This accessible and versatile text has been used in college English, creative writing, and composition courses, as well as middle and high school classrooms, college remedial and honors programs, graduate seminars, and teacher training courses. Chapters move through the writing process as students find a focus, choose a genre, develop a draft, and find a voice. Murray is professor emeritus of English at the University of New Hampshire. Annotation (c)2003 Book News, Inc., Portland, OR (booknews.com)

This article reports on a study of the relationship between classroom context and the revisions of student writers. Specifically, the study examined the nature of the instructional context of the writing in one senior high school classroom and explored potential connections between particular features of the teacher’s approach to writing instruction and the frequency and types of revisions students in that class made to their essays. Drafts of students’ essays were coded for revisions, and results of the coding were examined with reference to specific features of the instructional method and related features of classroom context. Results of the study indicate that students in the present study, like students in some previous studies of revision, focused their revisions on surface and stylistic concerns. The study suggests that specific features of the classroom context, particularly the workshopstyle structure of the course, the interactions among students and the teacher regarding the students’ writing, and the nature of the teacher’s strategies for responding to and evaluating students’ writing, may have reinforced the teacher’s and students’ traditional views of writing quality and revision and may have thus contributed to the students’ focus on lower-level concerns in revision.

The idea for this symposium began when Sheryl Fontaine and Susan Hunter told Rick Gebhardt about two studies they had made of manuscript reviewing practices in composition studies--one surveying experiences and perceptions of authors and one dealing with journal referees. The subject of peer reviewing seemed an important one for a field working, as ours is, to definie its scholarly identity. Rick sensed that his efforts to bring blind refereeing to composition's oldest journal might prove useful in exploring the subject and, for addtional views, he contacted several of CCC's consulting readers. Carol Berkenkotter, who had been studying peer reviewing in the sciences, agreed to attempt a brief theoretical perspective. Phillip Arrington decided to explore the subject personally, from his experiences both as author and referee. And Doug Hesse chose to use personal experience, chaos theory, and MLA panels to discuss referees' reports as scholarship.

Preview this article: Review: Revisioning American Literature, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ce/56/8/collegeenglish9191-1.gif

Current social perspectives on writing and disciplinary enculturation are generally grounded in theories of discourse communities. Although assumptions underlying these theories have been seriously questioned, few studies of situated writing have applied alternate theories. In this article, I explore a sociohistoric notion of disciplinarity in a case study of how a sociology student's dissertation prospectus is negotiated in a graduate seminar. A microhistorical narrative of a response episode in the seminar and subsequent textual revision is contextualized in histories of local activity. Analysis of the seminar response foregrounds emergent, nonlinear, discursively heterogeneous practices of disciplinary sense-making. Analysis of the text foregrounds practices whereby situated histories of textual production and reception are transformed into purified representations of the discipline and the author. Finally, the analysis details how the disciplinary work of revision in this setting was socially distributed and interactively achieved.

Although studies of writing and literary understanding have demonstrated the value of analytic essay writing for enhancing story understanding, these studies have focused on student's initial interpretations without considering the effects of a teacher's support and direction. The purpose of this study was to explore how 9th- (n = 6) and 11th- (n = 6) grade students reformulated and extended their initial written analyses of two short stories through revisions fostered by two different kinds of between-draft written comments. After revising initial drafts in two response modes (directive and dialogue), the students wrote paragraph-length responses to posttest questions of story understanding. Results indicated significant (p &lt; .05) main effects for response condition and grade level, with the dialogue condition enhancing story understanding more than the directive condition, and the 11th graders attaining higher posttest scores than the 9th graders. Data from composing-aloud protocols revealed that the dialogue condition supported the students' reformulation of their own interpretations constructed in the initial drafts, while the directive condition seemed to shift the students away from their own initial interpretations of the stories.

Learning how to revise may well be the most excruciating part of writing - frequently it is what makes or breaks new writers. Now, in this unique and highly useful book, Jay Woodruff gives some of America's finest contemporary writers an opportunity to talk with passion and professionalism about revision - about the hard work of their writing. Books on writing generally offer prescriptions and proscriptions about this craft so hard to learn instead of evidence. But in A Piece of Work Woodruff's incisive questions guide five writers - Tobias Wolff, Tess Gallagher, Robert Coles, Joyce Carol Oates, and Donald Hall - through specific examples that enable the reader to see how good writing becomes better. From the first draft through various revisions and finally to the printed version of a single piece of each author's work, Woodruff traces the full course of the revision process. While we might prefer to picture all authors as Coleridge, with the perfectly formed lines and stanzas of Kubla Khan emerging from a dream, the truth of the matter is that the development of a final text is often as much a hard-won discovery as it is an initial inspiration. A Piece of Work offers a road map to that discovery.

