Teaching Revising and Editing: An Annotated Bibliography (Bibliographies and Indexes in Mass Media and Communications)

TEACHING REVISING AND EDITING Recent Titles in Bibliographies and Indexes in Mass Media and Communications American J...

Author: Bruce W. Speck | Dean A. Hinnen | Kathleen Hinnen

84 downloads 1104 Views 12MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

TEACHING REVISING AND EDITING

Recent Titles in Bibliographies and Indexes in Mass Media and Communications American Journalism History Wm. David Sloan, compiler Guide to Sources in American Journalism History Lucy Shelton Caswell, compiler Better Said and Clearly Written: An Annotated Guide to Business Communication Sources, Skills, and Samples Sandra E. Belanger, compiler Editing: An Annotated Bibliography Bruce W. Speck, compiler Bibliographic Guide to Caribbean Mass Communications John A. Lent, compiler Bibliography of Cuban Mass Communications John A. Lent, compiler Publication Peer Review: An Annotated Bibliography Bruce W. Speck, compiler The Assassination of John F. Kennedy: An Annotated Film, TV, and Videography, 1963-1992 Anthony Frewin, compiler Managing the Publishing Process: An Annotated Bibliography Bruce W. Speck Tabloid Journalism: An Annotated Bibliography of English-Language Sources GeraldS. Greenberg Press Freedom and Development: A Research Guide and Selected Bibliography Clement E. Asante, compiler

TEACHING REVISING AND EDITING An Annotated Bibliography

Bruce W. Speck, Dean A. Hinnen, and Kathleen Hinnen

Bibliographies and Indexes in Mass Media and Communications, Number 12

PIRAEGER

We^Conn^

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Speck, Bruce W. Teaching revising and editing : an annotated bibliography / Bruce W. Speck, Dean A. Hinnen, and Kathleen Hinnen. p. cm.—(Bibliographies and indexes in mass media and communications, ISSN 1041-8350 ; no. 12) Includes indexes. ISBN 0-313-27957-8 (alk. paper) 1. Editing—Bibliography. I. Hinnen, Dean A. II. Hinnen, Kathleen. III. Title. IV. Series. Z5165.S69 2003 [PN162] 016.808'027—dc21 2003042137 British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data is available. Copyright © 2003 by Bruce W. Speck, Dean A. Hinnen, and Kathleen Hinnen All rights reserved. No portion of this book may be reproduced, by any process or technique, without the express written consent of the publisher. Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 2003042137 ISBN: 0-313-27957-8 ISSN: 1041-8350 First published in 2003 Praeger Publishers, 88 Post Road West, Westport, CT 06881 An imprint of Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc. www.praeger.com Printed in the United States of America

The paper used in this book complies with the Permanent Paper Standard issued by the National Information Standards Organization (Z39.48-1984). 10

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Contents Introduction Teaching Revision in Academic Settings Theoretical Perspectives Research on Revision Classroom Issues College Composition and Graduate Classes K-12 High School Middle School Elementary and Pre-School Business Classes Developmental/Basic Writing Classes Scientific Courses Technical Writing Courses Writing Across the Curriculum Classes Special Issues Creative Writing Grading Learning Disabled Students Materials for Teaching Revision Non-Native Writers/ESL Classes Revising and Peer Groups Revising and Adult Writers Examples of Revision Sentence Combining Technology Word Processing

ix 1 1 3 16 16 34 34 39 42 48 48 56 56 59 60 60 63 66 70 71 75 87 88 88 88 88

VI

Contents

Speech Synthesizers General Technology General Issues in Revision

98 99 102

Teaching Revision in Nonacademic Settings In the Workplace

109 109

Teaching Editing in Academic Settings Theoretical Perspectives Research on Editing Classroom Issues College Composition and Graduate Classes K-12 High Schools Middle and Elementary Schools Business Classes Developmental/Basic Writing Classes Journalism Classes Technical Writing Classes Proofreading College Composition High School and Middle School Classes Developmental/Basic Writing Classes Technical Writing Classes Special Issues in Proofreading Proofreading and Non-Native and ESL Students Special Issues in Editing Creative Writing Editing Process Interpersonal Skills Non-Native/ESL Classes Peer Editing Editing and Adult Writers Spelling Technology Word Processing General Issues in Editing

113 113 114 119 119 123 123 124 124 125 126 127 137 137 138 141 145 146 147 149 149 150 150 151 152 155 155 156 156 157

Teaching Editing in Nonacademic Settings In the Workplace For Publication Newspapers Magazines

163 163 164 164 167

Editing and Revision in the Writing Process Basic/Developmental Classes College Classes Technical Writing Classes

169 169 171 173

Contents

vu

Special Issues Creative Writing Language Classes Professional Writers

175 175 175 178

Author Index Subject Index

179 189

This page intentionally left blank

Introduction This annotated bibliography is the last in a series of bibliographies devoted to facets of the entire writing process, including the publication of texts. The other bibliographies in the series are Editing, Publication Peer Review, Managing the Publishing Process, The Grading of Writing, and Collaborative Writing. The word series is used in a loose sense because neither Greenwood's nor my original intention included a master plan that specified six bibliographies. Rather, the original book contract Greenwood issued to me about ten years ago was for a bibliography on teaching editing. However, after I explored the literature on editing, I saw that sufficient material existed for a book-length bibliography on editing and that another volume could be devoted to teaching editing. I had a problem, though. In investigating the literature on editing, I had wandered into sources that were neither fish nor foul, sources that deal with editing and other writing/publishing functions. As I sought to determine how to best segment the vast literature on writing and publishing, I found that peer review was a prominent topic, and Marilyn Brownstein, my editor at Greenwood, accepted for publication the bibliography on peer review. The literature on managing the publishing process comprised another book in what I saw as a series of topics on the theme of text production. My attention was diverted from facets of publishing text to the pedagogy of text production as I returned to the topic of teaching revising and editing with the intention of finally producing a bibliography on teaching editing, but my attention was diverted, and I became immersed in the literature about grading writing. At about that time, George Butler took over editorial responsibility for my bibliographic enterprise, and he has been a source of strong support and sagacious advice. After the bibliography on grading writing was finished, my career as an academic changed, and I become more involved in administrative work. Thus, I found it necessary to call upon colleagues to work

X

Introduction

with me to produce a bibliography on collaborative writing. At the time I sought collegial help, I realized that a bibliography on collaborative writing produced by a sole annotator could appear to be an ironic endeavor, so I welcomed collaborators for that project. Administrative duties also have put me in the pleasant position of asking Dean and Kathy Hinnen to be collaborators in the task of preparing this final bibliography. In addition, the three of us pay our official gratitude to Carmen Speck for helping amass the sources for the bibliography, keep them in order, and review the annotations for clarity; to Kristy Galbraith for her invaluable help in helping format and edit text and in creating indexes for the bibliography; and to a number of other people who have provided us support in various ways. Now that Teaching Revising and Editing is finished, I can affirm that the six bibliographies really constitute a single volume on the multifarious aspects of text production. I affirm the unity of the six volumes because the topic of each volume is intertwined with the topics of the other volumes. Editing is one part of the text production process, but the literature on editing as a professional endeavor in the world of publishing is shot through with pedagogical insights, and, indeed, it would be hard to imagine a discussion about editing without becoming engaged in questions related to what constitutes effective readable, publishable text. Such questions are central to the teaching of all kinds of writing and the answers to those questions figure prominently again in the present volume on how to teach students to revise and edit. Likewise, issues related to how text is evaluated intersect and inform each other in the six volumes, whether through professional peer review by a scholar's peers or tlirough classroom peer review by a student's peers. Grading (or evaluating or critiquing or marking) are but another dimension of evaluation (whether formative or summative) that impinges upon issues related to peer review, to editorial advice, to the viability of Standard English, to stylistic concerns, to quality indicators in writing and publishing, and to a host of other topics that cannot be divorced from one another when the process of text production—from the first thought that generates a written document to the delivery of printed documents to their intended audiences—is considered as a seamless process. Unfortunately, much of the school-based writing that students produce is seen as practice writing disconnected from the seamless process that produces published text. Thus, an introductory course in writing at the university or college level often has little concern for the process of publishing, choosing to focus on the process of writing as though it were an abstraction with no life beyond the classroom. Little wonder, then, that professors often unwittingly encourage students to view classroom writing as a mere exercise with little value beyond the numeric scores or letter grades attached to students' "final" products. This widespread, cloistered view of writing has the unfortunate effect of causing students to see writing as a chore with little or no pleasure associated with it. But writing should be a source of pleasure without denying the arduous effort that accompanies the seamless process of text production.

Introduction

XI

Perhaps, then, this final bibliography can provide insights into one aspect of the text production process, enabling students and teachers to derive pleasure in writing, revising, and editing. However, if someone seeks to find the line of demarcation between revising and editing, for instance, the present bibliography doubtless will be disappointing. This is not to say that some authors cited in the bibliography seek to make distinctions between revising and editing, and at times, in making such distinctions offer helpful insights. Rather, along with my annotating collaborators, I affirm that such distinctions often hang upon artificial boundaries, such as the difference between who it is that is marking a text—the "editor" or the "author" or the "peer." Certainly, anyone who has been engaged in publishing recognizes that a published document has various sources of ownership and to attempt to trace that ownership by specifying auctorial and editorial functions will quickly lead to a quagmire. Investigating this inherent confusion of functions with functionaries is part of the challenge of teaching students how to accept and give advice about written documents and how to find pleasure in the seemingly endless task of revision. The apparently pristine monikers, such as editor, copyeditor, author, publisher, illustrator, that attempt to untangle the functions by assigning them to one functionary, can become impediments to teaching students how to analyze text and fiddle with it. If we hold rigidly to artificial distinctions, believing that language can be tamed by any one trainer, we diminish the potential for students to find pleasure in what should be a labor of love amidst the uncertainly of text that like a morning mist hides and reveals simultaneously. Language is never really tamed, and teachers can help students enjoy (even delight) in the wildness of language by showing them that the text-production process is full of opportunities to gain interesting and useful insights about language and that the hard work of revising/editing is the way to experience and enjoy the wildness. The common wisdom among those who study the teaching of writing is that "writing is revising." Whether that truism should be amended to read "writing is a journey of shaping a text by fiddling with it until either the deadline for publishing is knocking at your door or the exhaustion-exhilaration of writing has driven you mad and left you sick without hope of ever taming the least grammatical unit" is a question that looms over this volume—and the five other volumes in the series. Bruce W. Speck


Teaching Revision in Academic Settings THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES 1. Ames, Nancy H. "Major Differences between Product and Process Approaches to Composition: Topic Choice, Revision, and the Writing Conference." 1985. ED 261 379. Ames compares the product and process approaches to writing and finds that the product approach is ineffective in promoting student writing. In promoting the process approach, she discusses students' choice of topics, the importance of revision, and the purposes of the writing conference. Concerning revision, she notes that the product approach views revision as fixing errors, because the assumption is that a good writer can produce a virtually errorless first draft. "To the process teacher, however, revision is the very essence of writing. It is through revision that the writer develops the voice and clarity that characterize good writing" (17). Ames cites researchers when she discusses types of revision (internal and external, for example) and notes that "learning how to revise is a developmental process through which all writers must proceed" (18). 2. Carroll, Jeffrey. "Disabling Fictions: Institutionalized Delimitations of Revision." Rhetoric Review 8, no 1 (1989): 62-72. Carroll reviews and rejects three approach to the pedagogy of revision (Hildick's, Perl's, and Faigley and Witte's) because they represent "the accretion of uselessly board taxonomies like Hildick's, hackneyed conclusions based on new, inclusive studies like Faigley and Witte's, or illusive searches for new terms like 'felt sense' to describe old misconceptions" (67). Indeed, Carroll objects to the privileging of literary studies to explain revision because literary studies tend to denigrate student writing. Indeed, revision does not guarantee that a text will be improved and can work against quality. Carroll notes, "We should consider revision as a dipping into the intertext—the internalized sum of texts that readers and writers draw upon—a nonquantifiable act that occurs as a natural part of our reading

2

Teaching Revision in Academic Settings

and writing" (69). Thus, "the pedagogy of revision needs less naming of parts, and more dialogue between and among the forces that stimulate, affect, and require writing" (71-72). 3. Daiute, Colette A. "Psycholinguistic Perspectives on Revising." In Revising: New Essays for Teachers of Writing, edited by Ronald A. Sudol, 10920. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English, 1982. Based on the premise that certain errors in early drafts of a person's writing can be traced to similar errors in speech, Daiute notes that the cause of those errors is a strain on short-term memory. Thus, to ask writers to produce text and at the same time revise or edit it is to place a burden on short-term memory that leads to writer frustration. Daiute recommends a strategy, sector analysis, for revising errors that can be traced to speaking. Sector analysis is composed of two evaluation procedures, telegramming and sentence uncombining. In effect, Dauite teaches students to analyze sentences so that students possess "short-hand structural maps of their ungrammatical and awkward sentences, thus enabling them to hold all the key parts of a sentence in mind at once to check for overall coherence" (117). 4. Davidson, Phebe, and Naomi Stephen. "Toward a Social Theory of Revision." 1989. ED 305 625. The authors say that re-revision of a piece of writing depends on the original vision. And the original vision, to be revised successfully, must be based on a clear understanding of genre and intertextuality. The authors define revisions as "discernible changes in the text occasioned by the continuous process of revisioning or reseeing what has been encoded (the occasion for writing), and the code of text itself (3). This definition suggests that revision can fail if what has been encoded and the code of text itself do not meet reader expectations. To demonstrate their point, the authors analyze a student essay to show that the student's writing, although revised extensively, was not based on an adequate understanding of the social context of a piece of writing and the conventions for a narrative. Thus, "Successful re-vision depends on the writer's vision of the social, conventional, and intertextual constraints and forces that shape a successful text" (6). Then the authors analyze a narrative by a professional writer to show how the writer revised the narrative based on social constraints readers expect in narrative writing. 5. Fitzgerald, Jill. "Enhancing Two Related Thought Processes: Revision in Writing and Critical Reading." The Reading Teacher 43, no. 1 (1989): 42-48. Fitzgerald argues that revision in writing and critical reading are highly related and draw on similar thought processes. She discusses the dissonance-resolution processes of revision and critical reading, and provides classroom activities that can nurture both aspects. 6. Fitzgerald, Jill. "Variant Views about Good Thinking During Composing: Focus on Revision." In Promoting Academic Competence and Literacy in School, edited by Michael Pressley, Karen R. Harris, and John T. Guthrie, 337358. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 1992. Fitzgerald presents three models


3

of composing, which she labels "a stage model, a problem-solving model, and a social interactive model" (339), and examines how instruction and practice in revision differs within the models. The stage model, she argues, focuses on texts and envisions revision as editing for correctness. The problem-solving model, she contends, focuses on the writer's mental processes and sees revision as an extension of the writer's problem-solving activity. The social-interactive model, she asserts, focuses on "the interaction of minds," i.e., the writer's mind and the minds of real and imagined readers, and thus views revision as an effort to "link readers to writers" (342). Fitzgerald concludes that the models "are not necessarily incompatible" (346) because they "target different, but important" aspects of composition and revision (353). 7. Hodges, K. "A History of Revision: Theory versus Practice." In Revising: New Essays for Teachers of Writing, edited by Ronald A. Sudol, 24-42. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English, 1982. Hodges revisits the writing revision techniques of John Milton, George Eliot, Aristotle, Francis Bacon, William Faulkner, and other historical figures to arrive at a new "classical" theory of revision (39). Included among her list of topics of revision are to change the point of view, structure, focus, tone, purpose, and audience. RESEARCH ON REVISION 8. Beach, Richard. "Self-Evaluation Strategies of Extensive Revisers and Nonrevisers." College Composition and Communication 27, no. 2 (1976): 16064. Beach compares methods of revising of two groups of preservice English teachers, one group of "extensive revisers" and a second of "nonrevisers." Students in both groups were instructed to write two short papers using "freewriting" for their initial drafts, to tape-record evaluations of those drafts and subsequent ones, and to continue writing as many drafts as necessary. Beach found that the "extensive revisers" tended to make more "substantive changes in content and form" and "detached themselves from their writing," while the nonrevisers tended to make only "minor changes in form" and "were often unwilling to criticize themselves" (164). Beach concludes that his study "suggests that in order to help students learn to self-evaluate effectively we need to provide alternative, helpful models of the revision process" (164). 9. Beach, Richard. "Showing Students how to Assess: Demonstrating Techniques for Response in the Writing Conference." In Writing and Response: Theory, Practice, and Research, edited by Chris M. Anson, pp. 127-148. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English, 1989. Substantially the same as (Beach 000 "Self-Evaluation Strategies of Extensive Revisers and Nonrevisers"). 10. Beach, Richard, and Sara Eaton. "Factors Influencing Self-Assessing and Revising by College Freshmen." In New Directions in Composition Research, edited by Richard Beach and Lillian S. Bridwell, 149-70. New York: The Guilford Press, 1984. The authors compared the ability of two groups of firstyear college students to assess their own drafts and make revision. The first group received training in the use of a self-assessment form and used the form

4


on four assignments; the second group did not receive training on use of the form and used the form only on the first and last of the four assignments. Results showed that students trained in use of the form were generally better at identifying problems with their drafts, but there was little difference in the ability to describe strategies for resolving those problems. "Often," the authors conclude, "students don't link problems and revisions" (168). Nevertheless, they conclude that "students benefit from instruction in self-assessing strategies . . . based on careful diagnosis of individual differences in the various self-assessing skills" (169). 11. Beal, Carole R. "Contributions of Developmental Psychology to Understanding Revision: Implications for Consultation with Classroom Teachers." School Psychology Review 22, no. 4 (1993): 643-655. Beal reviews studies by developmental psychologists describing elementary school children's tendency not to revise their writing and the ineffectiveness of much of the revision they do undertake. Much of this difficulty, she asserts, stems from the fact that children "have a strong tendency to overestimate the comprehensibility of written materials" including their own writing (653). Nevertheless, she reports that when children are able to identify a potential communication problem in a text, "they can revise it 75-90% of the time" (654). Moreover, she notes that studies on "the use of text review and evaluation strategies . . . have been shown to significantly increase the revision rates of typical children" (654). 12. Beal, Carole R. "The Development of Text Evaluation and Revision Skills." Child Development 61 (1990): 247-58. Beal reports on three studies that compare the abilities of fourth grade and sixth grade students to detect and correct problematic texts. In the first two studies, the children evaluated three types of texts and were asked to recommend revisions. In the third study, they were asked whether four types of revisions improved stories. In all three experiments, the older children proved more adept at identifying textual problems, but when the problems were identified by the child, the fourth graders were nearly as capable as the sixth graders at successfully revising the texts. The sixth graders, however, were more effective in solving problems pointed out by the experimenter. "The most important factor appears to be [the children's] developing ability to detect the text problems," Beal concludes (257). 13. Beal, Carole R. "Elementary School Children's Ability to Evaluate and Revise the Communicative Quality of Written Texts." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. New Orleans, LA. April 1988. ED 296 350. Beal describes a study examining the relationship between general reading skill and comprehension monitoring and revision skills among fourth and sixth grade students. Readers were classified as good, average, or poor, based on scores on the Gates-MacGinitie test. Subjects were asked to evaluate and revise stories with missing information, stories containing anomalous sentences, and informative paragraphs containing contradictory sentences. Results showed "a strong relationship between children's reading ability and their comprehension monitoring and revision performance" (13). Good and average sixth grade readers performed better than


5

good and average fourth-graders, but the performance of the sixth grade poor readers was not significantly better than that of fourth grade poor readers. Beal concludes that the improved performance of the good and average sixth-graders can be attributed to their "superior comprehension monitoring ability" (12), and suggests "methods for improving revision performance should focus on the enhancement of comprehension monitoring skills" (15). 14. Beal, Carole R. "Repairing the Message: Children's Monitoring and Revision Skills." Child Development 58 (1987): 401-408. Beal describes two studies involving elementary school children's abilities to find and revise problems in written instructions describing simple tasks. In the first study, first and third graders were given colored wooden blocks and six sets of written instructions for making small buildings. Two sets of instructions contained "conflict messages," i.e., the child was instructed to put a green block on a building when only a red block was left; two sets contained "ambiguous messages," i.e., the child was instructed to put the "next block" in place when more than one block was available; and two sets contained clear directions. The first graders were more successful revising the conflict messages than the ambiguous messages. The third graders did better than the first graders revising ambiguous messages, but were not as successful as the younger children at revising the conflict messages. In the second study, first and second graders were given directions for driving a toy car along color-coded roads on a simple map. In this study, three sets of instructions contained "conflict messages," three sets contained "ambiguous messages," and two sets contained clear instructions. The children were divided into four groups-Informed Revise, in which the children were told of their destination before hearing the directions and being asked to revise them; Informed Detect, in which students were told of their destination and were only asked to evaluate the quality of the directions; Uniformed-Detect, in which students did not know their destination and simply evaluated the messages; and Uninformed-Revise, in which the children did not initially know their destination, were asked to evaluate the quality of the directions, and then were told the destination and asked to revise the directions. Both the first and second graders were more successful at evaluating and revising conflict messages than ambiguous ones. Moreover, uninformed children detected more problems with directions than did the informed ones. 15. Beal, Carole R. "The Role of Comprehension Monitoring in Children's Revision." Educational Psychology Review 8, no. 3 (1996): 219-238. Noting that revision "draws on a critical distinction between the literal and intended meaning of text," Beal says, "to revise effectively, the writer must focus on what was actually written, rather than on what was meant" (221). In reviewing a series of studies on school children's processes in revising text, Beal determines that school-age children find it difficult to focus on literal meaning in their texts and therefore have trouble revising their texts. Although comprehension monitoring appears, in part, to emerge as children develop certain cognitive skills, children can be taught comprehension monitoring. In fact, "children's relatively low rate of revision is often not due to an inability to decide how the text should be repaired or difficulties with constructing or implementing a

