l a y t h e
t e n a c i t y of John J a k e s ( I , B a r b a r i a n ) , o r ~ g d o r ~ o s t o e v s k y l
(The D o u b l e ) , e a c h of whom s p e n t 20 y e a r s e d i t i n g and r e v i s i n g
b e f o r e f i n a l l y r e p u b l i s h i n g t h e no ted works w i t h major changes .
Some a u t h o r s , l i k e Governor G e n e r a l ' s award winner Hugh
Garner ( l 9 7 3 ) , c l a i m t o write ' b y e a r ' .
" ( I was) awfu l i n grammar i n p u b l i c s c h o o l and s t i l l am today. Though I don ' t know what a ge rund o r a p a r t i c i p l e is , and d o n ' t want t o know, I c a n u s e them c o r r e c t l y i n a w r i t t e n s e n t e n c e . I ' m l i k e a s e l f - t a u g h t j a z z p i a n i s t who c a n ' t r e a d a word of mus ic b u t knows t h e b l a c k keys from t h e w h i t e k e y s , and which ones t o p r e s s . ... I c a n a l s o s p o t an ungrammat ica l s e n t e n c e most t i m e s ( and) know how t o change it ." (p . 3 2 8 ) .
c h r i s t i e 2 and Garner were n o t a l o n e : Conven t ions of
(1) A number o f a l t e r n a t e s p e l l i n g s e x i s t f o r t h i s a u t h o r : Feydor , Feodor , and Dostoyevsky a r e among them.
( 2 ) C h r i s t i e c l a i m s 'working i n h e r mind' is e a s i e r because s h e d o e s n ' t have t o worry a b o u t h e r s p e l l i n g , which s h e d e s c r i b e s a s ' ter r ib le ' .
w r i t i n g have e l u d e d o t h e r well-known wri ters a s w e l l (1).
L i t t l e e x i s t s i n t h e l i t e r a t u r e t o i n d i c a t e how w r i t e r s
d e v e l o p an awareness of when, how, o r how much t o r e v i s e , e d i t
o r r e w r i t e , b u t T a t e (1981) s u g g e s t s i t t a k e s a "good r e a d e r t o
know whether a p i e c e of w r i t i n g is working o r n o t and i f i t
i s n ' t , w h a t ' s wrong w i t h it."
C e r t a i n l y a good r e a d e r w i l l r e c o g n i z e whether o r n o t a
s t o r y works, b u t t h e argument t h a t good r e a d e r s c a n r e c o g n i z e
why a s t o r y works o r d o e s n o t work is unsuppor ted . T a t e (1981)
d o e s n o t a d d r e s s t h i s p o i n t , and no i n d i c a t i o n is g i v e n of t h e
b a s i s f o r t h i s s u p p o s i t i o n . However, t h e r e is a p e r s i s t a n t
n o t i o n t h a t good r e a d e r s s h o u l d b e good writers: i t may b e t h a t
good r e a d e r s b u i l d i n t e r n a l models a g a i n s t which t h e y measure
w r i t t e n m a t e r i a l . I t h a s been shown t h a t e x p e r i e n c e d writers d o
b u i l d banks of r e p a i r s t r a t e g i e s (Flower and Hayes, 1985, 1986;
Applebee, 1 9 8 4 ) . I f r e p a i r s t r a t e g i e s c a n be drawn from a model
g a i n e d t h r o u g h r e a d i n g , i t migh t s u g g e s t t h a t some p a r t o f t h e
w r i t i n g p r o c e s s may b e a c q u i r e d p a s s i v e l y , and n o t s o l e l y
t h r o u g h a c t i v e p a r t i c i p a t i o n , b u t t h i s is an u n t e s t e d n o t i o n .
I m ~ a c t of Teacher E d i t i n a on S t u d e n t W r i t i n a - - ~ - - - - - - - - - ~
S e a r l e and D i l l o n ( 1 9 8 0 ) , i n a s t u d y of t h e impact of
t e a c h e r - e d i t i n g on 135 p i e c e s o f s t u d e n t w r i t i n g p rov ided by 1 2
e l e m e n t a r y s c h o o l t e a c h e r s , showed t e a c h e r emphasis t o b e
(1) J a n e t Hobhouse ( 1 9 7 5 ) , Anybody Who Was Anybody. G e r t r u d e S t e i n ' s e a r l y e s s a y s a t Harvard showed " s h e w r o t e s i m p l e E n g l i s h s e n t e n c e s w i t h g r e a t d i f f i c u l t y , f a i l i n g i n h e r command of b a s i c g rammat ica l c o n s t r u c t i o n and s i m p l e s p e l l i n g . . ..Her h a n d w r i t i n g was and remained a t r o c i o u s . "
overwhelmingly on form, w i t h p r e d o m i n a n t l y e v a l u a t i v e and
i n s t r u c t i v e r e s p o n s e s . Teacher comments a p p e a r e d t o have been
i n f l u e n c e d l a r g e l y by t h e q u a n t i t y and m e c h a n i c a l c o r r e c t n e s s o f
w r i t i n g produced by a s t u d e n t .
The c r i t e r i a f o r good w r i t i n g a t t h e i n t e r m e d i a t e g r a d e s l i s t e d by p a r t i c i p a n t s were numerous, b u t r e l a t i v e l y uni form c r i t e r i a c o u l d b e c l a s s i f i e d a s t h r e e major c a t e g o r i e s : mechan ics , l a n g u a g e s t r u c t u r e , and s t y l e . A l l t h r e e c a t e g o r i e s d e a l t w i t h forms o f l anguage . Only one comment by one p a r t i c i p a n t d e a l t d i r e c t l y w i t h c o n t e n t . ( p . 238)
S e a r l e and D i l l o n ' s was a p r e l i m i n a r y s t u d y : t h e y no ted
t h e need f o r more r e s e a r c h w i t h g r e a t e r numbers of p a r t i c i p a n t s ,
t o e i t h e r c o n f i r m o r deny some s u p p o s i t i o n s which c o u l d n o t b e
s u p p o r t e d . For example, t h e y s a i d many t e a c h e r s were u n a b l e t o
p r o v i d e samples o f t h e i r r e s p o n s e s and s o i t appeared t h a t some
p u p i l s , i n f a c t , r e c e i v e d no r e s p o n s e s t o t h e i r w r i t i n g . C
A f u r t h e r a r e a of s t u d y s u g g e s t e d by S e a r l e and D i l l o n
( 1 9 8 0 ) d e a l s w i t h examining t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t much
i n s t r u c t i o n i n w r i t i n g is s t i l l p r o d u c t - c e n t e r e d because
p r o d u c t s l e n d t h e m s e l v e s more e a s i l y t o marking-for-form r a t h e r
t h a n t h e m a r k i n g - f o r - c o n t e n t r e q u i r e d i n p r o c e s s e v a l u a t i o n . The
e d i t i n g done by t h e t e a c h e r s i n S e a r l e and D i l l o n ' s s t u d y was
a l m o s t a l l of t h e e r r o r - c o r r e c t i n g v a r i e t y , and comments by
t e a c h e r s , s t r e s s i n g form r a t h e r t h a n c o n t e n t , d i d l i t t l e t o
e n c o u r a g e s t u d e n t s t o do more t h a n r e p a i r m i s t a k e s .
E v a l u a t i o n is a n i m p o r t a n t p a r t o f t h e p r o c e s s o f
i n s t r u c t i o n ( S t r i c k l a n d , 1961) which c a n o f f e r a p o w e r f u l t o o l
i n r e i n f o r c i n g p o s i t i v e a c h i e v e m e n t , b u t m a r k i n g o n l y m e c h a n i c a l
and g r a m m a t i c a l e r r o r s c a n c a r r y w i t h i t t h e message t h a t t h e s e
a r e t h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t p a r t s o f w r i t i n g , and d e p r e c i a t e t h e
v a l u e o f form, c o n t e n t , t o n e , v o i c e , and s t y l e . Responding t o
e r r o r s a f t e r s t u d e n t s h a v e handed i n what t h e y c o n s i d e r t o be
f i n a l d r a f t s a p p e a r s , i n a n y c a s e , t o r e s u l t i n o n l y minor
r e v i s i o n s ( D a n i e l s , 1 9 8 5 ) . T e a c h e r s may d o b e t t e r by f i r s t
p a y i n g a t t e n t i o n t o what s t u d e n t s w i s h t o s a y and t h e i r p u r p o s e
i n s a y i n g i t , and o n l y a f t e r a t t e n d i n g t o t h e s e i t e m s making a n
a p p r a i s a l o f t h e form i n which t h e i d e a s were set o u t
( S t r i c k l a n d , 1 9 6 1 ) . T h e r e a r e some i n d i c a t i o n s t h a t s t u d e n t s c a n l e a r n from
r e v i s i n g a p a p e r a f t e r t h e t e a c h e r h a s r e v i e w e d i t b u t t h i s t y p e
o f e d i t i n g f o r e r r o r i d e n t i f i c a t i o n a p p e a r s t o h a v e o n l y a m i n o r
e f f e c t , a f f e c t i n g o n l y t h e m e c h a n i c s o f w r i t i n g (Bux ton , 1 9 5 9 ) .
F u r t h e r , Lyman ( 1 9 3 1 ) found a c o r r e l a t i o n o f up t o f i f t y p e r c e n t
i n t h e c o r r e c t i o n o f g r a m m a t i c a l and m e c h a n i c a l e r r o r s when
s t u d e n t s l e a r n e d t o c o r r e c t e r r o r s t h e m s e l v e s b e f o r e s u b m i t t i n g
p a p e r s , t h u s f o r t h e t e a c h e r t h e r e a p p e a r s t o b e g r e a t e r
a d v a n t a g e t o s p e n d i n g t i m e t e a c h i n g s e l f - e d i t i n g t h a n i n
s p e n d i n g t i m e c o r r e c t i n g s t u d e n t p a p e r s f o r e r r o r s ( P a u l s e n ,
1984)
A n e c d o t a l r e p o r t s o f w r i t i n g p r o c e s s by e x p e r i e n c e d
writers appear t o i n d i c a t e t h a t writers f o c u s on d i f f e r e n t
m a t t e r s i n s u c c e s s i v e d r a f t s : i n a f i r s t d r a f t (and t h e r e may b e
s e v e r a l f i r s t d r a f t s ) , writers a r e more a p t t o hammer o u t t h e
b a s i c form of t h e p i e c e and r o u g h l y f rame i n t h e s t r u c t u r e ;
second d r a f t s t end t o f o c u s on a d j u s t i n g t h e s t r u c t u r e , making
changes by e d i t i n g what was w r i t t e n ( o r n o t w r i t t e n ) i n t h e
f i r s t d r a f t (Tchud i , 1985) . Tchudi compared t h e work of
e x p e r i e n c e d and i n e x p e r i e n c e d writers t o t h e work of amateur and
p r o f e s s i o n a l c a r p e n t e r s : p r o f e s s i o n a l s see t h a t a door jamb i s
o u t o f a l i g n m e n t and know how t o shim i t i n t o p l a c e . Amateurs
l i v e w i t h a door t h a t ' s hung c r o o k e d l y .
Exper ienced writers o f t e n u s e f i r s t d r a f t s f o r s t r u c t u r e ,
n o t i n t h e s e n s e of o u t l i n i n g a framework which w i l l b e f i l l e d
i n l a t e r , b u t by d i s c o v e r i n g t h e framework somewhere i n t h e
f i r s t d r a f t and f o r m a l i z i n g , d e l i n e a t i n g and s t r e n g t h e n i n g t h a t
shape i n s u b s e q u e n t d r a f t s ( P a u l s e n , 1984; Weathers , 1985;
G o r r e l l , 1985) .
Edlting P o e t r y
Most r e s e a r c h i n t o e d i t i n g and r e v i s i n g d e a l s o n l y w i t h
e x p o s i t o r y w r i t i n g , b u t D e l l a P i a n a (1978) h a s c r e a t e d a model o f
w r i t i n g - a s - r e v i s i o n r e c o g n i z i n g f o u r p h a s e s i n p o e t i c w r i t i n g ,
which o f f e r s t r o n g p a r a l l e l s t o t h e s t a g e s i n e x p o s i t o r y
w r i t i n g :
1) the preconception and set (an initial vision of what
the work will be,)
2 ) discrimination and dissonance (seeing what the work
does or not do and finding matches or mismatches between what
the text does, what it is intended to do, and what the text
itself suggests) , 3 ) tension (concern with getting the work to do what one
intends it to do) , and 4) reconception.
Although few researchers studying expository writing have
applied their findings to poetic writing, DellaPiana' s model
does appear to closely match the processes which have come to be
regard'ed as basic to the expository writing process. Further
study may reveal more similarities between the two processes.
Like researchers in expository writing, DellaPiana
suggests revision in the writing of poetry should not be seen
solely as editing and polishing after a work is largely finished
but as a process which must occur prior to and throughout the
writing of the poem until completion or abandonnent of the work.
In common with other genres, there appears to be a lack
of accord on the criteria for poetic writing: What constitutes
'good' poetry, or even what poetry is (DellaPiana, 1978).
New Model for Editing and Revisinq.
Flower, Hayes, et a l , (1986) have postulated a new model
FIGURE TWO
Processes Knowledge
Goals, Cri terla I and Constraints Evaluation
Read to:
Comprehend
Eva1 uate
Defi ne Problems
for Texts and ' Plans .
Problem Representation
Diagnosis .- htwtion well-defined I
Cognitive Processes in Revision. From Detection,
diagnosis, and the strategies of revision, by Linda
Flower, John R. Hayes, Linda Carey, Karen Schriver, and
James Stratman, in College Composition and
Communication, February, 1986. Copyright 1986 by the
National Council of Teachers of English. Reprinted with
permission.
f o r e d i t i n g and r e v i s i n g which t h e y b e l i e v e sets o u t
i n t e r e s t i n g , u s e f u l and t e s t a b b l e h y p o t h e s e s a b o u t t h e k i n d s of
s k i l l s e x p e r t s and n o v i c e s a r e l i k e l y t o e x h i b i t d i f f e r e n t i a l l y ,
p a r t i c u l a r l y on c o n t r o l l e d r e v i s i o n t a s k s . T h e i r h y p o t h e s i s
i n c l u d e s t h e assumpt ion t h a t " e x p e r t i s e a f f e c t s n o t o n l y what
i n f o r m a t i o n a s u b j e c t may heed i n s h o r t t e r m memory, b u t a l s o
t o some e x t e n t t h e s u b j e c t ' s a b i l i t y t o r e p o r t what i s heeded.
Thus, t h e y r e a s o n , e x p e r t s who have " o v e r l e a r n e d o r automated"
some w r i t i n g s u b p r o c e s s e s
" . . . w i l l n o t be a b l e t o v e r b a l i z e t h i s p r o c e s s , whereas n o v i c e s can . . . C o n v e r s e l y , b o t h e x p e r t s and n o v i c e s might ... u s e t h e same s u b p r o c e s s , b u t o n l y e x p e r t s -- a s a r e s u l t of b e t t e r v e r b a l s k i l l s -- might be a b l e t o r e p o r t t h a t t h e y were d o i n g sot ' (p . 9 ) .
Flower f u r t h e r assumes some h i g h l e v e l p r o c e s s e s c a n n o t
be automateu "no m a t t e r how e x p e r t t h e e x p e r t " and t h a t " t r a c e s
of t h e i n f o r m a t i o n used o r produced i n t h e p r o c e s s w i l l b e
a v a i l a b l e f o r r e p o r t i n g i n s h o r t - t e r m memory." A s a chgck on C
r e c a l l r e p o r t i n g , Flower examined t e x t u a l d a t a , which p rov ided
i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t t h e a s s u m p t i o n s c o n c e r n i n g t h e p r o c e s s e s
employed by b o t h n o v i c e s and e x p e r t s . I n n e a r l y a l l c a s e s t h e
p r o c e s s d a t a was p a r a l l e l e d by d i f f e r e n c e s i n w r i t t e n o u t p u t .
C e n t r a l s u b p r o c e s s e s i d e n t i f i e d were: t a s k d e f i n i t i o n ,
e v a l u a t i o n , problem r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , d e t e c t i o n , d i a g n o s i s and
s t r a t e g y s e l e c t i o n . ( S e e F i g u r e Two).
Model l ing E d i t i n g i n W r i t i n q
There a r e two major a p p r o a c h e s t o t h e q u e s t i o n of
model l ing : one h o l d s t h a t good w r i t i n g ( e g , c l a s s i c s ) p r o v i d e s a
model f o r s t u d e n t s t o u s e when l e a r n i n g t o wr i te , implying t h a t
s t u d e n t s c a n i n t e r n a l i z e whate.ver i t i s i n t h e w r i t i n g t h a t
makes i t 'good ' and i n c o r p o r a t e t h o s e i n g r e d i e n t s i n t o t h e i r own
w r i t i n g . There is some s u g g e s t i o n t h a t w h i l e good l i t e r a t u r e c a n
b e r e a d i l y e n j o y e d , t h e smoothness of t h e f i n i s h e d p r o d u c t c a n
r e n d e r i t i n a c c e s s i b l e a s a model f o r l e a r n i n g .
The o t h e r major approach t o t h e q u e s t i o n of m o d e l l i n g
d e a l s w i t h b e h a v i o u r m o d e l l i n g : t e a c h e r - a s - w r i t e r p r o v i d i n g
s t u d e n t s w i t h a n a c t i v e model n o t o n l y of t h e w r i t i n g p r o c e s s ,
b u t a s h a r e d model of t h e w r i t i n g p r o d u c t a s w e l l . R e s e a r c h e r s
have noted t h a t " t h e power of t e a c h i n g by example c a n n o t b e
o v e r e s t i m a t e d " and i t must p l a y a r o l e i n c u r r i c u l u m ... development ( F i n k e l , 1984; D. Murray, 1968; S t r a s s e r , 1 9 8 4 ) .
While t h e r e a r e s t r o n g s u g g e s t i o n s t h a t t h e r e is a n
improved c l a s s r o o m p r o d u c t when c l a s s r o o m m o d e l l i n g is p r o v i d e d
by a w r i t i n g t e a c h e r , no s t a t i s t i c a l s u p p o r t f o r t h i s
s u p p o s i t i o n a p p e a r s t o be a v a i l a b l e . Whether t h e p e r c e i v e d
e f f e c t ex i s t s because of t h e m o d e l l i n g , b e c a u s e of a s u p p o r t i v e
and informed a t t i t u d e by an a c t i v e l y w r i t i n g t e a c h e r , whether i t
r e f l e c t s a s e l f - f u l f i l l i n g prophecy o r 'Pygmal ion ' e f f e c t ,
whether i t is a c o m b i n a t i o n of t h e s e f a c t o r s , o r whether i t
e x i s t s a t a l l , h a s y e t t o b e shown.
S t u d e n t s of w r i t i n g t e a c h e r s may have an a d v a n t a g e i n
t h a t t h e y c a n l e a r n t h r o u g h t h e "same n a t u r a l i s t i c approach
by which t h e y l e a r n t o t a l k , " ( A m e s , 1985; B a r t h o l o m a e , 1985)
t h a t i s , by i m i t a t i o n and c l o s e p e r s o n a l i n t e r a c t i o n . T h e r e a r e
i n d i c a t i o n s t h a t s t u d e n t s who h a v e had t h e a d v a n t a g e o f
n a t u r a l i s t i c m e t h o d s o f a c q u i r i n g l a n g u a g e a r t s s k i l l s i n t h e i r
home e n v i r o m e n t s , b o t h b e f o r e and d u r i n g f o r m a l s c h o o l i n g , d o
be t te r i n r e a d i n g and w r i t i n g t h a n s t u d e n t s who l a c k t h i s
e x p o s u r e (Bur rows , 1961; C l a y , 1975; H a l l , More tz and S t a t o m ,
1976; Hea th , 1983; King and R e n t e l , 1981 ; Morrow, 1 9 8 1 ) .
S t u d e n t s d o a p p e a r t o l e a r n by i m i t a t i o n and m i m i c r y ,
w h e t h e r a t t h e l e v e l o f t h e u n i v e r s i t y , l e a r n i n g t h e l a n g u a g e of
d i s c o u r s e i n w r i t t e n c o m p o s i t i o n ( B a r t h o l o m a e , 1 9 8 5 ) , o r i n
p r i m a r y and p r e s c h o o l classes, l e a r n i n g s o c i a l c o n c e p t s t h r o u g h
t h e s y m b o l i c p r o c e s s e s o f d r a m a t i c p l a y ( P e l l i g r i n n i , 1 9 8 4 ) .
S t u d e n t s m u s t become c o m f o r t a b l e w i t h t h e c o n v e n t i o n s u sed i n
a n y p a r t i c u l a r community ( F i s h , 1 9 8 0 ) and u n t i l t a k e s p l a c e ,
t h e y w i l l p r o g r e s s w i t h g r e a t d i f f i c u l t y , i f a t a l l . S t u d e n t s
work ing w i t h i n na r row c o n f i n e s and c o n v e n t i o n s i n t h e c l a s s r o o m ,
may be e x p e c t e d t o p r o d u c e n a r r o w , c o n v e n t i o n a l c l a s s r o o m
w r i t i n g : s t u d e n t s mus t b e g i v e n themes t h a t m a t t e r t o them
( A m e s , 1985 ; Bereiter and S c a r d e m a l i a , 1984; C r a b l e - Sundmacher ,
1984; Mar r , 1 9 8 4 ) and r e s t r i c t e d c l a s s r o o m c o d e s w i l l l i k e l y
p r o d u c e e q u a l l y r e s t r i c t i v e w r i t i n g (Gere and S m i t h , 1979) . I f
t e a c h e r s wan t s t u d e n t s t o p r o d u c e a u t h e n t i c w r i t i n g , t h e y mus t
p r o v i d e t h e s t u d e n t s w i t h a u t h e n t i c a s s i g n m e n t s ( B u t l e r , 1 9 8 0 ) .
B u t l e r (1981) h a s r e p o r t e d some s u c c e s s i n promot ing
a u t h e n t i c r e v i s i o n by o f f e r i n g s t u d e n t s t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o l e a r n
e d i t i n g and r e v i s i n g s t r a t e g i e s by a n a l y z i n g and working w i t h
g e n u i n e w r i t i n g produced by anonymous writers. T h i s t y p e o f
e m o t i o n a l l y n e u t r a l m a t e r i a l a p p e a r s t o e n a b l e t h e i n e x p e r i e n c e d
writer t o a v o i d problems which sometimes a r i s e when t h e
e g o c e n t r i c i t y of young writers meets t h e l a c k of t a c t among p e e r
e d i t o r s .
Learn by W r i t i n g , Teach by C o r r e c t i n g
Rohman and W l e c k e (1964) d i s p u t e d a n o t i o n which is s t i l l
common today : t h e r e is " s o much i n c o r r e c t n e s s and
i n e f f e c t i v e n e s s 1 ' i n c o m p o s i t i o n s w r i t t e n by s t u d e n t s b e c a u s e
s t u d e n t s a ) have n o t been t a u g h t enough a b o u t l anguage and
r h e t o r i c , o r b ) have n o t been t a u g h t e f f e c t i v e l y enough.
According t o Rohman and W l e c k e ( 1 9 6 4 ) , s t u d e n t s a r e t a u g h t a b o u t
l a n g u a g e and r h e t o r i c i n one way o r a n o t h e r t h r o u g h o u t most of
t h e i r s c h o o l i n g and t h e n o t i o n t h a t e f f e c t i v e t e a c h i n g means
n o t h i n g more t h a n r i g o r o u s t e a c h i n g i s q u e s t i o n a b l e , There a r e
two a s s u m p t i o n s which t h e y s a y a r e a l m o s t dogmas w i t h many
t e a c h e r s : " I f you want t o l e a r n t o w i t e , write! I f you want t o /
t e a c h w r i t i n g , c o r r e c t !
There is no ' s p e c i a l magic ' i n t h e s e o f t - t r i e d a p p r o a c h e s
a c c o r d i n g t o Rohman and Wlecke (1964) , who s t a t e d t h e y b e l i e v e d
r e s e a r c h e r s had n o t s o much d i s c r e d i t e d f o r a l l t i m e f r e q u e n t
w r i t i n g and h a r d m a r k i n g , a s t h e y had a l t e r e d t h e i r v i e w s on t h e
s u b j e c t f rom a x i o m a t i c t o p r o b l e m a t i c .
Many wri ters e x p r e s s t h e b e l i e f t h a t t h e o n l y way t o
l e a r n w r i t i n g is by w r i t i n g ( D . Murray, 19968; Elbow, 1 9 7 3 ,
1 9 8 3 ) , b u t low vo lumes o f w r i t i n g may n o t be t h e o n l y r e a s o n why
some s t u d e n t s write p o o r l y . Some may h a v e g e n u i n e d i f f i c u l t y
r e c o g n i z i n g s t r u c t u r a l p r o b l e m s i n s e n t e n c e s ( S h a u g h n e s s y , 1 9 7 7 )
o r s t r u g g l e w i t h s h o r t - t e r m memory l i m i t s ( D a i u t e , 1 9 8 2 ) . Some
s t u d e n t s may b e s u c h p o o r r e a d e r s o f t h e i r own work t h a t t h e y d o
n o t know what r e q u i r e s e d i t i n g ( T a t e , 1 9 8 1 ) , o r may n o t
u n d e r s t a n d t h e t r u e s c o p e o f r e v i s i o n a c t i v i t i e s ( I ) , r e g a r d i n g
r e v i s i o n a s " t i d y i n g up f i r s t d r a f t copy" ( D . Murray, 1978) o r
" s h u f f l i n g a few commas a round" ( F u l w i l e r , 1 9 8 2 ) t o make papers
more a c c e p t a b l e .
T h e r e a r e many ' i n v i s i b l e ' f a c t o r s i n v o l v e d i n w r i t i n g : a
p e r f e c t l y c o r r e c t p a p e r may c o n t a i n ' n o i s e ' and ' s t a t i c ' which L
d i s t r a c t t h e a t t e n t i o n o f t h e r e a d e r (Marde r , 1984) and t h e s e
a r e c o n d i t i o n s which e d i t o r s l e a r n t o r e c o g n i z e and a l t e r i n t h e
e d i t i n g p r o c e s s e s . A t t e n t i o n o f t h e a u d i e n c e c a n b e l o s t
t h r o u g h c i r c u m l o c u t i o n s , c l i c h e s , e x c e s s i v e summary and t h e
r e n d i t i o n o f t h e o b v i o u s (Marde r , 1 9 8 4 ) . N o i s e may i n c l u d e new
i n f o r m a t i o n which i s n o t c l e a r l y e x p i a i n e d i n t h e t e x t ,
- -
(1) S e e F a i g l e y and Witte ( 1 9 8 1 ) Taxomony o f R e v i s i o n , ( F i g . 3 )
FIGURE THREE
Revision Changes
Surfare Changes Text-Base Changes
Formal Meaning-Preserving C hanges Changes
Spelling Additions Tense, Number, Deletions
and Modality Substitutions ~bbreviation Permutations Punctuation Distributions Format Consolidations
Microstructure Changes
Additions Deletions Substitutions .Permutations Distributions Consolidations
Macrost ructure Changes
Additions Deletions Substitutions Permutations Distributions Conso1;dations
A taxonomy of revision changes. From Analyzing Revision,
by Lester Faigley and Stepehen Witte, in College Composition and
Communication, December 1981, Vol. 37. Copyright 1981 by the
National Council of Teachers of English. Reprinted with
permission.
t h e t e x t , o r d e n s e series o f a b s t r a c t i o n s which f r u s t r a t e and
t i r e t h e r e a d e r w i t h unfa thomable i n f o r m a t i o n (Marder , 1 9 8 4 ) .
I t is much e a s i e r t o mark e r r o r s t h a n t o d e a l w i t h n o i s e
f a c t o r s of t h e s e s o r t s , b u t e r r o r c o r r e c t i o n is n o t a lways t h e
b e s t e d i t i n g s t r a t e g y t o improve a p i e c e of w r i t l n g ( S t e w i g ,
1 9 8 3 ) . Very o b j e c t i v e e r r o r c o r r e c t i o n may l e a d s t u d e n t s t o
b e l i e v e t h a t good w r i t i n g i s s imply a m a t t e r of a v o i d i n g e r r o r s
w h i l e o v e r l y s u b j e c t i v e e v a l u a t i o n may l e a d s t u d e n t s t o t h e
e q u a l l y e r r o n e o u s i m p r e s s i o n t h a t t h e a r t of w r i t i n g w e l l is
m e r e l y t h e a r t o f a p p e a l i n g t o t h e t a s t e s and whims of one
p a r t i c u l a r t e a c h e r ( S t e w i g , 1983) . Summary
To summarize t h e r e s e a r c h , i t would appear t h a t t h e
'secret ' t o good w r i t i n g h a s much more t o d o w i t h e x p e r i e n c e and
a p p l i c a t i o n t h a n w i t h ' knacks ' o r ' ways w i t h words' . Exper ienced
wri ters make u s e o f d i f f e r e n t a p p r o a c h e s t o w r i t i n g , b u t i n
g e n e r a l appear t o b e g i n w i t h some s o r t of i n t e r n a l e d i t i n g
p r o c e s s , fo l lowed by e x p e r i m e n t a t i o n and g l o b a l r e o r g a n i z a t i o n
o r r e v i s i o n , b e f o r e t h e y t u r n t h e i r a t t e n t i o n s m a l l and
p a r t i c u l a r p a r t s of t h e whole. These s t e p s may be r e p e a t e d any
number of t i m e s and i n any o r d e r , b u t o n l y a f t e r t h e s e s t e p s a r e
s a t i s f a c t o r i l y comple ted d o e x p e r i e n c e d writers a p p e a r t o pay
c o n s c i o u s a t t e n t i o n t o e r r o r c o r r e c t i o n and p r o o f r e a d i n g .
The e d i t i n g d e m o n s t r a t e d by p e e r e d i t o r s i n t h i s s t u d y
w i l l be compared, i n s o f a r a s is p o s s i b l e , w i t h t h e e d i t i n g
h a b i t s of e x p e r i e n c e d writers r e v e a l e d i n t h e l i t e r a t u r e .
58
CHAPTER THREE
DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY
EDITING BEHAVIOURS
Accounts and studies of the writing and editing
behaviours of different groups of writers deal with beginning
writers (Dobson, 1983; D. Graves, 1975), experienced writers
(Hull, 1984; Sommers, 1980; Waldrep, 1985), young writers (Lamme
and Childers, 1983), intermediate writers (Benson, 1979, Odell,
1975) , senior secondary writers (Beach, 1979; Bridwell, 1980; Emig, 1971; Land, 1984; Monohan, 1984), college and university
writers (Crowley, 1981; Perl, 1978; Piankao, 1979), and
professional writers (Shuman, 1981.) Each of these deals with
editing r-evising done by writers, using their own work.
Rationale C
In order to study editing processes, it was necessary
to find some way to examine editing which would allow for
comparison and contrast between various pieces of editing. To
accomplish this, a common ground for editing was required, and
this common ground was provided by a standard text.
In order to more closely simulate peer editing, the
standard text was written by a same-age, same-grade student in
the same school district, but at a different school.
59
I t was hoped t h a t p r o d u c t a n a l y s i s would p r o v i d e a way
of examining t h e e d i t i n g w i t h o u t t h a t work b e i n g i n f l u e n c e d by
t h e many v a r i a b l e s i n t r o d u c e d by w r i t i n g and e d i t i n g e i the r
o n e ' s own work, t h e work of a known w r i t i n g p a r t n e r , o r m a t e r i a l
which d i f f e r e d i n some way from t h a t w i t h which o t h e r s t u d e n t s
d e a l t . S t u d e n t s i n t h e s t u d y would be p e e r e d i t i n g , b u t w i t h one
major d i f f e r e n c e from cus tomary p e e r e d i t i n g : t h e y would s h a r e
t h e same p e e r . Each member of t h e g r o u p was g i v e n a pho to copy
of t h e same s t a n d a r d t e x t .
The e d i t i n g done by s t u d e n t s would be examined i n a n
a t t e m p t t o d i s c o v e r how t h e s t u d e n t s e d i t e d , whether t h e r e was
e v i d e n c e of p r i o r i t i z a t i o n i n t h e i r e d i t i n g p r o c e s s e s , whether
t h e e d i t i n g was e r r o r - c e n t e r e d o r c o n t e n t - c e n t e r e d , and what
s o r t s of s u g g e s t i o n s s t u d e n t s made when p e e r e d i t i n g .
T h i s s t u d y d o e s n o t i n v o l v e p r o t o c o l r e s e a r c h . I t is a
p r o d u c t s t u d y o n l y . No c o n t r o l g roup was used and t h e sample
s i z e was s m a l l . I t is f r e e l y acknowledged t h a t t h i s work i s
i n s u f f i c i e n t t o s u p p o r t any wide g e n e r a l i z a t i o n , b u t i t may
i n d i c a t e a r e a s of f u r t h e r s t u d y which migh t be p r o d u c t i v e .
P a r t i c i p a n t s
T h e s t u d e n t s t a k i n g p a r t i n t h i s e x e r c i s e were members
of a Grade s i x c l a s s . There were 40 c l a s s members, r a n g i n g i n
age from 11 t o 1 3 y e a r s , w i t h most i n t h e 12-year o l d group.
60
No p r e c i s e mean a g e is a v a i l a b l e . The c l a s s c o n s i s t e d of 19
g i r l s and 2 1 boys. The work of two s t u d e n t s was n o t i n c l u d e d i n
t h e o b s e r v a t i o n s . These s t u d e n t s , b o t h boys , had a r r i v e d i n
Canada v e r y r e c e n t l y : one from As ia , one from Europe, and spoke
v e r y l i t t l e E n g l i s h . N e i t h e r e d i t e d , r e v i s e d , c o r r e c t e d o r
a l t e r e d t h e s t a n d a r d t e x t i n any way. Each w r o t e h i s name on t h e
p a p e r , t h e n r e c o p i e d t h e e x i s t i n g t e x t . Under t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s
i t was n o t f e l t t h a t t h e i r work was t r u l y r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of p e e r
e d i t i n g , and s o i t was n o t i n c l u d e d i n t h e s c o r i n g . The
remain ing c l a s s members were t h u s e v e n l y d i v i d e d , w i t h 19 boys
and 19 g i r l s p a r t i c i p a t i n g .
S e t t i n g
The s e s s i o n took p l a c e i n t h e c l a s s r o o m normal ly
occup ied by t h a t c l a s s . No s p e c i a l a r r a n g e m e n t s were made w i t h i n
t h e c l a s s r o o m . S t u d e n t s were n o t v i d e o t a p e d , f i l m e d o r r ecorded
i n any way d u r i n g t h e w r i t i n g p r o c e s s , nor were t h e y s u b j e c t e d C
t o any o b s e r v a t i o n o t h e r t h a n t h a t which normal ly t a k e s p l a c e
d u r i n g a c l a s s r o o m a c t i v i t y . The t e a c h e r moved around t h e room,
respond ing t o g e n e r a l q u e s t i o n s from s t u d e n t s b u t n o t i n i t i a t i n g
s u g g e s t i o n s on how s t u d e n t s migh t d e a l w i t h t h e s t a n d a r d t e x t
m a t e r i a l .