A composition researcher and psychiatrist report findings from their 3-year study of the revision of the most important book in the mental health profession: the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-III). This 500-page diagnostic taxonomy defines some 250 mental disorders, and it functions for the field as a charter document, shaping the way mental illness is understood, treated, and studied. The revision project, which culminates in 1994 with the publication of DSM-IV, is a 6-year project involving some 1,000 psychiatrists and other mental health professionals. In this study the authors examine the DSM revision using three methodologies: in Part I they trace the history of the DSM classification system; in Part II they analyze published accounts of the revision by project leaders; and finally, in Part III they observe the revision process as it was actually carried out in one of the 13 work groups. The authors conclude that the revision of DSM functions less to change the text than to achieve certain social and political effects. They find the revision works to further entrench the biomedical model of mental disorder, to maintain the dominance of psychiatry within the mental health field, and to enhance the prestige of psychiatry in relation to other medical specialties.

Most studies dealing with feedback and revision focus on teachers and students in composition courses. However, there is insufficient evidence for assuming that these studies are applicable to writing situations in non-composition courses. To investigate the writing processes of non-composition students, this study describes patterns of feedback and revision in four writing across the curriculum (WAC) courses. The first and final drafts of 20 WAC students were analyzed by a team of readers to determine the following: 1) the apparent aims and criteria underlying the feedback they received on first drafts; 2) the extent to which the students utilized this feedback while revising; 3) the criteria most affected by the revisions; and 4) the extent of the revisions. Several patterns that emerged in this study resemble those found in research involving composition classrooms, although there are some differences as well. The study also highlights several issues for future research, including the source of a writer’s or reader’s criteria for effective writing and the comparative value of global and non-global revisions.

This article analyzes Herbert C. Hoover's translation of the De Re Metallica (1956) in the context of the 1922 Mine Strikes. The De Re Metallica combines practical instruction in mining techniques with a philosophical justification of the practice of mining. In Book I of the De Re Metallica, Agricola consciously constructs a rationalized science of metallurgy and mineralogy to enable expert miners to profit in a risky enterprise. Analysis of the text thus reveals that Hoover's interest in Agricola's “intellectual achievements” may have been more than technical. The economical and political assumptions that drive Agricola's arguments—justification of mining as a profit-making enterprise, his notions that accidents occur because workers are careless, and his rhetorical use of the notion of scientific expertise—framed many of the early twentieth century debates between mine operators and union organizers. In revisioning Agricola's arguments in the context of Hoover's own Principles of Mining and his statements in the 1922 Mine Crisis, this article demonstrates how technical documents reflect the political ideologies of their writers and how political arguments presented as purely technical debates shape the uses and construction of future technologies.

This study investigated the effectiveness of an approach to improving revising skills that integrated strategy instruction, peer response, and word processing. Seventh and eighth grade students with learning disabilities were taught a systematic strategy for working in pairs to help each other revise their writing. The strategy was designed to guide students in both the social and cognitive aspects of response and revision. Cognitive support included a set of evaluation criteria, specific revision strategies, and an overall strategy for regulating the revision process. Social interaction was guided by a predictable structure for listening and responding to each others’ writing. A multiple probe design across pairs was used to assess instruction. On the pretests, students made few substantive revisions and did not improve the quality of their papers by revising them. Following instruction, all students made more substantive revisions, the proportion of revisions rated as improvements increased from 47% to 83%, and second drafts were rated as significantly better than first drafts. Furthermore, the overall quality of final drafts increased substantially from pretests to posttests. The gains were maintained at one and two-month maintenance testing and generalized to handwritten compositions.

Preview this article: The Effects of Word Processing on Students' Writing Quality and Revision Strategies, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/rte/26/3/researchintheteachingofenglish15434-1.gif

The research described here examines the problems encountered by people when filling in forms. Subjects were required to complete forms on the basis of a situation sketch, while thinking aloud. From the completed forms, the observations, and the subjects' comments, conclusions could be drawn about the types of problems the subjects had encountered and about the strategies they had used. These conclusions, together with various suggestions found in the literature, provided a guideline for a thorough revision of seven forms. A test showed that, after revision, the number of forms completed unacceptably was reduced by about half.

Preview this article: Outside-In and Inside-Out: Peer Response Groups in Two Ninth-Grade Classes, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/rte/26/1/researchintheteachingofenglish15449-1.gif

This Qualitative study sought to determine whether four high- and four low-apprehensive first-year college writers responded differently as peer evaluators of writing in a face-to-face group versus a group that communicated via an electronic-mail network. An analysis of recorded group “conversations” revealed that high apprehensives exhibited different strategies than low apprehensives for informing group members about writing during both face-to-face and e-mail sessions. Furthermore, high apprehensives during e-mail sessions participated more and offered more directions for revision than during face-to-face meetings. When revising subsequent to group meetings, high apprehensives reported relying more on group comments received during e-mail sessions than group comments received during face-to-face sessions.