6


successful change, but rather to a failure to recognize in the first place that the text needs to be revised" (234). 16. Beal, Carole R., Andrew C. Garrod, and Gary J. Bonitatibus. "Fostering Children's Revision Skills through Training in Comprehension Monitoring." Journal of Educational Psychology 82, no. 2 (1990): 275-280. The authors conducted two studies to determine whether school-age children could be taught how to detect and repair problems in story texts. The authors based their studies on the premise that children "generally overestimate the communicative quality of prepared texts and believe that they and others understand messages that adults consider incomprehensible" (275). The results from the two studies "showed that children who learned a self-questioning strategy for text evaluation and who detected problems while using the strategy did better on a subsequent revision test than did children who participated in a control activity" (278). Thus, the authors recommend that teachers should include instruction in strategies for evaluating text in teaching the revision process. 17. Beck, Isabel L., Margaret G. McKeown, Richard C. Omanson, and Martha T. Pople. "Improving the Comprehension of Stories: The Effects of Revisions That Improve Coherence." Reading Research Quarterly 19, no. 3 (1984): 263-77. The authors developed a heuristic to revise two stories that were commercially available for second- and third-grade students and tested the revisions against the commercially available stories to determine whether the two stories had improved coherence. The heuristic the authors developed is not a formula but "involved making connections within the text more apparent, filling potential knowledge gaps, and organizing and clarifying text events and states" (274). Thus, the heuristic focuses on how readers read a text. The authors tested the revised texts and found the revisions enhanced the comprehension of the stories. 18. Benton, Stephen L., John A. Glover, and Barbara S. Plake. "Employing Adjunct Aids to Facilitate Elaboration in Writing." Research in the Teaching of English 18, no. 2 (1984): 189-200. The authors define elaboration as "modifications and extensions upon the writing topic" (189), and by conducting a study sought to determine ways students might elaborate their writing. Thus, college students were divided into three groups: A control group, which received only basic instructions about writing; a higher-order/during-writing group, which received higher-order questions during the drafting process; and a lower-order/after-writing group, which received lower-order questions after the members had produced a draft. In analyzing data from the study, the authors found that "higher-order questions presented prior to and during writing result in more topic-elaborate prose" (196-97). In particular, phrases, verbs, and idea units showed significant interaction effects. 19. Benton, Stephen L., and Paul J. Blohm. "Effect of Question Type and Position on Measures of Conceptual Elaboration in Writing." Research in the Teaching of English 20, no. 1 (1986): 98-108. The authors used specific and general questions before and after students wrote to determine whether the


7

questions helped students either write more or revise more effectively. The authors found that "students who received questions subsequent to writing wrote a greater number of base-level ideas than did those who received questions prior to writing" (104), and the authors note, "Post-writing questions evidently caused writers to elaborate upon their text with deeper levels of processing, adding more details" (105). The authors also found that specific questions about a topic did not "facilitate deeper levels of processing than do general structural questions" (105). 20. Bereiter Carl, and Marlene Scardamalia. "From Conversation to Composition: The Role of Instruction in a Developmental Process." In Advances in Instructional Psychology, vol. 2, edited by Robert Glaser, 1-64. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1982. The authors explore the relationship between oral and written language, discuss various studies of school children's writing, and provide seven principles of teaching writing. Concerning the problem of an author acting as his or her own reader, Bereiter and Scardamalia note, "Learning to act as a reader of one's own text and learning to overcome the saliency of what one has already written appear to be major steps in developing a language production system that can operate flexibly with feedback from its own output" (3). The task of reading one's own text to revise it is complicated because oral discourse offers cues that prompt speakers, for instance, to enlarge upon their points. What children need to function as effective readers and revisers of their own texts are concrete ways to tap their existing knowledge and to learn techniques for using that knowledge in the writing process. The problem, then, is not "that children lack ability to evaluate, but that they do not have an internal feedback system that allows evaluation to become part of the writing process" (37). In short, children need an executive procedure, and the author suggest two executive procedures concerning revision: "means of switching attention from one subtask to another without disrupting progress and means of keeping the attentional burden under control without losing hold of essential elements" (43). 21. Berninger, Virginia, Dianne Whitaker, Yuen Feng, H. L. Swanson, and Robert D. Abbott. "Assessment of Planning, Translating, and Revising in Junior High Writers." Journal of School Psychology 34, no. 1 (1996): 23-52. The authors describe the Hayes-Flower theory of cognitive processes associated with writing, report on an experiment they conducted to measure junior-high writers' planning, translating, and reviewing/revising processes, and review the literature on remedial instruction for students with writing deficiencies. The authors' study asked junior-high students to plan, write, and revise a letter describing schools in the United States to an English-speaking student from another country. Half of the students were given guidelines for planning and revising; half were not. The study found that the student writers did not benefit from the guidance in planning or revising, and further found that skills in any one of the three areas studied-planning, translating, and revising-were not predictive or only modestly predictive of skills in the other areas. The study also revealed a gender difference, with female students scoring significantly higher in compositional quality. The authors attribute that difference to the females'

8


"compositional fluency (rate of word production)" and recommend that psychologists use gender norms in writing assessment (48). 22. Carter, Ronnie D. "By Itself Peer Group Revision Has No Power." Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Council of Teachers of English (72nd, Washington, DC, November 19-24, 1982). ED 226 350. Two instructors of 65 college-bound writing students attempt to determine empirically whether peer-group evaluation helps students improve their writing more than traditional teacher feedback. The results indicated that peer evaluation gave no extra benefit. 23. Champagne, Mireille, Marlene Scardamalia, Carl Bereiter, and Jonathan Fine. "Children's Problems with Focus and Cohesion in Revising." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston, Massachusetts, April 1980. ED 186 901. A study of 48 children each in grade levels three, six and nine concludes that students in all levels shift focus appropriately when given incongruent information to incorporate into their writing. Younger students, however, tended also to shift focus when a shift was not needed. The author suggests that the disinclination of students to undertake substantial revisions may be influenced by their inability to handle secondary problems of focus and cohesion. 24. Chaudron, Craig. "Evaluating Writing: Effects of Feedback on Revision." Revised version of a paper presented at the annual TESOL Convention, Toronto, Ontario, March 1983. ED 227 706. A study of a small group of ESL learners reveals that neither teacher nor peer feedback was superior in promoting improvement on writing revision. 25. Collier, Richard M. "The Influence of Computer-Based Text Editors on the Revision Strategies of Inexperienced Writers." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Pacific Northwest Conference on English in the Two-Year College, Calgary, Canada, October, 1981. ED 211 998. Charmed by the convenience of the newly introduced word processor, Collier devises a test to see if students will revise their writing more effectively using a processor instead of more traditional methods. At the end of the six-week study, the four participating students showed some increase in efficiency and experimentation when revising on a word processor but no commensurate increase in the quality of the revised product. 26. Cornell, Cynthia, and Robert Newton. "Collaborative Revision on a Computer." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication, St. Louis, Missouri, March 1988. ED 295 155. A study of 19 writing students reveals that using a computer image projected on a large screen to help students learn revision made no statistically significant difference in the scores on their papers. The computer screen appeared to limit effectively teaching revision beyond mechanical improvements visible on one page and to hinder the ability to make major structural changes.


9

27. Crowhurst, Marion. "Revision Strategies of Students at Three Grade Levels." 1983. ED 238 009. A study of fourteen good and fourteen average writers at grades 5, 7, and 11 revealed no difference in revision ability between expressive and persuasive compositions. The study also gave little evidence for age-related or ability-related differences in the revisions of the kinds examined. 28. DeRemer, Mary, and Robert Bracewell. "Students' Use of Semantic Structure in Revising Their Writing." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA, March 1989. ED 309 451. The authors conducted a study in which sixth-grade students wrote a book report. The reports were typed and returned to the students during a conference in which students were asked to consider revising their reports. Students' revisions were analyzed and final reports were evaluated for quality. The authors found that the students revised "the semantic structures of their writing so as to improve its quality" (12). The students' success in revising semantic structures suggests "that much of the difficulty with revising lies at more peripheral levels of the process, in identifying promising places for revision and/or in control processes that regulate search, manipulation, and evaluation procedures in revision" (12). In addition the authors note that students should be provided instruction in revision. 29. Dudenhefer, John Paul. "A Quasi-Experimental Study of Composition Revision for Developmental Students in a Technical Institute." 1975. ED 163 479. In a study to determine whether a mark-grade-revise approach to teaching composition was better than a mark-revise-grade approach, Dudenhefer used developmental writing students from a two-year college and analyzed the writing of students in a control group with the writing of students in an experimental group. After analyzing data from the study, Dudenhefer found "some evidence that the experimental techniques of revising papers after they were marked but before they were graded was superior to the traditional technique for the sample used in this study as a means of reducing errors in grammar, usage, punctuation, and spelling, but not as a means of increasing Tunit length or generating greater satisfaction with course procedures in writing and revising papers" (8). 30. Duffy, Thomas M., and Paula Kabance. "Testing a Readable Writing Approach to Text Revision." Journal of Educational Psychology 74, no. 5 (1982): 733-48. The authors conducted four experiments using Navy recruits to test the readability of texts that had been revised with particular focus on improvements in comprehension. The authors found that texts made more readable according to readability formulas and the readable writing approach did not increase comprehension. Thus, "readable writing does not result in improved comprehension, at least when no memory is required" (743). Thus, the authors hypothesize that "simplification will facilitate comprehension to the extent that deeper processing, that is, integration and organization of the text, is required" (745). This suggests that the transformer concept of creating readable texts is necessary. The transformer is a person who is conversant with editing, graphic design, educational technology, and subject-matter knowledge.

10


31. Effros, Charlotte. "An Experimental Study of the Effects of Guided Revision and Delayed Grades on Writing Proficiency of College Freshmen. Final Report." 1973. ED 079 764. A study seeks to determine whether five sections of Freshman Composition students receiving guidance in revision and delayed grades will score better in English expression and essay tests than five control group sections who are taught incidental revision and are given immediate grades. The sections were taught by the same teachers and using the same text and other materials. The results indicated that the guided writers scored significantly lower than the control group in English expression and about the same on essays. 32. Elling, Rien. "Revising Safety Instructions with Focus Groups." Journal of Business and Technical Communication 11, no. 4 (1997): 451-69. A study of focus groups members who individually apply a plus-minus evaluation method to a safety manual before meeting to discuss their combined conclusions proves effective in producing valuable information about complex acceptance and relevance problems, particularly as the most valuable input occurs after extensive discussion. 33. Englert, Carol Sue, Elfrieda H. Hiebert, and Sharon R. Stewart. "Detecting and Correcting Inconsistencies in the Monitoring of Expository Prose." Journal of Educational Research 81, no. 4 (1988): 221-27. More than 100 third- and sixth-graders of various intelligence and reading levels are tested to determine whether they can identify and suggest remedies to reader-based, text-based and test structure inconsistencies in comparison/contrast, enumeration, and sequence text structures. Better readers and older children did better on the tests, but a large portion of the children were unable to identify or resolve the inconsistencies. The authors suggest that specific instruction on how to monitor and correct such inconsistencies is essential if children are to become proficient, self-regulating readers or writers of expository prose. 34. Faigley, Lester, and Stephen Witte. "Analyzing Revision." College Composition and Communication 32 (1981): 400-14. The authors present a system for analyzing the effects of revision changes on meaning. In two studies involving groups of inexperienced writers, advanced writers and expert adult writers, the latter two groups made by far the most meaningful changes while inexperienced writers concentrated largely on superficial changes. 35. Fitzgerald, Jill. Towards Knowledge in Writing: Illustrations from Revision Studies. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1992. Fitzgerald says that epistemological viewpoints have an impact on what constitutes knowledge, where knowledge is located, and how a person gets knowledge. In composition research three epistemological viewpoints have shaped the way scholars have looked at revision—the exogenic/positivist view, the endogenic/interpretive view, and an emerging view based on a social-interactive model. Fitzgerald uses these viewpoints to discuss the literature on revision, providing a review of that literature to show what is now known about revision. Then Fitzgerald


11

compares and contrasts two studies of revision in which she was involved. The first study took an exogenic/positivist approach, but the second study, which was a collaborative study with a person who held to an endogenic/interpretive view, called into question assumptions both collaborators held, causing Fitzgerald to rethink her views about what constituted knowledge, where knowledge is located, and how a person gets knowledge. She came to believe that the two prominent epistemological views were not mutually exclusive but could be wed through the development of a metatheory of literacy. 36. Flower, Linda, L. Carey, and J. R. Hayes. "Diagnosis in Revision: The Expert's Option." 1985. ED 266 464. Using read-aloud protocols, the authors compared the diagnostic strategies of seven student writers and seven expert writers who were asked to revise a letter from one athletic coach to another on the reluctance of women to participate in athletics into a recruiting handout. The study found that student writers "made a great many diagnoses based on audience and purpose," (6) but that they "concentrated on problems at the level of a single, word, phrase or sentence-problems of narrow scope" (7). Often, when confronted with ill-defined problems they could not manage, the student writers would simply delete the problem passages. The experts, on the other hand, "appeared to manage complexity by transforming ill-defined problems into actions they could take" (33). The authors conclude that students need to be taught to '"read' their texts as gists and to 'read' for the goals behind a given piece of text" and to "learn to elaborate and decompose ill-defined problems into more familiar ones" (48). 37. Flower, Linda S., John Hayes, and Heidi Swarts. "Revising Functional Documents: The Scenario Principle." 1980. ED 192 345. The authors describe their attempt to formulate a principle to guide revision of what they call "functional documents, that is, documents, such as regulations, contracts, and policies, which people read in order to act" (2). After collecting and analyzing tape-recorded transcripts of subjects reading and paraphrasing the meaning of a federal regulation as they read, the authors concluded that most readers created "scenarios," defined as "statements in which the reader turns the meaning of a passage into a condition/action sequence or creates a dramatized scenario in which somebody does something" (12). These scenarios tend to structure information around the reader, rather than the writer or the agency the writer represents. To test the validity of their theory, the authors compared readers' responses to an old and a new document, and found that the readers found the newer documents, which included more scenarios, easier to understand. As a result, the authors conclude "The Scenario principle is one promising candidate which . . . could help us write more reader-based prose documents" (35). 38. Flower, Linda S., John Hayes, and Heidi Swarts. "Revising Functional Documents: The Scenario Principle." In New Essays in Technical and Scientific Communication: Research, Theory, Practice, edited by Paul V. Anderson, R. John Brockmann, and Carolyn R. Miller, 41-58. Farmingdale, NY: Baywood, 1983. (Identical to 38).

12


39. Flynn, Elizabeth A., George A. McCulley, and Ronald K. Gratz. "Effects of Peer Critiquing and Model Analysis on the Quality of Biology Student Laboratory Reports." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council of Teachers of English, Washington, DC, November 1982. ED 234 403. The authors used primary trait assessment to compare biology lab reports written by four groups of sophomore-level biology majors. A control group was provided an outline for lab reports but no additional guidance, one treatment group engaged in model analysis of professional writing and peer critiquing of lab reports, a second treatment group was taught model analysis, and a third treatment group engaged in peer critiquing. The reports of all three treatment groups scored higher on primary trait assessment than did the control group, with the model-analysis group scoring highest of the four. 40. Fredrick, Vicki. "A Study of Revision in the 1984 Wisconsin Writing Assessment." March 1985. ED 255 921. Fredrick presents results of a study in which 3,500 fifth-, eighth-, and eleventh-graders wrote responses to two exercises, one of which they were permitted but not required to revise. The author reports that most fifth graders made few revisions, and "appear to perceive revision as merely recopying material with few significant changes" (12). Eighth-graders, too, made few revisions, merely recopying material from their early drafts. Eleventh-graders, however, showed a "marked increase in the numbers of structural revisions made, rather than surface feature revisions" (13). Fredrick provides an overview of the results, observations and teaching suggestions, recommendations for writing curricular administration, and appendices that describe the study design and provide detailed numerical analysis of the study. 41. Fitzgerald, Jill. "Research on Revision in Writing." Review of Educational Research 57, no. 4 (1987): 481-506. Fitzgerald presents a historical perspective on revision and suggests a contemporary definition. She also reviews research methods for examining revision, synthesizes findings from the research, and discusses limitations. 42. Gentry, Larry A. "Textual Revision: A Review of the Research." 1980. ED 192 355. After reviewing research to date on revision, Gentry concludes that the case-study approach has been useful, but that such study should go beyond high school and college writers to look at younger writers and how to teach them that revision beyond minor, surface changes can and should be done at every stage of the writing process. 43. Glynn, Shawn M., Bruce K. Britton, K. Denise Muth, and Nukhet Dogan. "Writing and Revising Persuasive Documents: Cognitive Demands." Journal of Educational Psychology 74, no. 4 (1982): 557-67. The authors conducted two experiments to determine the relationship between content and structure demands when students write persuasive documents. In the first experiment, graduate students were grouped according to various controls. For instance, during the production of a preliminary draft of an argument, some graduate students were told not to be concerned about content, but just to write. Others


13

were told not to worry about the order of their ideas, and so forth. For the final draft, all students were told "to consider content production, order, sentence formation, and mechanics" (559). The authors found that the more limitations students had, the less effective they were in producing arguments. In the second experiment, undergraduate students were grouped according to average and low verbal ability and asked to write under conditions similar to the first experiment. The authors found that writers with average verbal ability were able to produce better first drafts when fewer constraints were imposed, but such was not the case with writers with low verbal ability. In both experiments, the number of persuasive arguments did not change much after the first draft. The results from these two experiments indicate that writers can allocate more cognitive capacity to text production when certain constraints are eliminated from the production process. The authors conclude that "students of writing should be discouraged from attempting to draft finished products on their first try" (566) and should be taught how to usefreewritingto "discourage premature editing" (566). 44. Hacker, Douglas J., Carolyn Plumb, Earl C. Butterfield, Daniel Quathamer, and Edgar Heineken. "Text Revision: Detection and Correction of Errors." Journal of Educational Psychology 86, no. 1 (1994): 65-78. Seeking to determine whether "knowledge of how to correct an error in either necessary or sufficient for error detection" (65), the authors conducted two experiments in which students were asked to correct spelling, grammatical, and meaning errors that had been inserted into texts. In the first experiment, the students attempted to correct the texts and then attempted to correct the same errors in "workbooklike exercises" (65). In the second experiment, students were asked to answer questions about comprehension or surface features, or asked no questions before attempting to make their corrections. Based on the data from the experiments the authors conclude "error detection appears to require something more than knowledge of how to correct" and "the ability to detect errors may depend on the number and kind of detection strategies the reviser can bring to bear on the task" (75). Moreover, they assert, "revision instruction must include strategy use . . . to better monitor and control one's knowledge and revising skill" (76). 45. Jackson, Ina, James Carifio, and Lorraine Dagostino. "The Effect of Diagnostic and Prescriptive Comments on Revising Behavior of Community College Students." 1998. ED 417 449. The authors conducted an experiment in which an experimental group of community college students and a control group were given a piece of writing. The writing sample was the same for both groups but the experimental group's sample contained errors that were identified. The experimental students were asked to correct identified errors. The control group's sample did not identify errors. None of the errors were spelling, punctuation, or grammar problems. Rather, the errors were problems in development, coherence, and organization. The authors analyzed the ways the students in both groups corrected errors and found that both groups improved the text equally well. Thus, the authors say that both groups improved their revising skills either with or without instruction in revising. Nevertheless,

14


"diagnostic and prescriptive comments can be and are very helpful" (18) in promoting revision. 46. Joram, Elana, Earl Woodruff, Peter Lindsay, and Mary Bryson. "Students' Editing Skills and Attitudes toward Word Processing." Computers and Composition 1, no. 3 (1990): 55-72. In a study of eighth-grade students, the authors found that the reason students did not use computers for making "meaning-changing revision is that students do not have the text-editing skills necessary to make such changes" (62). Thus, the students begin the composing process by using pen and paper to compose and then transfer their writing to the word processor. Likewise, the authors surveyed graduate students and found that, although the graduate students had more facility with text-editing commands, they too wrote out an initial draft and then transferred it to paper. The graduate students revised using pen and paper and transferred their revisions to the computers. In surveying professional writers, the authors found that the professional writers both composed initial drafts on the computers and revised on the computers. 47. McCutcheon, Deborah, Mardean Francis, and Shannon Kerr. "Revising for Meaning: Effects of Knowledge and Strategy." Journal of Educational Psychology 89, no. 4 (1997): 667-76. Two studies of middle-school and college students indicate that knowledge of topic assisted with meaning-level revision but was not necessary for surface-level editing. Knowledge of error location helped college students with both editing and revising, the authors found. But the same knowledge appeared to limit the focus of middle-school writers to editing, thereby impeding meaning-based revision. 48. National Assessment of Educational Progress. Write/Rewrite: An Assessment of Revision Skills. Writing Report No. 05-W-04. Denver, CO: NAEP, 1977. Based on detailed analyses of two writing assignments each, this report focuses on how students ages 9, 13, and 17 revise their own writing. The study found that 60% of 9-year-olds, 78% of 13-year-old, and 68% of 17-yearolds attempted some revision, but that these revisions "seldom address the problems of organization and transition" in essays (27). The study also found that females outperformed males, whites outperformed blacks, and children from well-educated families outperformed those whose parents had little formal education. Regional differences were few, but differences by community type were large, particularly for 13-year-olds. 49. Pavlisin, Peggy Irene. "Teaching Revision: An Experiment." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication, Detroit, MI, March 1983. ED 236 679. Pavlisin reports on a study indicating that detailed instruction in revision and proofreading techniques is not effective for average or below average community college writing students. The findings suggest students need more time to learn the revision process and that grades are not a motivating factor for revision.