Q u e s t i o n s asked by s t u d e n t s g e n e r a l l y d e a l t w i t h such
m a t t e r s a s whether t h e work s h o u l d b e i n pen o r i n p e n c i l , c o u l d
r e d p e n c i l s b e used , s h o u l d i t b e d o u b l e o r s i n g l e s p a c e d , d i d
61
s p e l l i n g have t o be " o u t of t h e i r heads" o r were t h e y a l lowed t o
u s e d i c t i o n a r i e s , and o t h e r m a t t e r s of t h a t n a t u r e .
I n s t r u c t i o n s
S t u d e n t s were g i v e n i n d i v i d u a l p h o t o c o p i e s of a t y p e d ,
double-spaced s t a n d a r d t e x t , a l o n g w i t h two s h e e t s of l i n e d
h a l f - p a g e f o o l s c a p p a p e r . E x t r a s u p p l i e s of p a p e r were p l a c e d a t
t h e f r o n t o f t h e room f o r s t u d e n t s t o u s e i f , and a s , r e q u i r e d .
S t u d e n t s had a c c e s s t o whatever books t h e y n o r m a l l y used d u r i n g
w r i t i n g p e r i o d s ( d i c t i o n a r y , t h e s a u r u s , e tc .) and c o u l d w r i t e i n
e i t h e r pen o r p e n c i l , w i t h t h e s o l e s t i p u l a t i o n t h a t t h e r e s u l t
must be r e a d a b l e .
The o n l y d e v i a t i o n from t h e i r normal r o u t i n e was t h a t
t h e y were r e q u e s t e d n o t t o u s e e i t h e r ' l i q u i d p a p e r ' o r e r a s e r s .
Anything t o be d e l e t e d was t o b e s t r o k e d o u t w i t h a s i n g l e l i n e .
T h i s was done i n o r d e r t h a t i t would b e p o s s i b l e t o see e x a c t l y
what words o r p h r a s e s had been a l t e r e d and , i f changes were
made, t o p e r m i t compar ison of t h e a l t e r e d t e x t w i t h t h e o r i g i n a l
t e x t . T h i s a l s o made i t p o s s i b l e t o see whether s t u d e n t s made
more t h a n one change o r e d i t e d t h e i r own comments.
These s t u d e n t s were accustomed t o u s i n g ' l i q u i d p a p e r '
t o b l a n k o u t words, p h r a s e s o r s e n t e n c e s t h e y wished t o a l t e r ,
t h e n w r i t i n g c o r r e c t i o n s o r r e v i s i o n s on t h e opaqued s u r f a c e .
I t was emphasized t h a t , a s t h e y were n o t t o u s e l i q u i d
p a p e r o r e r a s e r s , n e a t n e s s would n o t b e c o n s i d e r e d , b u t t h a t
62
l e g i b i l i t y would b e v e r y i m p o r t a n t .
S t u d e n t s were t o l d t h i s was n o t a t e s t , b u t a p r a c t i s e
e x e r c i s e which would n o t b e marked i n any way. I f t h e y d i d n o t
f e e l c o m f o r t a b l e working w i t h t h e s t a n d a r d t e x t , t h e y were f r e e
t o write on a t o p i c of t h e i r own choos ing . No s t u d e n t s e l e c t e d
t h i s o p t i o n . There a r e a number of p o s s i b l e r e a s o n s f o r t h i s :
s t u d e n t s may have f e l t working w i t h a s s i g n e d t e x t was ' e a s i e r ' ,
t h e y may n o t have wished t o do something o t h e r s t u d e n t s were n o t
d o i n g , may have chosen t o u s e a d e l a y i n g s t r a t e g y u n t i l t h e y had
a b e t t e r i d e a e i t h e r of what was e x p e c t e d of them, o r what t h e y
wanted t o do , o r o t h e r i n f l u e n c e s may have been a t work. The
t i m e f rame f o r t h i s e x e r c i s e was a r e g u l a r c l a s s r o o m p e r i o d of
35 m i n u t e s , h e l d i n t h e f i r s t p e r i o d a f t e r l u n c h .
S t u d e n t s were asked t o r e a d t h e pho tocop ied s t o r y , and
t h e n t o e d i t i t , making any s u g g e s t i o n s t h a t t h e y t h o u g h t migh t
h e l p t h e writer t o improve t h e s t o r y . I • ’ t i m e p e r m i t t e d ,
s t u d e n t s were encouraged t o r e v i s e t h e s t o r y t h e m s e l v e s , making
any changes t o i t t h a t t h e y wished.
They were a l s o t o l d t h a t i f , a f t e r e d i t i n g t h e s t o r y ,
t h e r e was s t i l l t i m e a v a i l a b l e b u t t h e y d i d n o t wish t o r e v i s e
t h i s s t o r y , t h e y c o u l d u s e t h e remainder of t h e t i m e f o r f r e e
w r i t i n g . T h i s d i d n o t a p p e a r t o m o t i v a t e s t u d e n t s t o r u s h
t h r o u g h t h e p r o j e c t , and no s t u d e n t d i d , i n f a c t , u n d e r t a k e f r e e
w r i t i n g .
I t took a p p r o x i m a t e l y e i g h t m i n u t e s t o s e t t l e t h e c l a s s
6 3
and comply w i t h c l a s s r o o m p r o c e d u r e s ( t a k i n g a t t e n d a n c e , e tc .)
p a s s i n g o u t p a p e r s and answer ing q u e s t i o n s , and a n o t h e r f i v e
m i n u t e s a t t h e end of t h e c l a s s w i t h g a t h e r i n g p a p e r s , answer ing
q u e s t i o n s a b o u t t h e s t o r y and s h a r i n g comments on i t . The a c t u a l
'on t a s k ' t i m e was t h e r e f o r e of a b o u t 22 m i n u t e s d u r a t i o n .
P r o c e d u r e
The work done by t h e s t u d e n t s was r e a d twice: t h e f i r s t
r e a d i n g f o c u s s e d on t h e remarks s t u d e n t s made a b o u t t h e s t o r y ,
and t h e s u g g e s t i o n s t h e y had made t o h e l p t h e writer improve t h e
s t o r y . The second r e a d i n g invo lved examining t h e e d i t i n g done on
t h e o r i g i n a l s t o r y . These r e s u l t s were t h e n d i v i d e d i n t o v a r i o u s
g r o u p i n g s f o r s c o r i n g purposes .
Some s t u d e n t s had used p r o o f r e a d i n g marks; o t h e r s had
w r i t t e n comments on the . page o r had made d i r e c t r e v i s i o n s t o ' t h e
copy. Each s u g g e s t e d o r a c t u a l t e x t a l t e r a t i o n made by t h e
s t u d e n t s was c l a s s i f i e d a s e i t h e r an a d d i t i o n ( someth ing added
which had n o t p r e v i o u s l y been p r e s e n t i n t h e t e x t ) , d e l e t i o n
( someth ing had been removed from t h e t e x t ) , o r s u b s t i t u t i o n
(something had been w r i t t e n i n p l a c e of something else i n t h e
t e x t . ) Each of t h e s e t e x t a l t e r a t i o n s was t h e n r e c l a s s i f i e d
w i t h i n i t s own group a s t o whether i t d e a l t w i t h p u n c u t a t i o n ,
w i t h grammar, o r w i t h changes t o t h e c o n t e n t of t h e t e x t .
A n a l y s i s o f S t u d e n t Work
A n a l y s i s o f w r i t t e n comments o f f e r e d by t h e s t u d e n t s ,
b o t h t h e i r e v a l u a t i o n s o f t h e m a t e r i a l and t h e s u g g e s t i o n s t h e y
o f f e r e d t o t h e wr i te r , a p p e a r t o i n d i c a t e t h a t some s t u d e n t s
were f o l l o w i n g r u l e s . No p r o v i s i o n had b e e n made f o r s t u d e n t s
t o i d e n t i f y t h e r u l e s t h e y u s e d , t h u s t h e s t u d e n t who s u g g e s t e d
t h e writer s h o u l d " n o t write t h e l i t t l e words t h a t d o n ' t mean
a n y t h i n g " b u t i n s t e a d "write t h e o n e s t h a t h a v e more meaning and
u n d e r s t a n d i n g " may h a v e b e e n q u o t i n g a ' r u l e ' , making a s t y l e
s u g g e s t i o n , o r may h a v e had some th ing else i n mind. T h i s s t u d e n t
d i d n o t p r o v i d e a n example o f t h e words t h a t had "more meaning
and u n d e r s t a n d i n g " o r r e v i s e t h e s t a n d a r d t e x t t o a c h i e v e t h i s ,
s o i t is d i f f i c u l t t o know e x a c t l y what was i n t e n d e d . T h i s
s t u d e n t was, i t a p p e a r e d , d o i n g e x a c t l y t h e same a s some
t e a c h e r s -of w r i t i n g do : making a n ambiguous comment which o n l y
added c o n f u s i o n ( S e a r l e and D i l l o n , 1 9 8 0 . )
O t h e r s t u d e n t s r e f e r r e d t o " u n p r o p e r E n g l i s h " , word
o r d e r , and u n e c e s s a r y p u n c t u a t i o n . S t u d e n t s a r e n o t a l w a y s a s
p r e c i s e i n r u l e a p p l i c a t i o n a s t e a c h e r s m i g h t w i sh and may a p p l y
t h e r i g h t r u l e s wrong ly , o r t h e wrong r u l e s r i g h t l y ( B e l a n g e r
and R o g e r s , 1983; S c a r d a m a l i a a n d B e r e i t e r , 1983; Z i v , 1984) o r
may even b e c i t i n g n o n - r u l e s .
One s t u d e n t v o l u n t e e r e d a comment a f t e r t h e s e s s i o n
e n d e d , t h a t t h e r e was "a r u l e t h a t you c o u l d n ' t s a y ' I ' i n a
s t o r y . " With no p r o t o c o l s t u d y i n p l a c e , i t is d i f f i c u l t t o
know whether these students were consciously applying rules or
conventions or were, as Hugh Garner (1973) expressed it,
"writing by ear" -- a process described in a more academic manner as "measuring text against a generalized set of
internalized criteria" (Flower and Hayes, 1981.)
Although some students did attempt to identify some of
the text elements they dealt with, they did not identify all
text elements. This may indicate that they had learned text
forms through other than formal methods of instruction (Bereiter
and Scardemalia, 1981): they knew something needed fixing and
had some idea of how to fix it, but likely could not have
explained either what they did, or why.
Scoring
Edited text was quantified in one of nine
subcategories:
Substitution - punctuation Substitution - grammar Substitution - content Addition - puncutation Addition - grammar Addition - content Deletion - punctuation Deletion - grammar Deletion - content
66
~diting involving content alteration, substitution,
addition or deletion is macroediting: major in scope and often
involving addition of information for greater clarity. Editing
involving puncutation or grammar, either through substitutuion,
addition or deletion, is microediting -- minor in scope, often convention based, frequently involving error correction.
Results
The greatest amount of text editing by this group of
Grade six students involved grammar -- 67.5 per cent of all substitutions involved grammar, 69.9 per cent of all deletions
involved grammar.
Virtually all of the grammar editing undertaken in this
study was concerned solely with error correction. No instances
were discerned in which grammar had been edited for effect, for
emphasis, for style or for clarity.
The deletions, too, generally involved errors and were
a good example of Flower and Hayes' (1986) suggestion that one
valid strategy demonstrated by writers when they are unable to
fix a perceived error, is the removal of the problem-causing
phrase or sentence.
The only activity which was not grammar-based was
addition, and this proved to be tactic most often used to
accomplish editorial revision. Two thirds of all revisions were
undertaken during the process of adding material to the
67
standard text.
Text alterations showed the following frequencies:
Punctuation Grammar Content
Addition 23% 10.2% 66.6%
Deletion 21.2% 66.9% 11.8%
Substitution 8.5% 67.5% 23.9%
Total additions: 3 9.
Total deletions: 127
Total substitions: 188
Text alterations based on additions:
Punctuation 9
Grammar 4
Content 26
Text alterations based on deletions:
Punctuation 27
Grammar 85
Content 15
Text alterations based on substitutions:
Punctuation 16
Grammar 127
Content 45
68
T o t a l t e x t a l t e r a t i o n s i n v o l v i n g p u n c t u a t i o n : 52
T o t a l t e x t a l t e r a t i o n s i n v o l v i n g grammar: 216
T o t a l t e x t a l t e r a t i o n s i n v o l v i n g c o n t e n t : 86
T o t a l a d d i t i o n s t o t e x t : 39
T o t a l d e l e t i o n s f rom t e x t : 127
T o t a l s u b s t i t u t i o n s t o t e x t : 1 8 8
Most s t u d e n t s e d i t e d t h e s t o r y , b u t s l i g h t l y f e w e r t h a n
h a l f (18 /38 ) o f f e r e d s u g g e s t i o n s f o r improv ing t h e s t o r y , and of
t h e 1 8 s t u d e n t s who made e d i t o r i a l comments, o n l y f o u r d e a l t
w i t h a n y t h i n g o t h e r t h a n c o r r e c t i o n o f grammar. One s t u d e n t
s u g g e s t e d t h e writer s h o u l d t r y " c h a n g i n g word u s e a round . " I t
is n o t c l e a r e x a c t l y what w a s mean t by t h e comment.
The r e m a i n i n g e d i t o r i a l s u g g e s t i o n s i n c l u d e d c h a n g i n g
t h e t i t l e , g i v i n g a r e a s o n f o r b u i l d i n g t h e b o a t , e x p l a i n i n g
w h e t h e r i t was h a r d o r e a s y , t e l l i n g more a b o u t t h e b o a t ( f o r
example , what k i n d , how b i g , and what c o l o u r i t w a s ) , g i v i n g t h e
u n c l e ' s name, t e l l i n g how o f t e n h e came, d e s c r i b i n g what t h e
b u i l d e r s d i d f o r t h e r e m a i n d e r o f t h e w i n t e r , p u t t i n g some
e x c i t e m e n t i n t h e s t o r y , " p u t t i n g a b e t t e r s t a r t i n g , " and
c o n t i n u i n g t h e s t o r y t o i n c l u d e what happened a f t e r t h e b u i l d e r s
d i s c o v e r e d t h e b o a t wouldn ' t g o t h r o u g h t h e d o o r .
S t u d e n t s who o f f e r e d e d i t o r i a l s u g g e s t i o n s t y p i c a l l y
made more t h a n o n e s u g g e s t i o n .
69
Three s t u d e n t s o f f e r e d p o s i t i v e r e i n f o r c e m e n t t o t h e
writer . One n o t e d , "The s t o r y i t s e l f was j u s t f i n e . I t was v e r y
amusing," t h e n commented t h a t t h e w r i t e r ' s word u s e was " n o t
v e r y good." A second s a i d t h e s t o r y was " n o t bad" b u t s u g g e s t e d
t h e writer d o i t o v e r and u s e b e t t e r grammar. The t h i r d s t u d e n t
s a i d " I t would b e a good i d e a t o check i t o v e r and r i g h t ( s i c )
i t a g i a n ( s i c ) and check i n t h e d i c t i o n a r y ( s ic ) f o r words your
(s ic) n o t s u r e o f . o t h e r w i s e v e r y n i c e . "
A number of s t u d e n t s made no e d i t o r i a l s u g g e s t i o n s
wha t soever , b u t began i n d e p e n d e n t r e v i s i o n s of t h e s t o r y , some
making s i g n i f i c a n t t e x t a l t e r a t i o n s , w h i l e o t h e r s d e a l t w i t h
m e c h a n i c a l and c o n v e n t i o n a l a s p e c t s . Among t h e l a t t e r g r o u p , i t
was u n c l e a r whether t h e y were making changes ' b y e a r ' o r i f t h e y
were aware o f t h e s p e c i f i c f u n c t i o n s t h e y were a l t e r i n g ; i t was,
t h e r e f o r e , a l s o u n c l e a r whether t h e y would have 'been a b l e t o
l a b e l t h e t e x t a l t e r a t i o n s t h e y had made.
A number of t h e s t u d e n t s made comments which were
d i f f i c u l t t o u n d e r s t a n d . One example of t h i s was t h e s t u d e n t
r e f e r r e d t o p r e v i o u s l y , who made t h e comment r e g a r d i n g ' l i t t l e
words t h a t d o n ' t mean a n y t h i n g ' . When t h e r e v i s i o n done by t h i s
s t u d e n t is compared t o t h e e d i t e d t e x t , however, and t h e r e v i s e d
t e x t compared w i t h t h e o r i g i n a l t e x t , i t may b e s e e n t h a t t h e
s t u d e n t h a s c o r r e c t e d t h e grammar, h a s i n t h r e e i n s t a n c e s
combined s e n t e n c e s and i n one i n s t a n c e s e p a r a t e d a s e n t e n c e i n t o
two p a r t s . Other t h a n t h e s e g rammat ica l a l t e r a t i o n s , few changes
70
have been made t o t h e s t o r y , a l t h o u g h t h e word ' s t u f f v was
r e p l a c e d i n two i n s t a n c e s : once w i t h ' i n s t r u c t i o n s ' and once
w i t h ' t h e work ' . ' S t u f f ' may have been t h e ' l i t t l e word'
r e f e r r e d t o , o r t h e s t u d e n t may have had something else i n mind.
Another s t u d e n t a l s o q u e s t i o n e d t h e u s e of t h e word
' s t u f f ' and made a d i r e c t s u g g e s t i o n t h a t t h i s word s h o u l d b e
r e p l a c e d w i t h something more s p e c i f i c . However, when t h e s t u d e n t
r e w r o t e t h e copy, t h e word ' s t u f f ' was r e p e a t e d i n t h e r e w r i t t e n
t e x t . While t h e s t u d e n t - a s - e d i t o r r e c o g n i z e d t h e need f o r an
e d i t o r i a l a l t e r a t i o n , t h e s tuden t -as -wr i t e r e i t h e r f o r g o t t h e
s u g g e s t i o n o r c o u l d n o t t h i n k o f a s a t i s f a c t o r y s u b s t i t u t e f o r
' s t u f f ' .
One s t u d e n t used a marking code , b u t d i d n o t s p e c i f y
what t h e code meant. T h i s c o u l d have meant t h a t t h e s t u d e n t
d e v i s e d t h e code f o r t h i s p a r t i c u l a r p i e c e o f work and s imply
f o r g o t t o p r o v i d e a key, o r was making u s e of a code commonly
used i n t h e c l a s s r o o m which would n o t need e x p l a n a t i o n . T h i s
same s t u d e n t made e d i t o r i a l comments which s u g g e s t e d l o o k i n g
o v e r t h e a s s i g n m e n t and r e w r i t i n g i t " i n a more o r d e r l y way" and
a l s o r e f e r r e d t o s p e l l i n g . I n t h e r e v i s i o n s done t o t h e t e x t ,
t h e s t u d e n t had marked ' s p ' n e x t t o t h e word ' i n ' . ~t is n o t
c l e a r i f t h e s t u d e n t b e l i e v e d a s p e l l i n g e r r o r had o c c u r r e d a t
t h i s p o i n t o r i f some o t h e r meaning had been g i v e n t o ' s p ' .
One s t u d e n t p r o v i d e d c o n s t r u c t i v e p e e r e d i t i n g , u r g i n g
t h e writer t o "watch your s p e l l i n g " and s u g g e s t i n g d e t a i l s
7 1
which c o u l d be added t o t h e t e x t . These s u g g e s t i o n s i n v o l v e d
d e s c r i b i n g and g i v i n g a r e a s o n f o r wan t ing a b o a t . I n t h e
r e w r i t t e n copy, t h e s t u d e n t d i d s o , d e s c r i b i n g i t a s a 10 f o o t
l o n g , l i m e g r e e n s a i l b o a t , r e q u i r e d t o t a k e t h e f a m i l y t o v i s i t
a s i c k g r a n d f a t h e r , b e c a u s e t h e y were u n a b l e t o a f f o r d a i r f a r e .
T h i s s t u d e n t was t h e o n l y c l a s s member t o make s p e c i f i c
recommendations and t o f o l l o w t h o s e recommendations when
r e v s i s i n g t h e s t o r y .
S e v e r a l s t u d e n t s d i d make e d i t o r i a l s u g g e s t i o n s
c o n c e r n i n g c o n t e n t , b u t t h e i r own r e v i s i o n s d e a l t s o l e l y w i t h
c o r r e c t i n g grammar and p u n c t u a t i o n . Some o f t h e e d i t o r i a l
s u g g e s t i o n s t h e y made d e a l t w i t h s u c h t h i n g s a s d e a i l s which
c o u l d b e i n c l u d e d i n t h e s t o r y : a name f o r t h e u n c l e , t h e
f r e q u e n c y w i t h which h e v i s i t e d , and what happened a f t e r t h e
b o a t c o u l d n o t b e f i t t e d t h r o u g h t h e d o o r . However, when t h e
s t u d e n t s r e w r o t e t h e t e x t , t h e u n c l e remained unnamed, no
r e f e r e n c e was made t o how o f t e n he came, nor was any a l t e r a t i o n
made t o t h e e n d i n g of t h e s t o r y and n o t h i n g was added t o
i n d i c a t e what migh t have happened a f t e r t h e b u i l d e r s d i s c o v e r e d
t h e b o a t would n o t go t h r o u g h t h e d o o r .
C u r i o u s l y enough, n o t one s t u d e n t s u g g e s t e d g i v i n g t h e
b o a t a name.
I t is p o s s i b l e t h e s t u d e n t - a s - e d i t o r t h o u g h t t h e
s u g g e s t e d i n f o r m a t i o n would add t o t h e s t o r y , b u t t h e
s t u d e n t - a s - w r i t e r e i t h e r f o r g o t o r d i d n o t know how t o
72
i n c o r p o r a t e t h e recommended d e t a i l s i n t o t h e s t o r y , Comparing
t h e r e s p o n s e s of s t u d e n t s who made e d i t o r i a l s u g g e s t i o n s w i t h
t h e i r own r e v i s i o n s , one is s t r u c k w i t h t h e s u s p i c i o n t h a t
s t u d e n t s p a i d l i t t l e o r no a t t e n t i o n t o t h e e d i t e d t e x t when
t h e y were a c t u a l l y i n v o l v e d w i t h t h e r e v i s i o n s . T h i s r e f l e c t s a
c l a s s r o o m phenomenon f r e q u e n t l y no ted by t e a c h e r s : marked
c o r r e c t i o n s a r e q u i t e o f t e n n o t c o r r e c t e d i n f i n a l c o p i e s , b u t
c o n t i n u e t o b e w r i t t e n i n c o r r e c t l y even i n t h e f i n a l v e r s i o n .
I t may r e a d i l y b e s e e n t h a t t h i s g roup of Grade s i x
s t u d e n t s was much more concerned w i t h t h e mechanics of t h e
w r i t i n g t h a n w i t h t h e c o n t e n t s . A s no p r o t o c o l r e s e a r c h was
u n d e r t a k e n , i t is d i f f i c u l t t o s a y why t h i s migh t be s o , b u t
s e v e r a l f a c t o r s may have i n f l u e n c e d t h e i r a c t i o n s :
a ) s t u d e n t s may have been accustomed t o hav ing
t h e i r own work marked and/or e d i t e d w i t h t h e major
emphasis p l a c e d on s p e l l i n g , grammar, and t h e mechan ics
o f w r i t i n g . L
b ) t h e number of e r r o r s c o n t a i n e d i n t h e s t a n d a r d
t e x t may have been r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e e d i t o r i a l
emphasis on c o n v e n t i o n s o f w r i t i n g .
c) s t u d e n t s may n o t have been s u f f i c i e n t l y
m o t i v a t e d t o d o more t h a n t e n d t o s u r f a c e r e v i s i o n s .
A f o u r t h p o s s i b i l i t y must be c o n s i d e r e d : some
s t u d e n t s seemed r e l u c t a n t t o u n d e r t a k e s u b s t a n t i v e
r e v i s i o n o r t o make e d i t o r i a l s u g g e s t i o n s which
7 3
c o u l d have h e l p e d t h e writer t o make s u b s t a n t i v e
r e v i s i o n s . But what a p p e a r s t o be r e l u c t a n c e may i n
f a c t have been a d e l a y i n g s t r a t e g y ( a s no ted i n Flower ,
Hayes, e t a l , 1 9 8 5 ) i n which t h e y engaged u n t i l such
t i m e a s t h e y d e c i p h e r e d more c u e s a s t o what was
e x p e c t e d of them, o r t h e m s e l v e s d e c i d e d how t h e y wanted
t o proceed w i t h t h e s t o r y .
Flower and Hayes ( 1 9 8 6 ) s u g g e s t t h e d e l a y i n g t a c t i c may
b e used a t any s t a g e i n t h e w r i t i n g p r o c e s s , and may be
accompanied by t h e complementary t a c t i c of abandoning t e x t which
is e i t h e r beyond r e p a i r , o r c o n t a i n s t o o many problems t o b e
f i x e d .
I f , a s t h e y s u g g e s t , t h i s d e l a y i n g s t r a t e g y i s a known
t a c t i c i n s e l f - e d i t i n g p r o c e d u r e s , i t may e q u a l l y w e l l be a
t e c h n i q u e - adop ted by e x t e r n a l e d i t o r s : p e e r e d i t o r s may b e
u n s u r e of what is e x p e c t e d , t h e t e x t may c o n t a i n t o o many
problems, o r problems f o r which t h e y a r e u n a b l e t o e x p l i c a t e L
s o l u t i o n s , and t h e t a c t i c o f c h o i c e becomes e i t h e r d e l a y i n g o r
abandoning a t t e m p t s a t p e e r e d i t i n g . A t t h e same t i m e , p e e r
e d i t o r s may f e e l t h a t something i s e x p e c t e d from them and ,
l a c k i n g any o t h e r o p t i o n a t t h a t moment, may r e v e r t t o e r r o r
c o r r e c t i o n a s a s a f e and f a m i l i a r p r o c e s s . T h i s may seem a more
a t t r a c t i v e a l t e r n a t i v e i f t h e s t u d e n t h a s had l i t t l e o p p o r t u n i t y
t o o b s e r v e s u b s t a n t i v e e d i t i n g and i s more f a m i l i a r w i t h e r r o r
c o r r e c t i o n . S e v e r a 1 s t u d e n t s appear t o have s e l e c t e d a d e l a y i n g
o r abandoning t a c t i c t o d e a l w i t h t h e problems t h e y e n c o u n t e r e d
7 4
i n t h e p e e r e d i t i n g p r o c e s s . Ten s t u d e n t s d i d n o t e d i t t h e
s t a n d a r d t e x t a t a l l , b u t moved d i r e c t l y t o t e x t r e v i s i o n . T h i s
may i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e y were u n s u r e of how t o make e d i t o r i a l
s u g g e s t i o n s t o t h e writer, b u t were a b l e t o u n d e r t a k e
a l t e r a t i o n s when t h e y t h e m s e l v e s d i d t h e w r i t i n g . A l a c k o f
e d i t o r i a l v o c a b u l a r y may have r e s u l t e d i n s t u d e n t s b e i n g u n a b l e
t o e x p l a i n t h e problem o r how t o d e a l w i t h i t , a l t h o u g h t h e y may
have been a b l e t o r e c o g n i z e what needed r e p a i r and had some i d e a
o f how t o g o a b o u t i t .
The t e n s t u d e n t s who abandoned a t t e m p t s a t e d i t i n g t h e
s t a n d a r d t e x t may have found r e v i s i n g e a s i e r t h a n a n a l y z i n g t h e
t e x t and making e d i t o r i a l recommendations f o r d e a l i n g w i t h t h e
problems e n c o u n t e r e d i n t h e t e x t . I t must b e noted t h a t no
e v i d e n c e f o r t h i s e x i s t s i n t h e w r i t i n g and is r a i s e d o n l y a s a
p o s s i b i l i t y . I t is e q u a l l y p o s s i b l e t h a t s t u d e n t s d i d c o n s i d e r
e d i t i n g and may have s p e n t t i m e a n a l y z i n g t h e s t a n d a r d t e x t w i t h
a view t o e d i t i n g . They d i d n o t , however, make n o t a t i o n s on t h e
t e x t which would c o n f i r m t h i s p o s s i b i l i t y .
One c u r i o u s s t a t i s t i c emerges: f i v e of t h e 38 s t u d e n t s
(10.2 p e r c e n t of t h e g roup) s p e c i f i e d s p e l l i n g e r r o r s a s an
a r e a which r e q u i r e d a t t e n t i o n . I n f a c t , o n l y one s p e l l i n g e r r o r
was i n c l u d e d i n t h e t e x t : t h e word ' t o ' was used i n p l a c e of
' t o o ' , b u t t h i s p a r t i c u l a r e r r o r was no ted by o n l y two of t h e
f i v e s t u d e n t s who commented on s p e l l i n g . The o t h e r t h r e e g a v e no
s p e c i f i c examples of i n c o r r e c t s p e l l i n g i n t h e t e x t , nor d i d
75
t h e y c o r r e c t t h e s p e l l i n g e r r o r i n t h e c o u r s e of e d i t i n g t h e
t e x t . T h i s migh t l e a d one t o s u s p e c t t h a t s t u d e n t comments
r e g a r d i n g s p e l l i n g were n o t s o much a r e f l e c t i o n of t h e
c o r r e c t n e s s o r i n c o r r e c t n e s s of s p e l l i n g t h e y were a c t u a l l y
s e e i n g , a s a r e f l e c t i o n of a c o n c e p t t h e y had l e a r n e d : s p e l l i n g
i s a f r e q u e n t and i m p o r t a n t problem i n w r i t i n g .
w h i l e t e n p e r c e n t of t h e s t u d e n t s named s p e l l i n g a s a
f l a w i n t h e work, none named t h e i n a p p r o p r i a t e u s e o f o r a l
E n g l i s h i n a w r i t t e n c o m p o s i t i o n . Al though t h e y d i d n o t l a b e l
t h i s p a r t i c u l a r f a u l t , a l m o s t a l l r e c o g n i z e d t h a t t h e r e was
something a m i s s a t t h a t p o i n t i n t h e t e x t . Many a t t e m p t e d t o
r e w r i t e t h e o r a l p a s s a g e s , w i t h v a r y i n g d e g r e e s o f s u c c e s s .
The a c t i o n s o f t h e s t u d y g r o u p c o r r e l a t e t o v a r i o u s
s t r a t e g i e s i d e n t i f i e d by Flower and Hayes ( 1 9 8 6 ) . For example,
two of t h e f i v e s t u d e n t s who e x p r e s s e d c o n c e r n o v e r s p e l l i n g
were s u c c e s s f u l i n i d e n t i f y i n g and c o r r e c t i n g t h e s p e l l i n g
e r r o r . The t h i r d s t u d e n t r e w r o t e t h e s e n t e n c e i n such a way t h a t
n e i t h e r ' t o ' nor ' t o o ' was r e q u i r e d i n t h e s e n t e n c e and t h e
f o u r t h d e l e t e d words d u r i n g r e v i s i o n , e x c l u d i n g problem words o r
p h r a s e s , w h i l e t h e f i f t h s o l v e d t h a t and o t h e r problems by n o t
r e v i s i n g t h e t e x t a t a l l , i g n o r i n g t h e problem by s t a r t i n g anew:
a l l s t r a t e g i e s ment ioned by Flower and Hayes (1986) a s
i d e n t i f i a b l e a v o i d a n c e s t r a t e g i e s .
76
The i m p l i c a t i o n s of t h e s e a c t i o n s and s t r a t e g i e s f o r
p e e r e d i t i n g must a l s o b e c o n s i d e r e d . U n l e s s t h e p e e r e d i t o r s
a r e c o n f i d e n t i n t h e i r a n a l y s e s and problem s u g g e s t i o n s , t h e r e
must a lways e x i s t t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t t h e y may a l t e r t e x t t o
avo id p rob lems , r a t h e r t h a n s o l v i n g t h e p rob lems , o r t h e y may
i g n o r e t h e problems by s u g g e s t i n g t h e writer b e g i n anew.
Most of t h e Grade s i x s t u d e n t s i n v o l v e d i n t h i s s t u d y
a p p e a r e d t o b e v e r y f a m i l i a r w i t h p r o o f r e a d i n g and e r r o r
c o r r e c t i o n , b u t seemed n o t t o p o s s e s s , o r a t l e a s t , t o p o s s e s s
i n o n l y l i m i t e d d e g r e e s , t h e e d i t i n g s k i l l s which would have
e n a b l e d them t o p r o v i d e e f f e c t i v e p e e r e d i t i n g . I t is d i f f i c u l t
t o s a y why t h i s was so : s t u d e n t s may have b e l i e v e d e d i t i n g meant
e r r o r c o r r e c t i o n and r e c o p y i n g , t h e y may have been accustomed ' to
hav ing t h e i r own c o m p o s i t i o n s ' e d i t e d ' by hav ing e r r o r s p o i n t e d
o u t and b e i n g r e q u i r e d t o c o r r e c t t h o s e e r r o r s ( r e c o p y i n g r a t h e r
t h a n r e v i s i n g ) , o r t h e r e may have been o t h e r f a c t o r s i n v o l v e d .
S t u d e n t s appeared t o l a c k n o t o n l y p e e r e d i t i n g s k i l l s , b u t a l s o
s e l f e d i t i n g s k i l l s , and t h i s was g e n e r a l l y e v i d e n t b o t h i n t h e
e d i t o r i a l comments made and n o t made.
CHAPTER FOUR
DISCUSSION
II ... young children become literate by being nurtured through developmental
stages.1" (p. 16)
Preferred editing strategies
Analysis of the editing performed by this group of
Grade six students indicates the most preferred editing strategy
was strongly involved with error correction, with most attention
given to some form of grammatical revision. Text alterations
consisting of corrections of perceived errors in grammar,
spelling and punctuation were three times as frequent as were
text revisions dealing with content, which confirmed an initial
supposition that the primary focus of attention would be with
mechanical matters of form and format, and with the conventions
of language.
(1) A program to foster literacy: Early steps in learning to
write, by Marietta Hurst, Lee Dobson, Mayling Chow, Joy Nucich,
Lynda Stickley, and Gwen Smith. LA 8094. Published by the - B.C.
Teachers' Federation Lesson Aids Service, Vancouver, B.C.
78
Most s t u d e n t s i n t h i s s t u d y appeared t o a t t e m p t , w i t h
v a r y i n g d e g r e e s of s u c c e s s , t o d e a l w i t h problems a r i s i n g from
t h e use of o r a l E n g l i s h i n a w r i t t e n c o m p o s i t i o n . T h e i r a c t i o n s
c o r r o b o r a t e d f i n d i n g s t h a t e d i t i n g d i f f i c u l t i e s may a r i s e n o t
o n l y b e c a u s e s t u d e n t s f a i l t o r e c o g n i z e t h e need f o r r e v i s i o n ,
b u t a l s o b e c a u s e t h e y a r e n o t s u r e what t h e y s h o u l d d o t o s o l v e
t h e problem (Bereiter and S c a r a d a m a l i a , 1981, 1983; Emig, 1978;
Ziv , 1 9 8 4 ) .