Preview this article: Peer Review and Revising in an Anthropology Course: Lessons for Learning, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ccc/42/2/collegecompositioncommunication8928-1.gif

Preview this article: Revision Revisited: Reading (and) The French Lieutenant's Woman, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ce/53/4/collegeenglish9575-1.gif

(1991). “Revision/re‐vision”: A feminist writing class. Rhetoric Review: Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 258-273.

This study investigates the impact of task definition on students’ revising strategies. Our primary aim was to determine if freshman students could revise globally if instructed to do so and if those global revisions would result in improved texts. We asked two groups of freshmen to revise a text provided by the experimenters; one group was given eight minutes of instruction on how to revise globally, and the other was simply asked to make the text better. The texts written by students who received the instruction were judged both to be of significantly better quality and to have included significantly more global revision. Further, the improvement appears to affect the treated population generally rather than just a small part of that population.

This article surveys and critiques the literature on using style checkers and the text-editing capabilities of the computer to assist in revising technical writing. The literature on text-editing capabilities is inconclusive because it is largely anecdotal and methodologically flawed. The literature on style checkers is similarly inconclusive. To better assess the value of the computer, we need to examine the basic premise of the research on revising and word processing: that more revising leads to higher-quality writing. We need to be sure that our evaluative techniques for measuring writing improvement are valid; to focus our attention not only on computer novices but also on computer-experienced writers; to examine other factors that affect how writers use word processing and that in turn might affect writing quality; and to examine more carefully the differences among word processors and among the different style checkers to determine their effects on writing behavior and writing quality.

This qualitative study examined the transitions that writers make when moving from academic to professional discourse communities. Subjects were six university seniors enrolled in a special “writing internship course” in which they discussed and analyzed the writing they were doing in 12-week professional internships at corporations, small businesses, and public service agencies in a major metropolitan area. Participant-observer and case-study data included drafts and final copies of all writing that the interns produced on the job (including texts and suggested revisions by other employees), an ethnographic log of data and speculations arising from the group discussions, written course journals from each intern, transcriptions of taped, discourse-based and general interviews with the interns, and a final 15-page retrospective analysis of each intern's writing on the job. Results showed a remarkably consistent pattern of expectation, frustration, and accommodation as the interns adjusted to their new writing communities. The results have important implications for the lateral and vertical transfer of writing skills across different communicative contexts.

Preview this article: Remembering Things Past: A Critique of Narrow Revision, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/rte/24/1/researchintheteachingofenglish15503-1.gif

Using a single-subjects-with-replicates design, this study investigated conference influence on first graders' knowledge about revision as well as revision activity. Sixteen children participated in group writing conferences with a teacher, in a natural classroom setting, every other week from February through June. Data from three baseline points and seven conference points were summarized. At conference data collection points, students wrote, conferred in groups with a teacher, were interviewed about potential revisions, and revised work in progress. At baseline points, the same events occurred, but there were no conferences. Two main variables were used to evaluate knowledge of the revision process: number of spots suggested for revision and average specificity of suggested changes. The main variable for actual revision activity was total number of revisions made. Final drafts were also rated for quality. Conferences did influence revision knowledge and revision activity for many children. However, the extent of conference influence was mediated by certain entry level student characteristics. Generally, the most positive effects occurred for students who began with the least amount of knowledge about revision, who were initially doing the least amount of revision, and who were initially writing pieces judged among the lowest in quality.

Many current books by and for people in our business encourage the use of peer response groups as a means of enhancing learning. Almost none, however, translates this potentially powerful idea into workable strategies and techniques. Few comment usefully on the difficulties involved in the response group process, or on reasonable goals and outcomes, or even on the activity's deeper intellectual and behavioral implications. Sharing Writing is for teachers who are serious about helping students learn to work in response groups. In addressing both theoretical and practical concerns, Spear provides answers to two essential questions: What can writing teachers do to help students become good peer readers? How do peer response groups contribute to student growth as writers?