15

50. Piolat, Annie, and Jean-Yves Roussey. "Narrative and Descriptive Text Revising Strategies and Procedures." European Journal of Psychology of Education 6, no. 2 (1991): 155-63. The authors report on a study that seeks to determine how a group of adult and a group of pre-teen writers use strategies to revise their writings. The authors determined that adults use simultaneouswriting strategies for narrative writing and local and then global strategies for descriptive writing. The children used local and then global strategies for the narrative writing but show no identifiable procedure for descriptive writing. 51. Prior, Paul. "Tracing Authoritative and Internally Persuasive Discourses: A Case Study of Response, Revision, and Disciplinary Enculturation." Research in the Teaching of English 29, no. 3 (1995): 288-325. (See Prior 000). Using Bakhtin's concepts of authoritative and internally persuasive discourse, Prior examines the response and revision practices of a sociology professor and a fifth-year graduate student in sociology writing her first conference paper. After gathering data through observation and videotaping of a seminar in which the paper was discussed, drafts and final texts (including the professor's responses), and semi-structured and text-based interviews with the student and professor, Prior examines "the extent to what is authoritative ([the professor's] words) converges with what is internally persuasive to [the student]" (298). Although the student almost always follows the editing/revising recommendations of the professor, she also uses those recommendations in other ways and, when later offered her own earlier language as alternatives to the professor-inspired revisions, sometimes chooses to revert to her original text rather than the professor's. Similarly, when offered those same alternatives, the professor occasionally rejects her own suggestions, indicating the student's text "seems to have influenced [the professor]" (319). Prior concludes that the study "suggests the newcomers to disciplines . . . may exert a steady force on disciplines as their ideologies are accommodated as well as altered. In Bakhtin's terms, I am suggesting that what is internally persuasive to a student, and particularly to a cohort of students, may accrue authority" (320). 52. Sommers, Nancy. "Revision Strategies of Student Writers and Experienced Adult Writers." College Composition and Communication 31, no. 4 (1980): 378-88. In a study of twentyfreshmenwriters and twenty experienced writers, Sommers finds that the students revise on a limited basis and tend to "see their writing altogether passively through the eyes of former teachers or their surrogates, the textbooks, and are bound to the rules which they have been taught" (383). The experienced writers, however, describe their primary objective when revising as finding the form or shape of their argument, as part of the process of discovering meaning. Sommers believes students need to seek the dissonance of discovery. 53. Van Haalen, Teresa, and George W. Bright. "Writing and Revising by Bilingual Students in Traditional and Word Processing Environments." Journal of Educational Computing Research 9, no. 3 (1993): 313-328. The authors studied the writing and revising practices of two groups of fifth graders. One group was bilingual and the other was monolingual. Both groups revised

16


writing they did with paper and pencil and with computers. In analyzing the revisions the students made, the authors found that students "using paper and pencil made significantly more revisions than those using word processors at all levels" (324-25). Indeed, "writers did not use the word processor to experiment with text manipulation, but rather to correct text at lower linguistic levels, such as spelling and punctuation" (325). In addition, female students made significantly more revisions than did male students. The authors note that students, to be effective writers and revisers using word processors, need to be taught keyboarding skills hierarchically, just as handwriting skills are taught. 54. Witte, Stephen P. "Topical Structure and Revision: An Exploratory Study." College Composition and Communication 34 (1983): 313-39. Witte uses topical structures as defined by the Prague School of linguistics to analyze the revising processes of 80 college writers of various abilities. The student writers were asked to revise a two-paragraph passage discussing language development in infants for a "college-educated" audience. Witte provides examples of low-scoring and high-scoring revisions and analyzes their topical structure. His analysis suggests that "a successful reviser must understand the topical structures and macrostructure of the text being revised," whether the reviser's own text or the text of another writer (331). Low-scoring revisers, he notes, seemed to have difficulty determining the topical structure of the original text and thus could not "create a suitable topic structure for their revisions" (333). Witte concludes that "topical structure analysis seems a particularly good way of examining the close relationship between the reading and writing skills necessary for effective revision" (334) and that using topical analysis to compare original and revised texts "should help us to understand why writers make the revisions they do" (335). 55. Wolf, Dennis P. "Flexible Texts: Computer Editing in the Study of Writing." In Children and Computers, edited by Elisa L. Klein, 37-53. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1985. A study of the writing revision processes of two groups of children, one ages 11 and 12 and the other ages 13 through 15, reveals that older writers had far less difficulty with the amount of writing they treated as unified text, in the range of connections they sought to repair, and in the types and the locations where they could insert their texts. Wolf concludes that the older, more experienced writers edit their texts considering the overall effect of their document while younger ones consider only surface level implications. CLASSROOM ISSUES College Composition and Graduate Classes 56. Ashbaugh, Gwendolyn. "Stalking Elephants in Academia: A Vision of Revision." In Writing Teachers: What We Say About What We Do, edited by Scott McNabb, pp. 144-157. Rochester, MI: Michigan Council of Teachers of English, 1983. ED 230 952. Ashbaugh mixes autobiography, an extended example of student writing and revision, and advice on revision to teachers,


17

students, and the academy in arguing for the importance of revision in a sophomore composition class. 57. Bamberg, Betty. "Putting Correctness in Its Place." Study prepared at the University of Southern California, 1977. ED 162 340. Bamberg argues that correctness is an important element of composition instruction, but that usually it "should be postponed until the final stages of composing-revision and proofreading." She notes that some errors can interfere with both the readerwriter relationship and composing itself. Bamberg recommends teachers focus student attention on one or two errors at a time, rather than expecting students to understand and correct numerous types of errors simultaneously. 58. Beach, Richard. "Demonstrating Techniques for Assessing Writing in the Writing Conference." College Composition and Communication 37, no. 1 (1986): 56-65. Beach outlines a method he uses in teacher-student conferences to help students learn how to revise their writing. Students prepare for the teacher-student conference by completing a guided assessing form that addresses the stages in the assessing process: describing, judging and selecting revisions. During the conference, Beach acts as a "dumb reader" so that he is not suggesting actual revisions, but helping students see how they might revise their papers. He notes that students often have difficulty with identifying audience and need to recognize that revisions must be justified. 59. Berkenkotter, Carol. "Student Writers and Their Audiences: Case Studies of the Revising Decisions of Three College Freshmen." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Council of Teachers of English, Montreal, Canada, May 1983. ED 236 618. In studying responses three students made to peer comments on their own writing, Berkenkotter notes that the writers responded "to their readers in significantly different ways depending on the writer's personality, level of maturity, and ability to handle writing problems" (4). For instance, one of the writers virtually rejected all of his peers' suggestions; another revised according to his own "sense of internal necessity" (10); another tried to address peers' concerns, even when those concerns were misdirected. Berkenkotter suggests that questions about the relationship of a writer's authority to readers' advice about revision need to be answered before "we can begin to assess which kinds of writer/reader relationships best serve the writer, and how teachers may translate this information into an effective classroom pedagogy" (13). 60. Berkenkotter, Carol. "Student Writers and Their Sense of Authority over Texts." College Composition and Communication 35, no. 3 (1984): 312-319. Substantially the same as (59 Berkenkotter "Student Writers and Their Audiences"). 61. Bernthal, Craig A., and Jay B. Ludwig. "Teaching Composition: A Handbook for Graduate Assistants." 1986. ED 293 121. The authors provide basic information for graduate assistants preparing to teach writing courses at Michigan State University, with separate sections on peer editing, revision, and

18


commenting on student writing. The section on peer editing includes a handout that provides detailed instructions for students to use in evaluating their classmates' papers. 62. Canuteson, John. "Conferences as Evaluative Devices in Freshman Composition." Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication, Kansas City, Missouri, Marcy 1977. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 143 027. Canuteson outlines a conference method of teaching writing that requires students to write in class daily and to meet with the instructor weekly to discuss individual writing strengths and weaknesses. The method, the author believes, reduces the need to waste time teaching the entire class about problems only a few suffer, personalizes student feedback, eliminates the need for instructors to spend hours marking papers with notations that students may not understand, and holds down attrition. 63. Carter, Ronnie D. "A Survey of Revision Practices in Today's Advanced Composition Course." Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication, 1983. ED 229 794. A questionnaire to nearly 600 public and private colleges reveals that many instructors of writing see revision and editing as different processes; that revision is an on-going process and should be taught at all stages of the process; that instructors generally emphasize the process of writing rather than the end product; and that the "grand variety in Advanced Composition today should be looked upon as a sign of vital health," acknowledging that there are many ways to teach composition depending on the student's needs. 64. Chimombo, Moira. "Evaluating Compositions with Large Classes." ELT Journal 40, no. 1 (1986): 20-26. Chimombo describes alternative methods for teaching large writing classes. Instead of marking every error on every student's papers, a practice she believes that most students ignore. To focus on writing as a process rather than a product, Chimombo has small groups revise a problem sentence, paragraph or composition written by one of them aloud in class and then has them apply what they have learned to their own writings. She also provides strategies that help the students handle the most complicated revision tasks. 65. Christiansen, M. "The Importance of Revision in Writing Composition." Education Digest 56 (October 1990): 70-72. Christiansen offers ways to help students evaluate and critique their own writing. Steps include underlining thesis sentences; in-class writing so teachers can help in the process; a list of questions to guide students as they edit, peer evaluation and editing, and requiring students to read their papers aloud so that they can discern ideas needing strengthening. 66. Coe, Richard M. "Individualized Revision Heuristics and Other Techniques for Teaching Revision." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication, Dallas, Texas, March 1981. ED 209 662. Student writers are usually confident in deleting or


19

substituting elements in their writing but are considerably less likely to deal with equally important components of revision - adding and reordering their composition, author Coe says. To help motivate and show students how to revise more, he suggests showing them examples of how well known writers revise texts. To help them understand exactly what their writing says, rather than what they intended it to say, Coe has students write a brief summary statement that they then subject to questions about whether it is true and complete, questions that often lead to additions and rearrangements. After a paper is written, Coe has students outline the paper's structure to better understand whether each section gives logical support to the whole. A cover sheet describes the paper's rhetorical context helps students determine whether it satisfies the intended purpose, audience and occasion. 67. Copeland, Ann. "The Language Game: The Pleasures of Revision." English Journal 69, no. 7 (1980): 79-81. Copeland describes her experience as a writer-in-residence during a six-week summer fiction-writing course for twenty students. The combination of classes, note cards on which she made brief evaluations of the students' progress, and individual conferences gave students valuable feedback that was supplemented by her sharing her own writing experiences. 68. Denn, Robert J. "The Delphi Technique: Revising as Problem Solving." In Revising: New Essays for Teachers of Writing, edited by Ronald A. Sudol, 140-43. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English, 1982. The Delphi technique was developed to eliminate business meetings. Thus, those who would have attended a meeting are asked to write a response to a particular problem. Their responses are collected, copied, and given to each member of the group, who then reads the responses and rewrites his or her response based on others' responses. Denn uses the Delphi technique in the composition classroom by asking students in class to write comments on a peer's first draft, and then write comments on another's first draft, and so on, until each student has about four or five responses to his or her first draft. Each student then takes the annotated draft home and revises it based on the comments he or she received. 69. Engel, Mary F., and Thomas M. Sawyer. "Contractual Revision." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication, Detroit, MI, March 1983. ED 234 415. The authors outline a teaching method that synthesizes two approaches: teacher-initiated guidelines and peer/tutor criticism, because it is structured so that the revision process is student initiated. As the teacher and tutor cooperate, students can increase their own control over the revision process and their communication of their strengths and weaknesses while writing to the teacher and tutor. 70. Fiske, Donald W. "Strategies for Planning and Revising Research Reports." In Writing and Publishing for Academic Authors, edited by Joseph M. Moxley, pp. 221-234. Fiske presents suggestions for writing a publishable, researched-based essay, including how to determine what material is

20


publishable, how to find the right editor and to deal with that editor, and how to cope with criticism. 71. Flanigan, Michael, and Diane Menendez. "Perception and Change: Teaching Revision." College English 42, no. 3 (1980): 256-266. Convinced that students learn how to evaluate and revise their writing for themselves only after they learn the complexities of the revision process through peer-, teacherand self-evaluation at all stages of a text's development. Menendez offers guide to help steer students through each stage of the process. 72. Flower, Linda, John R. Hayes, Linda Carey, Karen Shriver, and James Stratman. "Detection, Diagnosis, and the Strategies of Revision." College Composition and Communication 37, no. 1 (1986): 16-55. The authors present a theoretical view of revision based on the practices of expert writers and dependent upon the key variables of "knowledge" and "intention" (19). They then set forth a model of revision consisting of task definition, evaluation, problem representation, and strategy selection and use that model to examine three hurdles that inexperienced writers face when attempting to revise: "detecting problems in the text, diagnosing those problems, and selecting a strategy" (21). An inexperienced writer will often have difficulty detecting problems, the authors assert, because of difficulty "representing both the text and one's intentions to one's self (27). The ability to detect and to diagnose problems gives revisers more problem-solving strategies, the authors assert. The authors then examine competing strategies that they label "detect/rewrite" (43) and "diagnose/revise" (47) and conclude that researchers should view revision "as a distributed process of detection, diagnosis, and strategic action" (53). 73. Fulkerson, Richard. "Rhetorically-Oriented Revision: The Transformation of Prose." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication, Washington, DC, March 1980. ED 185 565. Fulkerson laments the inability or unwillingness of students to revise papers and the tendency of teachers and textbooks to focus on revision at the sentence and paragraph levels. He argues that writing teachers should stress to students that "revision is done, above all, for a reader's benefit" (3) and that revision should be seen as a "transformation, both in its ordinary public sense of turning one thing into another and its linguistic sense" (7). To encourage such revision, Fulkerson suggests teachers compel revision, using such strategies as setting phony due dates and then requiring revision of what students thought was a final draft, establishing peer-editing groups to provide reader response, and requiring revision based on specific instructor comments on elements such as structure, tone, and evidence in an early draft. 74. Fulwiler, Toby. "A Lesson in Revision." In The Subject Is Writing: Essays by Teachers and Students, edited by Wendy Bishop, 132-49. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Heinemann, 1993. Using several examples of student writing, Fulwiler describes the first seven weeks of a composition class during which students write five versions of a personal experience essay. Most of the versions require almost total rewriting of the previous draft(s), and, in


21

addition to sharing excerpts from various successful essays, Fulwiler shares journal entries from students, including some that are initially critical of his methods. He also offers nine suggestions for successful writing and revising "for virtually any substantial writing task" (144). 75. Faigley, Lester, and Stephen P. Witte. "Measuring the Effects of Revisions on Text Structure." In New Directions in Composition Research, edited by Richard Beach and Lillian S. Bridwell, 95-108. New York: The Guilford Press, 1984. Faigley and Witte present a taxonomy of revision whose primary distinction is "between those revisions which affect the meaning of a text and those which do not affect meaning" (97). After defining and describing various features of editing and revising under each of those two key categories, the authors present a coding system by which categories and subcategories of changes can be recorded on texts. They then drafts of a student essay in which they demonstrate their methodology and describe the student's revision techniques. 76. Gaitens, Judi. "Lessons from the Field: Socialization Issues in Writing and Editing Internships." Business Communication Quarterly 63, no. 1 (2000): 64-76. In working with college students to provide them with writing and editing internships, Gaitens found that the students were unprepared for the isolation and independence interns experienced, especially during the initial phase of an internship. Often students were given a project and left to complete it. Students may not have felt confident enough to ask questions about the project, either because they felt questions might show that they did not posses the knowledge they were expected to possess or because they felt uneasy about approaching authority figures. Gaitens dealt with some of these problems by having students read about socialization issues in the workplace. However, she notes the need for "increasing the role of mentors, raising students' awareness of the issues and problems in socialization, and finally, encouraging the students to take an active role in their own adaptation to the workplace" (70). 77. Gardner, Phillip. "Introductory Paragraphs and Revision." Teaching English in the Two-Year College 18, no. 1 (1991): 55-58. The author urges teachers to help students reach what they really think about a topic, their "truth," as a means of writing more meaningful introductory paragraphs and essays. Gardner also advocates peer-group discussions to prod writers into expressing truths about their lives to invite introspection, debate, and sometimes revelation. 78. Glassner, Benjamin M. "Discovering Audience/Inventing Purpose: A Case Study of Revision in a Cooperative Writing Workshop." Missouri English Bulletin 41, no. 6 (1983): 32-35. The author describes a cooperative writing workshop for first-term college freshmen designed to give back writers' authority by having students write on topics they know, with the class as an audience. The article also presents a case study of one student's progress and how group discussion of the paper contributed to the process.

22


79. Glassner, Benjamin M. "Discovering Audience/Inventing Purpose: A Case Study of Revision in a Cooperative Writing Workshop." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication, Detroit, March 1983. ED 227 513. See (78 Glassner). 80. Goswami, Dixie, Janice C. Redish, Daniel B. Felker, and Alan Siegel. Writing in the Professions: A Course Guide and Instructional Materials for an Advanced Composition Course. Washington: American Institutes for Research, 1981. ED 220 860. The authors present a manual for teachers that uses a cyclical pattern through the same process at three different levels: through the composing model; applying the model to documents that they rewrite; and gathering and evaluating information before creating a final draft. Included are a suggested syllabus and writing exercises 81. Gorrell, Donna. "Central Question for Prewriting Teaching English in the Two-Year College 23, no. 1 (1996): espouses having students determine the central question that answer while writing a thesis as a crucial step to help them actual thesis statement will be.

and Revising." 34-38. Gorrell they propose to decide what the

82. Gibson, Walker. "The Writing Teacher as Dumb Reader." College Composition and Communication 30, no. 4, 192-95. The author describes his strategy of role-playing as a "dumb" reader to help students identify and correct the lack of or misleading clues in their writing, including punctuation, imprecise terms and problems in voice and tone. 83. Gebhardt, Richard C. "Writing Processes, Revision, and Rhetorical Problems: A Note on Three Recent Articles." College Composition and Communication 34, no. 3 (1983): 294-96. Gebhardt points to articles by Flower and Hayes, Berkenkotter, and Witte and Faigley as evidence that compartmentalization of attention to rhetorical concerns and attention to writing processes is coming to an end, and indicates that "such recognition is part of a wide-ranging movement toward a theory of the writing process broad enough to unify the linear and non-linear approaches that conflict within the field" (296). 84. Hansen, Barbara. "Rewriting Is a Waste of Time." College English 39, no. 8 (1978): 956-60. A study of college composition students finds that revising and rewriting papers is of no significant value, but that making a correction sheet is as valuable as doing a complete revision. Even more effective, Hansen says, is teaching students revision techniques. 85. Harris, Muriel. "Composing Behaviors of One- and Multi-Draft Writers." College English 51, no. 2 (1989): 174-91. In studying the habits eight expert writers, four who are one-draft writers and four who are multi-draft writers, Harris found that each type of writer exhibited certain characteristics. The onedraft writers, for instance, extensively compose in their heads before writing anything down. They wait until the last minute before writing and consequently do not have time to revise. They do not enjoy writing, in part, because it offers


23

them no surprises about their thoughts. Multi-draft writers, on the other hand, agonize over possibilities so that they use writing to sort through the possible ways they can approach a topic. Multi-draft writers are willing to reconsider their writing and do not think that it is every completed finished. Harris outlines ways that writing teachers can help both one- and multi-draft writers. 86. Hink, Kaye E. "Let's Stop Worrying about Revision." Language Arts 62, no. 3 (1985): 249-54. After keeping an observational journal for a year, Hink begins to realize that students do far more revision than many teachers are aware of. Through teacher conferences, discussing their ideas and writings with other children, revisiting stories they wrote in past years, and even hashing out ideas in their journals, the students arrive at what they want to say. Hink concludes that she will stop worrying about revision and instead give students daily writing time for self-selected topics and allow them to interact with other students. "The more students are allowed to write on topics they have chosen, the more they will become involved and try to get their writing to say what they want it to say." (254) 87. Horning, Alice S. "Reflection and Revision: Intimacy in College Writing." Composition Chronicle: Newsletter for Writing Teachers 9, no. 9 (1997): 4-7. ED 403 564. Horning argues that students and teachers alike can benefit from the frequent use of reflective writing in composition courses, particularly those using portfolios. Among the benefits of having students engage in reflective writing throughout their composition courses, she asserts, is that the students can use their earlier reflective writing to help them devise revision strategies for later assignments. 88. Huff, Roland K. "Teaching Revision: A Model of the Drafting Process." College English 45, no. 8 (1983): 800-16. Huff presents a revision model that includes the stages of zero-drafting, for the discovery and initial realization of the topic; problem-solving drafting, for the identification and resolution of major conceptual and organizational problems; and a final drafting, in which writers attempt to arrive at the best solution of a rhetorical problem. The design of the model is not to suggest a three stage writing process, Huff says, but to raise awareness of drafting strategy at points in the drafting of a text, particularly during the final drafting process, when students are likely to wish to merely polish or make surface changes instead of re-envisioning the text when it is necessary. 89. Jacobs, Suzanne E., and Adela B. Karliner. "Helping Writers to Think: The Effect of Speech Roles in Individual Conferences on the Quality of Thought in Student Writing." College English 38, no. 5 (1977): 489-505. The authors present data from two student-teacher conferences with two different teachers. After one of the conferences the student revised the conference paper successfully and after the other the student did not revise the conference paper successfully. The authors attribute the level of success in revising to the ways the teachers conducted the conference. The teacher whose student successfully revised the paper helped the student assume authority for the paper, something