A r e s e a r c h f i n d i n g conf i rmed by Flower and Hayes (1985,
1986) shows t h a t e x p e r i e n c e d writers g i v e g r e a t e r a t t e n t i o n t o
g l o b a l c o n c e r n s t h a n do n o v i c e writers. However, a r e c u r r i n g
comment by e x p e r i e n c e d writers d e a l s w i t h t h e f a c t t h a t , g i v e n
f r e e r e i n , e d i t i n g can c o m p l e t e l y change t h e d i r e c t i o n of t h e i r
w r i t i n g (Daugher ty , 1984; Walrep, 1 9 8 5 ) . One must a sk whether
s t u d e n t s would b e w i l l i n g t o a c c e p t changes i n t h e d i r e c t i o n of
t h e i r work i f , a s is cus tomary i n t h e c l a s s r o o m , t h e y a r e
w r i t i n g t o f u l f i l l an a s s i g n m e n t . A new d i r e c t i o n migh t t h r e a t e n
t o t a k e t h e work away from i ts a s s i g n e d a r e a and t h u s j e o p a r d i z e
t h e i r s u c c e s s . I f t h i s is s o , s u b s t a n t i v e e d i t i n g c o u l d appear
t o b e a c o u n t e r - p r o d u c t i v e move and t h u s a poor s t r a t e g y
s e l e c t i o n . I f indeed t h i s is a f a c t o r , minimal e d i t i n g might
a p p e a r t o s t u d e n t s t o b e a s a f e r c o u r s e . On t h e o t h e r hand, t h e
l a c k o f i n t e n s e e d i t i n g migh t be a t t r i b u t e d t o r e f l e c t i n g a
b e l i e f t h a t e d i t i n g means o n l y c o r r e c t i n g e r r o r s . I f t h i s is s o ,
s t u d e n t s might n o t see a need f o r t a k i n g a more g l o b a l view of
t h e work.
79
Other f a c t o r s may c o n t r i b u t e t o d i m i n i s h e d e d i t i n g
s k i l l s : s t u d e n t s s e e k i n g a p a r t i c u l a r g o a l , s u c h a s s a t i s f a c t o r y
mark i n c o m p o s i t i o n , may b e u n w i l l i n g t o i n i t i a t e a c t i o n t h a t
h a s n o t d e m o n s t r a b l y improved p r e v i o u s r e s u l t s ( g r a d i n g ) . While
some r e s e a r c h e r s b e l i e v e low l e v e l s of s t u d e n t e d i t i n g i n d i c a t e
t h a t s t u d e n t s do n o t know how t o r e v i s e (Crowhurs t , 1982;
F u l w i l e r , 1982; T a t e , 1 9 8 1 ) , l a c k o f i n t e r e s t may b e a l s o b e a n
i n h i b i t o r y f a c t o r . A d e c l i n e i n i n t e r e s t i n r e v i s i o n i n upper
e l e m e n t a r y g r a d e s (Hogan, 1980) may have something t o d o w i t h
what s t u d e n t s have l e a r n e d a b o u t w r i t i n g p r o c e s s d u r i n g t h e
p r e c e d i n g y e a r s , some a s p e c t s o f t h e c u r r i c u l u m o r c l a s s r o o m ,
p e r s o n a l development of s t u d e n t s i n t h a t p a r t i c u l a r a g e g r o u p ,
c o m b i n a t i o n s of t h e s e , o r o t h e r f a c t o r s . No s t u d i e s have been
d i s c o v e r e d c o n c e r n i n g changes i n t h e l e v e l of i n t e r e s t i n e i t h e r
s e l f - e d i t - i n g o r p e e r e d i t i n g , b u t one must s u s p e c t i t would
f o l l o w a s i m i l a r p a t t e r n . For whatever r e a s o n , upper e l e m e n t a r y
s t u d e n t s a r e u s u a l l y f a r more c o m f o r t a b l e c o r r e c t i n g s u r f a c e
c o n c e r n s t h a n u n d e r t a k i n g s u b s t a n t i v e e d i t i n g (Birnbaum, 1982)
and t h e s t u d y g r o u p ' s b e h a v i o u r r e f l e c t e d t h a t a t t i t u d e .
No i n t e r a c t i o n was obse rved between s t u d e n t s i n t h e
s t u d y g r o u p which would i n d i c a t e p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n o r awareness
of p e e r e d i t i n g , w r i t i n g workshop t e c h n i q u e s , o r i n t e r a c t i v e
s m a l l g r o u p e d i t i n g . Q u e s t i o n s a d d r e s s e d t o t h e t e a c h e r d e a l t
o n l y w i t h mechan ics and c l a s s r o o m p r o c e d u r e s , n o t e d i t o r i a l
s u g g e s t i o n s o r i n p u t .
There were no i n d i c a t i o n s of r e o r g a n i z a t i o n o r
rea r rangement of t h e m a t e r i a l . S t u d e n t s appeared t o proceed
d i r e c t l y t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n a t t h e s i n g l e word o r p h r a s e l e v e l ,
and f o r t h e most p a r t , t h e i r f o c u s was on e r r o r c o r r e c t i o n .
A few s t u d e n t s indulged i n what might be r e f e r r e d t o as
' t e x t - d e c o r a t i n g ' . For example, t h e s t u d e n t who sugges t ed t h e
b o a t w a s a b l u e b o a t was s imply embro ider ing i n f o r m a t i o n which
a l r e a d y e x i s t e d i n t h e t e x t . T h e r e was no p a r t i c u l a r r e a s o n f o r
t h e b o a t t o b e b l u e , nor a s e n s e t h a t t h a t p a r t i c u l a r b o a t cou ld
o n l y be b lue . One e x c e p t i o n t o t h e ' t e x t - d e c o r a t i n g ' a s p e c t was
provided by t h e s t u d e n t who sugges t ed t h e b o a t was ' d u s t y ' , and
indeed , a b o a t s i t t i n g i n a basement over t h e c o u r s e of a w i n t e r
cou ld w e l l become d u s t y . 'Dus ty ' adds an e lement of a u t h e n t i c i t y
t o t h i s p a r t i c u l a r d e s c r i p t i o n t h a t ' b l u e ' d o e s n o t .
T i m e F a c t o r i n W r i t i n p
Based upon t h e e d i t i n g done by t h i s Grade s i x s t u d y
group , i t a p p e a r s t h a t t h i n k i n g t i m e i n w r i t i n g a s s ignmen t s is
minimal. T h i s may w e l l b e a r e f l e c t i o n o f t h e l i m i t e d c l a s s t i m e
u s u a l l y p rov ided f o r s t u d e n t w r i t i n g and e d i t i n g . Some s t u d e n t s
Were observed t o beg in t h e ass ignment by p i c k i n g up a red p e n c i l
and beg inn ing t o mark e r r o r s w h i l e t h e y were read ing th rough t h e
m a t e r i a l f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e . Aside from t h e d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e
amounts o f t i m e a v a i l a b l e t o expe r i enced writers and t o nov ice
writers, t h e r e a l s o a p p e a r s t o be a d i f f e r e n c e i n t h e management
of t h a t t i m e . Obviously expe r i enced w r i t e r s spend a g r e a t d e a l
more t i m e a t t h e i r w r i t i n g t h a n do inexpe r i enced w r i t e r s , b u t
t h e i r m a n i p u l a t i o n of work a l s o a p p e a r s t o d i f f e r from t h a t of
t h e s t u d e n t s . Exper ienced writers o f t e n have many p i e c e s of work
i n p r o g r e s s a t one t i m e . When work on one p i e c e t e m p o r a r i l y
h a l t s , work on a n o t h e r beg ins . Classroom o b s e r v a t i o n w i l l show
s t u d e n t s u s u a l l y appear t o work on one p i e c e of w r i t i n g a t a
t i m e , and t o c a r r y i t through t o a c o n c l u s i o n b e f o r e beg inn ing
a n o t h e r p i e c e of w r i t i n g . The way i n which w r i t i n g is a s s igned
and marked l i k e l y h a s a good d e a l t o do w i t h t h i s .
While c l a s s room t i m e c o n s t r a i n t s may be a l i m i t i n g
f a c t o r i n t h e e d i t i n g p r o c e s s , s t u d e n t s observed i n t h i s s t u d y
d i d n o t appear t o be concerned w i t h g a i n i n g e x t r a t i m e f o r t h e i r
e d i t i n g o r t o g i v e i n d i c a t i o n s of r e q u i r i n g more e d i t i n g t i m e .
s t u d e n t s -were g i v e n t h e o p t i o n of o n l y s u g g e s t i n g changes ,
r a t h e r t han a c t u a l l y making t h e changes , a s t r a t e g y which c o u l d
have prov ided them w i t h much more t i m e f o r bo th c o n s i d e r a t i o n
and e d i t i n g of t h e work. None chose t o make u s e of t h i s o p t i o n .
I t is i n t e r e s t i n g t o s p e c u l a t e why t h i s may have
happened: Flower and Hayes' (1986) model of t h e c o g n i t i v e
p r o c e s s e s i n r e v i s i o n o f f e r s a number of p o s s i b i l i t i e s . Task
d e f i n i t i o n ( e i t h e r t h e a s s i g n e d t a s k o r t h e pe rce ived t a s k ) may
have been u n c l e a r t o t h e s t u d e n t s . T h e i r comprehension of t h e
s t o r y may have been poor , t h e i r e v a l u a t i o n may have been f a u l t y ,
and/or t h e y may have been d e f i c i e n t i n d e f i n i n g t h e problems.
The s t r a t e g i e s a v a i l a b l e t o s t u d e n t s i n t h i s i n s t a n c e
were q u i t e v a r i e d . One o p t i o n was t o i g n o r e t h e t a s k , and
s e v e r a l s t u d e n t s appear t o have s e l e c t e d t h i s o p t i o n when t h e y
s imply r ecop ied t h e t e x t w i t h o u t making any a l t e r a t i o n s . They
could d e l a y , and some s t u d e n t s may have been e x e r c i s i n g t h i s
o p t i o n by do ing a minimum of work. They cou ld rewrite t h e work,
and most appeared t o select t h i s o p t i o n -- c o r r e c t i n g and
making minor a l t e r a t i o n s such a s t e x t - d e c o r a t i n g .
Another o p t i o n e x i s t e d : t h e y cou ld r e v i s e by r e d r a f t i n g
o r p a r a p h r a s i n g t h e work. Only a few a t t empted t o do so.
The a c t i o n s , and l a c k of a c t i o n s , demons t r a t ed by t h e
s t u d y g roup may be a r e f l e c t i o n of t h e emphasis t e a c h e r s
g e n e r a l l y p l a c e on a s s e s s i n g o n l y f i n a l d r a f t s , and e v a l u a t i n g
s p e l l i n g , grammar and p u n c t u a t i o n d u r i n g t h e e a r l y s t a g e s of t h e
work (Beach, 1 9 7 9 ) , and t h e s e s t u d e n t s appeared t o r e f l e c t a
s u p p o s i t i o n s h a r e d by many inexpe r i enced writers t h a t e d i t i n g is
j u s t a m a t t e r of p o i n t i n g o u t e r r o r s (Crowhurst , 1979a, 1979b) .
These s t u d e n t s d i d n o t behave a s expe r i enced e d i t o r s
do , by a s k i n g f o r e i t h e r sweeping o r s p e c i f i c c o n t e n t r e v i s i o n s
(Shuman, 1 9 8 2 ) , b u t were c o n t e n t t o p roof - read : a t y p e o f
feedback which may u n i n t e n t i o n a l l y t e a c h s t u d e n t s n o t t o r e v i s e
(Nold, l 9 8 2 ) , by r e i n f o r c i n g t h e ' two-s tep ' w r i t i n g mode
(S tewig , 1983) o r t h e w r i t e / c o r r e c t fo rmat of knowledge-
- t e l l i n g ' (Scradamal ia and Bereiter, 1 9 8 3 ) . Emphasis on
c o r r e c t n e s s a f f e c t s s t u d e n t s b o t h a s p e e r - e d i t o r s and a s
s e l f - e d i t o r s , by denying them o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o u s e e d i t i n g and
r e v i s i n g t o d e l v e deepe r i n t o t h e i r s u b j e c t m a t t e r ( M c P h i l l i p s ,
1985; Marder, 1984; D. Murray, 1968) .
D e s p i t e h o u r s o f i n s t r u c t i o n , s t u d e n t s o f t e n appear t o
be a t a l o s s a s t o how t h e w r i t i n g p r o c e s s shou ld be c a r r i e d
o u t , and t h e y may b e bet ter equipped t o u n d e r t a k e t h i s p r o c e s s
i f t h e y f i r s t l e a r n how t o e d i t w r i t i n g ( L e w e s , 1981) . Giving
and us ing e d i t o r i a l feedback e f f e c t i v e l y a p p e a r s t o be a s k i l l
many s t u d e n t s have never been t a u g h t ( I l a c q u a , 1980) .
Feedback i n w r i t i n g
Lamberg (1980) d e f i n e d t h r e e t y p e s of feedback:
s e l f - p r o v i d e d feedback , pee r feedback , and t e a c h e r feedback . Peer feedback may be more advantageous t h a n t e a c h e r feedback
( M o f f e t t , 1968) , b u t s e l f - p r o v i d e d feedback may be even more
v a l u a b l e (Lamberg, 1980) . F a u l t y feedback may l e a v e s t u d e n t s w i t h t h e impress ion
t h a t 'good' w r i t i n g is what is l e f t a f t e r ' bad ' w r i t i n g is
removed from t h e t e x t . S t u d e n t s who have r e c e i v e d mos t ly
c o r r e c t i v e feedback , e i t h e r from t e a c h e r s o r from peer e d i t o r s ,
g e n e r a l l y r e f l e c t a c o r r e c t i v e s t a n c e i n t h e i r s e l f - f e e d b a c k ,
which c a n l i m i t t h e i r s e l f - e d i t i n g c a p a b i l i t i e s a s w e l l
(Lamberg, 1977; McDonald, 1978) .
S t u d e n t s i n t h e s t u d y g roup d i d n o t d e m o n s t r a t e s t r o n g
feedback s k i l l s , d i d n o t appear a b l e t o g i v e c o n s t r u c t i v e
feedback t o t h e writer, nor were t h e y a b l e t o make use
themse lves o f t h e feedback t h e y had provided . T h i s cou ld s u g g e s t
t h a t e d i t o r i a l feedback was g i v e n o n l y t o f u l f i l l a p e r c e i v e d
r equ i r emen t , b u t had no g e n u i n e v a l u e i n t h e e d i t i n g p r o c e s s .
Teacher e v a l u a t i o n p r o v i d e s d i r e c t i o n
Teache r s do n o t u s u a l l y g i v e emphasis t o r e v i s i o n o r
e d i t i n g i n t h e i r marking ( B i r d s a l l , 1979) , c u s t o m a r i l y a s s e s s i n g
o n l y t h e f i n a l d r a f t . They do n o t u s u a l l y e v a l u a t e c o n t e n t and
o r g a n i z a t i o n of t h e rough d r a f t b u t d e a l w i th s u r f a c e c o n c e r n s ,
such a s s p e l l i n g , grammar, and p u n c t u a t i o n : t h e a r e a s most o f t e n
tended t o by inexpe r i enced writers and inexpe r i enced e d i t o r s
(Beach, 1979; Bo lke r , 1 9 7 8 ) .
I t would be u n r e a l i s t i c t o e x p e c t e l emen ta ry s c h o o l
t e a c h e r s t o e d i t t h e work of t h e i r s t u d e n t s w i t h t h e same r i g o r
a s p r o f e s s i o n a l e d i t o r s e d i t t h e work o f expe r i enced writers,
b u t i t may be v a l u a b l e f o r s t u d e n t s t o unde r s t and t h e
r e l a t i o n s h i p t h a t d o e s exis t between expe r i enced w r i t e r s and
expe r i enced e d i t o r s , i f o n l y t o p u t t o rest t h e n o t i o n t h a t
e d i t i n g is j u s t a m a t t e r of p o i n t i n g o u t e r r o r s and t h a t
r e v i s i o n is j u s t a synonym f o r c o r r e c t i n g e r r o r s (Crowhurst ,
1979a, l 9 7 9 b ) .
I n f l u e n c e of Wri t ing Models
Exper ienced writers f r e q u e n t l y c i t e t h e impor t an t r o l e
played i n t h e i r development a s writers by t h e i n f l u e n c e of o t h e r
w r i t e r s : t e a c h e r s o r p r o f e s s o r s who wrote and sha red w r i t i n g ,
p a r e n t s o r r e l a t i v e s who wro te , p e e r s o r s i b l i n g s who were
a c t i v e writers, have been r e s p o n s i b l e n o t o n l y f o r p rov id ing
models f o r writers, b u t o f t e n p r o v i d i n g feedback a s w e l l .
w r i t e r s a r e v a s t l y encouraged by human i s t i c r e s p o n s e s (Coe,
1985; L i t t l e , 1980) b u t r e q u i r e s p e c i f i c i t y and immediacy i n
t h o s e r e sponses .
Exper ienced writers may o f f e r a p p r e c i a t i v e comments on
p a r t i c u l a r p i e c e s o f l i t e r a t u r e , o r may r e c g o n i z e t h e e f f e c t o r
i n f l u e n c e of a p a r t i c u l a r a u t h o r on t h e i r own w r i t i n g , b u t t h i s
u s u a l l y a p p e a r s t o t a k e p l a c e a t a much l a t e r s t a g e i n t h e i r
l i t e r a r y development. I n t h e e a r l y s t a g e s of w r i t i n g , t h e more
v a l u a b l e models appea r t o have been t h o s e which were c l o s e r and
more r e a d i l y a c c e s s i b l e (Megna, 1976; Pomerenke, 1984) . For t h i s
r e a s o n , t h e work of a pee r may p r o v i d e a more e f f e c t i v e model
f o r t h e beg inn ing s t u d e n t t han t h e ' s e a m l e s s ' w r i t i n g of an
acknowledged l i t e r a r y g i a n t . A growing body of r e s e a r c h i s
a f f i r m i n g t h e impor t an t r o l e t h a t model l ing and feedback p l a y s
i n t e a c h i n g w r i t i n g (Anes, 1985; Bartholomae, 1985; C a r r o l l ,
1984; NCTE p o s i t i o n pape r , 1984; Spencer , 1983; Be lange r , 1983)
Crowh.urst, 1982, 1 9 7 9 ) .
Some t e a c h e r s p r o v i d e a c t i v e mode l l i ng and feedback f o r
t h e i r s t u d e n t s , demons t r a t i ng t h e w r i t i n g p r o c e s s by s h a r i n g
t h e i r own work and becoming n o t t e a c h e r - e d i t o r s b u t peer-
e d i t o r s ( S t r a s s e r , 1984) . These t e a c h e r s a f f o r d a n o p p o r t u n i t y
f o r s t u d e n t s t o become p a r t of a w r i t i n g community, and s o t o be
guided by o b s e r v a t i o n and by p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h e less o f t e n
t a u g h t a s p e c t s of t h e w r i t i n g p roces s : e d i t i n g , r e v i s i n g ,
mind-changing and d i s c o v e r y th rough w r i t i n g . I n o t h e r
c l a s s rooms , t e a c h e r s may i n v i t e p r o f e s s i o n a l writers t o ho ld
workshops, s emina r s , o r v i s i t s w i t h t h e s t u d e n t s . S t u d e n t s a r e
a b l e t o o b s e r v e f i r s t hand t h a t n o t o n l y do expe r i enced writers
need t o e d i t and r e v i s e , t h i s is an impor t an t and ongoing p a r t
of t h e w r i t i n g p r o c e s s f o r t h e s e w r i t e r s . Among expe r i enced
w r i t e r s , changing o n e ' s mind means o n l y t r y i n g a new t h o u g h t ,
n o t a d m i t t i n g f a i l u r e o r wrongness i n t h e o r i g i n a l thought .
S t u d e n t s a l s o obse rve t h a t when expe r i enced writers a l t e r copy
t h e y do i t by s e a r c h i n g f o r unexpected nuances , by s t r e n g t h e n i n g
images o r i n c r e a s i n g t h e d e n s i t y of t h e m a t e r i a l , n o t by
s e a r c h i n g o u t and c o r r e c t i n g e r r o r s ( S t r a s s e r , 1984) .
Rohman and Wlecke (1964) no ted t h a t l e a r n i n g t o write
by w r i t i n g , and t e a c h i n g w r i t i n g by c o r r e c t i n g were n o t a lways
s a t i s f a c t o r y t e c h n i q u e s f o r p roduc ing good writers. Many
r e f e r e n c e s i n t h e l i t e r a t u r e appear t o c o r r o b o r a t e t h e i r
s u g g e s t i o n t h a t c o r r e c t i n g may n o t be t h e most e f f e c t i v e
t e chn ique f o r t each ing w r i t i n g , b u t t h e i r s u g g e s t i o n t h a t one
does n o t l e a r n t o write by w r i t i n g d o e s n o t f i n d agreement among
expe r i enced w r i t e r s (Elbow, 1973; F u l w i l e r , 1982; Geuder, 1974;
M o f f e t t , 1968; Shaugnessy, 1977; Walshe, 1983; Walvoord, 1984) . ~ n d e e d , D. Murray (1968) and o t h e r expe r i enced writers i n s i s t
t h a t w r i t i n g is n o t j u s t one way of l e a r n i n g t o write, i t is t h e
"on ly way of l e a r n i n g t o write."
The d i s c r e p a n c y may l i e somewhere between t h e
expe r i enced writer 's view of what t h e w r i t i n g p r o c e s s i n v o l v e s ,
and t h e c lass room t e a c h e r ' s view of what t h a t p r o c e s s e n t a i l s .
The writer 's view o f w r i t i n g s t r e s s e s e d i t i n g , b u t n o t t h e kind
of c o r r e c t i v e , o r e r r o r - s e e k i n g e d i t i n g which o f t e n happens i n
t h e c lass room.
E d i t i n g is a r e a c t i o n t o feedback , and feedback can be
d e f i n e d s imply a s i n f o r m a t i o n on per formance (Lanberg, 1980)' .
Feedback is n o t n e c e s s a r i l y n e g a t i v e , c o r r e c t i v e , e r r o r - s e e k i n g
o r c r i t i c a l i n a p e j o r a t i v e s ense . Hea l thy and p r o d u c t i v e L
feedback can have a p o s i t i v e e f f e c t upon subsequent performance
(Beach 1979; Benson, 1979; Denman, 1975; L i t t l e , 1980; Olds ,
1970; F. Smith , 1976) .
Classroom feedback can come from many s o u r c e s ;
t e a c h e r s , p e e r s , o t h e r s t u d e n t s , o r t h e writers. There a r e
va ry ing k i n d s o f feedback , and g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s have been made
about some o f t h e s e c a t e g o r i e s , which would i n d i c a t e t h a t n o t
a l l feedback is e q u a l l y u s e f u l . Peer feedback may be more u s e f u l
t han t e a c h e r feedback ( M o f f e t t , 1981) because in fo rma t ion p e e r s
88
g i v e each o t h e r can d i f f e r from t h e i n f o r m a t i o n t e a c h e r s p r o v i d e
( R u s s e l l , 1 9 8 5 ) . T h i s may r e f l e c t t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t p e e r
agendas d i f f e r from t e a c h e r agendas , b u t pee r feedback can
p r o v i d e b o t h u s e f u l q u e s t i o n s abou t c o n t e n t , and s u g g e s t i o n s
whi,ch t h e writer may f i n d e a s i e r t o fo l low. S t u d e n t s more
r e a d i l y a c c e p t and use peer cr i t icism ( C h r i s t e n s e n , 1982) and
ev idence i n c r e a s e d m o t i v a t i o n t o write and r e v i s e (James, 1981) .
F u r t h e r , s t u d e n t s can l e a r n s t y l e and o r g a n i z a t i o n th rough
r ead ing each o t h e r s ' p a p e r s ( C h r i s t e n s e n , 1982) and may d e v e l o p
b e t t e r s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n t h e c l a s s room (Pianko , 1979) .
However, n o t a l l p e e r feedback a u t o m a t i c a l l y f a l l s i n t o
t h e s e h i g h l y p r o d u c t i v e c a t e g o r i e s . Unless s t u d e n t s have l e a r n e d
how t o p r o v i d e feedback , t h e k i n d s of i n f o r m a t i o n they o f f e r nay
be l i t t l e more t h a n ' w a r n f uzzy ' comments ( "Th i s is n i c e " , e t c ) .
Or e r r o r i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . I f t h e e r r o r i d e n t i f i c a t i o n is skewed
th rough t h e p e e r ' s own weaknessess i n grammar o r s p e l l i n g , t h e
r e s u l t w i l l be a f u r t h e r d e g r a d a t i o n of t h e p r o c e s s , p r o v i d i n g L
i n c o r r e c t e r r o r i d e n t i f i c a t i o n .
E f f e c t i v e n e s s of feedback can b e measured by changes i n
subsequen t performance, A s t h e feedback i n t h i s i n s t a n c e was n o t
g i v e n t o t h e o r i g i n a l a u t h o r , t h e r e is no way of knowing i f t h e
comments made by t h e s t u d e n t s would have a f f e c t e d subsequen t
performance, and one can o n l y s p e c u l a t e upon r e s p o n s e s which
might have been made by t h e o r i g i n a l a u t h o r .
S p e c i f i c i t y and c l a r i t y a r e e s s e n t i a l i n g r e d i e n t s i n
e f f e c t i v e feedback f o r e d i t i n g (I?. s m i t h , 1976; P. Smith ,
1984) . Peer feedback , o r peer e d i t i n g , w h i l e a l s o r e q u i r i n g
s p e c i f i c i t y and c l a r i t y , o f f e r s t h e advan tage of p r o v i d i n g t h i s
i n fo rma t ion a t a l e v e l which is u s e f u l t o t h e w r i t e r : b o t h
writer and e d i t o r a r e a t o r near t h e same l e v e l and have t h e
same g e n e r a l c a p a b i l i t i e s .
The e d i t o r who o v e r - e d i t s , o r e d i t s a t a l e v e l n o t
w i t h i n r e a c h o f t h e writer, is i n e f f e c t i v e (I?. Smith, 1 9 7 6 ) , and
t h i s is sometimes seen a s a weaknesses i n t e a c h e r e d i t i n g :
t e a c h e r s may comment e x t e n s i v e l y , p o i n t i n g o u t numbers of
problems i n a l l a s p e c t s of t h e w r i t i n g (Lamberg, 1977) ,and t h e s e
comments may a t t i m e s b e n e g a t i v e i n t o n e a s w e l l ( S e a r l e and
D i l l o n , (1980) .
Peer e d i t o r s who have l e a r n e d how t o p r o v i d e e f f e c t i v e
feedback , c a n o f f e r comment i n an amount and a t a l e v e l which
w i l l b e u s e f u l t o t h e writer.
There is an a d d i t i o n a l advantage: a s t h e pee r e d i t o r
improves i n awareness , h e o r s h e a l s o d e v e l o p s s t r o n g e r
s e l f - f e e d b a c k o r s e l f - e d i t i n g p r o c e s s e s . T h i s improvement i n t h e
l e v e l of w r i t i n g by t h e peer e d i t o r is a f r e q u e n t outcome o f
good pee r e d i t i n g . S t u d e n t s i nvo lved i n p e e r e d i t i n g become bo th
g i v e r s and r e c e i v e r s of i n f o r m a t i o n and by a t t e n d i n g t o
p a r t i c u l a r a s p e c t s i n t h e p a r t i c u l a r a s p e c t s of t h e w r i t i n g of
o t h e r s , t h e y w i l l improve t h e i r subsequen t compos i t i ons (Hogan,
1984 ; Lamberg, 1977) . Peer e d i t i n g t h u s o f f e r s many advantages :
s t u d e n t s c a n b e n e f i t from t h e e d i t o r i a l s u g g e s t i o n s of p e e r s ,
90
t h e s t u d e n t doing t h e e d i t i n g l e a r n s from t h e p r o c e s s , and t h a t
s t u d e n t ' s work improves a s w e l l . Teachers , r e l i e v e d from t h e
burden of be ing s o l e r e a d e r and s o l e e d i t o r f o r t h e w r i t i n g of
35-40 s t u d e n t s , a r e a b l e t o p r o v i d e more q u a l i t y t i m e w i th
writers on an i n d i v i d u a l o r s m a l l g roup b a s i s .
Peer e d i t i n g is a s t r a t e g y which c a n o f f e r s t u d e n t s a
way t o l e a r n e d i t i n g : b o t h e x t e r n a l e d i t i n g and i n t e r n a l
e d i t i n g . A s no t ed , e d i t i n g t h e work of p e e r s can s t r e n g t h e n and
d e v e l o p t h e a b i l i t y t o e d i t o n e ' s own work, and having work
e d i t e d by p e e r s p r o v i d e s feedback which can s t r e n g t h e n and
deve lop one' s s e l f - feedback p r o c e s s , b u t e d i t i n g must be
c o n s c i o u s l y t a u g h t i f s t u d e n t s a r e t o l e a r n t o communicate
e f f e c t i v e l y i n t h e c o u r s e of t h e p r o c e s s . Obse rva t ion of
s t u d e n t s i n t h e s u b j e c t g roup l e a d s t o t h e s u g g e s t i o n t h a t
working w i t h t h e w r i t i n g p r o c e s s may n o t , by i t s e l f , be
s u f f i c i e n t t o e n s u r e t h a t s t u d e n t s become c a p a b l e e d i t o r s .
P r e - e d i t i n g t r a i n i n g and p r a c t i c e i n e d i t i n g can h e l p s t u d e n t s L
l e a r n how t o p r o v i d e e f f e c t i v e feedback -- b o t h f o r s e l f - e d i t i n g
and f o r p e e r e d i t i n g .
P r e - e d i t i n g behaviour can b e g i n w i t h h e l p i n g s t u d e n t s
t o i d e n t i f y s p e c i f i c s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses i n p i e c e s of
anonymous w r i t i n g ( B u t l e r , 1983) and p r o g r e s s th rough t o t h e
k i n d s of e d i t o r i a l g u i d e s and c h e c k l i s t s which a s s i s t t h e
neophyte e d i t o r t o r e c o g n i z e some e f f e c t i v e ways t o a s s i s t a
writer i n improving a p i e c e of work. (See APP I 1 f o r examples of
e d i t o r i a l c h e c k l i s t s ) .
S t u d e n t a t t i t u d e s toward e d i t i n g ,
There is a s t r o n g s u g g e s t i o n i n t h e l i t e r a t u r e t h a t
s t u d e n t s do n o t ' l i k e ' e d i t i n g and r e v i s i n g (Belanger and
Rogers, 1983; ~ i r d s a l l , 1979; Bo lke r , 1978; Bonds, 1980;
Champagne, 1980; Daly, 1979; D. Graves , 1983; F. Smith , 1982;
~ i v , 1 9 8 4 ) . Many r e a s o n s have been sugges t ed t o accoun t f o r t h i s
a p p a r e n t a v e r s i o n , i n c l u d i n g a n x i e t y (Daly, 1 9 7 9 ) ; l a c k o f
involvement w i th t h e work, a r equ i r emen t t o c r e a t e i n a u t h e n t i c
work, o r a s s o c i a t i n g t h e need t o ' do i t a g a i n ' w i th f a i l u r e (D.
Graves , 1983) ; a f e e l i n g of inadequacy when t h e work d o e s n o t
'come o u t r i g h t t h e f i r s t t i m e ' (F. Smith , 1 9 8 2 ) ; o r s imply l a c k
of r e c o g n i t i o n on t h e p a r t of t h e s t u d e n t a s t o why o r how
m a t e r i a l shou ld b e r e v i s e d ( Z i v , 1984) . T h i s l a c k of awareness
r e g a r d i n g r e v i s i o n cou ld be s een a s a f a c t o r which cou ld be
add res sed by t e a c h e r i n p u t , most p a r t i c u l a r l y by comments
t e a c h e r s write on s t u d e n t work, b u t s t u d i e s have shown t h a t
comments from t e a c h e r s , w h i l e meant t o be h e l p f u l , a r e o f t e n
any th ing b u t ( B i b b e r s t i n e , 1976; Bo lke r , 1978; G r o f f , 1975;
S e a r l e and D i l l o n , 1983; Ziv, 1984) . Teacher comments can l a c k
t h e s p e c i f i c i t y 1 which cou ld make them c o n s t r u c t i v e .
(1) For example, t h e u b i q u i t o u s "AWK" o f f e r s no s u g g e s t i o n a s t o
why t h e p h r a s e o r s e n t e n c e is awkward, no r d o e s i t o f f e r
c o n s t r u c t i v e s u g g e s t i o n s f o r s o l v i n g t h e problem.
These t y p e s of comments may r e f l e c t t h e p o s s i b i l i t y
t h a t some t e a c h e r s , l i k e some s t u d e n t s , may r e c o g n i z e t h a t
something is n o t a s i t should be, b u t a r e u n c l e a r abou t
p r e c i s e l y what t h a t something is o r how i t might b e improved. I t
is a l s o p o s s i b l e t h e problem h a s been c l e a r l y r ecogn ized , b u t
t h e t e a c h e r d i d n o t have s u f f i c i e n t t i m e t o p r o v i d e an adequa te
e x p l a n a t i o n f o r t h e s t u d e n t . P r e s s u r e of numbers o f w r i t t e n
compos i t i ons w a i t i n g t o be marked can create s e v e r e problems f o r
t e a c h e r s . However, t h e t e a c h e r who writes "SPn on work a t leas t
o f f e r s a c o n c r e t e s t a t e m e n t by d i r e c t i n g t h e s t u d e n t t o a
s p e c i f i c a c t i o n .
Given n o n - s p e c i f i c d i r e c t i o n , s t u d e n t s who a r e unsu re
o r confused can n o t h e l p b u t become more unsu re and con fused ,
and less w i l l i n g t o l e a v e themse lves open t o f u r t h e r n e g a t i v e
comment, and less a p t t o e i t h e r e d i t o r t o r e v i s e . The s t u d e n t s
i n t h e s t u d y group demons t ra ted a w i l l i n g n e s s t o unde r t ake
e d i t i n g a s t h e y knew i t , b u t a n a l y s i s of t h e i r e d i t o r i a l
comments and e d i t i n g p r o c e s s e s would s u g g e s t t h e y need
a s s i s t a n c e i n unde r s t and ing and l e a r n i n g e f f e c t i v e e d i t i n g
t echn iques . I t appeared t h a t a number of s t u d e n t s i n t h e s t u d y
group began t o e d i t b e f o r e t h e y had comple t e ly r ead t h e t e x t
m a t e r i a l . Teaching p r e - e d i t i n g p r o c e s s e s t o s t u d e n t s can
encourage them t o t a k e t i m e t o r ead work t o g e t t h e s e n s e o f i t
b e f o r e p i c k i n g up t h e i r e d i t i n g p e n c i l s , and can a l s o encourage
them t o t h i n k abou t t h e i r own work b e f o r e t h e y e d i t i t
( P h i l i p p s e n , 1987) . 93
P r e - e d i t i n g a c t i v i t i e s
P r e - e d i t i n g p r a c t i c e may h e l p s t u d e n t s t o i d e n t i f y
s p e c i f i c s t r e n g t h s i n w r i t i n g and t o make c o n s t r u c t i v e comments
based upon t h e s e s t r e n g t h s . S t u d e n t s need c a r e f u l coaching i n
peer e d i t i n g : t h e y o f t e n f i n d i t d i f f i c u l t t o respond a s
e d i t o r s , and when t h e y do , r e s p o n s e s may be skimpy and g e n e r a l
(Crowhurst , 1979) . G u i d e l i n e s o r c h e c k l i s t s may h e l p s t u d e n t s
unders tand some s p e c i f i c s which peer e d i t o r s may watch f o r , b u t
t h e r e is a danger t h a t s t u d e n t s w i l l s imply s e i z e on a few
p h r a s e s and l i m i t t h e i r r e sponses t o t h o s e r e p l i e s (Crowhurst ,
1 9 7 9 ) . Teaching s t u d e n t w r i t e r s t o be s p e c i f i c i n t h e i r
r e s p o n s e s h e l p s p r e v e n t t h i s approach.