Preview this article: The Effect of Word Processing on the Quality of Basic Writers' Revisions, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/rte/22/4/researchintheteachingofenglish15535-1.gif

Preview this article: Some Characteristics of Memorable Expository Writing: Effects of Revisions by Writers with Different Backgrounds, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/rte/22/3/researchintheteachingofenglish15543-1.gif

Preview this article: Text Revisions by Basic Writers: From Impromptu First Draft to Take-Home Revision, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/rte/22/3/researchintheteachingofenglish15544-1.gif

Preview this article: The Constraints of History: Revision and Revolution in American Literary Studies, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ce/50/6/collegeenglish11371-1.gif

Word processors, as teaching machines, are currently caught in something of a backlash. Just a few years ago, we heard they possessed almost magical powers for student writing and writing instruction. Now, before some of us have even had a chance to try them for ourselves, researchers have begun to tell us that computers do not really help student writers much after all. On the contrary, they warn, when students' performances with text editors are judged against their performances with pen and paper, inexperienced writers, those whose typical revising behaviors are actually editing behaviors, continue to edit exclusively and with increased frequency on the word pro-

An argument is presented for distinguishing between fluency and automaticity of procedures in writing. Writers must develop a certain level of fluency in some of their writing subskills, but skilled writing necessitates that automaticity not be absolute, not be “modular” to use Fodor's (1983) terminology. Various empirical results are presented suggesting that a prominent difference between skilled and less skilled writing is the extent of metacognitive control over writing subprocesses. It is this metacognitive control, not increasing encapsulated automaticity, that enables the processes that characterize skilled writing, such as directed search, critical examination, and revision. Educational implications of this premise are explored.

This article argues that the Given-New research done by linguists on texts can be used effectively in process approaches to teaching composition. Current theories define coherence as an integrative meaning formed cognitively by writers and readers. Cohesion refers to the means of combining surface text elements for retention in the reader's short-term memory. In this study, college students were taught Given-New cohesive principles as guides for invention, arrangement, and revision, and as cues to aid the reader's coherent processing of their intended meaning.

The development of technical manuals requires coordination of the expertise in the subject area and in writing and design skills as well as detailed knowledge of the audience and job context. In this research we examined the production process of five publication houses in an attempt to determine how or if these requirements for expertise are being met. A further goal was to determine what strategies in the production process may facilitate or detract from the production of effective documentation. Writers, managers, and illustrators were interviewed at each site. The work flow in developing a manual is described. Data on the use of specifications and guidelines, the revision process including quality control, validation and verification, are presented. The skills and duties of writers, illustrators, and government representatives are presented. Finally, the production process for technical manuals is interpreted in terms of a process model of writing and strategies for improving the quality of documentation is discussed.

This study examined three recent language arts textbook programs to determine the frequency of writing activities, the nature of writing tasks, and the frequency of process-approach activities such as selecting topics, prewriting, sharing, revising, and publishing. Results indicate that elementary school students receive in the central part of the lessons in their language arts textbooks opportunities to write an averange of approximately one piece of extended writing per week. Typically, the topic of the piece is selected by the text rather than the student; there is no prewriting activity; the piece is not shared with a teacher or peers; revision, which is seldom suggested, focuses on editing surface features, not content; and students' products are not published. Recommendations for improvements in writing activities are considered.

Preview this article: The Effects of Word Processing on the Revision Strategies of College Freshmen, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/rte/21/2/researchintheteachingofenglish15583-1.gif

Complicated documents often affect readers the way computer programs affect computers; technical writers are prone to many of the same serious errors that plague programmers. Among the many principles that writers can learn from programming are: 1) Models save money: it is far more economical to develop detailed outlines and mockups than to improvise from a vague outline. 2) Quality demands maintainability: every complicated document will need frequent revision, and only documents designed for ease of change will be kept current. 3) The trouble is in the interfaces: the procedures and tasks in a manual are not as error-prone as the rules for moving from part to part of the book itself. 4) Readers are subject to the laws of physics: many publication economies produce documents that defy the physical powers of the reader. 5) Communication is control: readers must be prevented from getting lost.

Preview this article: Detection, Diagnosis, and the Strategies of Revision, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ccc/37/1/collegecompositionandcommunication11246-1.gif

Readers and evaluators of children's writing still fall back on deficit explanations; papers are read for signs of what they lack rather than signs of growth. Presented here is a model that predicts how such growth may occur as a logical outcome of language acquisition. Drawing on research done in the past, the article provides a list of the kinds of language learning underway in the elementary school years and suggests that teachers may use this list to anticipate where and how such learning will influence the writing processes of children. Included in the list are sentence syntax, spelling conventions, and discourse grammars, all of which seem to be learned by “creative construction” (hypothesis building and refinement) and, to some extent, memorization. The article argues that children's writing performance is likely to suffer on one or more writing dimensions as the writer selectively attends to other dimensions of the task. For evaluators and teachers there are implications for feedback, for individual agendas, for revision, and for the kinds of conclusions one may draw from the examination of written products.

Preview this article: Applied Word Processing: Notes on Authority, Responsibility, and Revision in a Workshop Model, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ccc/36/3/collegecompositionandcommunication11757-1.gif

Case studies of two proposals for research funding serve as examples of how scientific texts are the products of a community of researchers. Comparisons of successive versions of the proposals show that the two biologists, in revisions of their texts, alter their personae and their relations to the literature of their fields. In writing and rewriting, they both respond to and develop a disciplinary consensus.