24


the other teacher did not do. The authors recommend three lessons for teacherstudent conferences, noting that the teacher's stance during a conference should "be variable, depending on what the student and his paper need, anywhere from friendly authoritarian to fellow conversant to recorder... teachers should develop a sensitivity to the times when it is necessary to stop everything and just talk with the student about what he is saying and what he might say" (505). 90. Keith, Philip M. "TCDIDC, A Revising Heuristic; or On beyond the Toadstool." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication, Kansas City, Missouri, March 1977. ED 147 818. The TCDIDC model provides a way to analyze writing using grammatical categories so that a piece of writing can be revised. TCDIDC stands for Time (verb tenses), Commitment (predicate modes), Directness (active and passive voice and being-verbs), Identification (nouns), Description (adjectives), and Connection (transitions and subordination). Keith provides numerous examples of how to apply TCDIDC, including a piece of technical writing, so that the writing can be revised effectively. Keith notes, "Systematic analysis in the TCDIDC manner can turn sentences into more effective sentences, paragraphs into more effective paragraphs, papers into more effective papers" because students "become more aware of the importance of syntactical relations, of grammar functionally conceived, in the writing process" (19). 91. Knoblauch, C, H., and Lil Brannon. "Responding to Texts: Facilitating Revision in the Writing Workshop." In Rhetorical Traditions and the Teaching of Writing, 118-50. Upper Montclair, NJ: Boynton/Cook, 1984. The authors begin by noting that teachers commonly impose an Ideal Text on students' texts. Thus, teachers do not read student texts the way they read other texts. Teachers not only impose the Ideal Text on students but also in so doing they do not allow students to own their texts. The authors suggest that teachers use facilitative response "to create motivation for immediate and substantive revision by describing a careful reader's uncertainties about what a writer intends to say" (126). The authors provide examples of facilitative responses and note that such responses promotes revision, which they define as "deeper intellectual penetration of a subject through additional composing, even to the point of repudiating earlier formulations altogether because subtler or more powerful insights have inspired new organizing principles and lines of reasoning" (131). The authors also discuss the use of student response in helping students revise their writing, noting that although students may not have a grasp of technical issues related to writing, they can provide a legitimate audience response to their peers' writing. Indeed, even teachers may not agree on how to read or grade a particular piece of writing, so conformity to an Ideal Text is not the goal in revision. Rather, the goal is to enable student writers to express their intentions so that audiences can understand what those intentions are. 92. Lai, Phooi Ching. "The Revision Processes of First-Year Students at the National University of Singapore." RELC JournalXl, no. 1 (1986): 71-84. Lai conducted a study of students' revision practices and found that the students conceived revision as proofreading in most cases. Indeed, 80% of the revisions


25

Lai categorized feel under the category of surface changes, generally either substituting or adding a word. To help students revise effectively, teachers should "shift their emphasis from correctness in language to the content of the message and from grammar to appropriateness and comprehension" (83), provide students with time in class to revise, and teach students how to revise using "concrete models showing, for example, how clarification can aid comprehension" (83). 93. Larson, Laura. "Making Writing Real: 'Rewrite Days' and Other Empowerments." College Teaching 43, no. 4 (1995): 132-33. Larson grades students' writing by marking mechanical errors and making comments about content. Then students have the opportunity to revise their writing for a higher grade. Students can revise to correct errors or they can revise to correct errors and content. In addition, Larson using tutoring sessions, peer workshops, and rewrite days in which students take class time to revise their writing while Larson moves among the students to provide assistance. She explains the benefits of these various methods, noting that they help students have positive regard for revision. 94. Lovejoy, Kim Brian. "The Gricean Model: A Revising Rubric." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication, Minneapolis, MN, March 1985. ED 263 595. H. P. Grice's theory of conversation is based on a model consisting of the Cooperative Principle (CP) and four maxims (Quality, Quantity, Relation, and Manner). The CP asserts that conversation requires cooperation by those talking with each other, and Lovejoy asserts that the CP applies to writing. In fact, Lovejoy created a rubric based on Grice's model and used the rubric to help students revise their writing. One of the great value of Grice's model is that it helps students conceptualize their audience. "An understanding of the CP, then, focuses the students' attention on the particular needs of the reader" (7), Lovejoy notes. Thus, the model helps students "move beyond surface changes to an examination of the content in their papers, leading to more substantive changes" (9). As Lovejoy says, "The value of the Gricean model is not that it asks new questions relating to revision; its value is that it makes the standard questions clearer, more comprehensible, and more forceful by providing the student with an organizational scheme that does not sacrifice its heuristic power for simplicity" (10). 95. Lyons, Bill. "The PQP Method of Responding to Writing." English Journal 70, no. 3 (1981): 42-43. "Having writers ask questions about their own paper," Lyons affirms, "promotes commitment to the revising and proofreading process" (42). Lyons proposes three types of questions: Praise (P), Question (Q), and Polish (P). Thus, students are given questions to ask about their writing and their peers' writing: What do you like about my writing, have questions about, and think I need to polish? 96. MacNealy, Mary Sue, Bruce W. Speck and Barbara Simpson. "Fiddling Around with Text: Implications for Composition from a Study of a 'Non-

26


Reviser.'" Issues in Writing, vol. 8, No. 1, Fall/Winter (1996): 27-53. The authors studied the writing habits of an experienced academic administrator, Dr. S., who said that she did not revise any of her writing. Their study of Dr. S. confirmed that she wrote on demand and revised very little ("fiddled around" with her texts) if at all. Dr. S.'s composing process was governed by cognitive style, genre knowledge, work experience, work environment (especially her use of e-mail), and time constraints. Dr. S.'s attitude about revision typified both the freshman's concept of writing a paper the night before it is due and the professional's concept of writing against tight time constraints. Based on the fact that Dr. S. did not follow the typical writing process described in modern composition theory, the authors suggest that teachers of freshman writing "should be teachers of rhetoric—modern workplace rhetoric as well as classical or literary rhetoric" (48). The teaching of rhetoric would include assignments that required little if any revision and assignments in genres that will help students be more effective writers after their collegiate experience. 97. Martycz, Virginia Kennedy. "Revision: Step by Step." In Strategies in Composition: Ideas That Work in the Classroom, edited by Marsha S. Bordner, vol. 2, no. 28 (1989): 28. ED 306 587. Martycz describes how she teaches the elements of the writing process (invention; purpose and thesis; paragraphing and organization; sentence structure; word choice and tone) by requiring students to revise an essay five times, each time concentrating on one particular element. Martycz says that the quality of later assignments is much higher because students view revising as a holistic process that goes beyond a few word changes to demand refinement of ideas. 98. Miller, Edmund. "'But It's Just My Opinion': Understanding Conflict with Students about the Expression of Opinion." In Revising: New Essays for Teachers of Writing, edited by Ronald A. Sudol, 149-55. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English, 1982. Because college freshmen so often misinterpret a teacher's comments on their writing as a judgment on their ideas, Miller suggests that highly controversial topics-which so often create an emotional block-should be avoided. No matter what the assignment, teachers can best avoid the appearance of value judgments by asking students for explicit statements of the limitations students are putting on a discussion, by asking students to state the assumptions implicit in what they are writing, and by asking for facts to back up their statements, Miller says. 99. Murray, Donald M. "How I Write an Article-I Think." In Learning by Teaching: Selected Articles on Writing and Teaching, 96-102. Montclair, NJ: Boynton/Cook, 1982. Murray presents the rough draft-complete with numerous hand-revisions-to show his students how his thoughts evolve through the revising process. 100. Murray, Donald M. Learning by Teaching: Selected Articles on Writing and Teaching. Upper Montclair, NJ: Boynton/Cook, 1982. See "The Maker's Eye: Revising Your Own Manuscript" (487), "Internal Revision: A Process of Discovery" (465), "Making Meaning Clear: The Logic of Revision" (101),


27

"How I Write an Article-I Think" (99), and "Teaching the Motivating Force of Revision" (102). "Rewriting isn't virtuous," says Murray in "The Maker's Eye," It is simply something that most writers find they have to do to discover what they have to say and how to say it." (69) He then discusses how to analyze the first draft of an article for information, meaning, audience awareness, form, structure and development and dimension. In "Making Meaning clear," Murray urges writing teachers not to accept the first draft of a student's article; the student likely has not yet determined what he or she means to say. Instead, he urges teachers to model writing on a blackboard for students, allowing them to see how good revising builds on strengths in the article and forces the elimination of irrelevant material. Then the teacher should show students how to review for focus, form and voice. Such an example is Murray's "How I Write an Article-I Think." Here he presents the rough draft of the article and the numerous hand-revisions before it was ready for publication. 101. Murray, Donald M. "Making Meaning Clear: The Logic of Revision." Journal of Basic Writing 3, no. 3 (1981): 33-41. "Revision is not just clarifying meaning," Murray says, "it is discovering meaning and clarifying it while it is being discovered" (33). One implication of this understanding of revision is that teachers (and editors) should not mark first drafts as though they were finished copy. First drafts are early stabs at making meaning. However, drafts at various stages in the writing process should be evaluated, so Murray provides principles that underlie a checklist he uses to evaluate drafts. Then, to make sure that "the many things that are said in a piece of writing all add up to a single meaning" (36), he provides questions writers and teachers can ask about the focus, form, and voice of a piece of writing as the writing moves through various drafts. Writing, then, is "working back and forth between focus, form, and voice until the meaning is discovered and made clear" (40). 102. Murray, Donald M. "Teach the Motivating Force of Revision." English Journal 67, no. 7 (1978): 56-60. Instead of teaching rewriting as punishment, the price to pay if it isn't right the first time, teachers ought to be using revision as the opportunity to enable students to experience the adventure of rewriting of learning what they have to say, Murray says. He discusses internal revision, in which writers are trying to find out what they have to say, and external revision, when writers are then revising their work to be understood by another audience. He also offers several vignettes on how to help students discover their thoughts while writing. 103. Naugle, Helen Harrold. "Revision." Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication, Washington, DC, March 13-15, 1980. ED 184 143. Naugle describes an experiment in which college students learned the value of revision when they wrote opening paragraphs for an essay and exchanged them with other students for feedback and one-sentence restatements of the paragraphs' intent. When the readers' comments did not match the author's intent, the paragraph was revised. The exercise shows the importance of considering audience when writing, and

28


the value of revision in effectively communicating with that audience, Naugle explains. 104. Nold, Ellen W. "Revising: Toward a Theory." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication, Minneapolis, MN, April 1979. ED 172 212. The author argues that research on communicative sophistication based on students' writing behaviors must take into account three variables: the subjective difficulty of the task; the students' facility in generating alternate workings; and the students' preferred strategies for revision. She denounces notions that revision is a one-time process at the end of writing and that difficulty of the task does not affect revising strategies. 105. Onore, Cynthia S. "The Transaction between Teachers' Comments and Students'Revisions: Catalysts and Obstacles." 1984. ED 258 174. A detailed review of three college student writers as they created and revised essays revealed that two students made few significant changes and the third's fascination with new ideas interfered with her correcting problems in her work. The author concludes that commenting practices and evaluation methods need to be formed to recognize the cyclical nature and growth in writing skills. 106. Peck, Wayne C. "The Effects of Prompts upon Revision: A Glimpse of the Gap between Planning and Performance." Technical Report No. 26, Center for the Study of Writing. University of California, Berkeley, and Carnegie Mellon University, 1989. This study takes an unusually comprehensive look at the thinking processes of college freshmen from several perspectives as they struggle to formulate their thoughts during revision of reading-to-write assignments. The study reveals a variety of student approaches and images of the assigned task. 107. Peitzman, Faye. "The Composing Processes of Three College Freshmen: Focus on Revision." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication, Dallas, TX, March 1981. ED 211 972. Aided by tape-recorded comments, a study looks at three freshmen as they rewrite compositions, noting when they rethought major concepts, made purposeful changes, and reviewed stylistic options. The comments illustrate "recursive shaping and revising, motivations for revisions, and the discovery of intentions in the writing process"(l). 108. Pferrer, Suzanne. "The Effect of Multiple Revision on Freshman Writing." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication, Washington, DC, March 1980. ED 191 048. Pferrer discusses the differences between writer-centered and reader-based prose and suggests teaching prompts to help students revise their compositions based on audience needs. 109. Pianko, Sharon. "A Description of the Composing Processes of College Freshman Writers." Research in the Teaching of English 13 (1979): 5-22. Pianko describes a study of college freshmen writers that looks at their differing


29

abilities and concludes that in-class, time-fixed writing assignments limit students' commitment and interest in contrast to their greater involvement, pursuit of depth, and revision for writing tasks allowed to be worked on outside the classroom. 110. Pixton, William H. "Reconciling Revision with Reality in Composition Teaching." Missouri English Bulletin 41, no. 6 (1983): 19-26. Pixton reviews the shifting perspectives of teaching writing and revision to college freshmen and describes the method used at Oklahoma State University, which seeks to help students write and revise effectively through detailed classroom instruction and numerous individual conference periods that focus on students' individual writing problems. 111. Primeau, Ronald. "Film-Editing and the Revision Process: Student as Self-Editor." College Composition and Communication 25, no. 5 (1974): 40510. Primeau offers the process of film editing-in which thefilmmakerdiscovers that he can change the meaning of the whole by rearranging while not necessarily altering the content-as a good analogy for the process of revision in writing. He urges composition instructors to limit the number of student assignments so that they have time and energy to revise well. 112. Schor, Sandra. "Revising: The Writer's Need to Invest and Express Relationships." In The Writer's Mind: Writing as a Mode of Thinking, edited by Janice N. Hays, Phyllis A. Roth, Jon R. Ramsey, and Robert D. Foulke, 11326. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English, 1983. Schor suggests that teachers should release students from the tyranny of flawless copy by showing them how to make legible changes in a draft. Teachers should also delay marking mechanical errors or asking for detail until students are more confident of what they want to say in the essay. Instead, Schor says, students should focus on pursuing relationships between ideas as the creative act that completes the writers' work. 113. Schriver, Karen A. "Moving from Sentence-Level to Whole-Text Revision: Helping Writers Focus on the Reader's Need." In Expanding the Repertoire: An Anthology of Practical Approaches for the Teaching of Writing, edited by Kathleen McCormick, 46-57. 1989. ED 306 601. This lesson is designed to help writers see the importance of taking a whole-text perspective in revising writing so that teachers can show students the importance of predicting readers' needs during revision, the nature of task-definition in revision, wholetext versus sentence-level approaches to revision, and linear revision. 114. Schriver, Karen A. "Plain Language through Protocol-Aided Revision." In Plain Language: Principles and Practice, edited by Erwin R. Steinberg, 14872. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press, 1991. Shriver argues that protocol-aided revision provides an effective method for helping writers revise complicated material into plain language that readers can understand. She describes the use of think-aloud protocols by readers as a method of alerting writers to difficulties within their texts. She outlines methods for designing

30


protocols, provides a case study to illustrate the protocol-aided revision process, and describes a process model for the use of the method. Shriver concludes by citing a study she conducted in which "Writers taught with protocols showed dramatic improvement in their ability to predict readers' problems (a 62% increase in accurate predictions" (169). 115. Schriver, Karen A. "Revising for Readers: Audience Awareness in the Writing Classroom." In Hearing Ourselves Think: Cognitive Research in the College Writing Classroom, edited by Ann M. Penrose and Barbara M. Sitko, 147-69. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993. Schriver presents a case study that shows how feedback can be a useful means of guiding revision in the writing process. She also suggests ways to help teachers focus writers' attention on specific aspects of revising, to show writers the difference between seeing, characterizing and solving text problems, and to structure writing assignments so that students collect feedback from readers in the community and workplace setting. 116. Schwartz, Alix. "Professional Writers Don't Write Like That, So Why Should You?" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, San Francisco, CA, May 1989. ED 320 153. Schwartz discusses the benefits of inviting professional writers to the college composition classroom to explain their process of revision. The guest speakers supplement the students' early- and late-semester analysis of their revisions of their own writing. 117. Schwartz, Mimi. "Revision Profiles: Patterns and Implications." College English 45, no. 6 (1983): 549-58. Schwartz outlines and gives examples of a typology of nine profiles that describe how writers generate, organize, and reassess content and form from intention to revision. She divides the types into threeframeworksand discusses how writers can shift from one to another to allow them to develop their full expression. 118. Schweiterman, Hank. "Revision in Ten Steps." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council of Teachers of English, Cincinnati, OH, November 1980. ED 197 350. The author suggests a procedure for teaching revisions that incorporates examining students' revision steps with the whole class, illustrating what professional writers say about the revising process, discussing the role of editing in revision, having the class revise a draft written by the teacher, and meeting individually with students to discuss revisions of their own drafts. 119. Selfe, Cynthia L. "Reading as a Writing and Revising Strategy." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication, New York, NY, March 1984. ED 244 295. Selfe reports a case study of the writing revision processes of two college freshmen, one who was highly apprehensive about writing and one who was not at all apprehensive. The study indicates that the student with writing apprehension had fewer reading strategies to use in writing tasks than did his colleague. The author suggests


31

further study into reading apprehension and its relationship to writing apprehension and then into ways to deal with them effectively. 120. Selzer, Jack. "Exploring Options in Composing." College Composition and Communication 35, no. 3 (1984): 276-84. If teachers would acknowledge a number of effective overall composing styles, they would be more likely to produce flexible and resourceful writers, Selzer says. He suggests teachers assign a range of tasks, from in-class essays and exercises, personal letters and lengthy formal essays, to the kinds of writing required in various disciplines. Then students can be directed to revise some in class under time limits, at home at leisure, and still others in response to suggestions of peers or the instructor. 121. Shuman, R. Baird. "Question II, 15." In Questions English Teachers Ask, edited by R. Baird Shuman, 75-77. Rochelle Park, NJ: Hayden, 1977. In response to the questions "How effective is revision?" and "Should students be forced to revise and rewrite all papers?" Shuman replies that considerable inclass time is necessary for students to learn to revise their papers effectively. 122. Shuman, R. Baird. "Theme Revision? Who Needs It?" Peabody Journal of Education 40 (July 1962): 12-15. In a study of freshman and subfreshman composition students, Shuman finds that writing which deals with concrete topics is more likely to benefit from revision than writing that deals with abstractions. He also concludes that it is unwise to urge every student to revise every paper before turning it in, and says teachers should diagnose writing problems on an individual basis so that students can find the writing technique that works best for them. 123. Shuman, R. Baird. "What about Revision?" English Journal 64, no. 9 (1975): 40-43. Shuman advocates teaching revision in writing as a new or second vision, one in which the writer analyzes the piece for errors, uses a system to check each aspect, and solicits input from a critical reader. Teachers, he says, should take time to discuss the "whole paper" (43) rather than encourage mere proofreading for minor grammatical or style errors. 124. Smith, Gayle L. "Revision and Improvement: Making the Connection." In Revising: New Essays for Teachers of Writing, edited by Ronald A. Sudol, 132-39. Urbana, IL. National Council of Teachers of English, 1992. Smith finds that having composition students compare and evaluate three versions of an essay in random order helps them understand the decisions necessary in revision and the meaning of adding and subtracting information, as well as restructuring with an audience in mind. 125. Smith, Myrna, and Barbara A. Bretcko. "Research on Individual Composition Conferences." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication, Anaheim, CA, April 1974. ED 091 709. A study indicates that most individual conferences with junior college composition students are ineffective and that students would be better off spending the time in class.

32


126. Sommers, Nancy. "Between the Drafts." College Composition and Communication 43, no. 1 (1992): 23-31. Sommers recounts her transition from relying on so-called authorities in guiding her writing and how she taught writing to students to learning to find her own voice and guiding her students in finding theirs. 127. Spear, Karen I. "Empathy and Re-vision." In Revising: New Essays for Teachers of Writing, edited by Ronald A. Sudol, 156-62. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English, 1982. Comparing the role of a writing teacher with that of a therapist, Spear urges teachers to be empathetic surrogate audiences, giving frequent and specific responses, often paraphrasing the writer's statement or recognizing writing problems to show understanding. 128. Stine, Peter W, '"Listen, My Children, and You Shall Hear': An Oral Approach to Correcting Written Errors." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication, Kansas City, MO, March 1977. ED 144 106. Stine urges teachers to have students read their compositions aloud to determine problems in content, structure, grammar, logic, and the need for specifics and details necessary to communicate with an audience. 129. Tchudi, Susan, Heidi Estrem, and Parti-Anne Hanlon. "Unsettling Drafts: Helping Students See New Possibility in Their Writing." English Journal 86, no. 6 (1997): 27-33. The authors list a variety of classroom activities that help students gain a more positive view of the process of reseeing and revising their writing and to take ownership of their work. The activities include asking students to write two new introductions and two new conclusions, to switch point of view, to add description of a place alluded to in their paper, and to describe what happened before events in the paper. 130. Thompson, George J. "Revision: Nine Ways to Achieve a Disinterested Perspective." College Composition and Communication 29 (May 1978): 200202. Thompson presents his nine-step, sequential guide to help students distance themselves from their writing so that they can resee and revise it. The procedure includes rereading the text a dozen times, for rhythm, mechanics, word clusters and paragraph central ideas, structure and coherence. 131. Tohtz, Jack E., and John L. Marsh. "Student as Staff Writer, Instructor as Editor: A Situational Context for Teaching Writing." College Composition and Communication 32, no. 3 (1981): 327-29. The authors describe a writing classroom that has been set up as analogical model of a publications office, with students as staff writers and teachers as the editors. The writers research historical materials and report on - and frequently completely rewrite - the documents for a broad audience. The authors find the real-life situation enhances students' research skills, commitment to communicating with their audience, and enthusiasm for their assignments.