I n some c l a s s rooms , t e a c h e r s encourage s p e c i f i c i t y i n
feedback by p rov id ing a c t i v e mode l l i ng and demons t r a t i ng t o
s t u d e n t s a p e r s o n a l involvement i n t h e w r i t i n g p roces s . These
t e a c h e r s f r e q u e n t l y i n v o l v e themse lves i n t h e pee r e d i t i n g
p r o c e s s a s w e l l , s u b m i t t i n g t h e i r work t o t h e s t u d e n t s f o r
e d i t o r i a l s u g g e s t i o n s .
T h i s t y p e of a c t i v e r o l e model l ing a p p e a r s t o y i e l d
promis ing r e s u l t s , a l t h o u g h formal , c o n t r o l l e d s t u d i e s have n o t
y e t been under taken t o s u b s t a n t i a t e t h i s impress ion .
I n o r d e r t o p r o v i d e e f f e c t i v e and s y m p a t h e t i c
a s s i s t a n c e t o s t u d e n t writers, i f may be n e c e s s a r y f o r t e a c h e r s
t o become a c t i v e writers themselves . By s o d o i n g , t h e y may
a c q u i r e d i f f e r e n t sets of c r i t e r i a f o r w r i t i n g , which may i n
t u r n l e a d t o r e p l a c i n g emphasis on t e x t - d e c o r a t i n g and
e r r o r - c o r r e c t i n g w i t h a more u s e f u l set of e d i t i n g s t r a t e g i e s .
The u se of a more c o l l e g i a l approach toward w r i t i n g i n t h e
c lass room may r e s u l t i n t e a c h e r s and s t u d e n t s becoming b o t h more
enabled and more e n a b l i n g i n t h e w r i t i n g and e d i t i n g p r o c e s s .
Given t h a t t h e t e a c h e r is c a p a b l e of p rov id ing t h e
d i r e c t i o n and gu idance which can h e l p s t u d e n t s l e a r n e f f e c t i v e
e d i t i n g t e c h n i q u e s , peer e d i t i n g may become a powerful t o o l i n
c lass room w r i t i n g .
Sugges t ions f o r f u r t h e r s t u d y
F u r t h e r s t u d y might p r o f i t a b l y be under taken on
t h e f o l l o w i n g t o p i c s :
1. Beach (1979) s u g g e s t s s t u d e n t s might pay more
a t t e n t i o n t o e d i t i n g and r e v i s i o n i f t e a c h e r s demons t ra ted more
i n t e r e s t i n t h i s s t a g e of t h e w r i t i n g . What would be t h e r e s u l t
i f t e a c h e r s marked e d i t i n g and r e v i s i o n r a t h e r t han f i n a l
compos i t i ons? Would s t u d e n t s i n f a c t respond by becoming more
a c t i v e e d i t o r s ?
2. Would s t u d e n t s perform b e t t e r i f t h i n k i n g t i m e was
prov ided f o r i n t e r n a l e d i t i n g , b e f o r e s t u d e n t s began w r i t i n g ? I f
t h e r e was a demons t r ab l e d i f f e r e n c e i n performance by s t u d e n t s
who d i d have t i m e f o r p r e - e d i t i n g a c t i v i t i e s , o r i n t e r n a l
e d i t i n g , what would be t h e minimum l e n g t h of t i m e needed t o
b r i n g abou t an a l t e r e d l e v e l of achievement?
3. S e a r l e and D i l l o n (1980) s u g g e s t s t u d e n t s do n o t write
because t h e y a r e t o l d i n a v a r i e t y of ways t h a t t h e y canno t write.
Would w r i t i n g improve i f s t u d e n t s were a f f i r m e d i n t h e i r a b i l i t i e s t o
write and i n t h e i r a b i l i t i e s t o p r o v i d e e f f e c t i v e feedback and
e d i t i n g ?
4. What a r e t h e s p e c i f i c d i f f e r e n c e s demons t ra ted by
s t u d e n t s whose t e a c h e r s model w r i t i n g and t a k e a c t i v e p a r t i n
c lass room w r i t i n g , and s t u d e n t s whose t e a c h e r s do n o t p a r t i c i p a t e a t
t h i s l e v e l ?
5 . Experienced writers o f t e n d i s p l a y i d i o s y n c r a t i c w r i t i n g
behav iou r s . Would s t u d e n t e d i t i n g and w r i t i n g improve i f t hey were
p e r m i t t e d t o have g r e a t e r i n p u t i n t o t h e i r w r i t i n g behaviours? (For
example, choos ing t h e i r own w r i t i n g implements, l o c a t i o n s , t i m e s ,
e t c ) . 6. Would a n a l y s i s of t h e c l a s s room b e h a v i o u r s o f t e a c h e r s
who a r e themse lves writers r e v e a l any d i f f e r e n c e s i n approach o r
a t t i t u d e between t h i s g roup a g roup o f non-wri t ing t e a c h e r s ?
APPENDIX ONE
T h i s is a copy of t h e s t a n d a r d t e x t p rov ided f o r each
s t u d e n t :
THE BOAT
M e and my dad and my u n c l e , w e was gonna
b u i l d a b o a t . I n my basement. And my
u n c l e , he had a l l t h e p l a n s and s t u f f . And
S O w e s t a r t e d t o b u i l d i t and i t took a l l
w i n t e r . I g o t t o do some of t h e s t u f f
b u t m o s t l y j u s t ho ld t h i n g s . Then when w e
g o t i t f i n i s h e d w e went t o t a k e i t o u t t h e
door and t h e b o a t was t o b i g t o go th rough
t h e door . And I s u r e laughed.
STUDENT RESPONSES:
Each s t u d e n t h a s been a s s i g n e d a number, and r e sponses
a r e d e s c r i b e d under t h e number a s s i g n e d t o t h e s t u d e n t .
~ u n b e r i n g was random and does n o t i n d i c a t e r ank ing .
I t e m (1) shows s t u d e n t e d i t i n g , i t e m ( a ) is s t u d e n t
r e v i s i o n . A l l e n t r i e s a r e r e p o r t e d e x a c t l y a s w r i t t e n , and
s p e l l i n g h a s n o t been c o r r e c t e d .
1. My Dad, my u n c l e and I were going t o b u i l d a boa t . I n my
basement. And my u n c l e had a l l t h e p l a n s and s t u f f . And s o w e
s t a r t e d t o b u i l t i t and i t too,k a l l w i n t e r . I had t o do some of
t h e s t u f f b u t mos t ly j u s t ho ld t h i n g s . Then when we f i n i s h e d w e
went t o t a k e i t o u t t h e door and t h e b o a t was t o b i g . I t would
n o t go th rough t h e door . I s u r e laughed!
a ) My Dad, my u n c l e , were going t o b u i l d a b o a t because w e
needed a new one our o l d one had p a t c h e s on it. W e b u i l t t h e
b o a t i n ou r basement.
2. My Dad, my Uncle and I were going t o b u i l d a b o a t i n my
basement, my u n c l e had a l l t h e p l a n s and s t u f f . And s o w e
s t a r t e d t o b u i l d . I t t ok a l l w i n t e r . I g o t t o do some of t h e
s t u f f b u t mos t ly j u s t ho ld t h i n g s . Then when w e g o t i t f i n i s h e d
w e went t o t a k e i t o u t t h e door and t h e b o a t was t o b i g t o go
th rough t h e door , and I s u r e laughed!.
a ) On December, my dad and I were going t o b u i l d a b o a t .
3. My dad and my u n c l e and I . Was gonna b u i l d a b o a t , I n my dad
and my u n c l e ' s basement, W e had a l l t h e p l a n s and s t u f f and s o
w e s t a r t e d t o b u i l d i t and i t took a l l w i n t e r . I g o t t o do some
of t h e s t u f f b u t mos t ly j u s t I ho ld t h i n g s . When w e g o t i t
f i n i s h e d w e wanted t o t a k e i t o u t t h e door b u t t h e b o a t was t o
b i g t o go th rough t h e door . And w e laughed!
a ) My dad and my unc le and I was gonna b u i l d a b o a t . W e a r e
b u i l d t h e b o a t because w e want t o go f i s h i n g .
4 . My and my dad and my u n c l e were going t o b u i l d a b o a t i n my
basement. My u n c l e had a l l t h e p l a n s and s t u f f , s o w e s t a r t e d t o
b u i l d i t . I t took a l l w i n t e r . I g o t t o do some of t h e s t u f f b u t
mos t ly j u s t ho ld t h i n g s . Then when w e g o t i t f i n i s h e d w e went t o
t a k e i t o u t t h e door and t h e b o a t was t o b i g t o go th rough t h e
door . I s u r e laughed!
a ) My Dad, my Uncle and I were going t o b u i l d a boa t .
5. My Dad, my u n c l e and I were going t o b u i l d a b o a t i n my
basement. My u n c l e had a l l t h e p l a n s and s t u f f . And s o w e
s t a r t e d t o b u i l d i t and i t took a l l w i n t e r . I g o t t o do some of
t h e s t u f f , b u t mos t ly j u s t hold t h i n g s . Then when w e g o t
f i n i s h e d , w e went t o t a k e t o b u i l d i t and i t took a l l w i n t e r . I
g o t t o do some of t h e s t u f f b u t mos t ly j u s t ho ld t h i n g s . Then
when w e g o t i t f i n i s h e d w e went t o t a k e i t o u t t h e door and t h e
b o a t was t o b i g t o go th rough t h e d o o r , and I s u r e laughed.
( 'To ' i n t h e l a s t l i n e is c i r c l e d , and ' s p ' no t ed . )
a ) On December 1 9 t h , my dad, my u n c l e and I s t a r t e d t o b u i l d a
b o a t .
6 . My dad and my u n c l e and I were go ing t o b u i l d a b o a t i n my
basement. And my u n c l e h e had a l l t h e p l a n s and s t u f f . And sowe
s t a r t e d t o b u i l d i t . I t took a l l w i n t e r . I g o t t o do some of t h e
s t u f f b u t mos t ly j u s t h o l d i n g t h i n g s . Then when w e g o t i t
f i n i s h e d w e went t o t a k e i t o u t t h e door . The b o a t was t o b i g t o
go th rough t h e door . And I s u r e laughed!
a ) My dad and my u n c l e and I were going t o b u i l d a bba t . MY
u n c l e had a l l of t h e p l a n s . And s o w e made t h e b o a t o u t of wood.
7 . My dad , my u n c l e and m e w e were goning t o b u i l d a b o a t i n t h e
basement. My u n c l e had a l l t h e p l a n s and t h e s t u f f w e need s o w e
s t a r t e d t o b u i l t t h e b o a t and i t took a l l w i n t e r . I g o t t o do
some of t h e work b u t mos t ly h o l d i n g t h i n g s . When w e g o t i t
f i n i s h e d w e went t o t a k e i t o u t t h e door and t h e b o a t was t o b i g
t o go th rough t h e door . I laughed hard!
a ) ad and I and my u n c l e , w e were going t o b u i l d a b o a t . I n my
basement. My u n c l e , h e had a l l t h e p l a n s and s t u f f . And s o w e
s t a r t e d t o b u i l d t h e b o a t and w e took a l l w i n t e r . I g o t t o do
some s t u f f b u t m o s t l y j u s t ho ld s t u f f . Then when w e f i n i s h e d and
when w e went t o t a k e i t o u t t h e door and t h e b o a t was t o b i g t o
go th rough t h e door . And I laughed
8. My dad my Uncle and I a r e going t o b u i l d a boa t . I n our
basement. My unc le h a s a l l t h e p l a n s and i n s t r u c t i o n s . So w e
began t o b u i l d t h e b o a t and i t took a l l w i n t e r . I g o t t o do some
of t h e work b u t mos t ly j u s t ho ld ing t h i n g s . Then when i t was
f i n i a l l y f i n i s h e d w e took i t o u t t h e door . The b o a t was t o l a r g e
t o go th rough t h e door and I laughed!
a ) My dad, u n c l e and I a r e going t o b u i l d a b o a t i n our
basement. My u n c l e h a s a l l t h e p l a n s and i n s t r u c t i o n s s o w e
s t a r t e d t o b u i l d t h e b o a t . I t took a l l w i n t e r . I g o t t o do some
of t h e work b u t mos t ly j u s t ho ld ing t h i n g s . Then when i t was
f i n a l l y f i n i s h e d w e took i t o u t t h e door . The b o a t was t o l a g g e
t o go th rough t h e door and I l a u g h t e d .
9. Red ' x ' s were added between word ' u n c l e ' and t h e comma i n t h e
f i r s t s e n t e n c e ; on t h e word ' w e ' f o l l o w i n g t h e c o m a ; on t h e
p e r i o d fo l lowing basement ' ; on t h e comma fo l lowing ' unc le ' , and
on t h e exc l ama t ion m a r k .
a ) My dad and my u n c l e and I . W e a r e going t o b u i l d a b o a t i n my
u n c l e s basement. My Uncle h a s p l a n s and s t u f f . W e s t a r t e d t o
b u i l d i t and it took a l l w i n t e r . I g o t t o do some of t h e s t u f f
b u t mos t ly ho ld t h i n g s . When w e f i n i s h e d w e whent t o t a k e i t o u t
t h e door and t h e b o a t was t o b i g t o go th rough t h e door , and I
s u r e laughed.
10. My dad , my u n c l e and I , w e were going t o b u i l d a b o a t i n my
basement. My u n c l e , he had a l l t h e p l a n s and s t u f f . So w e
s t a r t e d t o b u i l d i t and i t took a l l w i n t e r . I t o do some of t h e
s t u f f b u t mos t ly j u s t ho ld t h i n g s . Then when w e f i n i s h e d i t w e
went t o t a k e i t o u t t h e door and t h e b o a t was t o b i g t o go
th rough t h e door . And I s u r e laughed!
a ) My dad , my u n c l e and I , w e were going t o b u i l d a b o a t i n my
basement. My u n c l e , h e had a l l of t h e p l a n s and s t u f f . So w e
s t a r t e d t o b u i l d i t and i t took a l l w i n t e r . I was a l lowed t o
(do) some of t h e s t u f f b u t mos t ly ho ld t h i n g s s o t h e n when w e
b i g t o go th rough t h e door . I s u r e laughed!
11. ( ' ~ e and my dad and my u n c l e ' , was c i r c l e d and 'wrond
o r d e r 1 no ted . 'Was gonna' was c i r c l e d , and ' unproper e n g l i s h '
noted. The p e r i o d i n t h e f i r s t s e n t e n c e was marked ' uneces sa ry ' . 'And', ' h e ' , and 'And' were c i r c l e d i n t h e nex t s e n t e n c e , and
t h e p e r i o d fo l lowing ' s t u f f ' changed t o a comma. 'Unecessary '
was w r i t t e n under ' H e ' . I n l i n e t h r e e , a comma was i n s e r t e d .
between ' i t ' and ' a n d ' . A v e r t i c a l l i n e was drawn between
'mos t ly ' and ' j u s t ' and t h e word ' h o l d ' was changed t o ' h e l d ' . A
red box was drawn around ' t o go th rough t h e door '- , and 'And' and
t h e word ' unnecessary ' was no ted on bo th . )
a ) My d a d , my u n c l e and I were going t o b u i l d a b o a t i n my
basement. My u n c l e had a l l t h e equipment , s o w e s t a r t e d t o b u i l d
it. I t took a l l w i n t e r . I g o t t o do some t h i n g s b u t mos t ly I
he ld s t u f f . When w e g o t i t f i n i s h e d w e went t o t a k e i t o u t t h e
door , t h e b o a t was t o b i g . I s u r e laughed .
12. ( T h i s s t u d e n t used a code. 'L' s t o o d f o r l anauge ( s i c ) , 'S'
s p e l l i n g and ' S l ' s p e l l i n g and l anauge ( s i c ) . 'L' was marked
over t h e f i r s t two words, ' M e ' and ' a n d ' ; 'S1' was marked over
'was ' and 'gonna ' . I n l i n e two, ' h e ' was c r o s s e d o u t and ' n o t
n e s s a r y ' added. I n l i n e two ' s p e c f y ' was w r i t t e n over ' s t u f f ' .
I n l i n e t h r e e , 'had a chance t o d o ' r e p l a c e d ' g o t t o d o ' . I n
l i n e f o u r , ' s t u f f ' was marked ' s p e c f e y ' . I n l i n e f i v e ' t h e '
b e f o r e ' doo r ' was d e l e t e d , ' door ' was changed t o ' d o o r s ' . I n
l i n e s i x , 'basement ' was added b e f o r e ' d o o r ' . )
a ) My dad and I , and my u n c l e , were going t o b u i l d a b o a t . I n
our basement. My u n c l e had a l l t h e p l a n s and t o o l s . I t took a l l
w i n t e r t o b u i l d . I had a chance t o do some of t h e s t u f f b u t ho ld
s t u f f mos t ly . When w e g o t i t f i n i s h e d i t would n o t go through
t h e door . I looked and laughed. The end.
13. ( T h i s s t u d e n t a l s o used a code. Only N S (new s e n t e n c e ) was
103
exp la ined . No meaning was g i v e n f o r ' W W ' ' SP ' o r 'WS' . 'WW' w a s
noted on : M e and my dad and my u n c l e , w e was gonna; And my
unc le ; and s t u f f ; . s t u f f ; b u t mos t ly j u s t ho ld t h i n g s . ' I n ' was
marked 'SP ' ; ' t o go th rough t h e door ' was marked 'WS' . unexpla ined b r a c k e t s were p l aced around ' h e ' , ' and ' and ' t h e n ' . )
a ) My u n c l e , dad and I , were going t o b u i l d a b o a t i n my
basement. My u n c l e had a l l of t h e p l a n s and t o o l s t o b u i l d i t s o
w e s t a r t e d t o b u i l d it. I t looked good b u t took u s a l l w i n t e r t o
b u i l d it.
I was al lowed t o h e l p on t h e b o a t , b u t t h e most work I d i d was
ho ld ing t h i n g s f o r them. When i t was comple te , w e t r i e d t o t a k e
i t o u t of t h e basement, b u t t h e door was t o o sma l l . and I
laughed.
14. (The s t u d e n t c i r c l e d ' M e a-nd my dad and my u n c l e ' and ' w e was
gonna' and no ted 'bad grammar' .) The t e x t was e d i t e d t o read: I n
my basement. My u n c l e had a l l t h e p l a n s and s t u f f , sd w e s t a r t e d
t o b u i l d . I t took a l l w i n t e r . I g o t t o do some of t h e s t u f f b u t
mos t ly j u s t ho ld t h i n g s . When i t was f i n i s h e d , w e went t o t a k e
i t o u t t h e door and t h e b o a t was t o b i g t o f i t th rough t h e door .
I s u r e laughed!
a ) My dad , u n c l e and I were going t o b u i l d a b o a t i n my
basement. My u n c l e had a l l t h e p l a n s and s t u f f , s o w e s t a r t e d t o
b u i l d . I t took a l l w i n t e r . I g o t t o do some of t h e s t u f f b u t
mos t ly j u s t ho ld t h i n g s . When i t was f i n i s h e d , w e went t o t a k e
i t o u t t h e door it was t o b i g t o f i t th rough t h e door . I s u r e
laughed!
15. My dad , u n c l e and I a r e going t o b u i l d a b o a t . I n our
basement. my u n c l e had a l l t h e p l a n s f o r it , s o w e s t a r t e d t o
b u i l d i t , i t took a l l w i n t e r . I g o t t o do some of t h e work b u t
mos t ly I j u s t he ld t h i n g s . when w e g o t i t f i n i s h e d w e took i t
o u t s i d e b u t i t was t o b i g t o go through t h e door , I s u r e
laughed!
a ) My dad , u n c l e and I a r e going t o b u i l d a b o a t i n ou r
basement. My u n c l e had a l l t h e p l a n s f o r i t , s o w e s t a r t e d t o
b u i l d i t , i t took a l l w i n t e r . I g o t t o do some of t h e work b u t
mos t ly I j u s t h e l d t h i n g s . When w e g o t f i n i s h e d w e took i t
o u t s i d e b u t i t w a s t o b i g t o go th rough t h e d o o r , I s u r e d i d
laugh! '
16. My dad , u n c l e and I were going t o b u i l d a b o a t . I n my
basement. And my u n c l e , h e had a l l t h e p l a n s and s t u f f a l l
ready. s o w e s t a r t e d t o b u i l d i t , and i t took u s a l l w i n t e r t o
b i l d . I g o t t o do some of t h e s t u f f b u t m o s t l y j u s t ho ld ing
t h i n g s . when w e g o t i t f i n i s h e d w e went t o t a k e i t o u t t h e door
b u t t h e b o a t w a s t o b i g t o go th rough t h e door . And I s u r e
laughed!
a ) My dad, u n c l e and I , were going t o b u i l d a b o a t . I n my
basement. and my unc le , h e had a l l t h e p l a n s and s t u f f a l l
ready. So w e s t a r t e d t o b u i l d i t , and i t took us a l l w i n t e r t o
b i l d it. I g o t t o do some of t h e s t u f f b u t I mos t ly j u s t ho ld ing
t h i n g s . When w e g o t i t f i n i s h e d w e went t o t a k e i t o u t t h e door ,
b u t t h e b o a t was t o b i g t o go th rough t h e door . and I s u r e
laughed !
17. ( T h i s s t u d e n t marked ' x ' s ove r ' m e ' , ' a n d ' , ' w a s ' , ' gonna ' ,
and ' b o a t ' i n s e n t e n c e one. An arrow p o i n t e d t o t h e p e r i o d a t
t h e end of t h e s e n t e n c e . Marks were p l aced over 'And' , ' s t u f f ' ,
and 'And' i n s e n t e n c e two. I n t h r e e an a r row p o i n t e d t o ' i t ' .
Marks were p l aced over ' s t u f f ' i n s e n t e n c e f o u r ; ' f i n i s h e d ' , ' w e ' , and ' t h e ' i n f i v e ; and ove r ' d o o r ' , and 'And' i n s i x . )
a ) My d a d , u n c l e and I were going t o b u i l d a b o a t i n my basement.
My u n c l e had a 1 t h e p l a n s and t h i n g s . W e s t a r t e d t o b u i l d t h e
b o a t and i t took a l l w i n t e r . I g o t t o do some of t h e t h i n g s b u t
I mos t ly h e l d t h i n g s . When w e g o t i t f i n i s h e d w e went t o t a k e i t
o u t door . The b o a t was t o b i g t o go th rough t h e door . I s u r e
laughed.
18. ( T h i s s t u d e n t e d i t e d o n l y t h e f i r s t s e n t e n c e , w r i t i n g 'My
dad and My Uncle and I f o r ' M e and my dad and my unc le ' , 'were
going t o ' f o r 'was gonna' and d e l e t i n g t h e p e r i o d a f t e r ' b o a t ' .)
a ) My u n c l e , dad and I were going t o b u i l d a b o a t i n o u r
basement. My u n c l e had a l l t h e p l a n s and equipment. I t took a l l
w i n t e r t o b u i l d it. I m o s t l y j u s t had t o hold t h e t h i n g s . I
laughed when i t w a s t o b i g t o t a k e o u t t h e door .
19. ( T h i s s t u d e n t marked t h e s t a n d a r d copy w i t h a s e r i e s of
' x ' s . I n s e n t e n c e one, t h e s e marks were p l aced over t h e words
' m e ' , 'my', and ' u n c l e ' , ' w e ' , 'was ' , ' g o n n a ' , and t h e p e r i o d
a f t e r ' b o a t ' . I n two, ' s t u f f ' , and ' and ' were marked and
p u n c t u a t i o n a f t e r ' u n c l e ' and ' s t u f f ' d e l e t e d . I n s e n t e n c e ,
' s t u f f ' and 'Then' were marked. I n t h e p e r i o d a f t e r ' d o o r ' was
changed t o a comma. 'And I s u r e laughed ' was d e l e t e d and an ' x '
p l aced above i t . )
a ) My u n c l e , dad and I were go ing t o b u i l d a b o a t i n my
basement. And my u n c l e had a l l of t h e p l a n s and equipment s o w e
s t a r t e d t o b u i l d i t and i t t o a l l w i n t e r . I g o t t o do some of
t h e work b u t mos t ly j u s t g o t t o ho ld t h i n g s . When w e g o t i t
f i n i s h e d w e went t o t a k e i t o u t t h e door and t h e b o a t was t o b i g
t o go th rough t h e door and I b u r s t i n t o l a u g h t e r
20. My dad , Uncle and I were going t o b u i l d a boa t . I n my
basement. And my u n c l e , he had a l l t h e p l a n s etc. And s o w e b
s t a r t e d t o b u i l d i t and i t took a l l w i n t e r . I g o t t o do some of
t h e s t u f f b u t m o s t l y j u s t he ld t h i n g s . Then when w e g o t i t
f i n i s h e d w e went t o t a k e i t o u t s i d e and t h e b o a t was t o b i g t o
go th rough t h e door . And I s u r e d i d laugh!
a ) My dad , Uncle and I were going t o b u i l d a b o a t . I n my
basement. And my unc le , h e had a l l t h e p l a n s etc. And s o w e
s t a r t e d t o b u i l d i t and i t took a l l w i n t e r . I g o t t o do some of
t h e s t u f f b u t I mos t ly j u s t h e l d t h i n g s . Then when w e g o t i t
f i n i s h e d w e went t o t a k e i t o u t s i d e and t h e boa t was t o b i g t o
go th rough t h e door . And I s u r e d i d laugh!
21. My u n c l e , my dad and I a r e going t o b u i l d a boa t . I n my
basement. And my u n c l e had a l l t h e p l a n s and s t u f f . And s o w e
s t a r t e d t o b u i l d i t , I t took a l l w i n t e r . I g o t t o do some of t h e
s t u f f . Mostly I j u s t g o t t o ho ld t h i n g s . Then when w e g o t i t
f i n i s h e d w e went t o t a k e i t o u t t h e door and t h e b o a t was t o b i g
t o go th rough t h e door . And I s u r e laughed!
a ) My u n c l e , my dad and I a r e going t o b u i l d a b o a t . I n my
basement. And myuncle had a l l t h e p l a n s and s t u f f . And s o w e
s t a r t e d t o b u i l d t h e boa t . I t took a l l w i n t e r . I g o t t o do some
of t h e s t u f f . Mostly I j u s t g o t t o hold t h e t h i n g s . Then when w e
g o t i t f i n i s h e d w e went t o t a k e i t o u t t h e door t h e boa t was t o
b i g t o g e t th rough t h e door . I t was s u r e funny.
22. ( T h i s s t u d e n t made no r e v i s i o n s b e f o r e r e w r i t i n g t h e t e x t . )
a ) My dad my u n c l e and I , were going t o b u i l d an army b o a t i n
our basement. My dad had a l l t h e p l a n s and s t u f f . So w e s t a r t e d
t o b u i l d i t and i t took 6 y e a r s t o make. When i t was f i n i s e d w e
went t o t a k e i t o u t t h e door b u t i t was t o b i g s o w e wreak i t
and s t a r t a l l over a g a i n .
23. My dad , my u n c l e and I were going t o b u i l d a b o a t i n my
basement. My u n c l e had a l l t h e p l a n s and s t u f f . So w e s t a r t e d t o
b u i l d i t and i t took a l l w i n t e r . I g o t t o do some of t h e t h i n g s
b u t m o s t l y j u s t ho ld t h i n g s . Then when w e g o t i t f i n i s h e d w e
went t o t a k e i t o u t t h e door and t h e b o a t was t o o b i g t o go
th rough t h e d o o r , and I s u r e laughed!
a ) My dad , my u n c l e and I were going t o b u i l d a b l u e and ye l low
s a i l b o a t s o w e cou ld go f i s h i n g and j u s t s a i l around. We
s t a r t e d t o b u i l d t h e - s a i l b o a t i n my basement. W e used a l l s o r t s
of t o o l s t o b u i l d t h e s a i l b o a t and i t took a w i n t e r . I g o t t o do
some t h i n g s b u t t h e y were v e r y ha rd s o I mos t ly g o t t o hold t h e
t o o l s . When w e g o t i t f i n i s h e d w e went t o t a k e i t o u t t h e door
and BAM! w e c r a shed i n t o t h e w a l l and a p i c t u r e f e l l down.
24 . M e and my dad and my unc le , w e were going t o b u i l d a b o a t .
I n my basement. And my u n c l e , h e had a l l t h e p l a n s and s t u f f .
And s o w e s t a r t e d t o b u i l d i t , and i t took a l l w i n t e r . I g o t t o
do some of t h e s t u f f b u t mos t ly j u s t ho ld t h i n g s . Then when w e
g o t i t f i n i s h e d w e went t o t a k e i t o u t t h e door and &e b o a t was
t o b i g t o go th rough t h e door . And I s u r e laughed!
a ) My dad my u n c l e and m e , were going t o b u i l d a b o a t i n my
basement. My u n c l e had a l l t h e p l a n s and s t u f f . The boa t is a
s a i l b o a t , i t is 10 f e e t long. I t is going t o b e l i g h t g reen . W e
dec ided t o b u i l d t h e b o a t because my grandpa is s i c k and w e have
t o s a i l ove r and see him because w e d o n ' t have anogh money t o
f l y . So w e s t a r t e d . t o b u i l d i t and i t took a l l w i n t e r .
25. My dad and my u n c l e and I were go ing t o b u i l d a b i g b i g b o a t
f o r f i - sh ing i n our basement. My unc le , he had a l l t h e p l a n s on
how t o b u i l d t h e b o a t . And s o w e s t a r t e d t o b u i l t i t , i t took
a l l w i n t e r . I g o t t o do some of t h e work b u t mos t ly j u s t ho ld
t h i n g s . When t h e b o a t was f i n i s h e d w e went t o t a k e i t o u t s i d e ,
b u t t h e b o a t was t o b i g t o go th rough t h e door . And I s u r e
laughed !
a ) On O c t 1973 my dad wanted t o b u i l d a b o a t t o s a i l a c r o s s t h e
ocean. So h e s t a r t e d t o b u i l d , w i t h t h e h e l p of my unc le .
26. ( T h i s s t u d e n t c i r c l e d ' m e and my' and ' w e was gonna ' , t h e n
began t o r e v i s e t h e s t o r y . )
a ) When my dad and I g o t home my u n c l e had a g r e a t i dea . H i s
i d e a was t o b u i l d a b o a t i n our basement. My dad w a s n ' t s u r e
abou t t h e i d e a b u t he s a i d i t was OK anyways.
27. My dad , my u n c l e , and m e , were going t o b u i l d a b o a t , i n my
basement. My u n c l e had a l l t h e p l a n s and s t u f f . And s o w e
s t a r t e d t o b u i l d and i t took a l l w i n t e r . I g o t t o do some of t h e
s t u f f b u t m o s t l y j u s t ho ld t h i n g s . When w e were f i n i s h e d w e went
t o t a k e i t o u t t h e door and t h e b o a t was t o b i g t o go th rough
t h e d o o r , and I laughed!
a ) Yes t e rday my dad was watching a t e l e v i s i o n show abou t b o a t s
28. My dad , my u n c l e and I , w e a r e go ing t o b u i l d a boa t . I n my
basement. And my u n c l e , h e had a l l t h e p l a n s and equipment. And
s o w e s t a r t e d t o b u i l d i t and i t took a l l w i n t e r . I g o t t o do
some of t h e equipment work b u t mos t ly j u s t ho ld t h i n g s i n p l a c e .
Then when w e g o t it f i n i s h e d (day) w e went t o t a k e i t o u t t h e
door and t h e b o a t was t o b i g t o go th rough t h e door , And I s u r e
laughed!
a ) My dad my u n c l e and I w e were b u i l d i n g a b o a t i n our
basement. My u n c l e , he had a l l t h e p l a n s and t h e equipment f o r
working. And s o w e s t a r t e d t o b u i l d t h e b o a t i t took u s a l l
w i n t e r . I worked on t h e equipment b u t mos t ly j u s t ho ld ing t h i n g s
f o r my u n c l e and my dad. W e f i n i s h e d i t t h e n w e took i t o u t t h e
door t h e n t h e most f u n n i e s t t h i n g hapened w e c o u l d n ' t g e t i t
through t h e door , Then I s u r e laughed.
29. (The s t u d e n t no ted "you shou ld check your s e n t e n c e
s t r u c t u r e , " t hen began a r e v i s i o n . )
a ) M e and my unc le Bob and f a t h e r , went t o b u i l d a b o a t , i n a r e
basement. My Uncle Bob b rough t a l l t h e p l a n s and m a t e r i a l . The b
b o a t took a l l w i n t e r t o b u i l d . I g o t t o do some of t h e work b u t
I mos t ly g o t m a t e r i a l s f o r my dad and unc le . When w e f i n i s h e d
t h e b o a t w e t r y e d t o p u t i t th rough t h e door b u t i t was t o b i g .
I s t o o d t h e r e and l a u g h t .
30. (The s t u d e n t p r i n t e d " R e Do" on t h e t e x t b e f o r e r e v i s i n g . )
a ) My dad , u n c l e and I , w e were going t o b u i l d a b o a t i n ny
basement. My u n c l e had a l l t h e p l a n s . So w e s t a r t e d t o b u i l d t h e
b o a t t h e b o a t took us a l l w i n t e r t o b u i l d . My u n c l e and dad l e t
m e do some of t h e work most j u s t t o hold t h i n g s . When t h e b o a t
was a l l f i n i s h e d w e t r i e d t o g e t i t th rough t h e door b u t i t
d i d n ' t f i t .
31. (The s t u d e n t r e v i s e d wi thou t e d i t i n g t h e paragraph . )
a ) M e and m q dad , and my u n c l e , were going t o t r y and b i l d a
b o a t . I my basement. My u n c l e had a l l t h e p l a n s t o b u i l d t h e
boa t . So w e a l l s t a r t e d t o b u i l d i t and i t took a l l w i n t e r .
32. My and my dad and my u n c l e , w e were going t o b u i l d a boa t .
I n my basement. My u n c l e , h e had a l l a t h e p l a n s and o rgan ized .
So w e s t a r t e d t o b u i l d i t , i t took a l l w i n t e r . I g o t t o do some
of t h e t h i n g s b u t mos t ly j u s t ho ld t h i n g s . Then when w e f i n i s h e d
i t w e went t o t a k e i t o u t t h e door and t h e b o a t was t o b i g , t o
go th rough , and I laughed!
a ) (Th i s s t u d e n t d i d n o t r e v i s e t h e s t o r y . )
33. ( T h i s s t u d e n t ' s name was w r i t t e n on t h e f i r s t page, b u t t h e
t e x t was n o t e d i t e d . The s t u d e n t began a r e v i s e d v e r s i o n . )
a ) My dad , u n c l e and I is going t o b u i l d a b o a t i n my basement.
My u n c l e he h a s t h e b r a i n s a t b u i l d i n g t h e b o a t . So w e s t a r t e d
t o b u i l d t h e b o a t and i t took a l l w i n t e r . Mostly a l l I had t o do
was j u s t ho ld up n a i l s , boa rd , e t c . When w e f i n i s h e d t h e b o a t i t
was t o b i g t o go th rough t h e door and I s u r e laughed .
