Revision Strategies of Basic and Competent Writers as They Write for Different Audiences
Abstract
The case study approach was used to describe the revision strategies used by eight twelfth grade writers as they wrote compositions for two audiences: their teachers and their peers. The sample consisted of four writers who had previously been classified as basic and four who had been classified as competent according to scores that they achieved on holistically scored pieces of writing for a teacher audience. The data included responses gathered during interviews with the subjects and with their previous teachers of English, multiple drafts of compositions produced by each writer for each audience, and audio tapes of the subjects' verbal protocols as they composed aloud. The findings indicated that (a) the basic writers made more revisions for the teacher audience, while the competent writers made more revisions for the peer audience; (b) the competent writers made a wider range of revisions according to the points, levels, types and purposes of revision that were established prior to the collection of the data; and (c) the competent writers were able to revise in extended episodes in which one revision was cued by, and related to, an earlier revision, while the basic writers made isolated revisions. Although there were differences in the revision patterns of the different groups of writers, the basic writers demonstrated that they possessed the same revision strategies as the competent writers, though they used those strategies in different ways. The verbal protocols of the basic writers suggested that their limited use of some of the revision strategies that they possessed resulted from the constraints under which they were operating. The most significant of those constraints seemed to be the difficulties that the basic writers had with the actual production of text and the basic writers' view of composing as a two-draft procedure with revision taking place only during the second draft. It was suggested by the investigator that students need opportunities to write for a variety of audiences other than their teachers and that teachers can facilitate successful revision in students' writing by providing students with information about the revision strategies that they possess but use too infrequently.
- Journal
- Research in the Teaching of English
- Published
- 1984-10-01
- DOI
- 10.58680/rte198415671
- CompPile
- Search in CompPile ↗
- Open Access
- Closed
- Topics
- Export
- BibTeX RIS
Citation Context
Cited by in this index (2)
-
Conijn et al. (2022)Written Communication
-
King (2012)IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication
References (0)
No references on file for this article.
Related Articles
-
Research in the Teaching of English Aug 2025Meghan Odsliv Bratkovich; Michael B. Sherry; Homood Alharbi
-
Computers and Composition Dec 2024When generative artificial intelligence meets multimodal composition: Rethinking the composition process through an AI-assisted design project ↗Jialei Jiang
-
Pedagogy Oct 2024rhetorical criticism first-year composition writing pedagogy basic writing writing across the curriculum graduate education two-year college service learning teacher development revision argument collaborative writing assessment writing program administration multimodality multilingual writers literacy studies race and writing disability studies community literacy editorial matter
-
Assessing Writing Apr 2022The mediating effects of student beliefs on engagement with written feedback in preparation for high-stakes English writing assessment ↗William S. Pearson
-
Writing and Pedagogy Jun 2019Tara Hembrough