33

132. Wall, Susan, "Internal Revision: Case Studies of First Year College Writers." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council of Teachers of English, Washington, DC, November 1982. ED 225 154. Case studies of six college freshmen in composition courses indicated that the students viewed prewriting as the main source of invention and that they had great difficulty seeing revision as more than making mechanical changes. Their resistance to teachers' interpretation of revision- as an opportunity to reevaluate and as a time of discovery - often caused the students to mishear or misinterpret the teachers' instruction on revision. 133. Wall, Susan. "In the Writer's Eye: Learning to Teach the Rereading/Revising Process." English Education 14, no. 1 (1982): 6-17. Wall discusses the differences between oral and written communication and offers suggestions on how to help students understand why revision is essential, both to enable the writer to more fully examine what they want to say and to better present the communication to an audience. Suggestions include starting the course by identifying the differences between oral and written communication, conducting composition classes as writers' workshops, having students create a writing portfolio of works in progress, and asking teachers to learn to teach writing by experiencing it for themselves in the classroom, modeling it for their students. 134. Wall, Susan V., and Anthony R. Petrosky. "Freshman Writers and Revision: Results from a Survey." Journal of Basic Writing 3, no. 3 (1981): 109-122. A survey of 248 composition students indicated that 76.1 percent had taken no courses devoted exclusively to writing and 60.5 percent had received little instruction or no instruction on the process of revision. Most students also had little high school experience in writing a variety of types of essays, particularly argument and criticism, and seldom were assigned sequenced assignments that required any revision. 135. Wallace, David L., and John R. Hayes. "Redefining Revision for Freshmen." Research in the Teaching of English 25, no. 1 (1991): 54-66. A study indicates that eight minutes of instruction on how to globally revise their papers enabled freshmen writers to significantly improve the quality of their texts. 136. Wallace, David L., John R. Hayes, J. A. Hatch, W. Miller, G. Moser, and C. M. Silk. "Better Revision in Eight Minutes?: Prompting First-Year College Writers to Revise Globally." Journal of Educational Psychology 88, no. 4 (1996): 682-88. Two studies examining the relationship between revision and task definition among college students in writing courses find that entry-level students effectively revised an assignment when given eight minutes of instruction on how to make global revisions, while students identified as unprepared for entry-level classes could not. The authors suggest that a new method must be found to help the low achievers.

34


137. Ward, Dean A. "The 'Readers Outline': A Tool For Global Revision." Journal of Teaching Writing, Vol 10, Issue 2. 1991: 201-215. Ward presents a reader's outline designed to help students perceive their writing as a reader would, and help them to identify whether their essays have a clear focus, to diagnose problems, and to find solutions. 138. Welch, Nancy. "Revising a Writer's Identity: Reading and 'Remodeling' in a Composition Class." College Composition and Communication 47, no. 1 (1996): 41-61. Welch examines emotional relationships between teachers and students, and between students in the composition classroom, and urges teachers to join writing with therapy according to psychoanalytic theory. 139. Wilson, Allison. "Antithetical Models: Using Ineffective Student Writing to Teach Revision and Editing Skills." Kentucky English Bulletin 34, no. 1 (1984): 44-49. ED 264 579. Finding that using good examples of prose models before students prewrite essays can stifle her college students' creativity and initiative, Wilson suggests that such models be presented after the students' ideas have been formed. She also argues that using poorly written student essays can help students experience the frustration of poor communication, see a closer relationship between the teacher's initial information and a complete product, and that such examples allow a distance between writer and product that the students would not get by reviewing their own work. 140. Yoder, Sharon L. "Teaching Writing Revision: Attitudes and Copy Changes." Journalism Educator 47, no. 4 (1993): 41-47. In a study of how students in an upper-division journalism class revised their writing, Yoder found that students, regardless of the type of assignment, made more surface level changes than meaning changes. However, students did make a significant number of meaning changes, and Yoder says that the "teaching of revising within the composing process can increase student confidence and ability" (46) to write and revise. "Encouraging students to be unafraid to make major concept revisions," Yoder notes, "helps avoid the sole teaching of polish editing" (46). Yoder used various techniques to help students revise, but "interaction with the instructor was the students' most preferred technique" (47). K-12 High School 141. Beach, Richard. "The Effects of Between-draft Teacher Evaluation versus Student Self-Evaluation on High School Students' Revising of Rough Drafts." Research in the Teaching of English 13, no. 2 (1979): 111-19. Beach describes results of a study of tenth, eleventh, and twelfth grade writers that compared amount and quality of revision of three groups. Members of one group were provided teacher evaluation of their rough drafts, those in a second group were provided self-evaluation forms, and those in the third group were given no evaluation. The study showed that "students who were provided between-draft teacher evaluation showed a greater degree of change, higher degree of fluency and greater differences in support on final drafts than students


35

employing guided self-evaluation forms and students receiving no evaluation" (119). 142. Beach, Richard. "The Pragmatics of Self-Assessing." In Revising: New Essays for Teachers of Writing, edited by Ronald A. Sudol, 71-83. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English, 1992. Beach draws upon the work of H. Paul Grice to help students learn how to analyze audiences for their writing. Thus, Beach provides a variety of techniques that help students assess audience, including asking students to reflect on their ideas, make inferences about audiences, and define audiences. In addition, "the teacher can model the inference process" (82) based on Grice's work. Beach notes, "The central purpose for all these activities is to teach students to assess their own writing" (82). 143. Bernstein, Abraham. "Revision-A Dual Process." The Clearing House 53, no. 9 (1980): 424-427. Bernstein argues that revision is a necessary part of the writing process, but that it need not be "an overwhelming chore" for writing teachers (424). He describes the revision-teaching strategies of six writing teachers from junior high school to the university level and offers two examples of his own. 144. Boiarsky, Carolyn. "Cut-and-Paste and Other Revision Activities." English Journal 69 (November 1980): 44-48. Asserting that "Scissors and scotch tape are as essential to a writer as a hammer is to a carpenter," Boiarsky urges writing teachers to stress the importance of revision in their classrooms. Boiarsky identifies eleven specific revision activities used by professional writers, and provides a table that outlines eleven problem areas and a revision activity that may solve the problem. 145. Boiarsky, Carolyn. "The Eleven Functions of Revision." Arizona English Bulletin 26, no. 1 (1983): 126-134. See also ED 227 478. Based on her own revision practices and those of five other professional writers, Boiarsky catalogues eleven functions of textual revisions. Student writers, she argues, tend to focus on only three of the eleven categories, categories which pertain to "surface" features (130). To help students attend to more important elements in their writing, Boiarsky recommends that students be required to write for different audiences, for different purposes, and in different modes, and offers some sample assignments. 146. Booley, Heather A. "Discovery and Change: How Children Redraft Their Narrative Writing." Educational Review 36, no. 3 (1984): 263-75. Booley uses a model that identifies cognitive and affective features of writing and stylistic features to determine the extent to which a student revises his or her writing. Then Booley provides a case study of a fourteen-year-old student's revision process for a piece of writing. In addition, Booley evaluates the extent to which 32 fourteen-year-old students revised their writing and finds that five made extensive revisions, thirteen significant revisions, ten limited revisions, and four no revisions. Concerning her study Booley says, "We now know more

36


clearly what features to look for in charting individual progress in narrative writing . . . . The teacher's role then is to guide at the point of discovery and change" (274). 147. Cavin, G.E. "Readin', Ritin', and Revision." Clearing House 57, no. 3 (1983); 119-23. The author is concerned that high schools shy away from teaching writing because of bureaucratic obstacles, teachers' own lack of experience in writing, and students reluctance to tackle what many believe are tough assignments. All three can be overcome, however, if principals poll teachers' views on how to improve their teaching writing and revision, work with them to develop a department-wide plan to do it, and help them track how their efforts pay off in student portfolio projects. Cavin presents a detailed questionnaire to help speed the process. 148. Edelsberg, Charles. "Evaluation and Revision: A Field Study into Student Writer's Uses of Teacher Evaluation." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication, Dallas, Texas, March, 1980. ED 202 042. Edelsberg describes afive-monthstudy of an eleventh-grade class's responses to writing instruction methods. The study found that students used a variety of methods-teacher commentary on papers, assignments directions, and teacher feedback-in composing and revising their writing. Edelsberg highlights his finding that the effectiveness of revision guides correlates with student interest and motivation in the assignment itself. 149. Gee, Thomas W. "Drafting and Revising Processes in Grade Twelve Students' Examination Writing." 1984. ED 269 770. A study of 1,372 composition examinations indicated that students who used both an outline and a rough draft scored better, as did students who chose a less popular topic. All of the students made significant revisions in the same categories - mechanical, lexical, syntactic, stylistic, figurative, and rhetorical - but weaker students had much less to say and tended to be repetitive. Weaker students also tended to experience more difficulty with what to say rather than how to say it, resulting in inadvertent meaning changes and structural problems. 150. Gee, Thomas W. "Of Ships and Sealing Wax: Drafting and Revising Processes in Grade Twelve Students' Examination Writing." English Quarterly 18 (Summer 1985): 82-88. A random sample of more than 1,300 twelfth grade student essays indicate that using outlines before writing are of little value. When an outline and a rough draft were required, however, the essays were significantly improved, Gee says. Other conclusions indicate that teachers grading essays often suffer "boredome syndrome," (84) and regularly give essays on less popular topics better marks. 151. Haley-James, Shirley M. "Revising Waiting in the Upper Grades." Language Arts 58. no. 5 (1981): 562-66. Haley-James suggests that it is crucial for students to understand why they are writing even before they set upon the tasks of learning when and how to revise. Only after the students care about their message are they ready for peer-revision sessions or to work with more-


37

experienced guest writers to learn about the "ups and downs of writing," the author says. 152. Hansen, Barbara. "Teaching Revision." Exercise Exchange 23, no.l (1978): 10-15. Hansen outlines a method of teaching revision techniques to high school and college students based on problems in those students' writings. Students learned to identify each others' difficulties using a systematic approach. 153. Johnstone, Velerie M. "Writing Back: Revising and Editing." English Journal 79, no. 5 (1990): 57-59. In an effort to give her high school students quick feedback on their writing, Johnstone developed the write-back method, which allows her to respond to students' writing without grading it. The purpose of write-back is to give students a reader's response to their work that allows them to revise the work. Thus, Johnstone notes, "I write one or two sentences that are specific, honest, supportive" (58). She also includes an edit option for drafts that have gone through revision. She notes that by sharing editing techniques with students, the students learn how to edit their own work. Johnstone lists seven traits of write-back comments "that are most successful and useful to writers" (59). 154. Land, Robert E. "Revision Strategies of Seventh and Eleventh Graders. " 1984. ED 261 410. In analyzing a writing sample for seventh and eleventh graders, Land found that neither grade level increased the number of revisions or the types of revisions. However, eleventh graders produced more subsentencelevel revisions and fewer sentence-level revisions than did seventh graders. Land suggests that the differences in revisions between eleventh and seventh graders can be attributed to size and intentionality of the revisions. Although eleventh graders made more revisions at certain levels the revisions were "small," but purposeful. Land suggests that researchers might want to consider intentionality instead of size of revisions when studying revision in student writing. He notes that teachers who are looking for "big" revisions or radically changed texts may be disappointed unless those they "create special conditions beyond simply asking for revision. Having students rewrite essays for a different audience or from a different narrative stance may do more to introduce students to the generative power of discourse than revision checklists or admonitions" (10). 155. Leeson, Lee Ann. "Redeeming Revision." Arizona English Bulletin 26, no. 1 (1983): 75-81. Leeson explains how she used the writing process to help high school students want to revise and produce better writing through revising. She required students to produce three drafts of an assignment and worked with them during the drafting process to evaluate the drafts, including preparing lists of strategies for revising and having students work in groups. She provided examples of poor writing and asked students to revise the examples. She notes that revision "is that point in the composing process when students think they arefinishedbut you can see they are only getting started" (81).

38


156. Luttmer, Rudy, and George Labercane. "Getting the Right Meaning with the Right Words: Applying Elbow in the Writer's Workshop." 1994. ED 373 338. In one-on-one tutoring sessions with a 14-year-old student, Danny, over several months, the tutor found that Danny's ability to revise improved. Danny began the tutoring sessions with little understanding of the revision process. However, as the tutoring sessions continued, Danny began to have more selfconfidence as a writer and developed a better understanding of the value of revision. Thus, Danny moved from making surface chances only to making substantive changes. One of the ways the tutor helped Danny was by modeling the writing and revising process by writing with Danny and reading out loud the writing. "In fact," the authors note, "one of the key areas of improvement in revision for Danny was his ability to take on the language of his tutor as he revised his own compositions" (7). 157. Newman, Jerrie M. "The Effect of Formal Revision on Improving Writing Skills." 1982. ED 234 380. A study finds that formal revision exercises for high school students did not significantly improve the quality of their writing compared to that of peers. The participants, did, however, seem to value the process and indicated that they planned to revise future papers, Newman reports. 158. Odell, Lee and Joanne Cohick. "You Mean, Write it Over in Ink?" English Journal 64, no. 9 (1975): 48-53. The authors outline and provide examples of student performance in a six-week, ninth-grade writing class that focused on teaching students how to revise their writing. The class began with students examining advertisements and passages in a novel and learning to ask pertinent questions about the texts. After several class discussions of the readings, students wrote essays, met in individual conferences with the teacher, and then revised their essays. The authors report that the revised essays of twenty-five of thirty students showed improvement and that half showed "substantial change in students' use of [composing and revising] procedures that had been taught" (53). 159. Sitko, Barbara M. "How Writers Use Real Audience Feedback: Problem-solving in Revision." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Research Association, San Francisco, CA, March 1989. ED 308 515. A study of 13 eleventh-grade females looks at the effectiveness of using audiotaped feedback on essays. The results indicated that more able writers were more accepting of feedback, but that all of the writers who revised followed a problem-solving sequence. Sitko says that with knowledge of the process, educators can identify beliefs and behaviors, and direct instruction to fit. 160. Stallard, Charles K. "An Analysis of the Writing Behavior of Good Student Writers." Research in the Teaching of English 8 (1974): 206-18. A study comparing a group of twelfth graders who wrote well with a group randomly chosen indicates that good writers take longer on an assignment, revise more frequently during writing, and are nearly twice as likely to have a


39

purpose in mind. The groups did not differ, however, in their awareness of audience. 161. Yagelski, Robert P. "The Role of Classroom Context in the Revision Strategies of Student Writers." Research in the Teaching of English 29, no. 2 (1995): 216-38. Yagelski studied the context of a senior high school composition classroom and found that although the teacher used various techniques that promoted the process approach to writing, the students made mostly surface level changes in their writing. The teacher used a workshop approach, insisted on at least two drafts for each assignment, required peer review of students' writing, and reviewed students' writing so that they could revise for higher grades. Thus, revision became a central practice in the class. However, the teacher, in responding to students' writing, provided "virtually no reaction . . . to the student's ideas" (228), instead focusing on surface-level concerns. In turn, students followed the teacher's lead when they conducted peer reviews of each other's writing. The teacher became the sole audience for student writing. The teacher used process writing techniques in the service of traditional beliefs about what constitutes good writing with the result that the teacher's "students seemed to revise in ways they would have revised had she not used process-oriented strategies" (233). Yagelski suggests, therefore, that the way teachers of writing are trained needs to take into account the problem of reinforcing a traditional approach to writing by superimposing the process approach to the classroom. Middle School 162. Afflerbach, Peter. "Overcoming Children's Reluctance to Revise Informational Writing." Journal of Teaching Writing 4 (1985): 170-76. Noting that much of the literature about revision assumes that students are asked to write about something they know about, Afflerbach asks how students might approach information reports about topics in which students are not interested. Based on his work with sixth and seventh graders as they wrote informational reports for other classes, such as social studies, he recommends that teachers ask students to write persuasive informational reports so the students can select topics that interest them. Another way to approach information reports is to find common ground. That is, students given the assignment to write an informational report on a particular country may find something about that country interesting and thus write about that topic. However, the topic may not be broad enough to meet the requirements of the assignment, so the teacher can help the student see common ground between the topic the student selected and the broader requirements of the assignment. Afflerbach asserts that both of these approaches to information reports helped his students want to revise their writing. Ultimately, he hopes that students "progress to see revision as something not demanded by a teacher, but something required by the writing itself (175-76). 163. Albertson, Luann R., and Felix F. Billingsley. "Improving Young Writers' Planning and Reviewing Skills while Story-Writing." Paper presented

40


at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL, March 1997. ED 406 687. In their study of two gifted 12-year-old students, one female and one male, the authors compared the students' writing before and after they received instruction in planning and reviewing their writing. The students met with the authors for one-hour writing sessions in which the students were provided with writing prompts, were taught strategies for planning and reviewing their writing, and were required to write a story. The authors found that the students "increased their writing time, added more story elements to, and improved the overall writing quality of their stories after instruction" (14). Most of the students' revisions, however, consisted of minor text changes that did not alter meaning. "In essence," the authors report, "they cleaned up their documents, fixed spelling errors, and made grammatical fixes, but they did not make any meaning-changing revisions" (15). 164. Balajthy, Ernest. "Do Writers Really Revise? Encouraging Unnatural Acts in Your Classroom." Paper presented at the Conference on Language and Literacy, 1986. ED 274 997. Balajthy calls revision "the keystone of the writing process" and urges teachers in intermediate schools to differentiate between revision and editing. He argues that students need ample time for writing in the classroom, that their writing should be "published," and that teachers must instruct students on the use of "appropriate self-questioning during revising." 165. Berliner, David, and Ursula Casanova. "Are Your Kids Getting the Most from Their Reading Revisions?" Instructor 97, no. 6 (1988): 20-21. Berliner summarizes the research conducted by (000 Fitzgerald and Markham "Teaching Children about Revision in Writing") and endorses the notion that some students can read quality literature and through an inductive process revise their writing to improve it; however, other students need direct instruction—"carefully prepared instruction targeted toward clear goals" (21)—to learn how to revise their writing effectively. Casanova suggests strategies teachers can use to shift the responsibility for revision of student writing to students, not teachers. For example, writing assignments can be based on issues that students see as pertinent to their lives. Casanova also recommends peer tutoring and the use of computers to "make editing easier and eliminate much rewriting" (21). 166. Crowhurst, Marion. "Grade Seven Writers Explore Revision." Highway One 5 (1982): 11-23. Crowhurst argues that even young children can make substantive revisions when given class time and encouragement to revise and rewrite. She buttresses her argument with examples from seventh grade writers and careful explication of the changes they make. When teachers explain to students that revision is a "normal and expected part of the writing process" and provide class time for the activity, Crowhurst asserts, many students will engage in meaningful revision (21). 167. Cunningham, Patricia M. "A Middle School Teacher's Guide to Revising and Editing." The Clearing House 61, no. 5 (1988): 202-04. The author outlines a seven-step process to help middle-school students learn to


41

revise and improve their writing. The steps range from having students select one piece to revise, careful rereadings, group comment, and guided structure and mechanics comment to the teacher's final review and public display of the work. 168. Daiute, Colette, and John Kruidenier. "A Self-Questioning Strategy to Increase Young Writers' Revising Processes." Applied Psycholinguistics 6, no. 3 (1985): 307-18. The authors conducted a study of junior high students to determine whether computer prompts would help them revise their writing. Two groups of students, one group with access to computer prompts and another group without access to the prompts, revised their writing at the computer. In analyzing the revisions both groups made, the authors found that the group using the prompts made more revisions and made more meaningful revisions than the other group. "Self-question-prompts," the authors note, "lead to closer revising of texts, suggesting that prompts engage writers in reading their texts objectively" (317). Thus, teachers should "provide students with strategies and heuristics to use autonomously when revising" (317). 169. Fitzgerald, Jill, and Linda R. Markham. "Teaching Children about Revision in Writing." Cognition and Instruction 4 (1987): 3-24. A study of 15 sixth graders who received intensive instruction in writing revision indicates that they became better able to identify discrepancies between intended and insustantiated text, gained more knowledge on how to make desired surface and meaning changes, and improved the quality of their work through their several drafts as compared with a control group of students who read "good literature" instead of receiving teacher instruction. 170. Fitzgibbon, Joseph. "Reducing the Drudgery of Correcting Compositions." Media and Methods (March 1980): 27-29. The author describes how arming eighth and ninth graders with a brief list of copyediting symbols and proofreading resources, and setting them to copyedit each other's papers resulted in increased student interest in writing, dramatically improved compositions and considerably more time for the teacher to guide students instead of wasting time correcting the same careless mistakes over and over. 171. Francis, Mardean, and Deborah McCutchen. "Strategy Differences in Revising between Skilled and Less Skilled Writers." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA, April 1994. ED 373 347. The authors describe a study involving twelve seventh-graders of varying writing levels who were asked to work in pairs to read and correct two one-page texts written at a fifth-grade level into which the researchers had inserted four spelling errors and four errors of meaning. One pair of each ability level was given an unmarked text; the other pair of each level was given a text with sentences highlighted if they contained errors. Researchers watched and recorded the conversations among the students as they sought to correct and revise the texts. The high ability writers were most successful in revising, in part because they were able to consider the texts as a whole and to examine them at the sentence level. The low ability writers had difficulty segmenting paragraphs within the text and sentences within

42


paragraphs, and never considered the text holistically. The middle ability students with the marked texts performed more like the high ability writers; the middle ability with unmarked texts performed more like the low ability students, the authors report. 172. McPhillips, S. P. "The Spirit of Revision: Listening for the Writer's Conscience." Language Arts 62, no. 6 (1985): 614-18. The author describes a research project with seven fifth-graders during which their concern to satisfy their audience (each other) helped them see their words through the eyes of others. But as their expectations rose, the "deeper we reached inside" to hear the cadence of the story they were telling. The less the author determined the direction, "the more the writers turned inward and took control." (617) 173. Stetson, Maura. "Rethinking Revision." English in Texas 25, no. 4 (1994): 17-19. Stetson makes an impassioned plea for teachers to show middle school students how to revise their writing to make it more correct and to get to the real meaning the students are trying to express. She suggests showing students how famous authors have revised, giving students the freedom to express themselves imperfectly in a first draft, and modeling revision for them with a student's paper. Elementary and Pre-School 174. Bakst, Kathy, and Eva L. Essa. "The Writing Table: Emergent Writers and Editors." Childhood Education (Spring 1990): 145-50. Bakst and Essa describe the writing and "editing" activities of pre-school children at the Child and Family Center at the University of Nevada, Reno. A child dictates a story to a teacher, who transcribes and reads it to a group of children who respond. After the reading and response, the teacher and child author revise and edit the story based on suggestions of peers and the child's willingness to make the changes. 175. Bartlett, Elsa Jaffe. "Learning to Revise: Some Component Processes." In What Writers Know: The Language, Process, and Structure of Written Discourse, edited by Martin Nystrand, 345-63. New York: Academic Press, 1982. Using several studies of third through eighth grade writers, Bartlett compares the ability of young writers to detect problems with and to revise their own texts and the texts of others. Most writers, she reports, are generally better at detecting problems in the texts of others, even if they are unable to correct the problems. Moreover, older children in these studies were better at correcting problems with the text of others, than with their own texts. Bartlett concludes that the studies suggest "that knowledge available to comprehension and detection processes need not be equally accessible for production and correction" of errors (361). 176. Beal, Carole R., Andrew C. Garrod, and Gary J. Bonitatibus. "Fostering Children's Revision Skills through Training in Comprehension Monitoring." Journal of Educational Psychology 82, no. 2 (1990): 275-280. The authors conducted two studies to determine whether school-age children could be taught how to detect and repair problems in story texts. The authors based their studies