34. M e , my dad and my u n c l e , w e were gonna b u i l d a b o a t i n my
basement. My u n c l e had a l l t h e p l a n s . W e s t a r t e d t o b u i l d t h e
b o a t and i t took a l l w i n t e r . They l e t m e do some of t h e work b u t
mos t ly j u s t h o l d i n g t h i n g s . Then when w e g o t i t f i n i s h e d and w e
went t o t a k e i t o u t t h e door b u t t h e b o a t was t o b i g , t o go
th rough t h e door , I s u r e laughed a t t h a t !
a ) Me, my dad and my u n c l e , w e were go ing t o b u i l d a b o a t , i n my
basement. My u n c l e had a l l t h e p l a n s . W e s t a r t e d t o b u i l d t h e
b o a t and i t took a l l w i n t e r . They l e t m e do some of t h e work,
b u t mos t ly j u s t ho ld ing t h i n g s . Then when w e g o t i t f i n i s h e d and
w e went t o t a k e i t o u t t h e d o o r , b u t t h e b o a t was t o b i g t o go
thorugh t h e door , I s u r e laughed a t h a t !
35. ( T h i s s t u d e n t moved d i r e c t l y t o r e v i s i n g . )
a ) M e my dad and my u n c l e , were go ing t o b u i l d a b o a t i n my
basement. My u n c l e had a l l t h e t h i n g s needed. I t tok a whole
w i n t e r and g o t t o o h e l p . When i t w a s f i n i s h w e were going t o
t a k e i t o u t i t wouldnl t f i t . I laughed s o ha rd i j u s t abou t g o t
s i c k .
36. ( T h i s s t u d e n t moved d i r e c t l y t o r e v i s i n g . )
a ) My d a d , my u n c l e and I were going t o b u i l d a b o a t i n my
basement. My u n c l e had a l l t h e p l a n s and s o w e s t a r t e d t o b u i l d
i t and i t took . a l l w i n t e r . I was t h e o n l y one who d i d t h e work.
The o n l y t h i n g my dad and my u n c l e d i d was l a z e around e a t i n g
c h i p s and popcorn and watching TV w h i l e I was working.
37. ( T h i s s t u d e n t moved d i r e c t l y t o r e v i s i n g . )
a ) M e and my dad and my u n c l e were going t o make a b l a c k and
b l u e s a i l b o a t i n t h e d u s t y basement. MY u n c l e had a l l t h e p l a n s
and t o o l s s o w e s t a r t e d t o b u i l d our s a i l b o a t . B u i l d i n g t h e
s a i l b o a t took a l l w i n t e r and I g o t t i r e d . I g o t t o b u i l d some
t h i n g b u t mos t ly I j u s t h e l d t h e t o o l s . When w e g o t i t f i n i s h e d
w e went u p s t a i r s t o b r i n g i t o u t s i d e . When w e t r i e d t o t a k e i t
through t h e door THUMP i t wouldn' t go th rough boy d i d laugh .
38. ( T h i s s t u d e n t moved d i r e c t l y t o r e v i s i n g . )
a ) My my dad and I were going t o b u i l d a b o a t i n our basement. I
was going t o be a f i b e r g l a s s b o a t t o go f i s h i n g i n . My u n c l e had
a l l t h e t o o l s and p l a n s t o beg in . I t took a l l w i n t e r t o b u i l d i t
b u t f i n a l y i t was f i n i s h e d , w e c o u l d n ' t g e t i t o u t of t h e door
s o w e had t o f i t i t th rough t h e window b u t t h a t d i d n ' t f i t . W e
c u t a l o t o f t h e w a l l o u t b u t w e f i n a l y g o t i t through .
The fo l lowing a r e r e s p o n s e s t o a r e q u e s t f o r
s u g g e s t i o n s on how t h e s t o r y might be improved:
1. Your s p e l l i n g is f i n e b u t your word use is n o t v e r y good. I
changed your word u s e around. Try working on t h a t . The s t o r y
i t s e l f was j u s t f i n e . I s u r e l i k e d t h e p a r t where t h e b o a t cou ld
n o t g e t t h rough t h e door . I t w a s v e r y amusing.
2. No r e sponse .
3. Change t i t l e . Why a r e you going ( t o b u i l d t h e b o a t ) Was i t
hard o r ea sy?
4. No response .
5. S p e l l i n g .
6. No r e sponse .
7. Redo
8. Don ' t write t h e l i t t l e words t h a t don1 t mean any th ing . write
t h e ones - . t h a t have more meaning and unde r s t and ing .
9 . No response . !
10. No r e sponse .
11. Word o r d e r . unproper e n g l i s h . uneces sa ry ( p u n c t u a t i o n ) . more
d e t a i l .
12. Specfy ( 3 n o t a t i o n s ) . Not n e s s a r y (my u n c l e , he had a l l t h e
p l a n s . ' H e ' was c r o s s e d o u t . ) S p e l l i n g . Take more t i m e and
p r a c t i s e your l anguage s k i l l s .
13. I t h i n k you shou ld look over t h i s ass ignment and rewrite i t
over i n a more o r d e r l y way. S p e l l i n g .
14. Bad grammar ( 2 n o t a t i o n s )
15 th rough 23 made no r e sponses .
24. Watch your s p e l l i n g and t e l l more abou t t h e b o a t , l i k e t e l l
what k ind and how b i g what c o l o r and why you want i t ?
25. Change t i t l e . What d i d you do f o r t h e rest of t h e w i n t e r ?
26. Do over . Not bad, b u t cou ld u s e b e t t e r grammer.
27. Make a b e t t e r t i t l e f o r t h e s t o r y . Why d i d t h e y d e c i d e t o
b u i l d a boa t . P u t more d e t a i l . Pu t b e t t e r s t a r t i n g . Pu t some
exc i t emen t i n s t o r y .
28. What was your u n c l e s name. How o f t e n d i d he come. When d i d
you f i n i s h e d t h e b o a t t hen what d i d you do a f t e r you laughed and
couldn ' t g e t i t th rough t h e door .
29. You shou ld check your s e n t e n c e s t r u c t u r e .
30. Redoo!
31. No response .
32. I t would be a good i d e a t o check i t over and r i g h t i t a g i a n
and check i n d i c o n a r y f o r words your n o t s u r e o f . o t h e r w i s e v e r y
n i c e .
33. No comment
34. No comment
35. You should have used b e t t e r grammer.
36. No comment
37. No comment
38. No comment
PEER - EVAUTATION AM) - SEW +. EVALUATION
WPiting Resource Center
Ohio Resleyan University
(E'ran the Writing R e s o u r c e Centre, O h i o Wesleyan University. Used w i t h penaission.)
SURViX ON ATTITTUDE5 ABOUT bEUTCIG
Directions: 0elov are a ser ies of statanents about uriting. Thare M no right o r mug ans-rters t o these statements. Pleaae indicate the degree t o *mfsh each s t a t a n t applies t o you by cLrc- u h e t h ~ you (1) s t r o n g u a p s e , (2 1 a p e l ($1 are unce*&, (L) dispqnet or
s t rons ly disagree ui t& the sratmaent. khi la some ot chase satementa mas seaa reoetitious, take your time and tm t o be as honest as pojsibU,
I have no fear of my uritinq being e ~ a h ~ t 8 d . ................... . . ~ . ~ . ~ ~ e . . . * ~ ~ ~ ~ 2 3 5-
T m a camposition course is a very frightening c c p r i c e ........... ........-..1 2 3 b- 5,
h n d 5 q in a canposition makes me f e e l good ............... .........................l - 2 - 3- L 5- i\ly mind seaus t o go blank h e n I start ................. t o uork on a canposition.. .1 2 3- 3,s- Expressing ideas through writing seam t o be a waste of time,..............-....... 1- 2- 3- L 5- I uould enjoy submitting my mititkg to . magulnes for e l u t i o n and publication.. .l- 2, 3 & 5-
Proof reading checkl i s t
Iden t i fy the e r ro r s you have made i n your essay, and mark the boxes which correspond t o the mistakes you have found. Each Checklist may be used f o r th ree (3) consecutive weeks.
WEEK 1 ' WEEK 2 WEEK 3 ! I I
Run-on Sentences ! i
Fa i lu re t o Use a : i
C o m a Where Needed 4 t
Sentence Fragments 1 I
Coma Spl ices I
1
Sub1 ec t-Verb Agreement 4 I
Verb Tenses 1 #
4 I
I
-
Pronoun Agreement i I I U
I Misspelling 4 I
Controll ing idea not 1 r, I i
. car r ied through 1 b I 1 !
Diction (Especially , slang tenus t ha t a r e 1 out of place) I
Transi t ions not made i I
! c l e a r l y I
I I
1 Controll ing idea not i c l ea r ly s ta ted
I Paragraphs too long. 1 too shor t , o r non- 1 1
I
ex i s t en t I I 1
i I
&
I 8
Ideas not s ta ted c l e a r l y I i or l og i ca l l y
! , .
- WEEK 1-Most Connnon Error WEEK 2-Most Common Error WEEK 3-Most Common Error
SELF-EVALUATION CHECK SHEET FOR STUDENT USE
Before typing or writing the final draft of a paper, ask yourself the following questions and note your answers with a "yes," "no," or "?" in the appropriate box.
DO I HAVE
an adequate introduction?
a thesis statement that is limited, clearly focused, and specifically stated?
PAPER
a paragraph division for each major point? - I r l i r r C for each paragraph, a to ic sentence r;e which clearly states t e controlling idea?
for each paragraph, a sufficient development in a controlled structure (i.e., time order, comparison, contrast, example)?
for each sentence, a clear relationship to the controlling idea of the para- graph (i.e., no sentences which are' irrelevant to this idea)?
transitional words/phrases and other means of coherence to help the reader move from one idea to another? n-n u [ consistent point of view (avoidance of shifts in person, number, tense, tone)?
an' adequate conclusion? ' 5 nnni
HAVE I CHECKED
1) spelling?
2) punctuation (apostrophes, commas, periods, etc.)?
3) sentence correctness (NO fragments, comma splices, dangling modifiers, pronouns with unclear or missing antecedents, lack of agreement between subject-verb/pronoun-referent)?
STEPS IN ACADEMIC AND PROFESSIONAL WRITING -- -
Pre-Writing: produce a r i c h mass of information and ideas by "clustering'," brainstorming, f r e e wr i t ing , group .work, research , f ieldwork, -
in terv iews, etc.
Rough Draft ing: g e t subs tance rap id ly , no t worrying about c a r e f u l organiza t ion , mechanics, o r even complete sentences.
Writing F i r s t Dra f t : re-organize rough d r a f t - adding, d e l e t i n g , s h i f t i n g a s necessary - and g e t t h e mechanics r i g h t .
Conferencing: g e t advice from group, peer e d i t o r , f r i e n d s , family, o r teacher /supervisor .
Revising: use t h e advi.ce t o make paper c l e a r e r and more focused, with b e t t e r d e t a i l s and evidence.
Edit ing: check f o r d i c t i o n , s p e l l i n g , punctuat ion, and
Proofreading: even i f a p ro fess iona l has typed your paper, you a r e r e spons ib le f o r d e t e c t i n g a l l "typos," miareadings, omissions, and o t h e r e r r o r s .
Evaluation:
R e - W r i t i n g :
review t e a c h e r l s / s u p e r v i s o r l s assessment of t h e s t rong po in t s and weak po in t s , a c t i v e l y i n t e r n a l i z i n g t h i s information f o r use i n subsequent papers.
whenever poss ib le , demonstrate t h a t you have i n t e r n a l i z e d e v a l u a t o r ' s assessment by r e - v r i t i n g a t l e a s t a s e c t i o n of t h e paper.
Every wr i t e r must revise and e d i t the f i r s t d r a f t of a paper. I n f a c t , many professional wr i te r s f e e l the r e a l work cf wri t ing begins w i t h tne rewriting. Sentences are corrected so t ha t they sound be t t e r ; words a re changed so t h a t ideas have grea te r impact and paragraphs are reorganized and rearranged i n order t o make the paper nore powerful. I t is during the ed i t i ng process t ha t a rough d r a f t .is transfcrmed in to a f in i shed pro duc t . Since there are m y d i f f e r en t kinds of e r r o r s t c look fo r while ed i t i ng , i t ' s a good idea to read the pager t h ~ r o u g h l g severa l times, focusing on a d i f f e r en t aspect each time. Below are suggestions f o r ed i t i ng your paper.
The f i r & time 7ou read the papw, check t k e paragra?hs. --Is your t hes i s c l e a r l y s t a t ed?
--Is there a l o g i c a l progression of ideas?
--Boes each paragrapn have a main idea?
--Should one paragraph be divided in to two or can two paraeraphs be combined?
--Are ang paragraphs unrelated to t'ce topic?.
--Eave you included most of the information from your oat l ine?
--Does your cpening paragraph spark i n t e r e s t i n tke tcpic?
--Does your ccncluding paradraph s w a r i z e the paper?
After you have ccrrected ycur garagraphs, read the paper again, focusing on the sentences.
--Is there con t inu i ty between sentences? 6
--Is .every sentence a conglete sentence with a subject and verb?
--Is there enougk'variety i n sentence s t ruc ture?
--Are most sentences i n the ac t ive voice?
--Is each sentence t o the point? Eave you avoided wordiness?
Your t h i r d reading should focus on language. /
--Have you eliminated c l i ches? .. *
--Are there o r i g i n a l phrases?
--Are words repea.ted too often?
--Zave you included sensory language?
--Iiave you chosen powerful descr ip t ive words?
College Compositions
F i r s t Readinq (React)
1. Underline o r c i r c l e words o r sentences which seem p a r t i c u l a r l y e f f e c t i v e o r p a r t i c u l a r l y weak.
2 . Ask yourse l f : what i s the purpose of t h e paper? What c e n t r a l poin t i s i t t r y i n a . t o make?
3. Consider your r e a c t i o n t o the paper and i t s sub- j e c t . Is i t p o s i t i v e o r negat ive? Does t h e paper hold your i n t e r e s t ?
Second Readinq ( ~ n a l y z e )
Again, what i s t h e main i d e a o r purpose of t h e paper? Is i t s t a t e d e x p l i c i t l y ? I f so , underl ine t h e sen- t e n c e ( ~ ) . I f n o t , formulate a t o p i c o r t h e s i s sen- tence yourse l f .
I f t h e r e i s no main i d e a , then what a r e t h e minor ideas? How many a r e t h e r e and why don ' t they add up t o a main idea?
Can you t r a c e t h e flow of t h e main idea? I f s o , how is the idea c a r r i e d through? Through 10gica l ex- p lana t ion , throuah i l l u s t r a t i o n ( s p e c i f i c examples) , through c h r o n o l o ~ i c a l process , throuph comparison/ c o n t r a s t ?
If you cannot follow t h e flow, where does t h e pro- gress ion break down? Are t h e r e any sentences o r proups of sentences which seem i r r e l e v a n t ?
&
Are t h e r e any po in t s which need more e labora t ion? Would you l i k e t h e w r i t e r t o expla in anything i n g r e a t e r d e t a i l o r perham supply a s p e c i f i c example t o i l l u s t r a t e and c l a r i f y t h e po in t?
I f t h e paper holds your i n t e r e s t i s i t because you f i n d the t o p i c inhe ren t ly i n t e r e s t i n g o r because t h e w r i t e r has c rea ted t h e i n t e r e s t f o r you through h i s / he r p a r t i c u l a r approach, o r use of language?
1
Are a l l sentences c l e a r and grammatical? Go back t o the . sen tences o r words you underlined o r c i r c l e d i n #1 of t h e " reac t" sec t ion . Can you descr ibe why these usages a r e e f f e c t i v e o r weak?
Are t h e var ious po in t s i n t h e paper optimally organ- ized? What would be t h e e f f e c t . of rear rangina t h e ideas ?
* ---- Does t h e w r i t e r make smooth t r a n s i t i o n s between ideas?
The Proof of the Pudding
T i t l e (1) Is the t i t l e imaginative and provocative? (2) Is the t i t l e appropriate? Does i t r e f l e c t a narrowed . .. topic?
=- - Introductory Paragraph (1) Is there a one-sentence cont ro l l ing idea? (2) Does it make some d e f i n i t e asser t ion? Is i t c l ea r ly s t a t ed? (3) Does i t suggest a s t ruc tu re f o r the essay? (4) Does the r e s t of t he introductory paragraph lead i n t o the C.I.? - On the Word Level (1) Spel l ing e r r o r s (2) Poor word/choice/unidi - t ic locut ions (3) Redundancies (4) Verb tense e r ro r s (5) Incorrect verb fonn e r ro r s (6) Confusion between ad jec t ives and adverbs (7) Apostrophe e r r o r s
Agreement between words. (8) Lack of subj ect-verb agreement (9) Lack of pronoun-antecedent agreement
On the sentence Level (1) Awkward/wordy sentences (2) Vague sentences/insufficiently f ac tua l (3) Fragments (4) Run-ons /comma s p l i c e s (5)' I n t e r i o r comma e r r o r s (6) Good sentence va r i e ty?
Oa the Paragraph Level (1) Does each paragraph have a well-stated C.I.? (2) Is each paragraph r e s t r i c t e d t o one bas ic C.I.? (3) Is this idea adequately developed within the paragraph? (4) Is there smooth t r a n s i t i o n between sentences? ( 5 ) Is there smooth t r a n s i t i o n between paragraphs?
Concluding Paragraph (1) Is there a sense of c losure? Does the conclusion r e s t a t e the C . I . ,
r e cap i tu l a t e o r summarize arguments, o r draw conclusions?
Overall - The Whole Composition (1) Is the ' topic a s u f f i c i e n t l y narrowed and adequately handled one? (2) Is the ove ra l l organization of the essay handled well?
CRITICIZING W R I T I N G
CONTENT A. Does t h e a u t h o r know what he is t a l k i n g a b o u t ? B. What is h i s a u t h o r i t y ? C. I s h i s s u b j e c t o r h i s t r e a t m e n t o f i t i n any way new? D. Is t h e s u b j e c t of any s i g n i f i c a n c e t o t h e a u d i e n c e ? V A L I D I T Y A. I s t h e a u t h o r be ing t r u t h f u l ? B. A r e h i s f a c t s c o r r e c t ? C. Does he e x a g g e r a t e o r o t h e r w i s e b i a s h i s s u b j e c t ? PERSONA/VOICE A. What s o r t of p e r s o n d o e s t h e a u t h o r seem t o be? B. Does t h e w r i t i n g "sound l i k e " a p e r s o n ( v s . a machine) ? C. Is t h e v o i c e c o n s i s t e n t ? ATTITUDE A. Who is t h e l i k e l y a u d i e n c e ? B. What is t h e a u t h o r ' s a t t i t u d e toward t h e a u d i e n c e ? C. Does t h e writer speak over o r under t h e h e a d s of h i s a u d i e n c e ? TONE A. How d o e s t h e a u t h o r view h i s s u b j e c t (comic , s e r i o u s ,
i r o n i c , e tc .) ? B. I s h i s t o n e a p p r o p r i a t e t o h i s s u b j e c t ? C. I s t h e t o n e c o n t r o l l e d ( v s . o v e r d o n e ) ? DICTION AND SYNTAX A. Does t h e a u t h o r h a n d l e l anguage w e l l ? B. A-re h i s words w e l l chosen? Economical? C. A r e h i s s e n t e n c e s c l e a r ? Do t h e y a i d t h e r e a d e r i n s e e i n g h i s
purpose? ORGANIZATION A. I s t h e paper w e l l o r g a n i z e d ? B. Is t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n e n t i r e l y c l e a r ? - - DEVELOPMENT A . A r e t h e p o i n t s of t h e paper s u f f i c i e n t l y deve loped? B. A r e t h e r e s u f f i c i e n t d e t a i l s ? C. Are t h e d e t a i l s a p p r o p r i a t e ? D. A r e a l l t h e p o i n t s r e l e v a n t ? - PURPOSE A. What is t h e p u r p o s e o r p o i n t of t h e p a p e r ? B. I s t h e p u r p o s e e n t i r e l y c l e a r ? C. Does e v e r y t h i n g i n t h e paper c l e a r l y r e l a t e t o and h e l p d e v e l o p
t h e purpose? D. I s t h e p o i n t of t h e paper wor th making? MECHANICS A. Is t h e paper f r e e of e r r o r ( s p e l l i n g , p u n c t u a t i o n ,
granmar , e t c . ) ? B. Does t h e writer know t h e c o n v e n t i o n s of p r i n t ? Is t h e paper w e l l w r i t t e n ?
Good w r i t i n g is t h e s k i l l f u l c o n t r o l of a l l t h e s e a s p e c t s (1-10)
.. Ulle E. Lewes Director , Writing Resource Canter Ohio Wesleyan University Delaware, Ohio 43015 614-369-4431, X-101
TIPS FOR STUDENTS EVALUATING PAPERS OF THEIR PEERS --
When you f i r s t receive a paper,' r e s i s t the urge to begin reading it s t r a i g h t through word by word, correct ing every l i t t l e - e r r o r you see. Scan it f i r s t f o r major problems.
1. Read the f i r s t and last paragraphs of the paper to datennine whether they have a common thes i s and focus. If they have l i t t l e in common, you may have on your hands a paper which has switched topics somewhere in the middle. You can of ten f i nd the place where the paper shifts topics s inp ly by read- ing t he f i r s t sentence of each paragraph.
2. S U the paper t o check whether the t he s i s has been developed and "proved." In addit ion, watch f o r many sho r t paragraphs with very general topic sentences: such paragraphs may represent nothing more than a co l l ec t i on of poss ible intro- ductions t o various aspects of the topic, r a the r than a sequent ia l line of reasoning to "prove" one thes is .
IF TBE PAP= CONTAINS ERRORS 1. OR 2., RETURN IT TO TEE STUDENT DlMZDIATELY FOB RE-WRITXXG. URGE THE WRITEB TO CONSULT OUR BANDOUTS ON ESSAY ORGAN- rZBTION AND OUTLMLNG FOR HELP I N RE-STRUCTURING AND ,DmOPINC THE ESSAY.
I
3. Exnm4ne the intkoductory paragraph. Does it have a thesis sentence t h a t accurately announces the main th rus t of the paper? Do the subsequent sentences give a preview of the progression of ideas t o be developed in proving t he t he s i s statement?
4. Check t he organizational s t r u c t u r e of t h e paper. Is the ou t l i ne of the paper discernible? Can t he reader skimming the paper reproduca t he plan which t he wr i t e r followed? (When reading long papers, I f ind it usefu l t o ac tua l ly j o t down the sequence of ideas being presented.)
5. Do the sub-points develop the topic w i t h s u f f i c i e n t completeness? Obviously it is eas i e r t o de t ec t f a u l t s in what is included, and harder to detach oneself t o con- s i d e r omissions. Nonetheless, once you have determined that the paper does have a c l e a r plan, it is worthwhile t o ask whethez it includes everything that it ought.
6. Is the development f r e e from r epe t i t i on and irrelevance? Has the student t rea ted the same point in two d i f f e r e n t places? Are there sentences o r e n t i r e paragraphs that
d r i f t away from the t he s i s of the paper? (A r e l a t ed problem is prooortion: has the s tudent given a minor point mora space o r emphasis than i ts r e l a t i v e importance j u s t i f i e s ? )
7. Are the ideas arranged in a l og i ca l o r appropriate seauence? L i k e completeness, t h i s a rea is easy to overlook, but It is worth taking a minute t o ask, "Is this the most e f f ec t i ve organizat ional plan the s tudent could have chosen?"
8. Check f o r proper in tegra t ion of source mate r ia l and quoWtions. - - A s tudent ' s research paper sometimes is too deoendent upon quoted mater ia l , o r f a i l s to i n t eg ra t e quoted mater ia l smoothly w i t h the s tudent ' s own points, o r paraohrases l a rge sect ions from a few sources. The student may have to re-write the
- errt ire paper i f he/she has allowed t h e sources to dominate the paper.
O n l y a f t e r checking f o r the e igh t problems noted above s h k d you focus on grammar, usage, punctuation, and spel l ing. Unless the b
mechanical e r rors are overwhelming in number, they will not i n t e r f e r e with r eadab i l i t p near ly as much a s these l a rge r problems do.
NON-JUDGMENTAL PESR EVALUATIOX
Make a d e s c r i p t i v e statement about the e s say , paragraph by paragraph.
For Example: The f i r s t paragraph s e t s the scene and s t a t e s t h a t the t h e s i s is .
The second parapraph seems confusing because i t somewhat c o n t r a d i c t s i n the f i r s t paragraph.
The t h i r d paragraph is f u l l of v i v i d examples, by I don ' t see a top ic sentence.
The f o u r t h paragraph picks up aapect of t h e s i s , but I wish the re were a few support ing d e t a i l s t o he lp me understand.
The f i f t h parapraph has a f i n k , long sentence which I simply cant t f i g u r e out.
The s i x t h paragraph: I l i k e d t h i s best! I enjoyed your second example about ...
And so f o r t h ...
NON-JUDGlrlEN'SAL SELF-EVALUATION
For Length and Development.
Count number of:
words paragraphs poin ts you think you have developed ques t ion you th ink you have answered
For Mechanics.
Count number (or$) of:
c o r r e c t l y s p e l l e d words sentences with c o r r e c t beginning and end punctuation sentencas with c o r r e c t i n t e f n a l punctuation
For S ty3re.
Count numbers of:
modifiers phrases and c lauses d i f f e r e n t types of modif iers ( s i n g l e word, phrase, c l a u s e ) words o r phrases which show comparison ( i n c l u d i n g f i g u r e s
of speech) d i f f e r e n t sentence p a t t e r n s d i f f e r e n t types of sentences (s imple , compound, complex)
CONTEXT Does i t show o r i g i n a l , wor thwhi le t h i n k i n g ? Does i t f u l f i l l t h e a s s i g n m e n t ?
INTRODUCTION Does i t a r o u s e i n t e r e s t ? Does i t i n c l u d e a t h e s i s , e i t h e r s t a t e d o r i m p l i e d , which
c l e a r l y shows t h e wr i ter ' s a t t i t u d e toward t h e s u b j e c t ? I s i t a p p r o p r i a t e ?
BODY Does e a c h p a r a g r a p h have one main i d e a , e i t h e r s t a t e d o r
i m p l i e d , which c l e a r l y r e l a t e s t o and d e v e l o p s t h e t h e s i s ? Does e a c h p a r a g r a p h c o n t a i n s p e c i f i c d e t a i l s which expand o r
c l a r i f y t h e main i d e a of t h e p a r a g r a p h ? I s e v e r y s e n t e n c e c l e a r l y r e l a t e d t o t h e t h e s i s ? Has t h e writer employed c l e a r , l o g i c a l t r a n s i t i o n s t o e n a b l e
t h e r e a d e r t o f o l l o w h i s t r a i n of t h o u g h t ? I s t h e wri ter 's d i c t i o n a p p r o p r i a t e and a c c u r a t e ? A r e t h e s e n t e n c e s c o n c i s e and a c t i v e ?
CONCLUSION I s it l o g i c a l and c l e a r l y r e l a t e d t o t h e t h e s i s ? Does i t d e v e l o p n a t u r a l l y from t h e m a t e r i a l , o r d o e s i t seem f o r c e d and a r t i f i c i a l ?
MECHANICS, USAGE AND SPELLING Are t h e r e m i s s p e l l e d words? A r e t h e r e any s e n t e n c e f r a g m e n t s ? A r e t h e r e any i n e x c u s a b l e comma e r r o r s , such a s t h e use of a
comma i n p l a c e of a p e r i o d o r semico lon? A r e t h e r e o t h e r p u n c t u a t i o n e r r o r s ? Do t h e s u b j e c t s and v e r b s a g r e e i n number? Do t h e pronouns have d e f i n n i t e a n t e c e d e n t s , w i t h which t h e
pronouns a g r e e i n number and p e r s o n ? Are t h e v e r b t e n s e s c o n s i s t e n t t h r o u g h o u t t h e p a p e r ?
NOTE: Read your paper a l o u d whenever p o s s i b l e , d e v e l o p i n g your own a b i l i t y t o be o b j e c t i v e l y a n a l y t i c a l . I n s t e a d of r e l y i n g on someone e lse 's p r o o f r e a d i n g , e d i t i n g and r e v i s i n g , p r a c t i c e u n t i l you can do i t y o u r s e l f .
- Are there any sentences t h a t don't make sense?
- Do you have a s t rong opening l i n e o r sentence?
- Does every paragraph t e l l something important?
- re there any l i ne8 tha t need more co lor fu l words?
- Could someone repeat the experiment by following your notes?
- Check t o see t h a t you haven't begun more than three sentences with the same word.
(Fraa the Writing Resource Centre, Delta School District. Used with permission. )
The Edi t ing Committee has "spot checked" your wri t ing . Our comments a r e below:
. . One th ing I r e a l l y l i k e d about your w r i t i n g w a s --
The a r e a I checked was : (Ci rc le One) * Word Choice * Opening * ~ n d & * Content
0.K. I * Sequence * Sentence S t r u c t u r e u
Here's my suggest ion of what t o change:
Ed i to r
One th ing I r e a l l y l i k e d about your w r i t i n g was
The a r e a I checked w a s : (Circle One) * Word Choice * Opening * ~ n d i n ~ * Content
O.K. I * Sequence * Sentence S t r u c t u r e u Here's my suggest ion of what t o change:
Ed i to r
One th ing I r e a l l y l i k e d about your w r i t i n g was
The a r e a I checked was : (Circle One) * Word Choice * Opening * Ending * Content
I 0.K. I * Sequence * Sentence S t r u c t u r e u Here's my suggest ion of what t o change:
Ed i to r
133
1. Content (Ideas)
J * Complete
(Subject) * Clear * Interesting
* Are my thoughts complete? * Co they make sense? * Did I express uiy ideas clearly? * Will my audience understand what I have said? * Will they have a "complete and clear" picture in their
minds? * Will my audience find my ideas interesting?
Could I edit to ... add more details or description to expand - my ideas or to make them clearer?
2. Opening J * catch attention * set the stage * state the main idea
* Will the first sentences catch my audience's attention? * Does it set the stage for whet is to follow? * If it is a story, does the beginning tell who the hero is, what he is doing, and whea and where he is doing it? (5 W's) * If it is an exposition, does the opening state the main idea to be elaborated on?
Could I edit to . . . add, replace', remove or rearrange wrds or phrases so the opening would be more effective?
3. Sequence (Organization) J * logical * smooth * focused
* Are my ideas put in a logical order with a beginning, middle, and end? * Does each sentence flow smoothly onto the next one? * Are all my sentences related to the topic? Did I stick to my subject by keeping my ideas focused?
. Could I edit to ... - rearrange the sentences so my ideas would be clearer and easier to follow? - remove or replace parts that do not relate to the topic?
4. Word Choice (Vocabulary) J * p r e c i s e * i n t e r e s t i n g * var ied
* Did I enr ich my sentences wi th a v a r i e t y of f r e s h , l i v e l y and i n t e r e s t i n g words? * Did I choose t h e b e s t , most p r e c i s e words t o make my ideas c l e a r ?
Could I e d i t t o . . . - add more 'describing' words? - rep lace t i r e d , overused o r unclear words? - remove unnecessary words?
5. Sentence S t r u c t u r e J * var ied sentence length * word & phrase order * type (kind)
* Did I use a v a r i e t y of longer and s h o r t e r sentences f o r emphasis and i n t e r e s t ? * Did I use a v a r i e t y of sentence p a t t e r n s by changing t h e words o r phrases? * Did I use a v a r i e t y of sentence types (i.e., s tatement, quest ion, command), i f appropr ia te?
Could I e d i t t o ... combine o r rearrange whole sentences o r t h e i r p a r t s t o provide v a r i c t y ?
6. Ending J * t i e i d e a together * sums up thoughts * provides conclusion
* Does my f i n a l sentence conclude the ideas EC t h a t they seem t i e d together and f in i shed? * Is t h e r e an echo of t h e beginning of my piece i n the ending? * Are t h e thoughts summed up, o r conclusions drawn?
Could ' I e d i t t o . . . add, remove o r rearrange words o r phrases t o s t rengthen the ending ?
Let's be Editors who CARE!.
" ~ n Editor is an Author's best friend!"
Now it's your turn to help your friend strengthen his or her
writing. Give the author some helpful hints by making some
comnents below:
One thing I really liked cbcut your writing was
Now you might work on this area to strengthen it:
- Word Choice - Opening - Ending - More Ideas 1 . Circle
- More Details - Sequence - Sentence Structure ] One
Here's my suggestions of what to change:
Author Editor
"LET'S EDIT" PENCILS
Are the ideas ... * complete thoughts ?
understands ble and elear ? interesting and appropriate for
e a& ce . ?
Does t h e beginning . . . * hook the audience ?
'1 3 g * set the "stage * o r state the main idep?
Do all the sentences . . .. * follow a lo ical order7
ce * low smooth y rorn one to the no f 7 f * ocus on he fopic?
BIBILIOGRAPHY
AMARIA, R.P., Brian, L.A. & Heath, G.O.M. (1969). Individual versus cooperative learning. Educational Research 11 pp 95-103 -
AMES, Nancy H. (1985). ~ a j o r differences between product and process approaches to composition: Topic choice, revision and the writing conference. (ED 261379)
ANDREWS, Deborah C. (1985) . Writer's slump and revision schemes: Effects of computers on the composing process. Collegiate Microcomputer, - 3 (4) pp 313-16
ANDREWS, Richard (1982). The role of editing in English. Use of English, - 34 (1) pp 61-68
APPLEBEE, Arthur N. (1978) Writing in the secondary school. Available through Eric Document Reproduction Service, Arlington, Virginia. (ED240546)
APPLEBEE, Arthur N. (1983). Learning to write in secondary school. (Final report) California: Stanford University.
APPLEBEE, Arthur N., & Langer, Judith A. (1983). ~eading and writing as natural activities. Education Digest, pp 30-32
APPLEBEE, Arthur N. and others (1984) . Contexts for learning to write: Studies of secondary school instruction. Writing Research: Multidisciplinary inquiries into the nature of writing. California: Stanford University.
APPLEGATE, Mauree (1954). Helping children write. Evanston, ILL: Row Peterson & Company
ARBUR, Rosemarie (1977). The student-teacher conference. College Composition and Communication, - 28 pp 338-342
ARMSTRONG, Cherry1 (1984). A process perspective on poetic discourse. Presented at the 35th annual conference on College Composition and Communication New York.
139
ARNHEIM, Rudolf (1969). Visual Thinkinq. Berkeley: University of California Press. .
ARTLEY, A.Steri; Hildreth, Gertrude; Townsend, Agatha; Beery, Althea; & Dawson, Mildrea (1954). Interrelationship between the language arts. Champlaign, ILL: NCTE Research Collection.
ASHTON WARNER, Sylvia (1965). Teacher. New York: Simon and Shuster
ATLAS, M. (1979). Writer insensitivity to audience: Causes and cures. Presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Assoc., San Francisco.