43

on the premise that children "generally overestimate the communicative quality of prepared texts and believe that they and others understand messages that adults consider incomprehensible" (275). Results from the two studies "showed that children who learned a self-questioning strategy for text evaluation and who detected problems while using the strategy did better on a subsequent revision test than did children who participated in a control activity" (278). Thus, the authors recommend that teachers should include instruction in strategies for evaluating text in teaching the revision process. 177. Calkins, Lucy McCormick. "Children's Rewriting Strategies." Research in the Teaching of English 14, no. 4 (1980): 331-41. After observing and interviewing students in two third grade classes for a year, the author notes that although the students all drafted and redrafted their writing they did not share the same rewriting process. She identifies four types of students: those who draft randomly; those who refine what they mean to say; those who interact with their drafts to discover and to clarify what they mean to say; and transition children who seem to be straining to substantially improve their drafts. 178. Calkins, Lucy McCormick. "A Study of Children's Rewriting: Final Report for NCTE Research Foundation Project No. 80:11, September 1980October 1982." 1982. ED 229 750. Calkins' report concerns the process of children's writing and rewriting. Calkins begins by describing her methodology for the study and then reviews the literature related to her topic. Following the literature review are three articles: "Reading and Writing Process: A Reciprocal Agreement," by M. A. Boutwell, "Research Update: Questions for Teachers Who Wonder if Their Writers Change," by D. H. Graves and M. E. Giacobbe, and "A Writer Reads, a Reader Writes," by M. E. Giacobbe. Most of the report is a detailed account of a case study of a child who revised her writing. 179. DeGroff, Linda-Jo Caple. "The Influence of Prior Knowledge on Writing, Conferencing and Revising." Elementary School Journal 88, no. 2 (1987): 105-18. In a study of the writing of 40 elementary school children, DeGroff found that "prior knowledge is a significant factor in all phases of process-approach" (113) writing, including creating first drafts, participating in peer conferences, and producing second drafts. In fact, "prior knowledge determines in part what students write in first drafts, what they say during peer conferences, and how they revise when writing second drafts of stories" (115). In addition, both students with high knowledge of a subject and those with low knowledge of the same subject used writing as a way to learn, not simply to transcribe knowledge from a knowledge base to a document. However, "Lowknowledge writers were not able to use writing, conferencing, and revising to acquire additional valued information about" (115) the topic they wrote about. DeGroff suggests that "writer knowledge may be a more important influence on revisions than is respondent knowledge" (117). 180. Estabrook, Iris W. "Talking about Writing—Developing Independent Writers." Language Arts 59, no. 7 (1982): 696-706. Estabrook presents a year-

44


long diary of one first-grader's development in writing, from initial private scribblings during the required daily exercises, to his growing, sometimes reluctant, awareness of the need to consider an audience and revisions in both form and content. 181. Fitzgerald, Jill. "Helping Young Writers to Revise: A Brief Review for Teachers." Reading Teacher 42, no. 2 (1988): 124-29. The author presents three guidelines for classroom teachers to help young writers problem-solve as they learn to revise: Incorporate revision instruction into a larger context focused on developing knowledge of the content they want to write about; focus on the process, not the product; and considering revision as an integral aspect of many types of writing. 182. Fitzgerald, Jill, and Carol Stamm. "Variation in Writing Conference Influence on Revision: Two Cases." Journal of Reading Behavior 24, no. 1 (1992): 21-50. The authors analyze how group conferences with a teacher influenced two first-grade students who had different levels of experience in revision and revision activity. The student with less experience made dramatic gains in learning to identify problems of order and coherence, while the student with more experience was not as clearly influenced by the conferences. 183. Folta, Bernarr. "Three Strategies for Revising Sentences, Grades 4-5-6." 1969. ED 071 077. Folta recommends that fourth-, fifth-, and sixth-grade writers be taught three techniques for sentence revision: elimination of confusing or repetitive words, substitution of concrete terms for vague expressions, and addition of words, phrases, and clauses. 184. Ford, Margaret I. "The Writing Process: A Strategy for Problem Solvers." Arithmetic Teacher 38, no. 3 (1990): 35-38. Ford recommends elementary school teachers use the writing process to help students learn mathematical concepts by writing, peer reviewing, and revising story problems. She illustrates her thesis with examples from third- and sixth-grade classes. 185. Graves, Donald H., and Lucy McCormick Calkins. "Andrea Learns to Make Writing Hard." Language Arts 56 (May 1979): 569-76. The author follows the progress of a gifted third grader for three months as she learns to see print as unfinished, to be selective, to anticipate and solve writing problems, and to make complex revisions. 186. Graves, Donald H. "What Children Show Us about Revision." Language Arts 56, no. 3 (1979): 312-19. In the second report in a two-year study, the author documents the progress of three primary students of different ages as they change composing, spelling and motor behaviors during the writing process. 187. Johnson, Jan. "'SOAR' to the Stars through Revising." English in Texas 27, no. 1 (1995): 28-29. In encouraging primary grade students to revise, Johnson uses a worksheet based on a rocket metaphor. Thus, students can learn


45

to soar (sentences organized and revised) by completing a worksheet that helps them analyze their writing. The worksheet has four columns, one for the first four words of each sentence (liftoffs), one for the number of words in each sentence (missiles), one for verbs (fuel words), and one for pet peeve words (crash words). 188. Kritsonis, Diane, Earl H. Cheek, and Jimmy D. Lindsey. "Revision: A Crucial Component of the Holistic Writing Process." Contemporary Education 62, no. 2 (1991): 122-24. Students in elementary school should be taught how to write, including how to revise their writing, but too often the focus in elementary school is on spelling. Teachers need to strike a balance between spelling, aesthetics, and conventions, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, revision practices that ask students to consider the role of more and less information in their writing. The authors conclude that "children grow as writers because they struggle with imbalances between their intentions and the mechanical aspects of writing" (124). 189. Mcllroy, Christopher. "When Students Welcome Revision." Arizona Reading Journal 19, no. 2 (Spring/Summer 1991): 56-58. Mcllroy describes introducing the concept of revision to very young writers by emphasizing respect for writing, teaching basic qualities of good story writing, giving them choices on which topic to revise, and providing some sort of publication option. He includes principles students can follow; including whether the story is clear, correct, makes sense, and is complete. 190. Nold, Ellen W. "Revising: Intentions and Conventions." In Revising: New Essays for Teachers of Writing, edited by R. Sudol, 12-13. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English, 1982. Nold discusses how metacognitive abilities develop fairly late in children and how it is more practical to teach them revision for writing conventions as long as it is "a normal part of the writing process and not as a punishment for incompetence" (20). The habit is there, then, as children mature in social awareness and their ability to revise their writing with an audience in mind. The author cautions, however, that guidance in both levels must be specific to be of value to the child. 191. Orlett, Margaret. "When Is 'Done' Done?" In Teachers and Writers: Articles from the Ohio Writing Project, edited by Mary F. Hayes, Max Morenberg, and Janet Ziegler, 20-25. Oxford: Miami University, 1981. ED 232 210. Orlett discusses various theories of revision in writing and the lists eight opportunities to use revision strategies in the classroom, provides a fivepoint revision checklist, and summarizes three articles of particular benefit to elementary school teachers. 192. Poger, Fran, Maureen Amick, and Ann Ogawa. "Rewrapping the Package: Helping Students to Rewrite Willingly." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council of Teachers of English, Los Angeles, CA, November 1987. ED 291 099. The authors describe three ways to help motivate elementary school children to revise their stories: revising the story by

46


changing its ideas, words and sentence structure; revising stories to reach an audience of younger children; and revising stories on a computer while paired with peers. 193. Sanford, Betsy. "Discovering Revision." In Working Together: A Guide for Teacher-Researchers, edited by Marian M. Mohr and Marion S. MacLean, 102-11. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English, 1987. As she watches fourth-grade students revise while they create their first drafts of an essay, Sanford uses several strategies to encourage students to continue the process. Strategies include asking students about their choices, making sure the teacher is available as they write, allowing students access to other students as they write, and providing blocks of time for writing. 194. Sanford, Elizabeth. "Discovering Revision." Substantially the same as (Sanford 193).

1985.

ED 258 231.

195. Scardamalia, Marlene, and Carl Bereiter. "The Development of Evaluative, Diagnostic and Remedial Capabilities in Children's Composing." In The Psychology of Written Language: Development and Educational Perspectives, edited by Margaret Martlew, 67-95. London: Wiley, 1983. In a study of 90 students in three elementary school grade levels, seventy-five percent of the students found a process called "Alternating Procedure" helpful in revising essays in the areas of language production, evaluation, and tactical decision making, the authors say. The procedure is based on having a child write a sentence and then select one of eleven possible evaluations that best characterizes it. The child then explains orally how the evaluation applies and what changes to the sentence might be appropriate. 196. Schwartz, Mimi. "Rewriting or Recopying: What Are We Teaching?" Language Arts 54, no. 7 (1977): 756-59. The author urges teachers to interact with young writers before a work is considered finished so that students still have the creative energy to rewrite and still feel in control of how the work will be finished. She advocates presenting rewriting as a dialogue-oral with young children and written for more formal comment with older ones. Schwartz also offers a comment numbering system so students can follow comments easily. 197. Slaughter, Judith Pollard. "A Focus on Revision: Some Teaching Strategies." 1987. ED 291 090. Slaughter presents a number of strategies to help children revise writing to clarify content, to realize the need for editing changes, and to help their editing efforts. The strategies, such as asking children to read their work aloud so the hearer is not distracted by surface errors, use the language experience approach and emphasize peer interaction. 198. Slaughter, Judith Pollard. "That's What I Mean to Say': Strategies to Help Children Revise." Canadian Journal of English Language Arts 11, no. 1 (1988): 10-14. Slaughter presents strategies to show children the need for content revision in their writing to make it clearer and to understand the need for editing. She offers specific guides to help children edit effectively, convinced


47

that as children become editors of others' writing, they are more willing to accept editorial help themselves. 199. Smelstor, Marjorie, ed. A Guide to Teaching the Writing Process from Pre-Writing to Editing. Madison: Wisconsin University Department of English, 1978. ED 176 274. This guide to teaching a three-stage writing process at the elementary and secondary level suggests activities to use in helping students with the prewriting, writing and postwriting phases. The article also includes specific writing activities for use in content areas of science, social studies, mathematics, and other disciplines. 200. Van Gelderen, Amos. "Elementary Students' Skills in Revising: Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis." Written Communication 14, no. 3 (1997): 360-98. van Gelderen tested the ability of Dutch students in fifth and sixth grades to revise a text orally and found that the students were able to detect, diagnose, and revise text fairly well. Because the students were divided into two groups, better writers and poorer writers, van Gelderen also was able to determine that better writers make better revisers. However, the students tended to address problems at the micro or sentence level, but had a harder time addressing problems beyond sentence boundaries. For instance, some students could identify a problem beyond sentence boundaries but could not repair the problem. Three difficulties of revision—"checking reformulations, becoming aware of macro problems, and comprehending text" (390)—require teachers to develop strategies that will help students revise effectively, and van Gelderen suggests strategies teachers can use. 201. Vukelich, Carol, and LuAnn D. Leverson. "Text Revisions: Helping Children Modify the Content of Their Writing." Childhood Education 63, no. 4 (1987): 255-61. In referencing the National Assessment of Educational Progress report, the authors note that teachers are instrumental in determining how well students score in their writing assessments. Unfortunately, students do not do well when they are asked to revise writing. The authors, therefore, recommend ways that teachers can help children revise. First, the authors provide definitions of revision, noting that teachers "need to help children feel the dissonance and tension that might cause them to want to make changes in their writing" (256). Second, the authors provide a list of eleven functions for revision. Third, the authors discuss the value of students' selecting their own topics for writing, students' engaging in peer and teacher-student conferences, and students' publishing their writing. Concerning publishing the authors note that it "provides children with a vivid sense of audience and a concrete reason for revising their work" (258). Indeed, peer and teacher-student conferences also provide real audiences. In addition, nondirective teacher-student conferences "not only help children revise the piece discussed, but they also help them learn the kinds of questions to ask independently while rehearsing, drafting and revising" (260).

48


Business Classes 202. Cirincione, Joseph A. "Revision and Business Writing: Checking the Numbers." The Bulletin of the American Business Communication Association 56, no. 1 (1993): 16-21. Cirincione discusses and gives examples of costeffective business writing revisions by focusing on three style checkpoints: varying sentences openers; using transitive, active verbs; and using dependent clauses to help readers determine important points. 203. Coggshall, Gordon E. "Cut and Paste: Preparing for On-the-Job Writing." In Courses, Components, and Exercises in Technical Communication, edited by Dwight W. Stevenson, 100-14. Urbana: National Council of Teachers of English, 1981. Coggshall describes how he helps preprofessionals learn efficient methods of producing competent technical writing under intense time pressure by giving them four increasingly difficult cut-and-paste assignments. He describes the four assignments, ranging from the initial unscrambling an informal proposal to an assignment requiring students to obtain information from a variety of letters, newspaper articles, proposals and progress reports and tables of raw data. He gives a sample of the fourth assignment along with a sample hand-edited revision of the project. 204. House, Beverly A., and Randy E. Cone. "The Effect of Rewriting Exercises on Student Achievement of Business Letter-Writing Skills." Delta Pi Epsilon Journal 25 (January 1983): 31-37. The authors conducted a study using control and experimental groups to determine how well students rewrote business letters. The authors found that "student achievement of business letterwriting skills can be greatly increased by the use of simple rewriting exercises. Both individual and small-group rewriting exercises resulted in greater achievement of positive and negative business letter-writing skills" (36). 205. Wunsch, Daniel R. "The Effects of Written Feedback, Rewriting, and Group Oral Feedback on Business Letter Writing Ability." Delta Phi Epsilon Journal 24, no. 4 (1982): 129-38. An experiment finds that business letter quality was not affected by giving students written feedback or whether students chose to revise. Group oral feedback also made little difference. Instead, significant improvement, although spotty, appeared to be determined by the individual teacher's ability to inspire and guide students. Developmental/Basic Writing Classes 206. Bernhardt, Stephen A. "Text Revisions by Basic Writers: From Impromptu First Draft to Take-Home Revision." Research in the Teaching of English 22, no. 3 (1988): 266-80. Bernhardt describes a study in which basic writing students were asked to write an in-class impromptu essay and then were permitted to take the essay home over a weekend to revise it. The study focused on 42 of the 117 writers whose revised essays showed at least a two-point improvement on a ten-point scale when scored holistically. Bernhardt reports that the 42 successful revisers "added significant length to their essays," reduced spelling and sentence-level errors, and showed significant improvement in "high-level discourse features" of development and introduction/conclusion


49

(273, 275). Bernhardt concludes that "time for revision results in significantly more powerful demonstrations of student writing ability," and that only with the opportunity to revise can students "show us whether they can demonstrate the process of writing we spend so much of our time encouraging" (279). 207. Berthoff, Ann E. "Recognition, Representation, and Revision." Journal of Basic Writing 3, no. 3 (1981): 19-32. Berthoff believes that revision is not taught well because most composition teachers consider writing as a process of finding answers to predetermined problems. However, writing is not a linear process leading to correct answers but a rhetorical process based on dialectic; thus, the purpose of composition instruction is "to teach students to take advantage of the allatonceness of composing, to assure that they continually rediscover how forming, thinking, and writing can be simultaneous and correlative activities" (22). Composing is thinking about thinking about writing. This means that students should be shown how to see relationships and to recognize and represent those relationships in writing. Berthoff notes, "To find out if you have said what you meant, you have to know what you mean and the way to determine that is to say 'it' again" (29). She also says that the basic unit for revision is the paragraph, not the sentence, and that "although errors are best identified in isolation, sentences are best revised in context" (28). Berthoff provides an example of how the theory of composition she advocates would be used in the classroom. 208. Berthoff, Ann E. "Recognition, Representation and Revision." In Rhetoric and Composition: A Sourcebook for Teachers and Writers, edited by Richard L. Graves, 27-37. Upper Montclair, NJ: Boynton/Cook Publishers, 1984. Reprint of (000 Berthoff). 209. Cannady, Criss E. "The Revision Process for Remedial Writers." Arizona English Bulletin 24, no. 2 (1982): 60-65. ED 274 992. The author presents a three-step process - oral-revision, correction-revision, and transformation-revision - that with minimal but carefully chosen comment or questioning from an instructor will help beginning writers learn to revise their writing for more effective communication. 210. Carino, Peter A. "The Annotated Paragraph: An Exercise for Developing Revision Skills in Basic Writing Classes." Exercise Exchange 31, no. 1 (1985): 28-30. Carino offers exercises to guide basic writing students to make evaluative annotations of sentences in a paragraph they have written following a set of questions that incorporate criteria for a sound paragraph. Students can then use the annotations as guidelines for revision. 211. Chenowith, N. A. "The Need to Teach Rewriting." ELT Journal 41 (January 1987): 25-29. Chenoweth encourages teachers of writing to encourage unskilled writers to concentrate on improving the content and expression in their writings instead of focusing on correcting surface-level mistakes, a tactic that limits the students' rewriting efforts. The author gives examples of how content-

50


focused comments result in more effective papers, and she offers a classroom procedure that includes critical comment by both the teacher and other students. 212. Coleman, Eve B. "An Ethnographic Description of the Development of Basic Writers' Revision Skills." 1984. ED 283 151. Coleman outlines a study in which five college basic level writing students kept learning logs while producing five assigned paper in stages: prewriting, drafting, incorporating feedback from the teacher and other students, revising, and final editing. Included are transcripts of peer response sessions in which the students articulate their growing understanding of the importance of revision and language/thought precision. 213. Coles, Nicholas. "Response and Responsibility: The Role of Teachers' Comments in Revision." Missouri English Bulletin 41, no. 6 (1983): 5-10. Coles is convinced that it is counterproductive to ask students to master the mechanical aspects of writing at the same they are trying to expand, reformulate and revise their writing. Using an example of a student's paper, he shows how he tailors comments to reinforce what students have done well and concentrates on asking questions that will help them revise their texts into "fuller, smarter, more satisfying representations of themselves." 214. Fergenson, Laraine. "The Double-Correction Method." Teaching English in the Two-Year College 10 (Spring 1984): 235-237. Fergeson outlines a method that has been found effective in helping seriously scholastically underprepared college students learn proper grammar. After receiving their red-inked compositions from the teacher, the students rewrite their sentences incorrectly, then immediately indicate the correction in green ink. The students then rewrite the sentence correctly. The process is honest in helping students understand all their basic grammar errors, overcomes their avoidance behaviors by requiring them to correct the errors, and gives them a sense of accomplishment, the author says. 215. Fitschen, K. "Effective Advice to Beginning Writers: Revise on Hard Copy." Teaching English in a Two-Year College 13 (May 1986): 104-08. Although enthusiastic about having students compose on the word processor, Fitschen advocates having them revise their writing on hard-copy printouts, a practice that he believes reduces computer and writing anxiety, gives students a new perspective necessary for revision, and is more familiar and more comfortable. 216. Flower, Linda S. "Revising Writer-based Prose." Journal of Basic Writing 3, no. 3 (1981): 62-75. Flower begins by making a distinction between writer-based prose and reader-based prose, noting that writer-based prose is an inevitable part of the composing process but that teachers can help students to transform writer-based prose into reader-based prose. In fact, Flower suggests that teachers effect the transformation by showing students how to take readers' needs into account and how to create an issue-centered organization of ideas based on readers' needs. Concerning readers' needs, Flower notes that "writers


51

solve only the problems they represent to themselves" (65), so they need to visualize real readers and consider their needs. Concerning the issues-centered organization of ideas, Flower says that teachers should help students isolate key points or controlling ideas. Flower also suggests three teaching strategies: specifying a "real-world purpose and a realistic audience" (68), setting up "a mutual goal which both the reader and the writer can share" (68), and asking "students to simulate a reader's response to their own writing" (70). 217. Fortune, Sarah D'Eloia. "Introduction." Journal of Basic Writing 3, no. 3 (1981): 1-5. In introducing the articles in this issue of the Journal of Basic Writing (000), which is devoted to revision, Fortune notes that the authors take the position that revision is "the means and sometimes the substance of invention" (1), not merely the focus of style or arrangement. Fortune also notes that teachers who have subscribed to the process approach to writing, which equates revision with invention, should not dismiss a focus on written products. As she says, "Teaching methods which integrate what we know about the various processes and products of writing methods" (4) are the best methods for help students to learn how to write effectively in a variety of genres. 218. Freeman, Donald C. "Linguistics and Error Analysis: On Agency." In The Territory of Language: Linguistics, Stylistics, and the Teaching of Composition, edited by Donald A. McQuade, 166-73. Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press, 1986. Using as an example an essay written in a "middle-level remedial composition course" (167), Freeman demonstrates how a linguistic approach to error analysis can assist composition instructors in evaluating errors and students in avoiding and revising errors. Freeman argues that a simplified version of generative-transformational grammar can become "a tool that can provide a set of heuristic devices for the construction of a pedagogical grammar" (170-71) beneficial to composition students and faculty alike. 219. Fulwiler, Toby. "Provocative Revision." Writing Center Journal 12, no. 2 (1992): 190-204. "Convinced that revision is the primary way that both thinking and writing evolve, mature, and improve" (190), Fulwiler argues that teachers and writing center tutors should provoke students to revise, using techniques of limiting, adding, switching, and transforming texts. Using student texts as examples, Fulwiler shows how students can improve their writing by limiting time, place, action, scope, and focus; by adding dialogue and interviews; by switching point of view and voice; and by transforming research reports into more interesting genres and narrative into drama. 220. Fortune, Sarah D'Eloia. Journal of Basic Writing 3, no. 3 (1981). See "Introduction" (217 Sarah D'Eloia Fortune). "A Writer's Process: A Conversation with Calvin Trillin" (788 Alice Trillin), "Recognition, Representation, and Revision" (207 Ann E. Berthoff), "Making Meaning Clear: The Logic of Revision" (101 Donald M. Murray), "Intentions and Revisions" (236 Nancy Sommers), "Barriers to Revision" (230 Thomas Newkirk), "Revising Writer-based Prose" (216 Linda S. Flower), "Audience and the