AUSTIN, J.L. (1969). How to do things with words. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press
AUTEN, Ann (1984a). Computers and reading. Language Arts.1 - (4) pp 56-58
AUTEN, Ann (1984b) Computers in English: How and why. English Journal.73 - (1) pp 54-56
BADDELY, A.D., & Wing, A.D. Spelling errors in handwriting. In U. Frith (Ed.), Cognitive processes in spelling. New York: Academic Press
BAILEY, Richard W. & Fosheim, Robin (Eds). (1983) Literacy for life: The demand for reading and writing. New York: Modern Language ~ssociation
BAIN, Robert (1974). Reading student papers. College Composition and Communication. - 25. pp 307 -309.
BAMBERG, Betty (1978). Composition instruction does make a difference. Research in the Teaching of English. - 12 (1) P 57
BARNES, Douglas (1979). From communication to curriculum. New York: Penguin Books
BARNET, Sylvan, Berman, Morton, & Burto, William (1984). titerature for composition: Essays, fiction, poetry, and drama. Toronto, Canada: Little, Brown and Company
BARR, Mary, et al. (1982) . What's going on? Language/learninq episodes in British and American classrooms, Grades 4 - 13. New Jersey: Boynton/Cook -
BARRETT, J. Mandel (1978). Losing one's mind: Learning to write and edit. College composition and Communication. - 29 p.366
BARRS, Myra (1983) . New orthodoxy about writing: Confusing process and pedagogy. Language Arts. - 60 (7) pp 831-884
BARTHOLOMAE, David (1980). The study of error. College Composition and Communication. - 31 pp 253 - 269.
BARTHOLOMAE, David (1985). Against the grain. in Tom Waldrep (Ed.), Writers on Writing pp 19-30 New York: Random House
BARTHOLOMEW, Bruce (1982). A stuaent learns to write. English Journal. - 71 (1) p 32
BARTLETT, Elsa J. (1981). Learning to write: Some cognitive and linguistic components. Centre for Applied Linguistics, Washington, D.C.
BARTLETT, Elsa J. (1982). Learning to revise: Some component processes. In M. Nystrand (Ed.), What writers know: The language process and structure of written discourse. New York: Academic Press
BEACH, Richard (1979). The effects of between draft teacher evaluation versus self-evaluation in High School students' revising of rough drafts. Research in the Teaching of English. - 13 pp 111-119
BEACH, Richara (1986). em on st rating techniques for assessing writing in the writing conference. College Composition and Communication. (37 - (1) pp 56-65
BEACH, Richard, & Bridwell, Lillian S. (Eds.), (1984). - New directions in composition research. Perspectives in writing research. New York: Guilford Press,
BEACH, Richard, & Eaton, Sara (1984). Factors influencing self-assessing and revising by college freshmen. In Beach, Richard & Bridwell, Lillian S. (Eds.), New directions in composition research. Perspectives in writing research. New York: Guilford Press
BEAN, John C. (1983). Computerized word-processing as an aid to revision. college Composition and Communication. - 34 (2) pp 146-148.
BEAR, Meta (1939). Children's growth in the use of written language. Elementary English Review. - 16, pp 312-319
ae BEAUGRANDE, Robert (1983). Linguistic and cognitive processes in developmental writing. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching. - 21 (2) pp 125 - 144.
BEAVEN, Mary H. (1977). Individualized goal setting, self- evaluation, and peer evaluation. In Cooper, Charles R. & * Odell, Lee (Eds.), Evaluating writing: Describing, measuring, judgiq. pp 135-156 Urbana, ILL: NCTE
BECHTEL, R. (1979). Presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association.
BECK, Gordon (1984). A workshop in logic and rhetoric. In Leo ~ a u ~ h e r t ~ . (Ed. ) , The tez
BECK, Isabel L., anu others. (1984). Improving the comprehensibility of stories: The effects of revisions that improve coherence. Reading Research Quarterly. - 19 (3) pp 263 - 277.
BELANGER, Joe & Rodgers, Denis (1983). Revise, reivse: A checklist and classroom procedures. English Quarterly. - 16 (1) pp 20-27. (EJ286543)
BENSON, Nancy L. (1979). The effects of peer feedback during the writing process on writing performance, revision behaviour and attitude toward writing. PhD aissertation, University of Colorado at Boulder, Colorado.
BENTON, Stephen L. & Blohm, Paul J. (1986)- Effect of question types and position on measures of conceptual elaboration in writing. Research in the Teaching of English. - 20, (1) pp 98-108.
BENTON, Stephen L. and others, (1984). Employing adjunct aids to -
facilitate elaboration in writing. Research In The Teaching of English. - 18 (2) pp 189-200,
BERG, Leila (1977) . Reading and loving. London: Routleage and Kegan Paul.
BERGDAHL, David (Ed.) (1983). Research in the teaching of the English language arts. Teaching English Lanquage Arts, - 9 (2). Southeastern Ohio Council of Teachers of English, Dept. of English Language and Literature, Ohio University, Athens, Ohio.
BEREITER, Carl, and Scardamalia, Marlene (1981). From conversation to composition: The role of instruction in a developmental - process. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology, Vol. Two. Hillsiae, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum
BEREITER, Carl & Scardamalia, Marlene (1982). Levels of inquiry in writing research. In Mosenthal, Walmsley & Tamor (Eds.), Research in writing: Principles and methods. New York: Longman.
BERKENKOTTER, Carol (1983a). Student writers and their audiences: Case studies of the revising decisions of three college freshmen. Paper presented at the 16th Canadian Council of Teachers of English, Montreal, Canada,
BERKENKOTTER, Carol (1983b). Decisions and revisions: The planning strategies of a publishing writer. College Composition and Communication. - 34 (2) pp 156 - 158.
BERKENKOTTER, Carol (1984). Student writers and their sense of authority over texts. College Composition and Communication. 35 (3) DD 312-19
BERTHOFF, Anne E. (1981). The Making of meaning: Metaphors, models and maxims for writing teachers. Upper Montclair, New Jersey: Boynton/Cook.
BERTHOFF, Anne E. (Ed) (1984). Reclaiming the imagination: Philosophical perspectives for writers and teachers of writinq. Upper Montclair, New Jersey: Boynton/Cook.
BEYER, Barry K. (1979). Prewriting and rewriting to learn. Social - Education, pp 187-180.
BIBBERSTINE, Richard (1976). A study of selected areas of teacher influence upon the written composition of fourth graders. Dissertation Abstracts, - 27 p 3604-A.
BIRDSALL,- Eric R. (1979) . Avoiding whad jaget with no-grade, garded papers. College Composition and Communication. - 30 pp 220-2
BIRNBAUM, J.C. (1982). Reading and composing behavior of selected fourth -and- seventh-grade students. Research in the Teaching of English. - 16 p 241
BISSEX, G. (1980). Gyns at wrk: a child learns to write and read. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press
BIZARRO, Patrick (1983). Teacher as writer and researcher: The poetry dilemma. Language Arts. - 60 (7) pp 851 - 859.
BLACK, Lynette C. (1982). Basic writing: progressive proofreadinq. Paper presented at the 33rd conference on College ~ok~osition and Communication, San Francisco, CA.
BLAU, Sheridan (1983). Invisible writing: Investigating cognitive processes in composition. College Composition and Communication. - 34 (3) pp 297 - 312.
BLOOM, Lynn Z. (1982). Re-creating creators: Teaching students to edit autobiographical materials. Paper presented at the 33rd conference on College Composition and Connunication, San Francisco, CA. (ED219748)
BLOOM, Lynn Z. (1985). How I Write. In Tom Waldrep (Ed.), Writers on Writinq. pp 31-38. New York: Ranaom House.
BOIARSKY, Carolyn (1980). Cut and paste and other revision- - activities. English Journal. - 69 pp 44-48.
BOIARSKY, Carolyn (1981). The eleven functions of revision. Paper presented at the 32nd annual meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication. Dallas.
BOIARSKY, Carolyn (1983). Model for analyzing revision. Paper presented at the 34th annual meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Connunication, Detroit, MI.
BOLKER,- Joan (1978). Reflections on reading student writing. College English. - 40-- pp 181-185
BOLKER, Joan (1984). Narrative writing. Educational Review. - 36 (3) pp 263-75.
BONDS, Lesie, and others. (1980). Effects of positive and negative comments on children's creative writing. ERIC (ED200959)
BOOLEY, Heather A (1984). Discovery and change: How children redraft their narrative wiiting. ~aicational Review. (3) pp 263-75.
BORNSTEIN, Diane D. (1978). Readings in the theory of grammar. Cambridge, Mass: Winthrop publishers
BOUCHARD, Kathy A. (1983) . What do they do as they write?: Observations of four fourth-grade writing workshop participants. M.Ed. Thesis, Texas Woman's University.
BRACEWELL, Robert J. (1983). Investigating the Control of writing Skills. In P. Mosenthal, L. Tamor & S. Walmsley (Eds.), Research On Writing: Principles and Methods. New York: Longman' s
BRACEWELL, Robert J; Scardamalia, Marlene; & Bereiter,Carl (1978). The development of audience awareness in writing Resources in Education, October. pp 154-433.
BRACEWELL, Robert J.; Scardamalia, Marlene; & Bereiter, Carl. (1979). A test of two myths about revision. Technical report presented to the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
BRACHER, Peter (1979). Rewriting and the teaching of composition. Arizona English Bulletin, - 21 pp 95 - 98.
BRADDOCK, Richard; Lloyd-Jones, Richard; & Schoer, Lowell (1963). Research in written composition: The state of knowleuge about composition. Champlain, ILL: NCTE
BRAND, Alice Garden (1978). Reversing the revision blues. In Gene Stanford (Ed.), Activating the passive student: Classroom practices in teaching English. pp 77-83 Urbana, ILL: NCTE.
BRANDT, Anthony (1982, March). Writing readiness. Psychology Today. pp 55 - 59.
BRANNON, Lil, Knight, Melinda, & Nverow-Turk, Vara (1982). Writers writing. Upper Montclair, New Jersey: ~oynton/Cook
BRAUNGART, Diane S. (1985). Unaerstanding the writing process: Introducina students to comnosina. Trenton, NJ: New Jersey State Dept. of Education
BRENT, Harry (1985). Epistemological presumptions in the writing process: The importance of content to writing. In Tom Waldrep (Ed.), Writers on writing. pp 45-62, New York: Random House
BRIDWELL, Lillian S. (1980). Revising strategies in twelfth garde students: Transactional writing. Research in the Teaching of English. - 14 (3) pp 197-222
BRIDWELL, Lillian S., Nancarrow, Paul Reed, & Ross, Donald (1984). The writing process and the writing machine: - Current research on word processors relevant to the teaching of composition. In Richard Beach & Lillian Bridwell (Eds.), New directions in composition research. New York: Guilford Press.
BRITISH COLUMBIA MINISTRY OF EDUCATION (1983) The young writers project. Victoria, B.C.: Queen's Printer
BRITTON, J., with Burgess, Martin, McLeod & Rosen. (1975). - The development of writing abilities. London: MacMillan.
BROWN, Jane (1985). Emphasizing revision with word processing in freshman English classes. Paper presented at the 5th Southeastern Writing Centre Assoc. Conference, Atlanta, GA
BROWNELL, Thomas (1983). A writing course final exam. Exercise Exchange. - 29 (1) . pp 19 - 22.
BRUFFEE, Kenneth A. (1980). A short course in writing: Practical rhetoric for composition courses, writing workshops and tutor training programs. (2nd Edition) Cambridge, Mass: Winthrop Publishing.
BRUNER, Jerome (1971). On knowing: Essays for the left hand. New York: Atheneum.
BRUNER, Jerome S. (1978). Toward a theory of instruction. Mass: Belknap Press.
BUDDMEIER, Richard E. (1981). Discovering writing ownership in the process of learning to write. (ED234377)
BUECHLER, Scott (1983). Does seeing what I say help me know what I think? Four students revisins. presented at the 34th con•’. - - - - - - on College Composition and Communication, Detroit, MI.
BURHANS, Clinton S. (1966). The would-be writer. Mass: Blaisdell
BURKE, Kenneth (1969). A rhetoric of motives. Berkeley: University of California Press
BURKHOLDER, Robert (1985). Transcendental re-seeing: Teaching revision using the works of Emerson and Thoreau. Teachinq English in the Two-Year College. - 12 (1) pp 14-21.
BURNS, Hugh & Culp, George (1980). Stimulating invention in English composition through computer-assisted instruction. Educational Technology. - 20 pp 5-10.
BURROWS,
BURROWS,
BURROWS,
BURROWS,
BURROWS,
Alvina (1952a). Teaching children in the middle grades. Boston: D.C. Heath and Company
Alvina (1952b) . Writing as therapy. Elementary English. - 29 p 136.
Alvina; Parke, Margaret B.; Edmund, Neal R; DeBoer, John J.; Horn, Thomas D.; Herrick, Virgil E.; & Str-ickland, Ruth, (1959). Children's writing: Research in composition and related skills. Champlaign, ILL: NCTE -
Alvina (Ed) (1961). Writing skills in the elementary grades. Champlaign, ILL: NCTE
Alvina Treut, and others. (1984). They all want to write: Written English in the elementary school. Fourth Edition, Urbana, ILL: NCTE
BUTLER, Sydney (1980). Unstuffing stuffed rabbits. The English Quarterly. - 13 (1) pp 21-30
BUTLER, Sydney (1983). The bridge to real writing: Teaching editing skills. English Quarterly. - 16 (3) pp 40-48 (ED 229 639)
BUXTON, E. (1959). An experiment to test the effects of writing frequency and guided practice upon students' skill in writing expression. Alta Jrnl. of Educ. Research. - 5 pp 94-99.
CALABRESE, Marylyn (1982). I don't grade papers any more, English Journal. 71 (1) p 28 -
CALKINS,
CALKINS,
CALKINS.
CALKINS,
CALKINS,
Lucy McCormick (1978) . Children write and their writing becomes their textbook. Language Arts. - 55 (7) pp 804-910.
Lucy McCormick (1980a). Notes and comments: Children's rew;iting strategies. Research in the Teaching of English. 14 p. 331-341. -
Lucy McCormick (1980b). Research update: Children learn the writer's craft. Language Arts. - 57 pp 207-213
Lucy McCormick (1982). A study of children's rewriting. Final report for NCTE Research Foundation project 80:ll. NCTE, urbana, ILL
Lucy McCormick (1983). Lessons from a child: On the teaching and learning of writing (ED263614)
CAMP, Gerald (Ed,) (1982). Teaching writing: Essays from the Bay Area writing project. Berkeley: University of Calif.
CAMP, Gerald (1983). Teaching writing: Essays from the Bay Area writing project. Montclair, New Jersey: Boynton/Cook
CANADIAN PRESS STYLEBOOK (1940, revised and extended '47,'54,'57, '66,'74; minor changes '78; further revised and edited ' 83). Toronto, Ontario: Canadian Press
CANUTESON, John (1977)..Conferences as evaluative devices in freshman composition, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication, Kansas City, Missouri. (ED 143027)
CARINO, Peter A. (1985). The annotatea paragraph: An exercise for
CARKEET,
CARLMAN,
CARLSON,
CARLSON,
CARLSON,
CARROLL,
CARROLL,
- -
developing revision skills in basic writing classes. Exercise Exchange. - 31 (1) pp 28 -30.
D. (1977). Understanding syntactic errors in remedial writing. College English. - 38 pp 682-695.
Nancy (1982). Recognizing variety in writing behaviours. English Quarterly. - 15 (1).
Craig (1984). God and grammar. In Leo Daugherty (Ed.), The teaching of writing at Evergreen: A collection of strategies. pp 22-33. Olympia, WA:Evergreen State College
Diana M., and Roellich, Carol (1983). Teaching writinq easily and effectively to get gesults. Part 11: The evaluation process. Paper presented at the 2nd NCTE Spring Conference, Seattle, WA
Ruth Kearney (1979). Sparkling words: 315 practical and creative writing ideas. Boulder, Colorado: Paladin House.
Joyce Armstrong (1982). Ratiocination and revision or clies in the wiitten draft. English Journal. - 71 (7) pp 90-92.
Joyce Armstrong (1984). Process into product: Teacher awareness of the writing process affects students' written products. In R. Beach & L. Bridwell (Eds.) , New directions in com~osition research. New York: Guilford Press.
CARTER, Ronnie D. (1982). By itself peer group revision has no power. Paper presented at the 72nd NCTE,Washington, DC.
CARTER, Ronnie D. (1983). A survey of revision practices in today's advanced com~osition courses. PaDer resented at 34th con•’ on College ~om~osition and ~ommu'nication, Detroit, MI.
CASE, Donald (1985). Processing professorial woras: Personal computers and the writing habits of university professors. College Composition and Communication. - 36 (3) pp 317-22..
CATANO, James V. (1985). Computer-basea writing: Navigating the fluid text. College Composition and Communication. 36 (3) pp 309-316. -
CAVIN, G.E. (1983). Readin', ritin' and revision. Clearing House, 57 (3) pp 119-123. -
CELLARIUS, Richard (1984). Guide to writing papers and reports. In Leo ~ a u ~ h e r t ~ (Ed.), The teaching-of kiting at Evergreen: A collection of strategies. pp 34-43. Olympia, Washington: Evergreen State College.
CHAMPAGNE, Mireille, and others (1980). Children's problems with focus and cohesion in revising. Presented at the American Educational Research Association conf, Boston. (ED 186901)
CHIMOMBO, Moira (1986). Evaluating compositions with large classes. ELT Journal. - 40 (1) pp 20-26.
CHOMSKY, C. (1971). Write now, read later. Childhood Education 47 pp 296-299. -
CHRISTENSEN, Linda, (Ed.), and others (1982) . A guide to teaching self/peer editing. Madison, WI: Wisconsin University.
CHRISTIANSEN, Pauline Grabill (1978) . From inside out: Writing from subjective to objective. Cambridge, Mass: Winthrop
CIOFFI, Grant (1984). Observing composing behaviours of primary-age children: The interaction of oral and written language. In Richard Beach and Lillian S. Bridwell (Eds.), - New directions in composition research, NY: Guilford Press
CLAPP, Ouida H. (Ed.) (1975). Classroom practices in teachinq English: On righting writing. Urbana, ILL: NCTE
CLAPP, Ouida H. (Chair), and the Committee on Classroom Practices (1977). Classroom practices in teaching English: Teaching the basics, really! Urbana, ILL: NCTE.
CLARK, John R. & Motto, Anna Lydia (1986). The uses of paroay and excess in composition. Exercise Exchange. - 31(2) p 11-13.
CLARK, William A. (1975). How to completely individualize a writing program. English Journal. pp 66 - 69.
CLAY, Marie (1975). What did I write? Aukland, N. Zealand: Heinemann. Also (1979) Mass: Northeast Offset Inc.
CLIFFORD, John (1980). Teaching composing collaboratively. Arizona English Bulletin. - 22 pp 95 - 98.
COHEN, Alan S. (1984). The Viking portable. Exercise Exchange 30 (1). pp 24-25. -
COE, Richard M. (1985). Forming substance. In Tom Waldrep (Ed) Writers on writing. pp 63-70 New York: Random House
COLES, William E. Jr. (1974) Teaching composing. New Jersey: Hayden
COLES, William E. Jr. (1975) Composing: Writing as a self-creating -
-process. New Jersey: Hayaen
COLES, William E. Jr. (1978) The plural I: The teaching of writing. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
COLLIER, Richard M. (1983). The word processor and revision strategies. College Composition and Communication. 34 pp 149-155. -
COLLINS, James L. & Williamson, Michael M. (1984). Assigned rhetorical context and semantic abbreviation in writing. In Richard Beach and Lillian S. Bridwell (Eds.) - New directions in composition research. N.Y: Guildford Press
COMBS, Martha (1985) . Exploring the .composing process with microcomputers. Presented at the 2nd National Reading and Language Arts ~ducators' conference, Kansas City, MO.
COMPRONE, Joseph J. (1985). Composition, intellectual life, and the process of writing as public knowing. In Tom ~aldrep (Ed.), Writers on writing. pp 71-86 New York: Random House
COOK, John M. (1983). The technical writing student as editor. Technical Writing Teacher. - 10 (2-3) pp 114-117.
COOK-Gumperz, J. & Gumperz, J. (1978). From oral to written culture: The transition to literacy. In M.F. Whitman (Ed.), Variations in writing. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum
COOPER, Charles R. (1975). Responding to writing. In alter T. Petty & Patrick J. Finn (Eds.) , The writing processes of students: Report of the first annual conference on language arts. State University of New York, Buffalo, NY.
COOPER, Charles R. (1977). Holistic evaluation of writing. In C.R. Cooper & ~ e e ode11 (Eds.) , Evaluating writinq: Describing, measuring, judging. NCTE, Urbana, ILL.
COOPER, Charles R., Cherry, Roger, Copley, Barbara, Fleischer, Stefan, Pollard, Rita, & Sartisky, Michael (1984). Studying the writing abilities of a university freshman class. Strategies from a case study. In R. Beach & L.S. -Bridwell (Eds.), New directions in composition research. pp 19-52. New York: Guilford Press.
COOPER, Elizabeth J. (1982). Style: Applications for the student writer. Presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Council of Teachers of English, Saskatoon, Sask.
COOPER, Marilyn (1984). The pragmatics of form: How do writers discover what to do when? In R. Beachand L.S. Bridwell (Eds.), New directions in composition research. New York: Guilford Press
COOPER, Marilyn & Holzman, Michael (1985). Counterstatement reply College Composition and Communication. - 36 pp 97-100
CORBETT, Edward P.J. (1985). The Rites of Writing. In Tom Waldrep (Ed) Writers on writinq. pp 87-98 N.Y.: Random House
CRABLE-SUNDMACHER, Doranne (1984). Teaching writing with learning partners. In Leo Daugherty (Ed) The teaching of writinq at Evergreen: A collection of strategies. Olympia, Washington: Evergreen State College
CRONIN, Frank C. (1980, Spring). Creative, rhetorical, and editorial revisions: An autobiographical account. Ohio English Language Arts Bulletin. pp 15 - 18.
CRONNELL, Bruce, and others (1982a). Cooperative instructional application of writing research. Final Report, 2 Southwest Regional Laboratory for Educational ~esearch and Development. Los Alamitos, Calif.
CRONNELL, Bruce, and others (1982b). Computer-based practice in editing. Southwest Regional Laboratory for Educational Research and Development, Los Alamitos, Calif.
CROSS, Mary (1982). The tricks of the trade. ABCA Bulletin. - 45 (3).
CROWE, Beryl (1984). One-act plays on program themes. In Leo Daugherty (Ed) The teaching of writing at Evergreen: A collection of strategies. Olympia, Washington: Evergreen
- State College
CROWHURST, Marion (1979a) . Writing for classmates. ~ h h w a ~ One. 2 (3) pp 32-35. -
CROWHURST, Marion (1982). Grade seven writers explore revision. Highway One. - 5 (2) pp 11-23
CROWHURST, Marion & Piche, G. (1979). Audience and mode of discourse of facts on syntactic complexity of writing at two grade levels. Research in Teaching of English. - 13 pp. 101-109.
CROWLEY, Gillian (1981). Revising and composing. M.A. Thesis, University of Calgary, Alberta.
CUNNINGHAM, Donala & Dobler, G. Ronald (1977). Teaching by the numbers: An exercise in organization and revision. Fall. Exercise Exchange, pp 36-40.
154
CURTZ, Thad (1984) . "I think I'll talk about technique." In Leod Daugherty (Ed) The teaching of writing at Evergreen: A collection of strategies. pp 54-57. Olympia, Washington: Evergreen State College
DAIKER, Donald A. et a1 (1979). Sentence combining and the teachinq of writing. Department of English, University of Central Arkansas
DALY, John A. (1979). Writing apprehension in the classroom. Research in the Teaching of English. - 13 pp 37-45
DALY, John A. & Hailey, Joy Lynn (1984). Putting the situation into writing research: State and disposition as parameters of writing apprehension. In R. Beach and L.S. Bridwell, (Eds) New directions in composition research. New York: Guilford Press
DALY, John A. & Miller, M.D. (1975). The development instrument to measure writing apprehension. the Teaching of English. - 9 pp 242-249
of an Research in
DANIELS, Havey A. & Zemelman, Steven (1985). A writing project. Portsmouth, New Hampshire: Heinemann Educational Books
DANISH, Barbara (1981). Writing as a second language.,Teachers and Writers New York.
DAUGHERTY, Leo (1984). A workshop in writing for the real world. in Leo Daughtery (Ed) The teaching of writing at Evergreen: A collection of strategies. pp 58-81 Olympia, Washington: Evergreen State College
DAVIDSON, Robert S. (1982). Towards the effective teaching of writing -- What have we learned? English Quarterly. - 15 (3) pp 62-70
DAVIS, Barbara G., Scriben, M., & Thomas, S. (1981). The evaluation of composition instruction. Pt. Reyes, CA: Edgepress
DAVIS, Kenneth & Hollewell, John (Eds.), (1977). Inventing and playing games in the English classroom. NCTE, ILL.
DE CASTELL, Suzanne, with Luke, Alan & Egan, Keiran (1986). -
~ i t e r a c ~ , society and schooling : A Reader. London: Cambridge University Press
DEEM, James (1985). Transcribing speech: An initial step in basic writing. College Composition and Communication. - 36 (3) pp 360-62.
DeFORD, D. (1980) . Young children and their writing. Theory Into Practice. - 19 pp 157-162.
DELLA-PIANA, Gabriel (1978). Research strategies for the study of revision processes in writing poetry. In Charles Cooper & Lee Odell (Eds.), Research on composing, points of departure. NCTE, Urbana, ILL.
DELLA-PIANA, Gabriel & Endo, George T. (1977). Writing as revision. Paper presented at the annual American Educational Research Association, N.Y. (ED 137791)
DELLINGER, Dixie Gibbs (1982). Out of the heart: How to design writing assignments for high school courses. The National Writing Project, California.
DENMAN, Mary Eael (1975). I got this here hang-up: Noncognitive processes for facilitating writing. College Composition and Communication. - 26. pp 305-309
DIAUTE, C.A. (1982). Psycholinguistic Foundations of the Writing Process. Research in the Teaching of English. - 15 pp 5-22.
DIAUTE, Colette (1983). The computer as stylus and audience. College Composition and Communication. - 34 (2) pp 134-45
DIAUTE, Colette (1984). Performance limits on writers. In Richard Beach and Lillian S. Bridwell (Eds.) , New directions in composition research. New York: Guildford Press.
DIAUTE, Colette (1986). Physical and cognitive factors in revising: Insights from studies with computers. Research in the Teaching of English. - 30 (2) pp 141-59
DIAUTE, Colette & Kruidenier, John (1985). A self-questioning strategy to increase young writersf revising processes. Applied Psycholinguistics. - 6 (3) pp 307-18
DIEDERICH, P.B. (1974). Measur'ing growing in writing. NCTE, Urbana, ILL.
DILLER, Karl Conrad (1971). Generative grammar, structural linguistics and language teaching. Rowley, MASS: Newbury House
DIMITROFF, George (1984). Some ideas Susan told me about. In Leo Daugherty (Ed.), The teaching of writing at Evergreen: A collection of strategies. pp 82-82. Olympia, Washington: Evergreen State College
DIMMLICH, David (1985). Adapt or revise: A student learning guide or competency sheet. Self-Instructional Competency Based Teacher Training Manual. Adult, Vocational and ~echnical Training, Illinois State Board of Education, Springfield.
DITTMER, Allan (1976, April). Gateway to student involvement. Media and Methoas. pp 46-48
DOBSON, Lee (1983). Report on Early Writers. Vancouver, B.C.: Educational Research Institute of British Columbia.
DONALDSON, Margaret (1978). Children's minds. New York: W.W. Norton
DOYLE, W. (1981). Accomplishing writing tasks in the classroom. Presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Los Angeles, CA
DUDENHEFER, John P. Jr. (1975) An experimental study of two techniques of composition revision in a developmental English course for technical students. PhD dissertation, University of Mississippi
DUFFY, Thomas M. & Kabance, Paula (1982). Testing a readable writing approach to text revision. Journal of Educational Psychology. - 74 (5) pp 733-748
DUKE, Charles R. (1975). The student-centered conference and the writing process. English Journal. - 64 pp 44-47.
DUKE, Charles R. (1977) . Responding to student writing . Connecticut English Journal. - 9 pp 148-159.
DUKE, Charles R (1980). An approach to revision and evaluation of student writing. Ohio Language Arts Bulletin pp 19-24
DUKE, Charles R. (Ed.), (1984). Writing exercises from 'Exercise Exchanae' (Vol. 11) NCTE, Urbana, Ill.
DWORSKY, Nancy (1973). The disaster workshop. College English. 35 pp 194-195. -
DYSON, Anne Haas (1983). The role of oral language in early writing process. Research in the Teaching of English. - 17 (1)
EDMUND, N.R. (1958). A study of the relationship between prior experience and the quality of creative writing done by seventh-grade pupils. Journal of Educational Research. - 51 pp 481-492
&
EDMUND, N.R. (1957). Story writing in the seventh grade. Elementary English. - 34 pp 305-306
EDMUND, N. (1961). Writing in the intermediate grades. Elementary English pp 21-31
EFFROS, Charlotte (1973). An experimental study of the effects of guided revision and delayed grades on writing proficiency of college freshmen. Final Report (HEW), New Haven
West Haven, Conn. (ED 079764) University,
ELBOW, Peter (1973). Wrltlng. London: Oxford Press
158
ELBOW, Peter (1981). Writing with power: Techniques for mastering the writing process. London: Oxford Press.
ELBOW, Peter (1983). Teaching thinking by teaching writing. Change 15 (6) pp 37-40 -
ELGIN, Suzette Haden (1982). The great grammar myth. The National Writing Project, University of California, Berkeley.
ELLMAN, Neil (1979/80). Structuring peer evaluation for greater student independence. In Classroom practices in teachinq English: How to handle the paper load. pp 130-132 Urbana, Illinois: NCTE
EMIG, Janet (1971). The composing process of twelfth graders. National Council of Teachers of English, Urbana, 111.
EMIG, Janet (1978). Hand, eye, brain: Some basics in the writing process. In Cooper and Odell (Eds.), Research in Composing. NCTE, Urbana, Illinois.
EMIG, Janet (1983) . In Goswami and Butler (Eds.) , The web of meaning: Essays in writing, teaching, learning, thinking. -Upper Montclair, New Jersey: ~oynton/Cook.
EMMANUEL, Lenny (1984). The third stanza. Journal of Teaching Writinq. 3 (2) pp 269-84 -
ENGEL, Mary F. & Sawyer, Thomas M. (1983). Contractual revision. Presented at the 34th conference on College Composition and Communication, Detroit, MI
ESTABROOK, Iris W. (1982) . Talking about writing -- developing independent writers. Language Arts. - 59 (7) pp 696-706
EWOLDT, Carolyn (1984). Problems with rewritten materials, as exemplified by "To Build A Fire." American Annals of the Deaf. 129 (1) pp 23-28 --
159
FADIMAN, Clifton & Howard, James (1979). Empty pages: A search for writing competence in school and society. California: f
FAGAN, Bon (1985). Executive writing and internal revision. English Quarterly. - 18 (2) pp 69-74
FAIGLEY, Lester & Skinner, Anna (1981). Analyzing revision. College Composition and Communication. - 32 pp 400-414
FAIGLEY, Lester & Skinner, Anna (1982). writers' processes and writer's knowledae :A review of research. Technical report #6, prepa;ed through the Writing Program ~ssessment Project under the sponsorship of the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education.
FAIGLEY, Lester & Witte, S. (1984). Measuring the effects of revisions on text structure. In Richard Beach and Lillian S. Bridwell (Eds.), New directions in composition research. New York: Guilford Press
FASSLER, Barbara (1978). The red pen revisited: Teaching - composit~on through student conferences. College English. 40 pp 186-190 -
FEARING, Bertie E. & Allen, Jo (1984). Teaching technjcal writing in the secondary school. ERIC Clearinghouse on Reaaing and Communication Skills, Urbana, Ill. NCTE.
FELDMAN, Paula R. (1984). Using microcomputers for college writing -- What students say. Presented at the Conference of the Delaware Valley Writing Council, and Villanova University English Department, Villanova, PA
FIELDEN, John S. (1982, May-June). What do you mean you don't like my style? Harvard Business Review. pp 128-138
FIELDEN, John S. & Dulek, Ronald E. (1988, Summer). Acquiring an effective business writing style. Business Horizons. pp 46-49
FINKEL, Donald (1984). Writing communities. In Leo Daugherty (Ed.), The teaching of writing at Evergreen: A collection of strateqies. pp 89-92 Olympia WA: Evergreen State College
FISCHER, Olga Howard & Fischer, Chester A. (1985). ~lectrifying the composing process: Electronic workspaces and the teaching of writing. Journal of ~eaching Writing. - 4 (1) p 113-21.
FISH, Stanley (1980). Is there a text in this class? The authority of interpretive communities. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
FITSCHEN, Kenneth (1986). Effective advice to beginning writers: Revise on hard copy. Teaching English in the Two-Year College. - 13 (2) pp 104-08.
FITZGERALD, Frances (1979). America revised. New York: Vintage
FITZGIBBON, Joseph (1980, March). Reducing the drudgery of correcting compositions. Media and Methods. pp 27-29.
FLANIGAN, Michael C. & Menendez, Diane S. (1980). perception and Change: Teaching revision. College English. - 42 pp 256-266.
FLAVELL, John H. (1977). Cognitive development. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall
FLINN, Jane Zeni (Ed.), (1981). Reflections on writing: Programs and strategies from classrooms K-12. Gateway Writing Project, Missouri University, St. Louis, MO.
FLORIO, S. (1979). The problem of dead letters: Social perspective on the teaching of writing. The Elementary School Journal. 80 pp 1-7 -
FLORIO, Susan & Clark, Christopher M. .(1982). Functions of writing in an elementary classroom. Research in the Teaching of English. 6 (2) pp 115-130.
FLOWER, Linda & Hayes, J.R. (1981a). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication. - 32 pp 365-387.
FLOWER, Linda 61 Hayes, J.R. (1981b). The pregnant pause: An inquiry into the nature of planning. Research in the Teaching of English. - 15 (3). pp 229-243.
FLOWER, Linda & Hayes, J.R. (1981~). Plans and the cognitive process of composing. In C. Frederiksen, M. Whiteman & J. Dominic J. I~ds.), Writing and the nature, development and teachina of written communication. Hillside. N.J.
FLOWER, Linda., Hayes, J.R., and others (1985). Diagnosis in revision: The experts' option, Technical Report (27) Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.
FLOWER, Linda, Hayes, John R., Carey, Linda , Schriver, Karen, & Stratman, James (1986) . Detection, diagnosis, and the strategies of revision. College Composition and Communication. - 37 (1) pp 16-55.
FLYNN, Elizabeth A. (1983) . Composing responses to literary texts: - A process approach. College Composition and Communication. 34 (3) pp 342-348. -
FORBES, Christopher J. (1986) . Developing editing skills in the beginning technical writing class. Technical Writing Teacher. - 13 (2) pp 122-34.
FOSTER, David (1983). A primer for writing teachers: Theories, theorists, issues, problems. Upper Montclair, New Jersey: ~oynton/Cook.
FOX, Barry (1980). Intervention in children's writing: What is the -
teacher's role? Highway One: Journal of Canadian Language Education. - 3 (3) pp 22-25.
FOX, James (1980) Teaching writing. TESL Talk. - 11 (4)
FOX, ROY E. (1980). Treatment of writing apprehension and its - effects on composition. ~esearch i n the Teaching of
English. - 14 (1) pp 39-50.