52


Composing Process" (000 David Rankin), "Listening and Writing" (326 Irene Lurkis Clark), "The Reviser's Voices" (227 David Hoddeson), and "Freshman Writers and Revision: Results from a Survey" (134 Susan V. Wall and Anthony R. Petrosky). 221. Greene, Brenda M. "The Influence of Miscues on Basic Writers: Revision Strategies." Reports - Research/Technical, 143, (1989): 14 pages. After conducting a case study in which three students read their own and other students' compositions aloud, Greene disputes the assumption that miscues may limit how students revise their texts. Instead, the author believes the students do not have enough experience reading their writing in progress and suggests that teachers give basic writers specific suggestions for that they should look for and revise during their rereading. 222. Gregory, Robert. "On Parapraxes and Revision." In Revising: New Essays for Teachers of Writing, edited by Ronald A. Sudol, pp. 127-31. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English, 1992. Gregory suggests that looking at slips of the pen can help inexperienced writers learn how to revise their writing. For experienced writers, the slips help point to a more effective approach to helping readers understand what the writers are trying to say. 223. Gebhardt, Richard C. "Changing and Editing: Moving Current Theory on Revision into the Classroom." Rhetoric Review 2, no. 2 (1984): 78-91. Gebhardt urges teachers of writing into redefining "revision" into the concept and practice of "change" as it works during drafting and during editing. He presents exercises to help students understand that revision is far more than editing for style, grammar and other minor alterations. 224. Gere, Ann Ruggles. "Insights from the Blind: Composing without Revising." In Revising: New Essays for Teachers of Writing, edited by Ronald Sudol, 52-70. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teacher of English, 1982. The author looks for clues to make the revision process more effective for sighted students by studying how a blind adult composes without that option. Gere concludes that some students must be taught to observe their work more closely, that teachers should help beginning writers develop a strong sense of audience, and that researchers should reconsider "outmoded pedagogy" (66) that emphasizes diction, memorizing, and copying. Gere also suggests the need for research on the relationship between memory and writing. 225. Harris, Muriel. "Evaluation: The Process for Revision." Journal of Basic Writing 1, no. 4 (1978): 82-90. Hoping to turn a teacher's role as "Super Critic" into "a tutor helping students as they learn how to write well," Harris presents a staged process in which a peer-audience helps students refine their vision of an essay, offers more structured critiquing on a first draft, and, guided by an evaluation sheet, hones in on tough problems for the final version. The structure improves the essays and helps students practice and refine their critical skills, Harris says.


53

226. Hicks, Joyce. "Structured Revision Tasks." Exercise Exchange 23, no. 1 (1978): 15-17. Hicks offers samples of structured group or individual tasks to help students get past superficial changes in their writings and learn to make major content changes. 227. Hoddeson, David. "The Reviser's Voice." Journal of Basic Writing 3, no. 3 (1981): 91-109. Calling upon theoreticians to provide evidence for the position that writing begins with the spoken word, Hoddeson notes that revoicing, the act of evaluating written and oral speech so that it can conform to the standards of written language, is the heart of revision. As Hoddeson says, "Oral states are essential and integral to everybody's writing and revision processes, however rudimentary or professional" (92). He goes on to suggest that writing students, particularly basic writers, can see the relationship between oral and written communication when teachers have the students transcribe oral recordings of speeches and then transform those transcripts into coherent prose. The teacher can ask students to articulate types of problems in oral transcripts that must be fixed for a coherent prose transcript to be created. In addition, the teacher can ask students to read aloud writing so that the relationship between oral and written language can give students insights into how to produce sounds on paper. These activities allow students to see what writing chiefly is: "an orchestration of voice" (105). 228. Jones, William. "Revision for Basic Writers." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication, Dallas, TX, March 1981. ED 202 020. Jones presents a revision guide that basic writers can use individually and in groups "to structure peer assessment and inquiry" (3) to prepare students to revise their writing. Thus, the revision guide can be used "to share assignments and to focus the students' second semester writing, to direct group assessment and collaboration, to guide [the teacher's] marking and the students' rewriting of their papers" (6). 229. Kearns, Michael. "Topical Knowledge and Revising." Journal of Teaching Writing 9 (1990): 185-207. Kearns asserts that students' ability to revise depends not only on the level of cognitive development but also on their acquisition of knowledge about a topic. To support his assertion, Kearns presents evidence from his teaching writing to writers with weak composition skills. He compares revisions students made on diagnostic writing and portfolio entries and shows that even though students may not have developed cognitively by becoming more relativistic, nonetheless they made macrostructure revisions. Part of the reason that students made such revisions is that they were given time "for ideas to ripen and knowledge to grow" (201). In fact, according to Kearns, if students are not given "both time and the stimulation of additional reading and conversations" teachers "are making it nearly impossible for them [students] really to practice revising" (202). In other words, "a paper ought to grow in substance as the writer grows in knowledge," so "if a course targets improvement in revision methods, there should be a well-defined and intellectually stimulating content" (205).

54


230. Newkirk, Thomas. "Barriers to Revision." Journal of Basic Writing 3, no. 3 (1981): 50-62. Newkirk discusses two case studies of students who learned how to revise. One student had to learn that details did not bore readers the way details in spoken language might bore a listener. The other student had to learn that a first draft was usually insufficient in giving a writer the opportunity to gain a critical perspective on his or her work to revise it effectively. Newkirk concludes that students need "to read more bad (or unfinished) writing" (59) to understand the importance of revision and that revision must be a significant component of any writing course. 231. Polin, Elane. "A Lesson in Revision: Excerpt from a Student Journal." Writing Notebook: Visions for Learning 11, no. 1 (1993): 39. Polin recounts how a letter-writing assignment to be sent to real people such as author Steven King or other celebrities motivated her students to seek help in revision and to do their very best. 232. Saur, Pamela S. "Teaching Rereading and Rewriting to 'Basic Writers'." Paper presented at the Basic Writing Conference, St. Louis, MO, September 1985. ED 265 542. The author suggests several procedures to use when teaching basic writers the importance of revision by correcting, adding, and subtracting material. She also offers suggestions to make the task less overwhelming, such as varying or limiting the assigned revision tasks, or varying the timing of rereading or the amounts reread. 233. Schor, Sandra. "An Alternative to Revising: The Proleptic Grasp." Journal of Basic Writing 6, no. 1 (1987): 48-54. After years of seeing little progress in her students' multiple-draft essays, Schor finds that repeatedly interrupting the process and forcing students to focus on smaller elements in the essays results in more thoughtful and meaningful writing. 234. Shaw, Margaret L. "Teaching Revision as Re-Seeing: Sequenced Assignments for Basic Writing." Iowa English Bulletin 32 (1983): 1-4. Shaw explains how sequenced assignments that ask students to examine an issue from different perspectives in increasingly complex ways helps them develop a real sense of the dialectical relationship between language and experience and between old formulations and new. 235. Snyder, William C. "Ideas in Practice: A Sentence-Revising Format for Basic Writers." Journal of Developmental Education 11, no. 1 (1987): 20-22. The author discusses a method he calls "Diagnosis and Revision and with Clues (DRWC)" that uses students' faulty sentences and a numbered clue system to guide students in diagnosing errors and revising sentences. 236. Sommers, Nancy. "Intentions and Revision." Journal of Basic Writing 3, no. 3 (1981): 41-49. In comparing the writing process of an unskilled writer and a skilled writer, Sommers found that the unskilled writer slavishly followed rules, such as rules about how to construct a five-paragraph theme, without realizing that rules are abstract and writing is not abstract. Thus, the unskilled


55

writer actually produced a sixth revision of an assignment that was of inferior quality to a fifth revision of the assignment because the unskilled writer followed the rule that more is better. The skilled writer, on the other hand, revised with the understanding of how the purpose of the different parts of the essay fit with the whole of the essay; "a writer's sense of the whole writing both precedes and grows out of an examination of the parts" (49). The skilled writer found a structure for the essay he was writing, but the unskilled writer believed a fixed structure already existed, and, therefore, she did not focus many of her writing efforts on discovering ideas, which is the heart of revision. 237. Streckfuss, Richard. "Good Writing Can Be Taught with Critiques and Rewrites." Journalism Education 46, no. 3 (1991): 64-68. Streckfuss presents a systematic approach to help beginning writers adopt the habits of good professional writers, including using shorter words and sentences, fewer words, more interior structure, and more active-voice verbs. Much of the instruction is keyed to a rewrite of an example of bad, bureaucratic writing. 238. Sun, Lulu C. H. "Re-Vie wing and Teaching Revision." English Journal 78, no. 3 (1989): 87-88. Concerned that students are reluctant to revise writing because they do not know what revision is, confuse it with proofreading, stop writing prematurely, or do not have the necessary critical reading or editing skills, the author suggests several activities in and out of class to encourage revision. She urges teachers to allow students to share drafts of essays, to stress reading and rereading, to provide checklists for the revision process, and to reward revision efforts. 239. Tschumy, Ruth D. "A Return to the Draft: Or, How to Wage War on the Nonreviser." Arizona English Bulletin 22 (February 1980): 157-61. Tschumy is convinced that students must learn the process of revising their writing before receiving a final grade. But since teachers are limited by time because of the necessity to also teach writing and mechanics, she suggests several activities to help students learn the revision process. Drafts, she says, may be written on yellow paper, reserving white paper for the final version. Crucial also is how teachers respond to drafts - focus must be on ideas and questions about structure and unresolved issues rather than emphasis on mechanical errors. 240. Walker, Nancy. "Synesthesia in Revision." Missouri English Bulletin 41, no. 6 (1983): 46-51. To call attention to the kind of mental hearing that is possible when they read, and thus when they write, Walker suggests having students compose aloud while their writing is taken down by a student scribe, who then reads the composition back so that the writer can revise with a real audience in mind. The process, Walker says, helps students understand the real meaning of revision and audience. 241. Wolcott, Willa J. "Helping Basic Writers to Revise." Missouri English Bulletin 41, no. 6 (1983): 36-40. To help writing students overcome their aversion to revision because of defensiveness, a sense of inadequacy, or misunderstanding the goal of revision, Wolcott describes a class module she

56


calls "Practicing Revision Strategies" (36). She suggests instruction in and offers examples of revising for weak organization, inadequate development, irrelevant material, redundancy, and poor word choice. Scientific Courses 242. Gratz, Ronald K. "Improving Lab Report Quality by Model Analysis, Peer Review, and Revision." Journal of College Science Teaching 19, no. 5 (1990): 292-95. To improve college students' lab reports, Gratz required students to read published scientific papers and analyze them using a critique sheet that helps the students identify the salient points of such papers. Then students write a draft of a lab report based on their work in the laboratory. Students bring the draft lab reports to class so that peers can evaluate the reports using the same critique sheet that was used to analyze published scientific papers. Then students revise their lab reports and turn them in for a grade. Gratz notes that students have complained about the peer review of their reports and the need to revise. He counters these complaints by noting that when students complain about peers reading their lab reports, they fail to recognize that "free exchange of ideas is inherent in scientific inquiry" (295) and that although the claim that peers cannot properly evaluate lab reports has some validity, the claim fails to recognize the value of "the practice gained by analyzing published papers" (295) with the standardized critique sheet. Indeed, students' lab reports have improved significantly since Gratz has implemented his method of teaching students how to write and revise their reports. 243. Sanford, James F. "Multiple Drafts of Experimental Laboratory Reports." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, August 1982. ED 226 375. Sanford outlines a multiple-draft writing project describing students' psychological laboratory assignments. The process is popular with students because it helps them to learn a new writing style and to understand the material they are writing about. Technical Writing Courses 244. Allen, Jo and Sherry Southard. '"But I Did Proofread!': Teaching Technical Communication Students to Revise Stylistically." The Technical Writing Teacher 14, no. 2 (1987): 170-73. The authors discuss the difficulty students sometimes have distinguishing between revision and proofreading and describe a method for teaching students to revise stylistically. Allen and Southard present a set of guidelines designed to "help students eliminate passive voice, nominalizations, and -ize verbs," as well as "nonspecific verbs and vague demonstrative pronouns" (171). They also explain how they introduce the guidelines to students and use them in the classroom. 245. Amsden, Dorothy Corner, and Scott P. Sanders. "Developing Taste and Judgment: Correctness and the Technical Editor." The Technical Writing Teacher 12, no. 2 (1985): 111-14. The authors argue that editors should use "taste and judgment" as well as handbook rules and dictionary guidelines in editing, and that students find a course that approaches editing in this fashion to be "a liberating experience" (111). Amsden and Sanders illustrate their thesis by


57

describing their decision- making process in opting to use the more common "judgment" rather than "judgement" in their article. The example, they assert, demonstrates to students how "professional editors use their taste and judgment to interpret and then to apply the rules-even in matters of spelling" (114). 246. Blickle, Margaret D. "Training Young Engineers and Scientists for Written Communications." In Teaching Technical Writing and Editing—InHouse Programs That Work, Anthology Series No. 5, edited by James G. Shaw, 71-76. Washington, DC: Society for Technical Communication, 1966. ED 172 264. Blickle recommends that teachers of report writing teach their students to write clear purpose statements, to create outlines before they write, to consider their audience as they write, and to revise extensively. The author also recommends individual conferences to critique student writing, to discuss revisions, and to interpret assignments. 247. Bloomstrand, David. "Procedural Revisions and Updates: Some Applications for Technical Writing Classes." Technical Writing Teacher 15, no. 1 (1988): 42-48. Bloomstrand notes that although most beginning technical writers are often asked to revise existing documents, college technical writing courses are more likely to have focused on the creation of new texts. The author recommends providing students with a document for revision, instructions for the revision, and new material to be incorporated into the revised document. He recommends that such projects be done in small groups, using word processors and texts that already exist as word processor files. 248. Craven, Gerald A. "Reworking the Foul Copy: An Exercise in Revision." Technical Writing Teacher 4, no. 3 (1977): 105-106. The author describes how he provides students with a systematized procedure for students to evaluate each other's papers and their own technical writing projects. By using this process students are more confident and constructive when using a checklist on their own work and has already received feedback from colleagues on what their particular strengths and weaknesses may be. 249. Douglas, George H. "What To Do about Cobblestone Writing." In A Guide for Writing Better Technical Papers, edited by Craig Harkins and Daniel L. Plung, 123-26. New York: IEEE Press, 1982. Douglas says that technical writing is often cobblestone writing, "a trip down a cobblestone road in a onehoss shay, an experience of bumping from one hard side to another" (124). In other words, cobblestone writing is dense and compact, with one idea piled on another idea and little room for readers to understand how the ideas fit together. Thus, technical writing can suffer from lack of actually writing; the technical writer becomes a list maker, forgetting that writing has a narrative element that helps readers understand what a writer is talking about. In fact, Douglas criticizes English teachers for telling technical writing students to be brief because brevity is the essence of cobblestone writing. Rather, English teachers should help technical writing students to revise their writing by using narrative, not necessarily for a lay audience, but for an intended technical audience.

58


250. Gilbertsen, Michael, and M. Jimmie Killingsworth. "Behavioral TalkWrite as a Method for Teaching Technical Editing." Journal of Business and Technical Communication 1, no. 1 (1987): 108-14. The authors describe a workshop approach to help technical writing students go beyond learning to identify problems such as wordiness and passive voice to practice rewriting ineffective passages written by other writers. Dividing the class into two groups, they have one group edit and the other supervise the editing, intensifying the learning process by harnessing the power of the vocal modality in which students express themselves more clearly and accurately, and also giving the instructor time to give individual and small group instruction. 251. Kelly, Erna. "Processing Words and Writing Instructions: Revising and Testing Word Processing Instructions in an Advanced Technical Writing Class." In Writing at Century's End: Essays on Computer-Assisted Composition, edited by Lisa Gerrard, 27-35. New York: Random House, 1987. Kelly asserts that an assignment that engages students in revising instructions using a computer "that can encourage a wide range of revision strategies" (28). Kelly explains the project she used in her classroom, noting that students revised instructions for a computer manual and user-tested those instructions using protocol analysis. Kelly notes that "students learned how successful revision requires an awareness of one's audience" (31) and that computers can help students make substantive changes in documents, not merely surface changes. 252. Marder, Daniel. "Discovery and Entropy in the Revision of Technical Reports." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication, Washington, DC, March 1980. ED 186 911. The author introduces an equation that writers can use to reduce entropy-the amount of disorder that is present in a system-to help them estimate the amount of revision that they should attempt before it becomes counterproductive. 253. Meyers, G. Douglas. "Write, Respond, Revise: Using the Seminar Method to Teach Technical Writing." In Collaborative Technical Writing: Theory and Practice, edited by Richard Louth and Ann Martin Scott, 129-144. Hammond, LA: Association of Teachers of Technical Writing, 1989. Meyers describes a successful two-week collaborative learning seminar that features a carefully articulated schedule of rotating roles, a variety of types of writing and evaluation to foster development of abilities, attitudes, and high levels of cognitive thought. 254. Mosher, Katherine E. "A Basic Approach to Revising and Rewriting User Manuals." In Proceedings 38th International Technical Communication Conference: Communication City, WE-139-WE-141. Washington, DC: Society for Technical Communication, 1991. Knowing the subject and having a plan is the key to good writing of good technical manuals, says Mosher. She provides a step-by-step guide to planning-from studying consistency between the table of contents and flowchart to asking whether the manual seems to achieve what it set out to do-and tips to effectively handle the experts on the subject the manual covers.


59

255. Nord, Roland D., and Michelle J. Moosally. "Teaching Revision of Technical Documents in the Computer-Assisted Writing Classroom: Exercises, Research, and a Selectively Annotated Bibliography." In Proceedings 40th Annual Conference Society for Technical Communication: Communication Roundup, 247. Arlington, VA: Society for Technical Communication, 1993. The authors outline a demonstration intended to persuade teachers of technical writing to incorporate a model of writing and revision into their texts, especially one that uses advances in computer-assisted writing. The demonstration includes helping teachers construct documents for students to revise. 256. Peterson, Bruce T. "Technical Writing, Revision, and Language Communities." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication. NY, March, 1984. ED 245 246. Peterson reports on a study of technical writing needs at a major corporation that indicates students are often taught the least important aspects of technical writing. To help solve the problem, he suggests developing cross-curricular writing in specialty areas and creating language communities in composition and literature courses. 257. Smith, Herb. "Using Videotaping to Teach Writing and Revising." Technical Communication 33, no. 2 (1986): 111. Smith demonstrates how he uses videotaping during the writing and editing phase of an article to stress the close relationship between writing and revising. By watching other students go through the process, students learn a variety of techniques. 258. Spears, Lee A. "Practicing Good Technical Communication Techniques by Revising Patient-Education Materials." Journal of Business and Technical Communication 12, no. 4 (1998): 472-87. The author describes how an editing assignment to revise a hospital's patient-education materials helped his technical communications students review the principles of accessible organization, audience analysis, formatting and graphics, and clear sentence structure and diction. The exercise is designed for use by individuals or groups. Writing Across the Curriculum Classes 259. Beason, Larry. "Feedback and Revision in Writing Across the Curriculum Classes." Research in the Teaching of English 27, no. 4 (1993): 395-422. Beason conducted empirical research to answer questions about revision in writing-across-the-curriculum college classes (business law, journalism, dental hygiene, and psychology). He found that advising, praising, problem detecting, and editing were the major aims of both teachers and students when they commented on students' drafts. When students revised, they addressed 57.1% of students' problem-oriented comments and 89.5% of teachers' comments. In analyzing the data, Beason found that teachers and students "complement one another in the amount of problem-oriented and positive feedback they offer" (411). He also found that most student revisions focused on non-global issues, such as local-meaning and surface-level revisions. However, Beason notes that such revisions should not be minimized because "even a mended comma splice contributes in its own way to the readability of a