FRANK, Marjorie (1979). If you're trying to teach kids how to write you've gotta have this book. Nashville, Tennessee: Incentive Publications
FREDERICK, Vicki (1985). A study of revision in the 1984 Wisconsin writing assessment. Bulletin #5304. Wisconsin State Dept. of Public Instruction, Madison. isc cons in.
FREDERIKSEN, Carl H. & Dominic, Joseph F. (Eds.), (1981). Writing: The nature, development and teaching of written communication. Vol. 11, Writing process: Development and communication. Collection of papers originally presented at the National Institute of Education's First Conference on Writing, June 1977. (ED221888)
FREEDMAN, Aviva & Pringle, Ian (1980). The writing abilities of a representative sample of grade 5, 8 and 12 students. The Carleton Writing Project, Part 11, Final Report. Carletoh Board of ducati ion, Ontario, Canada.
FREEDMAN; Benedict (1983). The writer's two dialogues. Teacher Education Quarterly. - 10 (3) pp 23-37.
FREEDMAN, Sarah Warshauer (1984a) . Evaluation of and response to student writing: A review. American Educational Research Association Technical Report, New Orleans, Louisiana.
FREEDMAN, Sarah Warshauer (1984b). The registers of student and professional expository writing: Influences on teachers' responses. In R. Beach and L.S. Bridwell (Eds.) , New directions in composition research. New York: Guilford Press
FREEDMAN, Sarah Warshauer (1985). The acquisition of written language: response and revision. In Writing research: Multidisciplinary inquiries into the nature of writing series. Stanford University, California.
FREEDMAN, S.W. & Calfee, R. (1983). Holistic assessment of writing: Experimental design and cognitive theory. In P. Mosenthal, L. Tamor, & S. Walmsley (Eds.), Research on writing: Principles and methods. New York: Longman
FREISINGER, Randall R. (1980). Cross-disciplinary writing workshop: Theory and practice. College English. - 42 (2) pp 154-167
FRIEDMANN, Thomas (1983). Identification, rewriting, mastery: alternative exercises for basic and introductory students. Presented at the 34th conference on Collese - - - - Composition and Communication, Detroitt MI.
FULWILER, Toby, and Young, Art (1982). Language connections -- writing and reading across the curriculum National Council of Teachers of English, Urbana, ILL
GALDA, Lee (1984). The relations between reading and writing in young children. In R. Beach and L.S. Bridwell (Eds.) , - New directions in composition research New York: Guilford Press
GALLANT, Mavis (1988). Interviewed in Athabaska University Magazine, (1) p 36 Athabaska, Alberta, Canada.
GARNER, Hugh (1973). One damn thing after another. Toronto, Ontario: McGraw ill
GEBHARDT, Richard C. (1977). Imagination and discipline in the writing class. English Journal. - 66 (9), pp 26 - 32.
GEBHARDT, Richard C. (1983) . Writing processes, revision and rhetorical problems: A note on three recent articles. College Composition and Communication. - 34 (3) pp 294-96
GEE, T.W. (1985). Of ships and sealing wax: Drafting and revising processes in grade twelve students' examination writing. English Quarterly. - 18 (2) pp 82 - 88.
GENSLER, Kinereth and Nyhart, Nina (1978). The poetry connection. Teachers and Writers New York.
GENTRY, Larry A. (1980). Textual revision: A review of the research. Southwest Regional Laboratory for Educational Research and Development, Los Alamitos, CA (ED192355.)
GEOFFRION, Leo D. (1982). The feasibility of word processing for students with writing handicaps: Journal of ~ducational Technology Systems. - 11 (3) pp 239-250.
GERE, Anne R. (1977). Writing and writing. English Journal. p 60-64
GERE, Anne R. (1979). The How's of teaching composition. Washington State Council of Teachers of English.
GERE, Anne R. (1982). Students' oral response to written composition. Washington University, Seattle, WA.
GERE, Anne R., Schuessler Brian F., & Abbot, Robert D. (1984) . Measuring teachers' attitudes toward writing instruction. In R. each and L.S. Bridwell (Eds.) , New directions in composition research. N.Y.: Guilfora Press,
GERE, Anne R. & Smith, Eugene (1979). Attitudes, language and change. NCTE. Urbana, Illinois.
GERRARD, Lisa (1983). Writing with Wylbur: Teaching freshman composition with a mainframe computer Available through Eric Document Reproduction Service, Arlington, VA
GEUDER, Patricia A. and others (1974). They really taught us how to write. NCTE, Champlain, ILL.
GIACOBBE, Mary Ellen (1980). A writer reads, a reader writes. New York: Newkirk and Atwell
GIACOBBE, Mary Ellen (1981). Kids can write the first week of school. Learning. - 9 pp 130-132
GIBSON, Deborah (1985). A student-centered writing curriculum. Paper presented at the annual meeting of TRI-TESOL, in Bellevue, Washington.
165
GIBSON, Walker (1979). The writing teacher as a dumb reader. College Composition and Communication. - 30 pp 192-5
GILBERT, William H. [1983). Voice: Reading to hear and revising to control. English Quarterly. - 16 (3) pp 32-39.
GLATTHORN, Allan A. (1981). Writing in the schools -- improvement through effective leadership. NASSP, Virginia.
GLAVICH, Sister Mary Kirene. (1980). Writing in circles: A way around the paper problem. Ohio Language Arts Bulletin. pp 57-60.
GOLDEN, Catherine (1986). Composition: Writing and the visual arts. Journal of Aesthetic Education. - 20 (3) pp 59-68.
GOLDING, William (1987). Interviewed by MaryLynn Scott in Aurora - 11 (1) pp 36-40
GOOD, T.L. & Beckerman, T.M. (1978). Time on task: A naturalistic study in sixth graae classrooms. Elementary School Journal 78 pp 193-201 -
GORMLEY, Kathleen A. & Sarachan-Deily, Ann Beth (1982). Rewriting: what do deaf students do when they revise? presented at Alexander Graham Bell Assoc. conference, ~orbnto, Canada
GORRELL, Robert (1985). Of practice and preaching. In Tom Waldrep, (Ed.), Writers on writinq. pp 99-108, NY: Random House
GRAVES, Donald (1975). An examination of the writing process of 7-year old children. Research in the Teaching of English. 9 pp. 227-241.
GRAVES, Donald (1979). Let children show us how they write. University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH.
GRAVES, Donald (1981). A new look at research in writing. In S. Haley-Jones (Ed.), Perspectives on writing in grades one to eight. NCTE, Urbana, Ill.
GRAVES, Donald (1982). Research update: How do writers develop? Language Arts. - 59 (2) pp 173-179.
GRAVES, Donald (1983). Writing: Teachers and children at work. New Hampshire: Heinemann Educational Books.
GRAVES, Donala (1985). The enemy is orthodoxy. Highway One. - 8 (1) pp 153-63.
GRAVES, Donald & Calkins, Lucy McCormick (1979). Research update: Andrea learns to make writing hard. Language Arts. - 56 pp 569-576.
GRAVES, Donald & Murray, Donald M. (1980). Revision in the writers workshop and in the classroom. Journal of Education. pp 38-56.
GRAVES, Richard (Ed.) , (1984) . Rhetoric and Composition: A Sourcebook for teachers. (ED243104)
GRAVES, Richard (1985). A dance to the music of the mind. In Tom Waldrep (Ed.), Writers on writing. pp 109-116 New York:
. Random House
GRAVES, Robert & Hodge, Alan (1979). The reader over your shoulder. New York: Vintase Books (Random House)
GREGG, Lee W. & Steinberg, Erwin R. (Eds.) , (1980). Cognitive processes in writing. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum
GRICE, H. (1975). Logic and converstaion. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.) , Syntax and semantics (Vol. 111) New York: Academic Press.
GRIFFIN, C. Williams (1982). Teaching writing in all disciplines. In C. Griffin (Ed.), New directions for teaching and learning. 12 San Francisco, CA: Higher Education Series ( ~ o s s e y - B ~ E )
GROFF, Patrick (1975). Does negative criticism discourage children's compositions? Language Arts. pp 1032-1034
GRUBGELD, Elizabeth (1986). Helping the problem speller without supressing the writer. English Journal. - 75 (2) pp 58-61
GULA, Robert J. (1983). Beyond the typewriter. Independent School. 42 (3) pp 44-46. -
GUNDLACH, Robert A. (1982). How children learn to write: Pers~ectives on children's writina for educators and - d
parents. National Institute of Educators, Washington, DC. Available through ERIC document reproduction service, Arlington, VA (ED241950)
GUNDLACH, Robert A. (1985). How children learn to write. Exeter, New Hampshire: Heinemann Educational Books
GUTH, Hans P. (1985). How I write: Five ways of looking at the blackbird. In Tom Waldrep (Ed.), Writers on writinq. pp 117-132 New York: Random House.
GWYN, Cindy & Swanson-Owens, Deborah (1980). Essay euiting: -Helping students teach themselves. San Francisco State University, CA. (ED192327)
HAIRSTON, Maxine (1981a). Not all errors are created equal: Nonacademic readers in the professions respond to lapses in usage. College English. - 43 (8) pp 794-806.
HAIRSTON, Maxine (1981b) Successful writing. New York: Norton
HALEY, Gwen (1983). Student writing. English Journal. - 72 (2) pp 38-40
HALL, M.A., Moretz, S.A. & Statom, J. (1976). Writing before grade one -- a study of early writers. Language A K ~ S . - 53 pp. 582-5
HAMMOND, Eugene R. (1983). Teachinq writing. New York: McGraw- Hill.
168
HANSEN, Barbara (1978). Teaching revision. Exercise Exchange. pp 10-15
HANSEN, Barbara (1978b). Rewriting is a waste of time. College English. - 39 pp 956-960.
HANZELKA, Richard, and others (1981). Pleasant Valley K-6 writing guidelines and a writing process model. Davenport, Iowa. Mississippi Bend Area Educational Agency,
HARDAWAY, Francine (1975). What students can do to take the burden off you. College English. pp 577-580.
HARRINGTON-BROGAN, Victory Shirley (1983). Instructional writing suggestions in elementary school language arts textbooks: An analysis based on opinions of writing authorities. Doctoral Dissertation, State University of New York, Buffalo.
HARRIS, Jeanette (1985). Student writers and word processing: A preliminary evaluation. College composition and Communication. 36 (3) DD 323-30.
HARRIS, -Muriel (1978). Evaluation: The process for revision. Journal of Basic Writing. pp 82-90
HARSTE, J. & Burke, Woodward (1983). The young child as writer, reader and informant. NIE Final ReDort. Lanauase
a. - Education Department, NIE-G-80-0121, Bloomington, Inaiana
HARTZOG, Carol P. (1983). The UCLA writing program for university administrators. Presented at the California Association of Faculty in Technical and Professional Writing. Santa Barbara, California
HASWELL, Richard H. (1983). Minimal marking. College ~nglish. 45 (6) pp 600-604. -
HAUGEN, Nancy S. (Ed.), and others. (1981). A guide to the teacher's role in the writing program. Dept. of Curriculum and Instruction: Wisconsin Univ., Madison.
HAUSER, Carin (1986). The writer's inside story. Language Arts. 63 (2) pp 153-59. -
HAWISHER, Gail E. (1986). The effects of word processing on the revision strategies of college students. Paper presented at the 70th American Educational Research Association conference, San Francisco, CA
HAWKINS, Thom. (1976). Group inquiry techniques for teaching writing. NCTE, Urbana, Illinois
HAWKINS, Thom. & Brooks, Phyllis (Eds.) , (1981). New directions for college learning assistance: Improving writing skills. San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass
HAYES, J.R. & Flower, L.S. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In L. Gregg and E. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing: An inter-disciplinary approach. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum
HAYES, J.R. & Flower. L.S. (1983). uncovering cognitive processes in writing: An introduction to protocol analysis. In P. Mosenthal, L. Tamor, & S.A. Walmsley (Eds.) , Research on writing: Principles and methods. New York: Longman
HAYES, John R., and others (1985). Cognitive processes in revision. CDC Technical Report #12. Carnegie-Mellon Univ. Pittsburgh
HAYS, Janice N. (Ed.), and others (1983). The writer's mind: Writing as a mode of thinking. NCTE, Urbana, ILL.
HAYES, anice W. (1982). The effect of audience considerations upon the revisions of a s r o u ~ of basic writers and more
e - competent junior and senior writers. Educational Resources Information Centre, Urbana, ILL. (ED204802)
HEATH, Shirley Brice (1983). Ways with words. London: Cambridge University Press.
HENNINGS, Dorothy Grant (1983). Words processed here -- Write with your computer. Phi Delta Kappan. - 65 (2) pp 122-124.
HERMAN, Steve (1984). The teaching of field-journal writing. In Leo Daugherty (Ed.), The teaching of writing at Evergreen: A collection of strategies. pp 101-106. Olympia, Washington: Evergreen State College
HICKS, Joyce (1978). Structured revision tasks. Exercise Exchange. pp 15-17.
HILDICK, Wallace (1965). Word for word: The rewriting of fiction. New York: W.W. Norton.
HILDRETH, Gertrude (1947). Learning the three Rs. Milwaukee: Educational Publishers
HILL, Ada, and Boone, Beth (1982). If Maslow taught writing: A way to look at motivation in the composition classroom. The National Writing Project, California.
HILLOCKS, George Jr. (1975). Observing and Writing. National Council of the Teachers of English, Urbana, ILL.
HILLOCKS, George Jr. (1982). The interaction of instruction, - teacher comment, and revision in teaching the composing process. Research in the Teaching of English. - 16 (3) p 261-278
HINK, Kaye E. (1985). Let's stop worrying about revision. Language Arts. 62 (3) pp 249-54. - -
HIRSCH, E.D. Jr. (1977). The Philosophy of Composition. Illinois: University of Chicago Press
HITCHENS, David (1984). The directed fantasy writing workshop. In - ~ e o ~aughtery (Ed.), The teaching of writing at ~vei~reen: A collection of strategies. pp 93-100. Olympia, Washington: Evergreen State College
HOBHOUSE, Janet (1975). Anybody who was anybody: A biography of Gertrude Stein. New York: Putnam
HODGINS, Audrey (1983). Idea exchange for English teachers. National Council of Teachers of English. Illinois.
HOGAN, Pat (1984) . Peer editing helps students improve written products. Highway One. - 7 (3) pp 51-54. (EJ313607)
HOLDAWAY, Don (1979). The foundations of literacy. Toronto: Ashton Scholastic
HOLT, Suzanne L. & Vacca, Joanne L. (1981) . Reading with a sense of writer: Writing with a sense of reader. Language Arts. 58 (8) pp 937-941. -
HORNER, Winifred Bryan (1983). Composition and literature: Bridging the gap. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press
HORTON, Susan R. (1982) . Thinking Through Writing . Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press
HOUSE, Beverly A. & Cone, Randy E. (1983). The effect of re-writing exercises on student achievement of business letter- writing skills. Delta Pi Epsilon Journal. - 25 (1) p31-37
HOWGATE, Lynn (1982) . Building self-esteem through the writing process. Univ. of California: National Writing Project
HUDSON, Kathleen (1982). Writers' comments on writing: Implications for a composition class. Paper pre,sented at the 72nd NCTE conference, Washington, DC.
HUFF, Roland (1983). Teaching revision: A model of the drafting process. College English. - 45 (8) pp 800-816.
HULL, Glynda A. (1984). The editing process in writing: A performance study of experts and novices. Learning Research and Development Centre, Pittsburgh Univ., PA,
HUMES, Ann (1981). The composing process: A summary of the research. Southwest Reqional Laboratory for Educational Research and w eve lo pent, Los ~lamitos,-calif.
-
HUMES, Ann (1983). Research on the composing process. Review of Educational Research. - 53 (2) pp 201-205
HUMPHRIES, Will (1984). A new way of teaching logical organization. In Leo Daugherty (Ed.), The teaching of writing at Evergreen: A collection of strategies. pp 107-110. Olympia, Washington: Evergreen State College
ILACQUA, Alma A. (1980). "I like it!" doesn't make it good: Writing is (a) discipline. Arizona English Bulletin. 22, pp 89-94. -
IRMSCHER, William (1969). Ways of writinq. New York: McGraw Hill
IRMSCHER, William (1979). Teaching expository writing. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
JACKO, Carol M. (1978). Small group triad: An instructional mode for the-teaching of w;iting. College Composition an6 Communication. - 29 pp 290-292
JACOBS, Suzanne E. & Karliner, Adela B. (1977). Helping writers to think: The effect of speech roles in individual
- conferences on the quality of thought in student writing. College English. - 38 pp 489-505
JAMES, David R. (1981). Peer teaching in the writing classroom. English Journal. - 70 (7) pp 48-50.
JEFFERY, Christopher (1981). Teachers' and students' perceptions of the writing process. Research in the Teaching of English. IS (3) p 215. -
JOHANNESSEN, Larry R., et al. (1982). Designing and sequencing prewriting activities. NCTE, ILL.
JOHNS, Ann M. (1986) . Coherence and academic writing: Some definitions and suggestions for teaching. TESOL Quarterly. 20 (2) pp 247-65.
JOHNSON, Mildred I. & Sterkel, Karen (1984). Writing with the computer brings positive results. Business Education Forum. 38 (5) pp 32-35. -
JONES, Richard (1984). An update of NEH/PNWC monograph Writing and reflectins on dreams and writing again. In Leo Daughtery (Ed.), he teaching of writing at Evergreen: A collection of strategies. pp 111-14. Olympia, Washington: Evergreen State College
JONES, Thelma Ludwig (1977). An exploratory study of the impact on student writing of peer evaluation. PhD Dissertation, Michigan State University
JORDAN, Stella (1984). A strategy for teaching descriptive outlines and using them to critique essays. In Leo Daughtery, (Ed.), The teaching of writing at Evergreen: A collection of strategies. p 115-16. Olympia, Washington: Evergreen State College
JUDY, Stephen N. (1980). The ABC's of literacy: A guide for educators and parents New York: Oxford Dictionary Press.
JUDY, Stephen N. (1982). Publishing in English Education New Jersey: ~oynton/Cook.
JUDY, Stephen N. (1980). The ABC's of literacy: A guide for parents and eaucators. Oxfora Dictionary Press. New York.
JUDY, Stephen N. & Judy, Susan J. (1979). The red pencil blues. In Stephen Judy (Ed .) , The English teacher's handbook: Ideas and resources for teaching English. Cambridge, MASS: Winthrop Publishers
JUDY, Stephen N. & Susan J. Judy (1981). An introduction to the teaching of writing. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
KANE, Janet H. (1983). Computers for composing. Presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Montreal, Quebec.
KANTOR, Kenneth J. (1984). Classroom contexts and the development of writing intuitions: An ethnographic case study. In Richard Beach & Lillian S. Bridwell (~ds.1. New . - - . . - directions in composition research. New York: Guilford Press
KANTOR, Kenneth J. & Perron, Jack (1977). Thinking and writing: Creativity in the modes of discourse. Language Arts. 54 (7) pp 742-749. -
KARENGIANES, Myra L. (1981). The effects of peer editing on the writing proficiency of low achieving tenth grade students. Journal of Educational Research. - 73 (4) pp 203-207.
KAUFER, David S., and others (1986) . Composing written sentences. Research in the Teaching of English. - 20 (2) pp 121-140
KEHL, D.G. (1970). The art of writing evaluative comments on student themes. English Journal. - 59 pp 972-80.
KEITH, Philip M. (1977). TCDIDC, a revising heuristic: Or on beyona the toadstool. Presented at the Conference on College Composition and Communication, Kansas City, MI. (ED1478181
KEITH, Philip M. (1983). Shaping at the point of utterance rather than afterwards. Presented at the Minnesota council of Teachers of English 24th annual conference. MINN. .
KELLER, Rodney D. (1983). How Johnny/Jane writes: The complex word. Presented at 34th conference on College Composition and Communication. Detroit, MI.
KELLY, Kathleen (1982). We have met the audience and it is us: teachers as audience in the com~osition class. Presented '. at the 33rd Conference on College Composition and Communication. San Francisco, CA
KESSEL, Barbara Bailey (1982). Meet me at reader/writer junction. Presented at the 75th annual Illinois Association of Teachers of English conference, Champlaign, ILL.
KING, Martha (1978). Research in composition: A need for theory. Research in the ~ e a c h i n ~ of English. - 12 pp 193-202
KING, Martha (1985). Proofreading is not reading. Teaching English in the Two-Year College. - 12 (2) pp 108-112
KING, Martha & Rentel, V.M. (1981). How children learn to write: A lonuitudinal study. Ohio State
d
University Research J?ounda;ion, Columbus, Ohio.
KINKHEAD, Joyce (1985). Tutors in the writing centre. Presented at the 36th annual meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication. Minneapolis, MINN
KIRBY, Dan R. & Liner, Tom (1980). Revision: Yes, they do it and yes, you can teach it. English Journal. pp 41-45
KLAUS, Carl H. and Jones, Nancy (Eds) (1984). Courses for change in writing: A selection from the NEH/Iowa Institute. Upper Montclair, NJ: Boynton/Cook.
KLEIN, Julie (1983). The post-Morten plan: Teaching writing across the disciplines. Exercise Exchange. 2tJ (2) pp 33-41
KLINE, Christine (19 ) . Influence of LOGO revision strategies on the written revision practice of young children: A stepping stone. School district of South Orange, Maplewood, New Jersey.
KNAPP, John V. (1976). Contract/conference evaluation of freshman composition. College English. - 37 p647-53
KNEEBONE, R.M.T. (1962). New writing. Hertfordshire, England: Garden City Press
KNOBLAUCH, C.H. (1985). How I write: An improbable fiction. In Tom Waldrep, (Ed.), Writers on writing. pp 133-146 New York: Random House
176
KNOBLAUCH, C.H. & Brannon, Lil (1978). Rhetorical traaition and the teaching of writing. National Council of Teachers of English, Urbana, ILL
KOCH, Carl, and Brazil, James (1977). Strategies for teaching the composition process. National Council of Teachers of English, Urbana, ILL
KRAUS, W. Keith (1978). Murder, mischief and mayhem: A process for creative research papers. National Council of Teachers of English, Urbana, ILL
KROLL, Barry M. (1985). Rewriting a complex story for a young reader: The development of audience-adapted writing skills. Research in the Teaching of English. - 19 (2) pp 120-139
KROLL, Barry M. & Schafer, J.C. (1978). Error analysis and the teaching of composition. College Composition and Communication. - 29 pp 243-248
KROLL, Barry M. & Vann, Roberta J. (Eds.), (1981). ~xploring speaking-writing relationships: Connections and contrasts. National Council of
- Teachers of English, Urbana, ILL
KRUPA, Gene H. (1979). Primary trait scoring in the classroom. College Composition and Communication. 30 pp 214-215 -
KUCER, Stephen B. (1985). The parallel role of revision in reading and writing. Presented at the 35th annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, San Diego, CA
KUHLMAN, Sondra Mose (1980). A positive approach to revisions. College Student Journal. - 14 pp 184-185
KURTH, Ruth J. & Stromberg, Linda J. (1984). Using word processing in composition instruction. Presented at the fifth annual meeting of the American Reading Forum, Sarasota, FLA
KWALICK, Barry (Ed) (1983). Selected papers from the 1982 conference 'New York Writes: Kindergarten Through College' Instructional Resource Centre, City University of New York.
LAGANA, Jean R. (1972). The development, implementatlon and evaluation of a model for teaching composition which utilizes individualized learning and peer grouping. PhD dissertation, University of Pittsburgh
LAiqBERG, Walter J. (1977, May). Feedback on writing: Huch more than teacher corrections. Journal of the colorad0
Language Arts Society. pp 33-38
LAMBERG, Walter J. (1980). Self-provided and peer-provided feedback. College Composition and Communication. 31 pp 63-69 -
LAMME, Linda Leonard & Chilaers, Nancye M. (1983). Composing process of three young chidlren. Research in the Teaching of English. - 17 (1) pp 31-50
LAND, Robert E. (1984). Revision strategies of seventh and eleventh graders.--Available through Eric Document Reproduction Service, Arlington, VA (ED261410),
LANEY, James D. (1983). Composition in the intermediate grades: How to promote thinking and creativity. Presented at the annual meeting of the California Educational Research ~ssociation, Los Angeles, CA
LANHAM, Richard A. (1974). Style: An anti-textbook. London: Yale University Press
LANHAM, Richard A. (1981). Revising business prose. New York: Charles ~cribner and Sons
LANDRUM, Roger (1979). A day dream I had at night: Teaching children to make their own readers. Teachers and Writers. New York, NY
LANGER, Judith A. & Applebee, Arthur N. (1983). Learning
LANSING,
LANSING,
to manage to writing process: Tasks and strategies Available through ERIC document reproduction service, Arlington, VA (ED234420)
Margaret L. (1984a). Computers in composition: A biblioara~hv of research and ~ractice. Available throuqh ERIC document reproduction service, ~rlington, VA. (~~249499)
Margaret L. (1984b). Student writers and word processors: A case study. Available through ERIC document reproduction service, Arlington, VA. (ED249491)
LAQUE, Carol Feiser & Sherwood, Phyllis A. (1977). A laboratory approach to writing. NCTE, ~rbaza, ILL.
LARSON, R. (1975) . Children and writing in the elementary school: Theory and techniques. New York: Oxford University Press
LARSON, R. (1980). The writer's mind. Keynote address at - the Skidmore Writing Conference, Saratoga Springs
LAURENCE, P. (1976). Errors' endless train: Why students don't perceive errors. Journal of Basic Writing. 1 pp 23-43 -
LEAHY, Ellen (1984, Jan.). A writing teacher's shopping and reading list for software. English Journal. pp 62-65
LEES, Elaine 0. (1979). Evaluating student writing. College Composition and Communication. - 30 pp 370-374
LEES, Elaine 0. (1985). Proofreading with the ears: A case study of text-to-voice performance of student's writing. Collegiate Microcomputer. - 3(4) pp 339-344
LEGR, Fran (1982). Creative writing as good writing. Language Arts. - 59 (3) pp 291-29s
179
LEONARD, Michael H. (1976). Practice makes better: Notes on a writing program. English Journal. Sept. pp 59-62
LEVIN, James A. (1983). Writing with computers in the classrooms: You get exactly the right amount of space. Theory Into Practice. - 22 (4) pp 291-295
LEWES, Ulle Erika (1981). Peer-evaluation in a writing seminar. Available through ERIC document reproduction service, Arlington, VA (ED 226355)
LEWIS, Claudia (1981). Writing for young chidren -- a hand- book for would-be writers. and for teachers and parents. New York: penguin Books
LITTLE, Marjorie D., Smith, Susan C. & Wyszkowski, Margaret P.-(1980). Humanistic response to writing: One means of encouraging growth in student writers through evaluation. New Mexico State Writing Institute Curriculum Publication - 1. Las Cruces, NM
LLOYD JONES, Richard (1985). Playing for mortal stakes. In Tom Waldrep (Ed.), Writers on writinq. pp 153-165 New York: Random House
LOBAN, Walter, Ryan, Margaret & Squire, James R. (19613. Teaching language and literature. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World Inc.
LONG, Littlejohn (1976) . Writing exercises from Exercise Exchange. NCTE Urbana, ILL
LORCH, Sue (1985). Confessions of a former sailor. In Tom Waldrep (Ed.) Writers on writinq. pp 165-173 New York: Random House
LOVEJOY, Kim Brian (1986). The Gricean model: A revising rubric. Presented at the 36th annual Conference on College Composition and Communication, MINN
LOYIE-PHILIPPSEN, Lynda (1987). Beyond prewriting. Resource papers published by Delta School Board, Delta B.C.
180
LUBAN, Nina, Matsuhashi, Ann & Reigstaa, Tom (1978). one- to-one to write: Establishing an individual conference writing place. English Journal. - 67 pp 30-35
LUNDSTEEN, Sara W. (ED) (1976). Help for the teacher of written composition: New directions in research National Conference on Research in English.
LUNSFORD, A. (1979). Cognitive development and the basic writer. College English. - 41 pp 38-46
LUNSFORD, A. (1985). Confessions of a developing writer. In Tom Waldrep (Ed.), Writers on writinq. pp 173-182 New York: Random House
LUTZ, William (1985). How I write. In Tom Waldrep (Ed.), Writers on writinq. pp 183-190 NY: Random House
LYNCH, Catherine & Klemans, Patricia (1978). Evaluating our evaluation. College English. - 40 pp 166-180
LYMAN, -Roll0 L. (1931). A co-operative experiment in junior high school composition. School Review. - 34 pp 748-757
MacKAY, Carol & Taylor, Patricia (1978). Righting writing: A guide to composition. Department of
English, University of California.
MacRORIE, Ken (1980) . Telling writinq. Rochell Park, New Jersey: Hayden Book Co.
MacRORIE, Ken (1982). I can figure out what they're saying: An interview with Marcia Urnland. English Journal. 71 (4) pp 22-29 -
MADIGAN, Chris (1984). The tools that shape us: Composing by hand vs composing by machine. English Education. - 16 (3) pp 143-150
MAILER, Norman (1981). Advertisement for myself. NY: Putnam
MAIMON, Elaine P. (1979). Talking to strangers. College Composition and Communication. - 30 pp 364-369
MAIMON, Elaine P. (1981). Writing in the Arts and Sciences. MASS: Winthrop Publishers
MALLETT, M. & Hewsome, B. (1977). Talking, writing and learning. London: Evan/Methune
MANDEL, Barret J. (1978). Losing one's mind: Learning to write and edit. College Composition and Communication. - 29 pp 362-368
MARDER, Daniel (1984). Envisioning and revisioning. Rhetoric Review. - 3 (1) pp 13-19
MARIK, Ray (1982). Special education students write: Class- room activities and assignments. National Writing Project, California.
MARR, David (1984). Extravagent interest: An attempt to summarize a theory of writing in social space. In Leo Daugherty (Ed.), The teaching of writing. at Evergreen: A collection of strateqies. pp 135-147 Olympia, Washington: Evergreen State College
MARTIN, Clyde (1955). Developmental interrelationships among language variables in children of the first grade. Elementary English. - 32 p 167-171
MARTIN, Nancy (1983). Mostly about writing. Upper Montclair, New Jersey: ~oynton/~ook
MARTIN, Nancy, et a1 (1976). Writing and learning across the curriculum, 11-16. London: Wilmer Brothers
MARTIN, William R. (1983). Evaluating on the right side. Presented at 73rd annual meeting of the National Council of Teachers of English, Denver, COL
182
MAVROGENOS, Nancy A. & Padak, Nancy D. (1982). The reading road to writing. Journal of Educational Research. 75 (6) p 354 -
MARTINEK, Thomas J. & Johanson, Susan B. (1979). Teacher expectations: Effect of dyadic interaction and seif-concept in elementar; age children. Research Quarterly. - 50 (1) pp 60-70
MAYER, John S. & Brause, Rita S. (1984). Learning through teaching: Lessons from a first grade. Language Arts. 61 (3) pp 285-290 - -
MAYER, John S. et a1 (1983). Learning to write, writing to learn. New Jersey: Boynton/Cook
MAZER, Norma Fox (1986). I love it, it's your best book. English Journal. - 75 (2) pp 26-29
MCALLISTER, Carole (1985). The word processor: A visual tool for writing teachers. Journal of Development and Remedial Education. - 8 (3) pp 12-15
McCALLLIM, Peggy (1979). Children's frustrations show in writing. Query. 9 (2) pp 37-39
McDONALD Jr., W.V. (1978). The revising process and the L
marking of student papers. College Composition and Communication. - 29 pp 167-170.
McFARLAND, Betty (1977). Writing and proofreading: An alternative program for basic composition courses. Presented at the annual meeting of the Southeastern conference on English in the Two- Year college. Nashville, TENN. (ED150618)
McGINLEY, Kevin (1983). Reforming the paragraph. - ELT Journal. - 37 (2) pp 150-153
McLAUGHLIN, Gerald W. (Ed.) , (1985). Effective writing: Go tell it on the mountain. Assoc. for Institutional Research, AIR professional file - 21
183
MCLEAN, James I. (1984). Writing for learning: Practical application of research findings. Presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Telles, Texas.
McPHILLIPS, Shirley P. (1985). The spirit of revision: Listening for the writer ' s conscience. Language Arts. 62 (6) pp 614-618 - -
McQUADE, Donald & Atwan, Robert (1980, 1983). Thinking in writinq. New York: Alfred A. Knopf
MEADE, R.S. & Ellis, W.G. (1970). Paragraph development in the modern- age of rhetoric. ~ n ~ l i s h Journal. - 59 pp 219-226
MEEK, M. (1983). Achieving literacy. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul
MEGNA, Jerome F. (1976, Summer/Autumn) . Teaching writing skills through peer evaluation. The ~nglish Record. pp 98-106
MICHAELS, S. (1981). Sharing time. Differential access to literacy. In J. Cook and J. Gumperez (Eds.) ,- Schoolhouse Ethnography Project. NIE 6 78-0082 Washington, DC
MILLER, Jr., James E. & Judy, Stephen N. (1978). Writing in reality. New York: Harper and Row Publishers
MILTZ, V.E. (1980). First graders can write: Focus on communication. Theory Into Practice. - 19 pp 179-185
MOCHAMER, Randi Ward (1985). Teaching writing as thinking across the secondary curriculum: An annotated bibliography. Available through ERIC document reproduction services, Arlington, VA (ED2594011
MOFFETT, J. (1968). Teaching the universe of discourse. Boston, Mass: Houghton ~ittlin.
MOFFETT, J. (1981). Active voice: A writing program across the curriculum. New Jersey: Boynton/Cook
MOFFETT, J. & Wagner, Betty Jane (1973). Student-centered language arts and reading, K-13: A hand-book for teachers. Boston. Mass: Houshton Mifflin
MOHR, Marian M. (1984). ~ebision: The rhythm of meaning. Upper Montclair, New Jersey: ~oynton/Cook
MONAHAN, Brian (1984). Revision strategies of basic and competent writers as they write for different audiences. Research in the Teaching of English. 18 (3) pp 288-304 -
MONKARSH, Frances Celniker (1985). The nature of the writing process: A review of the literature. Available throuqh ERIC document reproduction service, ~ r l i n ~ f o n , VA (ED264584) -
MOORE, David Thonton May (1981) . Discovering the pedagogy of experience. Harvard Education Review. - 51 (2)
MOORE, Dennis (1982). Language of learning. Review of Education. - 8 (4)
MOORE, Michael (1983). Writing to learn, writing to teach. English Journal. - 72 (3) p 34
MORGAN, Betsy (1975, Fall). A case study of a seventh grade writer. The English Record. pp 28-39
MORROW, Keith (1979). The communicative approach to language teaching. In C. J. Brumf it & K. Johnson (Eds.) , The communicative approach to language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press
MORROW, Lesley Mandel (1978). Analysis of syntax of six, seven and eight-year old children. Research in the Teaching of English. - 12 (2) pp 143-148
MOSENTHAL, Peter & Na, T.J. (1981). Classroom competence and children's individual differences in writing. Journal of Educational Psychology. - 73 pp 106-121
MOSENTHAL, Peter, Tamor, L & Walmsely, S. (Eds.) , (1983) . iesearch on writing: principles and methods. New York: Longmans
MOSS, R. Kay (1982). The writing processes of young children: A review of related research. Presented at the 32nd annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, Clearwater, ~iorida
MULLINS, Carolyn J. (1980). The complete writing guide. Englewood Cliffs, New York: Prentice-Hall
MURRAY, Donald M. (1968). A writer teaches writing: A practical method of teaching composition. Boston, MASS: Houghton ~ifflin.
MURRAY, Donald M. (1978a). Teach the motivating forces of revision. English Journal. - 67 pp 56-60
MURRAY, Donald M. (1978b). Internal revision: A process of discovery. In Charles R. Cooper and Lee Odell -
(Eds.), Research on composing: Points of departure. National Council of Teachers of English, Urbana, ILL.
MURRAY, Donald M. (1979a). Writing process/response exercise. Exercise Exchange, Fall. pp 61-63
MURRAY, Donald M. (l979b). The listening eye: ~eflections on the writing conference. College English. - 41 pp 13-18
MURRAY, Donald M. (1982). Learning by teaching: Selected articles on writing and teaching. ERIC (ED2309621
186
MURRAY, Donald M. (1985). Getting under the lightning. In Tom Waldrep (Ed.), Writers on writinq. pp 215-224 New York: Random House.
MURRAY, Patricia (1985). Doing writing. In Tom Waldrep (Ed.), Writers on writing. pp 225-240 New York: Random House
MYERS, Greg (1985). The social construction of two biologists proposals. Written Communication. - 2 (3) pp 219-245
MYERS, M. (1980) . A model for the composing process. National Writing Project Occasional Paper 3 Bay Area Writing Project, University of ~erkeley, CA
MYERS, M. (1981). What kina of people talk that way? English Journal. - 70 (7) pp 24-28
MYERS, M. and Gray, James (1983). Theory and practice in the teaching of composition: Processing, distancing and modelling. NCTE, Urbana, ILL
NELSON, M.W. (1981). Writers teaching writers. University of Georgia. Available through ERIC' document reproduction service, Arlington, VA (ED2i741.4)
NEUMEYER, Peter F. (1982a). The creation of charlotte's web: from drafts to book. Horn Book Magazine. 58 (5) pp 489-497 -
NEUMEYER, Peter F. (1982b). The creation of Charlotte's web: From drafts to book. Part 11. Horn Book Magazine. - 58 (6) pp 617-625
NEUMEYER. Peter F. (1985). The creation of E.B. White's . - - .-- - - , - -
'The T K U ~ D ~ ~ of the swan1: The man"scriwts. Horn Book Magazine. - 61 (1) pp 17-28
NEWELL, A. & Simon, H.A. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall InC.
NEWKIRK,
NEWKIRK,
NEWKIRK,
NEWKIRK,
Thomas (1980) . Writing and critical reading. Presented at the Skidmore Writing Conference, Saratoga Springs, Florida.
Thomas (1981). Barriers to revision. Journal of Basic Writing, 2 pp 50-61
Thomas (1984). Anatomy of a breakthrough: A case study of a college freshman writer. In R. Beach & ~illian S. ridw well (Eds.) , New directions in composition research. New York: Guilford Press
Thomas, and Atwell, Nancie (Eds.), (1982). Under- standing writing -- ways of observing, learning, ana teachinq . Boston: Northwest Reqional Exchange
NEWMAN, Barbara J. (1980 Winter/Spring). Peer evaluation in teaching composition. Ohio English Language Arts Bulletin. pp 61-64
NEWMAN, Jerrie M. (1982). The effect of formal revision in improving writing skills. Available through ERIC document reproduction service, Arlington, VA
NEWMAN, Robert E. (19 ) . Reading, writing and self esteem. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall
NICKELL, Samila Sturgel (1985). The best of both worlds: writing conferences on the computer. Presented at the 36th Conference on College Composition and Communication. Minneapolis, MINN
NOCK, David A. & Nelson, Randle W. (Eds.) , (1978) . Reading writing and riches. Kitchener, Ontario: Between The Lines Press
NOLD, Ellen (1979). Revising: Toward a the0 at the 31st annual Conference on Co Composition and Communication
NOLD, Ellen (1980). Revising. In C. Frederiksen, M. Whiteman & J. Dominic, J. (Eds.), Writing: The nature, development and teaching of written composition. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum
188
NOLD, Ellen (1982). Revising: Intentions and conventions. -- - - - In R. Sudol (Ed.), Revising: New essays for teachers of writing. NCTE, Urbana, ILL
NUGENT, Susan Monroe (Ed .) (1985) . Developing audience awareness. The Leaflet. New England Association of Teachers of English - 84 (1)
NYSTRAND, M. (1982). An analysis of error in written communication. In M. Nystrand (Ed.), What writers know. New York: Academic Press -
ODELL, L. & Cohick, Joanne (1975 Dec.). You mean write it over in ink? English Journal. pp 48-53
ODELL, L. & Cooper, C.R. (1980). Procedures for evaluating writing: Assumptions and needed research. College English. - 42 pp 35-43
ODELL. L. & Goswani, D. (1982). Writing in a non-academic setting. ~esearch in- the ~ e a c h i n ~ of English. - 16 pp 201-224
O'DONNELL, Cathy (1980). Peer editing: A way to improve writing. Presented at the combined annual meeting of the Secondary English Section Conference and the Conference on English Education. Omaha, NEB ERIC (EDl89604).
O'HARE, Frank (1973). Sentence combining: Improving student writing without formal grammar instruction. NCTE, Urbana, Illinois.
OLSON, Carol Booth (1984) . Fostering critical thinking skills through writing. ~dicational ~eadershi~. 42 (3) pp 28-39 -
OLSON, Carol Booth (1986). Practical ideas for teachinq writing as a process. Presented at the 70th annual meeting of the American Educational Research Ass. San ~rancisco, CA
OLSON, David R. (1977a). Oral and written language and the cognitive processes of children. Journal of Communication. - 27 (3)
OLSON, David R. (1977b). From utterance to text: The bias of language in speech and writing. Harvard Educational Review. - 47 pp 257-281
O'MEALY, Joseph & Register, James (1984). Editing/drilling/ draf t-guiding : A three•’ old approach to the services of a writing workshop. College Composition and Communicaiton. - 35 (2) pp 230-233
Cynthia S. (1984). The t comments ana student's re
lransaction between teacher's - - - - - - - - - - - - - visions: Catalysts and
obstacles, Available throuah ERIC document
PALEWICZ-ROUSSEAU, Pam & Madoras, Lynda (1979) . - The alphabet connection. New York: Schocken Books
PAPERT, Seymour (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books
PAULILS, Chris (1985). Holistic scoring: A revision strategy. Clearing House. - 59 (2) pp 575-60 .
PAULSEN, (1984). Critical reasoning and good writing. In Leo Daugherty (Ed.), The teaching of writing at Evergreen: A collection of strategies. pp 155-161 Olympia, Washington: Evergreen State College
PAVLINSIN, Peggy Irene (1983). Teaching revision: an experiment . Presented at the 34 th annual meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication, Detroit, MI
PEACOCK, Colin, and Roger, Angela (1984). Success in writing: A classroom study with slower learning pupils in three Scottish secondary schools. Scottish Curriculum Development Service, Stirling University, Edinburgh, scotland.
PEACOCK, Colin & Roger, Angela (1984). Teaching revision: An experiment. Presented at the 34th annual meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication, Detroit MI
PECHAR, Levin (1978). Peer evaluation. English Journal. - 67 pp 61-63
PELLEGRINI, Anthony (1984). Symbolic functioning and children's early writing: The relations between kindergartener's play and isolated word-writing fluency. In R. Beach and Lillian S. Bridwell (Eds.), New directions in composition research. New York: Guilford Press.
PELTON, Claire L. (1983). The teaching of writing: No time for bromides. Teacher Education Quarterly. - 10 (3) pp 1-8
PERCY, Walter (1978). e n is, how queer language is, and what one has to do with the other. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
PERL, Sondra (1978). Five writers writing: Case studies of the composing process of unskilled college writers. PhD dissertation, New York University.
PERL, Sondra (1979). The composing process of unskilged college writers. Research in the Teaching of English. - 13 pp 317-336. .
PERRIN, Robert (1984). Writing in the elementary classroom. Available through ERIC document reproduction service Arlington, VA (ED251854)
PETERSON, Bruce T. (Ea)(1986). Convergences: Transactions. in reading and writing. NCTE, Urbana, ILL
PETERSON, Linda (1985). Repetition and metaphor in the early stages of composing. College Composition and Communication. - 36 (4) pp 429-443
PETTY, Walter R. (1984). There are gaps and there are gaps. English Education. - 16 (1) p 35
PFERRER, Suzanne (1980). The effect of multiple revision on freshman writing. Prsented at the Conference on College Composition and Communication, Washington, DC. Available through ERIC document reproduction service, Arlington, VA (ED191048)
PIANKO, Sharon (1979). Description of the composing process of college freshmen writers. Research in the Teaching of English. - 13 pp 5-22
PITMAN, Sir James (1966). As difficult as ABC: The case against the traditional orthography as a learning medium. London, England: Haycock
PLIMPTON, George (Ed.), (1963). Writers at work: The Paris Review interviews (Second Series). New York; Viking Press
PLIMPTON, George (Ed.), (1967). Writers at work: The Paris Review interviews (Third Series). New York: Vikinq Press
PLIMPTON, George (Ed.), (1976). Writers at work: The Paris Review interviews (Fourth Series). New York: Viking Press
POLANSKI, Virginia G. (1985). Freshmen composition students increase heuristic use of early drafts. English Quarterly. - 18 (2) pp 97-105
POMERENKE, Paula J. (1984). Rewriting and peer evaluation: A positive approach for business writing classes. ABCA Bulletin. - 47 (3) pp 33-36
PONSOT, Marie, and Dean, Rosemary (1982). Beat not the poor desk -- Writing: What to teach, how to teach it, and why. New Jersey: Boynton/Cook
PORTER, Roy E, Gould, Arthur, Dierks, Jack, Hayes, Carole, Gould, Arthur Sr., Miller, Dale, Springer, Michael, and others (1979) The writer's manual. Palm Springs CA: ETC Publications.
PRANDT, G.M. (1979). Learning how to begin. and end a story. Language Arts. 56 pp 21-25
192
PRATT, Mary Louise (1977). Toward a speech and theory of literary discourse. Blooming ton and London: Indiana University Press.
PRIMEAU, Ronald (1974). Film-editing and the revision process: Student as self-editor. College Composition and Communication. - 25 pp 405-410
PROGOFF, Ira (1981). At a journal workshop -- the basic text and guide for using the intensive journal process. New York: Dialogue House Library
PUFAHL, John P. (1986). Alone on the word processor: Writing ana rewriting. Teaching English in the Two-Year College. 13 (1) pp 25-29 -
PURVES, Alan C. (1984) . Paradox of research. English Education. 16 (1) pp 8-13 -
RABAN, B. (1982). Influences on children's early writing Available through ERIC document reproduction service, Arlington, VA (ED222921)
RACKHAM, -JEff (1980). From sight to insight: Steps in the writing process. New York: Rinehart and Winston
RAINER, Tristine (1978). The new diary: How to use a journal for L
self-guidance and expanded creativity. California: J.P. Tarcher
REED, Arthea; Kerr, M.E.; and Meaker, Marijane (1985). Help students learn how to write fiction. presented ac-the 75th annual meeting of the National Council of Teachers of English, ~hilade~hia, PA.
REID, Louann (1983). Talking: The neglected part of the writing process. Presented at the 2nd annual National Council of Teachers of English spring conference, Seattle, WA.
RENEHAN, William (1977). Seven year olds talking and writing. Australian Council for Educational Research. Victoria.
RENTZ, Kathryn C. (1985). Some discouraging words about checkmark grading. Bulletin of the Association for Business Communication. - 48 (2) pp 20-23
RICO, Gabriele (1983). Writing the natural way: Using right- brain techniques to release your expressive powers. Los Angeles, California: J.P. Tarcher
RILES, Wilson (1982). Handbook for planning an effective writing program: Kindergarten through grade twelve. California State Department of Education, Sacramento, California.
RILEY, Judith (1984). The problems of drafting distance education materials: The problems of revising drafts of distance education materials, and drafting behaviours in the production of distance education material. British Journal of Educational Technology. - 15 (3) pp 192-238
RITTOE, Wess, R.C. (1982). Teacher as model. College Composition and Communication. Available through ERIC document reproduction service, Arlington, VA (ED217478)
RIVAS, F. (1977). Write/rewrite: An assessment of revision skills. National Assessment of Educational Progress, . -
Writing Report 05-W-04, Denver, Colorado.
RIVERS, Joan & Meryman, Richard (1985). Enter Talking New York: Delacourte
RIZZOLO, Patricia (1982). Peer tutors make good teachers. Improving College and University ~eaching. - 30 (3) pp 115-110
ROBB, Thomas, and others (1986). Salience of feedback on error and its effect on EFL writing quality. TESOL Quarterly. 20 (1) pp 83-95 -
ROBINSON, Richard D. & Hulett, Joycelin (1984). Reading and writing in the school and home. Missouri University
RODRIGUES, Dawn (1985). Computers and basic writers. College Composition and Communication. - 36 (3) pp 336-339
194
RODRIGUES, Raymond J. (1984) . The computer-based writing program from load to print. English Journal. - 73 (1) pp 27-30
ROEN, Duane H. (1985). Empirical considerations of episoaic perspective taking. Presented at the 36th annual Conference on College Composition and communication, Minneapolis, MINN
ROEN, Duane H. & Haseltine, Patricia (1985). Revisin expository prose from the perspective of text91inguists: A second analysis and assessment. Presented at American Educational Research Association meeting, Chicago, ILL
ROGALSKI, William (1979). Magazine aavertisement analysis: A group approach to rewriting. Exercise Exchange. pp 24-26
ROHMAN, D. Gordon (1965). Pre-writing: The stage of discovery in the writing process. College Composition and Communication. - 16 pp 106-112
ROHMAN, D. Gordon (1985). The ins and outs and ups and downs of writing. In Tom Waldrep (Ed.), Writers on writing. New York: Random House.
ROHMAN, D. Gordon & Wlecke, Albert 0. (1964). Pre-writing: The construction and application of models for. concept formation in writing. Cooperative research project #2174 Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan.
ROLLIN, Betty (1982). Am I getting paid for this? Toronto, Ontario: Little, Brown and Company.
ROSE, Mike (1980). Rigid rules, inflexible plans, and the stifling of language: A cognitivist analysis of writer's block College Composition and Communication. 31 (4) pp 389-401 -
ROSE, Mike (1984). Writer's block: The coqnitive dimension. Conference on College Compositionand Communication Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois Press
ROSE, Mike (Ed.), (1985). When a writer can't write: Studies in writer's block and other composing-process problems. Perspectives in Writing Research Series. Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois Press
ROSENBAUM, Nina J. (1984). Current problems with research in writing using the microcomputer. Presented at the spring conference of the Delaware Valley Writing Council and Villanova University University. Villanova, PA.
ROSENBAUM, Nina J. (1985). Issues and problems with research involving word processing: A teacher's experience. Collegiate Microcomputer. - 3 (4) pp 357-363
ROSSI, ~illian (1982). Vision and re-vision. National Writing Project, University of California, Berkeley, CA
ROUNDY, Nancy (1983a). A program for revision in business and technical writing. Journal of Business Communication. 20 (1) pp 217-236 -
ROUNDY, Nancy (1983b). Modeling the communication context: A procedure for revision and evaluation in business writing. Journal of Business Communication. - 20 (3) pp 27-46
ROUNDY, Nancy (1983~). Audience analysis: A guide to revision in technical writing. Technical Writing Teacher. 10 (2/3) - pp 94-100
ROUNDY, Nancy (1984). Revision pedagogy in technical writing. Presented at the 35th meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication, New York, NY.
ROUSE, John (1985) . Scenes from the writing workshop. College English. - 47 (3) pp 217-236
ROBIN, Donald L., Piche, Gene L., Michlin, Michael L., & Johnson, Fern L. (1984). Social cognitive ability as a predicator of the quality of fourth-graders' written narratives. In Richard Beach and Lillian S. Bridwell (Eds.), New directions in composition research. New York: Guilford Press
196
RUSSELL, Connie (1983). Putting research into practice: Conferencing with young writers. Language Arts. - 60 (3) pp 333-340
RUSSELL, Connie (1985). Peer conferencing and writing revision: A study o•’ the- relationship. service ~ulletin-48, Wisconsin Council of Teachers of English (ED260392)
RUTLEDGE, George E. (1983). An introduction to the process- conference approach to the teaching of writing skills in ABE programs. Presented at the American Association for Adult and Continuing Education, meeting, ~hiladephia, PA
SAGER, Carol (1973). Improving the quality of written composition through pupil use of rating scale. Presented at the annual convention of the National Council of Teachers of English, Philaaelplhia, Penn. ERIC (ED089304)
SALVAATORI, Mariolina (1983). The teaching of writing as 'problematization' . Teacher Education Quarterly. - 10 (3) pp 38-57
SAMPSON, Gloria Paulik (1980) . Teaching the written language using a functional approach. TESL TALK. - 11 (2) pp 38-44
SAMPSON, Gloria Paulik & Carlman, Nancy (1982). A hierarchy of stuaent responses to literature. English Journal. - 71 (1) p. 54
SAMUELSON, Janet (1986). Empowering the powerless: Authority in the writinu classroom. Presented to the 37th annual
d
meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication, New Orleans, LA
SANFORD, Elizabeth (1985). Discovering revision. Available through ERIC document reproduction service, Arlington, Virginia. (ED258231)
SAUR, Pamela S. (1985). Teaching rereading and rewriting to 'basic writers'. Presented at the Basic Writing Conference, St. Louis, MO.
SAWKINS, M.W. (1975). What children say about writing. In W.T. Petty, & P. Finn (Eds.) , The writing processes of students: Report of the first annual conference on language arts. Buffalo: State University of New York
SCARDAMALIA, M. (1981). How children cope with the cognitive demands of writing. In C.H. Frederiksen, J.F. Whiteman & F.F. Dominic (Eas.), Writing: The nature, development and teaching of written communication (Vol. 11) Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum
SCARDAMALIA, Marlene & Bereiter, Carl (1983). The development of evaluative, diagnostic and remedial capabilities in children's composing. In M. Martlew (Ed.) , The psychology of written language: A developmental approach. London: John Wiley and Sons.
SCARDAMALIA, Marlene & Bereiter, Carl (1985). Helping students become better writers. School Administrator. - 42 (4) p 16
SCHANCK, Emily T. (1986). Word processor versus 'The Pencil': Effects on writing. Requirement for a master's degree, Kean College of New Jersey.
SCHANK, R. & Abelson, R. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals and understandina. Hillside. New Jersev: Lawrence Erlbaum
SCHNIEDER, Annete (1983) . Written products and writing problems: Assisting students in other disciplines. English Quarterly. - 16 (2) pp 41-45
SCHRADER, Vincent E. (1984). Teaching journalism on the micro. English Journal. - 73 (4) pp 83-94
SCHULTZ, John (1982). Writing from start to finish: The story workshop. Basic Forms Rhetoric-Reaaer. New Jersey: Boynton/Cook.
SCHUMACHER, Gary M. and Martin, Denise (1983). A categorical 9. Presented at the 33rd meeting of the National Reading Conference, Austin, Texas.
SCHWARTZ, Helen J. (1984). Teaching writing with computer aids. College English. - 46 (3) pp 239-247 (EJ294751)
SCHWARTZ, Mimi (1982). Computers and the teaching of writing. Educational Technology. - 22 pp 27-29
SCHWARTZ, Mimi (l983a) . Two journeys through the writing process. College Composition and Communication. - 34 (2)
pp 188-201
SCHWARTZ, Mimi (1983b). Revision profiles: Patterns and implications. College English. - 45 (6) pp 549-558 (EJ287949)
SEARLE, Dennis & Dillon, David (1980). The message of marking: Teacher written responses to student writing at intermediate grades. Research in the Teaching of English. - 14 (3) pp 233-242
SEARS, Peter (1985). What do you say about a terrible poem? Teachers and Writers Magazine. - 16 (5) pp 1-3
SELF, Warren P. (1983). Research and the classroom. Presented at the 34th annual Conference on College Composition and Communication. Detroit, MI
SELFE, Cynthia L. (1984). Reading as a writing and revising strategy. Presented at the 35th annual Conference on College Composition and Communication. New York, NY
SELFE, Cynthia L. and Wahlstrom, Billie J. (1979). Beyond Bandaids and Bactine: Computer-assisted instruction and revision. Available through ERIC document reproduction service, Arlington, Virginia (ED232182)
SHANKLIN, N. (1981). Relating reading and writing: developing a transactional theory of the writing process. Dept. of Reading, University of Indiana, Bloomington.
SHAUGHNESSY, Mina (1977). Errors and expectations: A guide for the teacher of basic writing. New York: Oxforci University Press
199
SHERWOOD, Phyllis (1980). Nonlinear revising. Presented at the Wyoming Conference on aching Freshman and Sophmore English. Laramie, WYO.
SHIFLETT, Betty (1973). Story workshop as a method of teaching writing. College English. - 35 pp 141-160
SHUMAN, R. Baird (1975). What about revision? English Journal. 64 PP 41-43 -
SHUMAN, R. Baird (1981). Education in the 80s. National Education Association, Washington, DC. ERIC (ED199762)
SIEGEL, Muffy E.A. & Olson, Toby (Eas.), (1983). Writing talks: Views on teaching writing from across the professions. Upper Montclair, New Jersey: ~oynton/Cook
SIMON, Herbert A. & Ericsson, K. Anders (1984). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. Cambridge, MASS: Bradford Books, M.I.T. Press.
SLATER, Charles (1983, April). A program for teaching writing. Educational ~igest . pp 54-55
SMITH,
SNITH,
SMITH,
SMITH,
SMITH,
Eugene (1984). Conducting a follow-up study of students in writing courses. ~ v a i l a b l e ~ h ERIC document reproduction service, Arlington, VA (ED247596)
Frank (1979) . The language arts and the learner's mind. Language Arts. - 56 (2) pp 118-125
Frank (1980). Myths of writing. Language Arts. - 58 pp 792-98
Frank (1982). Writing and the writer. Toronto, Ontario: College Publishing, Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Myrna J. & Bretcko, Barbara (1974). Research on individual composition conferences. presented at the annual meetins of the Conference on College Composition and ~ommunicafion, Anaheim, CA. ERIC (ED901709)
200
SMITH, Peggy F~xall (1984). Grammar texts and workbooks? ~anished to the storeroom. Academic Theory. - 20 (1) pp 121-125
SNIPES, Wilson Currin (1973). Oral comp0sin.g as an approach to writing. College Comoposition and Communication. - 24 pp 200-205
SOMMERS, Elizabeth A. (1984). What reserach tells us about composing and computing. Presented to the Computer Educators League. Buffalo, New York.
SOMMERS, Jeffrey (1985). Enlisting the writer's participation in the evaluation process. Journal of Teaching Writinq. - 4 (1) pp 95-103
SOMMERS, Nancy (1980). Revision strategies of student writers and experienced writers. College Composition and Connunicaiton. - 31 pp 378-387
SOMMERS, Nancy (1982). Revision strategies of student writers and experienced adult writers. National Institute of Education, Washington, DC. ERIC (ED220839 CS207146)
SOMMERS, Nancy & McQuade, Donald (1984). Student writers at work. New York: St. Martin's Press.
SOWERS, S. (1979). A six-year old's writing process: The first half of the first grade. Language Arts. - 56 pp 829-835
SPEAR, K. (1984) . Writers and writing. College Composition and Communication. 18 D 288
SPENCER, Jacqueline (1982). Learning to write through imitation. The English Quarterly. - 15 (4) pp 42-46
SPINA, Linda & Welhoelter, Dorothy (1981). Writing bugs become reading bugs. Presented at the 14th annual meeting of the Missouri State Council of the International ~eading Assoc., Columbia, NO (ED205990)
STALLARD, Charles (1974). An analysis of writing behaviour of good student writers. ~esearch in the ~eaching of English. - 8 pp 206-218
STANFORD, Gene (Ed.), (1979). How to handle the paper load. Class-room practices in teaching English. Urbana, ILL: NCTE.
STEGMAN, Michael 0. (1984). Beyond correctness: The computer and the composing process. Presented at New York State Department of Education spring conference, Albany, NY.
STEVENS, Peggy Walker (1984). How to tell the world about your program. Journal of Experimental Education. - 7 (2) pp 4-7
STEWIG, John Warren (1983). Teaching language arts in early childhood. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston
STIFFLER, Randall (1985). Writing within limits, writing without N's. Exercise Exchange. 30 (2) pp 28-29
STINE, Peter W. (1977). Listen, my children, and you shall hear: An oral approach to correcting written errors. Presented at the annual Conference on College composition and Communication, Kansas City, MO. (ED144106)
STOCK, Patricia (Ed.),(1983). •’forum: Essays on theory and practice in the teaching of writing. Upper Montclair, New Jersey: ~oynton/Cook
STRASSER, Susan (1984). I'm a writer and I want my students to know it. rn ~ e b Daugherty (Ed.), The teaching of writinq at Evergreen: A collection of strategies. Olympia, WA: Evergreen State College
STRICKLAND, James (1983). New directions in rhetorical invention. Presented at the 34th College Composition and Communication conference, Detroit, Michigan. (ED2321491
STRICKLAND, James (1985). Beyond word processing: Rhetorical invention with computers. Presented at the-~nglish Assoc. of the Penn State Universities Conference, Clarion, PA
STRICKLAND, Ruth (1944). A good start in school. Indianapolis: State of Indiana Department of Public Instruction
STRICKLAND, Ruth (1951). The language arts in the elementary school. Boston: D.C. Heath and Company
STRICKLAND, Ruth (1961). Evaluating childrens composition. Elementary English. pp 64-73
STROMBERG, Linda & Kurth, Ruth J. (1983) . Using word processing to teach revision in written composition. Presented at the 33rd annual meeting of the National ~eading Conference, Austin, Texas
STUART, Simon (1969; 1973). SAY: An experiment in learning. New York: Agathon Press
STUBBS, Gordon T. (1980). in Sheila A. Egoff (Ed.), Only cowards: readings on children's literature. Toronto: Oxford University Press
STUBBS, Michael (1980). The sociolinguistics of reading and writing. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul
SUDOL, Ronald (Ed.) , (1982) . Revising: New essays for- teachers of writing. ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills. NCTE, Urbana, ILL (ED218655)
SUDOL, Ronald (1985) . Applied word processing : Notes on authority, responsibility and revision in a workshop model. college-composition and Communication. - 36 (3) pp 331-35
SUDOL, Ronald (1986). What's new about word-processed writing? ADE Bulletin. - 83 pp 43-45
SWARTZ, Heidi, Flower, Linda S., & Hayes, John R. (1984) . Designing protocol studies of the writing process: An introduction. In Richard Beach and Lillian S. rid well (Eds.), New directions in composition research. New York: Guilford Press.
TATE, Gary & Corbett, Edward P.J. (1981). The writing teacher's source book. New York: Oxford University Press
TAYLOR, Karl K. (1984). Eighteen writers writing: The processes of inexperienced and experienced writers. Teaching English in the Two-Year College. - 10 (3) pp 219-225
TAYLOR, Patricia Simmons, Peltzman, Faye & McCuen, Jo Ray (1982). In the trenches: Help for the newly recruited, shellshocked, and battle-fatigued teachers of writing. University of California.
TCHUDI, Stephen (1983). Writing teachers: what we say about what we do. Fifteen essays for teachers of writing at the secondary and college levels. Michigan Council of Teachers of English. ERIC (ED230952)
TCHUDI, Stephen (1984). The teacher/writer; model learner, human being, Language Arts. - 61 (7) pp 712-716
TCHUDI, Stephen (1985). The Write Idea. In Tom Waldrep (Ed.) . Writers on Writing. pp 271-282 New York: Random House.
TCHUD1,-Steven & Tchudi, Susan (1981). An introduction into the teaching of writing. New York: Wiley
TEICHMAN, Milton (1985). What college freshmen say about word L
processing, perspectives on computing: ~p~iications in the Academic and Scientific Community. - 5 (3) pp 43-48
TER BORG, L. (1983). The heuristic function of language. MA thesis. University of Calgary, Alberta.
THIESMEYER, John (1984). Teaching with the text checkers. Presented at the spring conference of the Delaware Valley Writing Council and Villanova University English department. villanova, Pennsylvania.
THOMPSON, George J. (1978). Revision: Nine ways to achieve a disinteiested perspective. College ~om~osition and Communication. - 29 pp 200-202
TIERNEY, R. & LaZonsky, J. (1980). The rights and responsibilities of readers and writers: A contractual agreement. Reading Education Report #15. Centre for the Study of Reading, Urbana, ILL
TORBE, Mike & Protherough, Robert (Eds.),(1976). Classroom encounters: Language and English teaching. NCTE, Urbana, ILL
TRACEY, Richard (1983) . The word processor and the writing process. Teaching English in the Two-Year College. 10 (1) pp 27-33 7
TRIMBUR, John (1986). Peer tutoring: A contradiction in terms. Writing Center Journal. - 7 (2) pp 21-28
war on the.nonreviser. Arizona English Bulletin #22 pp 157-161
TSUJIMOTO, Joseph I. (1984). Re-visioning the whole. English Journal. - 73 (5) pp 52-55
TUTTLE,.Frederick B. Jr. (1978). Composition: A media approach. National Education Association, Washington, DC
TYRRELL, Paul & Johnston, Brian (1983). Challenge versus L
judgement in responding to students' writing. English In Australia. - 66 pp 37-43
WALL, Susan V. (1982). Internal revision: Case studies of first year college writers. Presentea at the 72nd annual meeting of the NCTE, Washington, DC
WALSHE, R.D. (1982a, Sept.), Every child can write: Learning and teaching written expression in the 1980s. Primary English Teaching in Australia. Rozelle, Australia.
WALSHE, R.D. (1982b) . The writing revolution, English in Australia. - 62 pp 3-15
WALSHE, R.D. (Ed.),(1983). Donald Graves in Australia: Children want to write. Primary English Teaching Association, Rozelle, Australia
WALVOORD, Barbara Fassler (1982). Helping students write well: A guide for teachers in all disciplines. New York: Modern Language Association
WALVOORD, Barbara Fassler & Singer, Daniel (1984). Process- oriented writing instruction in a case-method class. Presented at the American Management Association, Boston.
WARDLOW, Elwood M. (1985). Effective writing and editing: A guidebook for newspapers. Reson, Virginia: American Press Institute.
WARNOCK, John (1985). How I write. In Tom Waldrep (Ed.), Writers on writinp. pp 289-304 New York: Random House
WARNOCK, Tilly (1985). How I write. In Tom Waldrep (Ed.) , Writers on writing pp 305-316 New York: Random House
WARTERS, S. (1978). Writing processes of college basic writers. MA Thesis, University of Calgary, Alberta
WASSON, John M. (1975,'72,'70,'66,'63). Subject and structure: An anthology for writers. Toronto, Ontario: Brown and Co.
WATT, Daniel (1983). Word processors and writing. Independent School. - 42 (3) pp 41-43
WEATHERS, Winston (1985). The Winston Weathers writing way: A self-examination. In Tom Waldrep (Ed.), Writers on writing. pp 317-328 New York: Random House
WELTY, Eudora (1984). One writer's beginnings. Cambridge: Harvard University Press
WHEELER, Thomas C. (1979). The great American writing block: Causes and cures of'the new illiteracy. NY: Viking Press.
WHITE, Edward M. (1985). ~eaching and assessing writing: Recent advances in understanding, evaluating and improving student ~erformance. Jossev-Bass Hiaher Education Series.
WHITEMAN, Marcia Farr (Ed.) , (1981) . The nature and development and teaching of written composition Vol I. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum ~ssociates.
WHITNEY, Margaret M. (1983). The computer and writing. English Journal. - 72 (7) pp 24-31
WIESS, Adair B. (1984). MORE: A classroom approach to the development of writing skills at the upper high school level. Presented at the annual meeting of the Florida Council of Teachers of English. Cocoa Beach, FLA
WILLINSKY, John (1985). To publish and publish and publish. Language Arts. - 62 (6) p 619-623
WILLIS, Meredith Sue (1984). Personal fiction writing: A guide to writing from real life for teachers, students and writers. New York State Council on the Arts. (ED2604431
WILSON, ~illian Scott (1949) . Creative writing in a first grade. Elementary English. - 26 p 241-249
WILSON, Sloan (1976). What shall we wear to the party? New York: Arbor House
WINTER, Clotilda (1957). Interrelationships among variables in children of the first and second grades. Elementary English. - 34 pp 108-113
WINTEROWD, W. Ross (1986). Viewpoints: Dramatism and the composition process. Research in the Teaching of English. 20 (3) pp 317-327 -
WITTE, Stephen P. (1983). Topical structure and revision: An exploratory study. College Composition and Communication. 34 (3) pp 313-341 -
WITTE, Stephen P. & Faigley, L. (1981). Coherence, cohesion and writing quality. College Composition and Communication 32 pp 189-204 -
WITTY, Paul & Martin, William (1957). An analysis of childrens compositions written in response to a film. Elementary English. - 34 pp 158-163
- a machine-in the English classroom? English Journal. - 73 (1) PP 34-37
WOOD, Margo (1981). An overview of the development of the writing process in children. New England Reading Association Journal. - 16 pp 32-35
WOODMAN, Leonora (1975). Creative editing: An approach to peer criticism. Presented at the annual conference of the NCTE San Diego, CA (ED1162171
WORLEY, Lloyd (1984). Using word processing in composition classes. Presented at the 35th annual Conference on College Composition and Communication, New York.
WOTRING, A.M. (1981). Writing to think about high school chemistry. Two studies of writing in high school science. Bay Area writing Project Classroom Research series. Berkeley, California. L
WRESCH, William (1983). Computers and composition instruction: An update. College English. - 45 (8) pp 794-789
WRESCH, William (1984). The computer in composition instruction: A writer's tool. NCTE, Urbana, Illinois.
WRIGHT, Wynn (Ed.),(1981). Handbook for writing practices. Washington Elementary School District Six, Phoenix, ARIZ
WUNSCH, Daniel R. (1982). The effects of written feedback, rewritinq and qorup oral feedback on business letter writing abilit;. Delta Pi Epsilon Journal. - 24 (4) pp 129-138
WYMAN, Linda (Ed.) , (1983) . Revising. Missouri English Bulletin. 41 (6). Missouri Association of Teachers of English -
YOUNG, R.E. (1980). Arts, crafts, gifts and knacks. Visible Language. - 14 pp 341-350
YOUNG, Richard, Becker, Alton & Pike, Kenneth, L. (Eds.), (1970). Plots in discourse, and editing: Focus and loading. In Rhetoric, Discovery and Change. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich
ZEMELMAN, S. (1977). How college teachers encourage students' writing. Research in the Teaching of English. - 11 pp 227-234
ZIEGLER, Alan (1986). Peer Editing. Cited in Teachers and Writers Magazine. 17 (4) pp 10-11
ZIV, Nina D. (1984). The effect of teacher comments on the writing of four college freshmen. In Richard Beach and Lillian S. Bridwell (Eds.), New directions in composition research. New York: Guilford Press.
ZUREK, Jerome (1986). Research on writing process can aid news- writing teachers. Journalism Educator. 41 (4)- pp 122-34
top related