60


text and the writer's linguistic development" (416). In addition, Beason compared the commenting practices of teachers in this study with the commenting practices in the literature focusing on composition teachers and found that the two types of teachers share some common practices. 260. Beyer, Barry K. "Pre-writing and Rewriting To Learn." Social Education 43, no. 3 (1979): 187-189, 197. Beyer insists that students in social studies and history classes need to be taught how to pre-write and rewrite their assignments. Thus, Beyer provides instruction on prewriting that includes various activities students can use to interact with information before they begin writing on a topic. He also provides instruction on rewriting, noting that "most students and teachers view rewriting primarily as editing" (189), but the heart of rewriting is "evaluating and revising the substance of what has been written" (189). Beyer recommends using checklists and peer evaluation to promote rewriting and suggests that students can improve their writing by rewriting a piece for various audiences. "Finally," he notes, "students need to edit their writing for spelling, punctuation, sentence structure, and other mechanics" (197). 261. Fulwiler, Toby. Teaching With Writing. Upper Montclair, NJ: Boynton/Cook, 1987. Fulwiler's book on writing across the curriculum seeks to provide "an overview of the current state of writing instruction as it applies to teaching in the context area" (?) and each chapter includes a section of material from Fulwiler's workshops for teachers. In Chapter 5, "Revising," Fulwiler stresses the need for faculty in all disciplines to reinforce the importance of writing-and of revising. He also provides ideas on revising from a variety of writers and writing teachers including Donald Murray, Ann Berthoff, Ken Macrorie, Mina Shaughnessy, Peter Elbow, Linda Flower, Nancy Sommers, and others. In Chapter 6, "Editing," Fulwiler explains what he see as the distinction between revising and editing: "Revision is rewriting at the conceptual level, editing is rewriting at the rhetorical level" (75). He then provides examples of effective editing illustrating editing concepts he labels condensing, deleting, combining, compressing, choices and options, choosing appropriate language, being consistent, and clarifying. 262. Zarro, Jo. "Revising on Computer in the High School." Writing Notebook: Creative Word Processing in the Classroom 9, no. 2 (1991): 24-27. Zarro provides instructions students can use to peer review peers' writing and revise their own writing using computers, including HyperCard. Special Issues Creative Writing 263. Armstrong, Cherryl. "The Poetic Dimensions of Revision." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication, New Orleans, LA, March 1986. ED 278 024. In studying the revision process poets use, Armstrong found that the revising pattern she found was "primarily of deletion and tightening" (8), especially when poets wrote free


61

verse. She uses Murray's theory of revision, which divides revision into internal and external, but notes, "Poetic writers revise not only to discover what they know, or to communicate this to an audience, but to uncover what the poem knows" (9). This uncovering is a third type of revision, which Armstrong calls aesthetic revising. "In this kind of revision the writer's purpose is neither to clarify nor to communicate ideas, but to refine and develop the text as a work of art" (10). In terms of classroom practice, Armstrong suggests that teachers can ask students to make their prose writing "more stylistically interesting" not by "adding more colorful or figurative language" but by devising "techniques for helping students draw out the poetic elements of writing in their drafts, encourage them to play with words, to develop the ability of poets to sometimes let go of an idea for the sake of finding more interesting ideas emerging in the text, to focus, at times, on the language of the text itself (12). 264. Becker, Geoffrey. "Strategies for Revising Short Stories." The Writer 105, no. 10 (1996): 11-14. Becker argues that too many inexperienced short story writers "approach their fiction as finished once an initial draft exists" and fail to understand the importance of revision. Becker urges writers with a completed draft of a story to ask a series of questions relating to plot, characters, dialogue, and action and be prepared to revise-and to cut-scenes, characters, and plot developments that do not contribute sufficiently to the story. 265. Bishop, Wendy. "Responding and Revising." In Released into Language: Options for Teaching Creative Writing 131-156. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English, 1990. Bishop argues that revision "is a cornerstone of the writing workshop," and encourages creative writing teachers to use a variety of strategies to encourage their students to revise (132). Bishop recommends journals, group work, and guided responses as effective revising strategies for creative writing classes. She provides multiple examples from a creative writing student's journal to demonstrate the value of journal keeping, describes in detail workshopping strategies, and shows examples of guided response sheets and actual student critiques that resulted from them. Bishop asserts that revision not only "improves student work," but that it also "improves students, allowing them more insight into what it means to be a writer" (132). 266. Della-Piana, Gabriel M. "Research Strategies for the Study of Revision Processes in Writing Poetry." In Research on Composing: Points of Departure, edited by Charles R. Cooper and Lee Odell, 105-34. Urbana: National Council of Teachers of English, 1978. "Revision is both the discrimination or sensing of something in a work that does not match what the poet intends or what the poem itself suggests and the synthesis that brings the writing closer to what is intended or suggests the way that this might be done" (106). Della-Piana's definition of revision is intended to show that any study of the revision of poetry must allow for a variety of approaches to the "idiosyncratic process of revision" (110). To accomplish the study of the revision of poetry, Della-Piana using two data sources: available documents and structured observations. Under available documents, Della-Piana lists autobiography and biography of poets, accounts of

62


poets who discuss their writing process, revision manuscripts of poets, and literature of poets and teachers of poetry. Under structured observations, DellaPiana lists empirical studies of the process of writing poetry. For both categories, Della-Piana cites a variety of sources. See also (269 Della-Piana and Endo). 267. Della-Piana, Gabriel M., and George T. Endo. "Writing as Revision: Proposal for a Longitudinal Experimental Study with a Treatment Intervention." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, April 1977. ED 137 791. Della-Piana and Endo's paper covers much of the same material in (268 Della-Piana), but includes a proposed method for studying how poetry is revised. 268. Dufresne, John. "Revising Your Fiction Manuscript." The Writer 106, no. 11 (1993): 9-12. Revising, according to Dufresne, is not an afterthought to writing but the heart of writing. Writers, therefore, use a first draft to discover what they want to say and then work tirelessly to shape what they found they want to say. To help fiction writers revise effectively, Dufresne provides a thirteen-point checklist. 269. Dworsky, Nancy. "The Disaster Workshop." College English 35 (November 1973): 194-95. Dworsky asks her poetry students to bring poems they have written but aren't satisfied with to poetry workshops. She does this because she believes that the teacher should "never deal with students' finished work; always work with writing that the student is unhappy with" (194). Why? Students who believe that their poetry needs revising are more apt to listen to suggestions for revision. Students who believe that their poetry is already in good shape are less likely to want advice about revision and more likely to want praise. 270. Graves, Donald H., and Donald M. Murray. "Revision in the Writer's Workshop and in the Classroom." Journal of Education (Spring 1980): 38-56. In an attempt to explore the revision process, a writer keeps a journal while revising a novel and several pieces of non-fiction, while at the same time a researcher observes and points out classroom implications of the writer's comments. The researcher concludes that all writing is creative and that revision is an act of problem solving. He also concludes that beginning writers and professionals deal with many of the same problems. 271. Gubb, Jenny. "Back to the Drawing Board: Constructing a Story from First Draft to Final Copy." English in Education 17, no. 2 (1983): 24-33. In examining drafts of a horror story a student named Andrea produced, Gubb notes that "the writer is her own critic and teacher" (32). Although the writing teacher can provide drafting opportunities for students and help students see changes they make from draft to draft, unless a student "feels dissatisfied herself, the writer will not accept any suggestions for alterations because as a writer she can only make changes when she herself, as the reader of her own work, believes them to be necessary and appropriate" (32).


63

272. Hildick, Wallace. Word for Word: The Rewriting of Fiction. New York: W. W. Norton, 1965. "Physically, an author makes only three kinds of alterations: he substitutes, he deletes and he inserts. But when the intention behind each change is taken into account we find a much wider range of groups and sub-divisions" (7). Hildick goes on to discuss in detail the revisions literary authors make and then discusses in particular revisions from George Eliot's Middlemarch, D. H. Lawrence's The White Peacock, Odour of Chrysanthemum, and The Rainbow, Samuel Butler's The Way of All Flesh, Thomas Hardy's Tess of the D'Urbervilles, Henry James' The Portrait of a Lady, and Virginia Woolf s Mrs. Dalloway. 273. Lane, Barry. After "The End": Teaching and Learning Creative Revision. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, 1993. Lane says that his book for teachers about how to promote revision in the classroom is "a book of good ideas to help enrich and give versatility to the choices students make in their own writing" (4). Each chapter in the book is designed around exercises that teach particular concepts. The book is divided into two parts. The chapters in the first part, Creating a Language of Craft, are "Good Writing Is Good Questions," "More than Wallpaper," "Snapshots and Thoughtshots," "Don't Make a Scene! Build One," "Explode a Moment and Shrink a Century," "Friction or Nonfriction," "Don't Fix My Story, Just Listen To Me," and "Reentering a Draft." The chapters in the second part, The Writer's Struggle, are "But What If I Can't Freewrite?," "See Dick Revise. Revise, Dick, Revise.," "Voice and Choice: Nurturing Voce and Tone in Student Writing," "I Probably Shouldn't Hand This to an English Teacher: Risk and Writing," "Words in Collision," "Befriending the Language," "When Is It Done?," and "The Writing Doctor." 274. Obstfeld, Raymond. "A Four-Step Plan for Revising Fiction." The Writer's Digest 80, no. 4 (2000): 30-33. Obstfeld presents four steps to better revision and methods to achieve those steps when fine tuning a short story or novel: develop a clear and compelling plot; sharpen texture; develop character through dialogue; and tighten pace and continuity. He cautions that the steps must be compartmentalized and applied to short, self-contained sections of the work. 275. Sears, Peter. "Revising the Line: A Simple Exercise." Teachers and Writers 25, no. 1 (1993): 9-11. Using a compound-complex sentence, Sears shows how line length and placement on a page adds emphasis and meaning to a poem. Grading 276. Birdsall, Eric. "Avoiding Whadjaget with No-grade, Graded Papers." College Composition and Communication May (1979): 220-222. Birdsall describes a grading/revising system in which he grades students' papers, records the grades, then returns the graded papers to students with comments and checksheets indicating the papers' strengths and weaknesses-but without grades.

64


After reviewing Birdsall's comments, students have two options: they may ask to know and accept the grades already given or may choose to revise their papers and resubmit them. The same grading/commenting process is followed on revisions, Birdsall explains, and all grades are recorded and given equal weight in computing students' final grades. 277. Calabrese, Marylyn E. "Glossing: A Revision Technique." In Process and Portfolios in Writing Instruction: Classroom Practices in Teaching English, edited by Kent Gill, 40-43. Urbana, IL: NCTE, 1993. Calabrese recommends that writing teachers require students to put brief comments on a revised draft of a paper to show where and how the student has made revision from an earlier draft of the paper. This process of writing comments is called glossing and not only helps the teacher to cut down on time in reading and evaluating revised drafts but helps the students understand how to revise their papers. 278. Carlson, Diana M. and Carol Roellich. "Teaching Writing Easily and Effectively to get Results. Part II: The Evaluation Process." Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Council of Teachers of English Spring Conference, Seattle, Washington, April 1983. ED 233 372. The authors discuss how to help students improve their writing by using the 11 category "Indicator for Rating Performance, Grades 6-12" to evaluate other students' writing. 279. Cohen, Alan S. "Student Processing of Feedback on Their Compositions." In Learner Strategies in Language Learning, edited by Anita Wenden and Joan Rubin, 57-69. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice/Hall International, 1987. In studying college students' responses to the written feedback teachers provided on the students' writing, Cohen found that a fifth of the students in his study did not even read teachers' comments; that when students did read comments they sometimes did not understand teachers' cryptic comments (such as "confusing" or "not clear"); that students who did read comments paid attention to what teachers said about grammar, vocabulary, organization, and content, but teachers did not provide many comments regarding vocabulary, organization, and content; and that the "rewriting of papers was reportedly limited, and more prevalent among students who rated themselves as poor writer" (65). Cohen concludes that "teacher feedback as currently constituted and realized may have more limited impact on the learners than the teachers would desire" (66) and that both "learner training regarding the various strategies available for handling teacher feedback and for teacher training with respect to more effective feedback for student writers" (67) is needed. 280. Crawford, Wayne. "Standards of Performance: Evaluating Grading Standards and Their Role in Student Revision Process." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication, San Diego, California, March 1993. ED 358 458. After closely following the writing development of a student, Crawford concludes that giving students published criteria on grading the writing - including idea or focus, organization,


65

development, word choice and usage even more than style - is a highly productive teaching strategy. 281. Dieterich, Daniel. "Response to Richard Beach, "Self-Evaluation Strategies of Extensive Revisers and Nonrevisers." College Composition and Communication 27 (1976): 301-02. "I know of no evidence," Dieterich says, "that good writers usually make several extensive revisions of their papers before submitting them. I don't even know of evidence which indicates that good writers write several drafts of their papers" (301). Yet, according to Dieterich, Beach's study of revisers and nonrevisers (000) assumes that making extensive revisions is essential to producing good writing. Dieterich further objects to Beach's suggestion that the amount of revision be used to grade students' writing because "We know too little about extensive revision to be able to evaluate students on the basis of whether or not they employ it" (302). 282. Dietz, Cynthia. "Good Question, Susan." Language Arts 64, no. 3 (1987): 285-88. When a student named Susan asks Dietz what she must do to get an A in the creative writing class, Dietz considers her question and concludes that writing to get a grade is not appropriate. Rather students should seek to improve their writing. In terms of evaluating writing, Dietz says, "I evaluated each writing on the extent of the revisions, and based the students' quarterly grades on their writing, revising, responding, and sharing" (287). 283. Duke, Charles R. "An Annotated Bibliography on Revision." In Revising: New Essays for Teachers of Writing, edited by Ronald A. Sudol, 165184. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English, 1982. Duke's bibliography includes many entries annotated in this bibliography and in Speck's Grading Student Writing: An Annotated Bibliography, published in 1998 by Greenwood. Thus, entries in Duke's bibliography address not only revision, but also teacher-student conferences and ways teachers read and respond to student papers. 284. Duke, Charles R. "An Approach to Revision and Evaluation of Student Writing." Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication, Washington, DC, March 1980. ED 188 167. Duke outlines four steps in the ways teachers respond to students' writing, noting that the last step, grading, is foreign to the process approach to teaching composition. The first three steps have to do with reading and responding to a students' writing. Duke says that the gap between the first three steps and the last step can be diminished by teaching students about revising or reformulation, which he divides into three categories: rewriting, revision, and editing. To help students understand and apply these categories, Duke provides diagnostic instruments, including a critique sheet with questions the student should answer about a particular piece of writing. Duke also uses a modified contract system for grading. Duke sees four virtues in the system he uses: (1) the drafting process is emphasized, (2) the distinction between writing as a process and grading is highlighted, (3) one writing problem at a time is focused on, and (4) the writing process becomes an asset instead of a liability for students.

66


285. Duke, Charles R. "Responding to Student Writing." Connecticut English Journal 9 (Fall 1977): 148-59. Substantially the same as Duke (284). 286. Fourdrinier, Sylvia. "The Editor as a Teacher." In Technical Editing: Principles and Practices, Anthology Series Number 4, edited by Lola M. Zook, 67-70. Washington, DC: Society for Technical Communication, 1975. Fourdrinier argues that editors who are willing to act as teachers can help themselves and the writers whose material they edit. She encourages editors to return drafts or manuscripts with comments whenever possible and to explain to authors why changes were made. 287. McAlexander, Patricia J. "Advantages of the Cumulative Comment Sheet in Composition Classes." College Composition and Communication 39, no. 4 (1988): 463-64. To enhance a "larger conversation" (463) between student and instructor, McAlexander started adding a comment sheet with student's first essays and using the same one to comment on additional class work. The sheets were intended to help the author get to know students more quickly and to keep track of their progress. Additional benefits soon became obvious: she could recognize patterns of errors and refer students to previous comments; it became easier to include genuine compliments on students' writing; and she was reminded to temper criticism when weaknesses had not occurred previously. 288. McDonald, W. U., Jr. "The Revising Process and the Marking of Student Papers." College Composition and Communication 29, no. 2 (1978): 167-70. McDonald describes his procedure in grading multiple drafts of student papers, starting with content and focus, then paying more attention to sentence structure and grammar as the paper progresses. For the final, graded paper, McDonald advocates a comprehensive analysis from sentence effectiveness and word choice. 289. Matalene, Carolyn. "The Teacher as Editor." Journal of Teaching Writing 5, no. 1 (1986): 3-15. If the New Rhetoric is to be honestly introduced into the writing classroom, the writing teacher must act on three basic principles to help writers discover and express their own messages: the teacher as editor does not give assignments; does not give grades, and systematically asks writers to examine and explain their intentions, Matalene says. Grades should only be given on works the students have chosen from their portfolio. Students should also be given ample opportunity to revise and develop their true expressions. Learning Disabled Students 290. Cohen, Barbara L. "Writing: A New Approach to the Revision Process." Academic Therapy 20, no. 5 (1985): 587-589. Cohen explains a process she has developed to help her learning disabled seniors revise and correct their writings. The process moves from free writing to detailed corrections but avoids discouraging students at the initial stages by premature red-penciling.


67

291. De La Paz, Susan, Phillip N. Swanson, and Steve Graham. "The Contribution of Executive Control to the Revising by Students with Writing and Learning Difficulties." Journal of Educational Psychology 90, no. 3 (1998): 448-60. The authors describe a study involving 12 eighth-grade students with writing and learning disabilities who were provided with a structured approach to revision. The study replicated and extended an earlier study by Graham (292 "Executive Control in the Revising of Students with Learning and Writing Difficulties."). The study found that the "executive control" provided by the researchers led to more revision by the students and to "a significant increase in meaning-preserving revisions that made text better" (457). 292. Graham, Steve. "Executive Control in the Revising of Students with Learning and Writing Difficulties." Journal of Educational Psychology 89, no. 2 (1997): 223-34. Graham divided fifth- and sixth-grade learning disabled students into two groups, those who revised without any help from the teacher and those who revised using the compare/diagnose/operate (CDO) approach developed by Scardamalia and Bereiter (195 "The Development of Evaluative, Diagnostic . . ."). Each student wrote a draft of a story and then revised that draft. In examining the data from the study, Graham found that students who used the CDO procedure made more T-unit changes to improve the first draft than did students who did not use the CDO procedure. However, CDO students also made more word-level changes that had a negative impact on the ratings their papers received. Graham also notes that CDO students focused on form instead of substance during revision, were indifferent to audience concerns, did not show sufficient competence with the elements of the revising process, and tended to evaluate the need for revision based on whether language "sounded right." Indeed, "Students made more individuals revisions rated as better when using CDO, but there was no statistical difference between CDO and normal revising in overall quality of final drafts or changes in quality from first to final draft" (232). Graham suggests four implications for teaching revision, including providing students with external support during revising in the form of teaching students how to ask questions about writing and focusing students' attention on audience needs. 293. Graham, Steve, and Charles MacArthur. "Improving Learning Disabled Students' Skills at Revising Essays Produced on a Word Processor: SelfInstructional Strategy Training." Journal of Special Education 22, no. 2 (1988): 133-52. The authors conducted an experiment in which three learning-disabled elementary school students were given extensive instruction in revising their writing using a six-step strategy. Analysis of data from the experiment showed that students greatly increased their revisions after training; students' essays increased in length; errors in spelling, capitalization, and punctuation decreased; and "revised versions of essays were judged to be qualitatively better than first drafts" (149). In addition, students believed that they had become better able to write and revise a good essay. The authors conclude that "the six-step revising strategy resulted in an improvement in LD students' revising skills as well as a positive change in their written products" (151).

68


294. Graham, Steve, Charles MacArthur, and Shirley Schwartz. "Effects of Goal Setting and Procedural Facilitation on the Revising Behavior and Writing Performance of Students with Writing and Learning Problems." Journal of Educational Psychology 87, no. 2 (1995): 230-40. The authors conducted an experiment with 67 learning-disabled students in grades four through six. The students were divided into three groups and asked to write a personal narrative in response to one of two prompts. Students in the first group were given general instructions to revise their papers to "make [them] better" (232), students in a second group were instructed to "add at least three things to their papers to make them better" and told that adding information would make them better (232), and students in the third group were given the same instructions as the second group and also were directed to write down a list of "at least five thing they could add to their story" (232-33). Both first and second drafts of papers were scored holistically on an eight-point scale and were scored for length. Revisions made between drafts were "identified and categorized according to syntactic level," coded as additions, deletions, or substitution-rearrangement, scored as "meaning preserving or meaning changing" (233), and rated as "better, no change, or worse" (233). The researchers found that the instructional methods did not significantly affect the length of the revised drafts or the number of meaning-preserving revisions students made. The revisions of students in the second and third groups-those given specific revision goals-were rated higher in quality than those of the first group and students in the second and third groups made significantly more meaning-changing revisions than did students in the first group. There was, however, no significant difference between the performance of students in the second and third groups. The authors note, however, that the changes "had only a modest effect on text quality" and recommend "providing more extensive practice and instruction" in setting revision goals for student writers. 295. Livingston, Sue. "Revision Strategies of Deaf Student Writers." American Annals of the Deaf 134, no. 1 (1989): 21-26. In a study of the relationship between teacher comments and deaf students' revision of their writing (stories) based on those comments, Livingston found that teachers most often asked students questions "which requested more specific information to fill gaps and thereby offer a more complete explanation" (22). However, questions "which requested clarification of stated, but unclear, aspects of the story" (22) had the most influence on students' revisions of their stories. In comparing the types of revisions deaf students made with the types of revisions hearing students made, as reported in the literature on revision, Livingston found that "deaf students tended to make more additions, while hearing students tended to make more deletions" (25). Based on datafromher study, Livingston provides implications for teaching revision to student writers. 296. MacArthur, Charles. "Peers + Word Processing + Strategies = A Powerful Combination for Revising Student Writing." Teaching Exceptional Children 27, No. 1 (Fall 1994): 24-29. The author discusses a study that indicates word processors ease the physical process of revising writing for


69

young students with learning disabilities and that it is an effective tool when used with sound teaching strategies and peer review. 297. MacArthur, Charles A., Steve Graham, and Shirley Schwartz. "Knowledge of Revision and Revising Behavior among Students with Learning Disabilities." Learning Disability Quarterly 14 (Winter 1991): 61-73. After examining the writings of 26 seventh- and eighth-grade learning-disabled students, the authors conclude that the students seldom were able to look at their own or others' writings and to suggest how to make them better mechanically. However, the students did suggest adding information to writings by others, a revision strategy the authors believe teachers should encourage while concentrating on teaching re-organization, improving beginnings and endings, and other topics. The authors also suggest having students use word processors while making revisions, both to reduce resistance to revision and to eliminate errors due to transcription. 298. MacArthur, Charles A., Shirley S. Schwartz, and Steven Graham. "Effects of a Reciprocal Peer Revision Strategy in Special Education Classrooms." Learning Disabilities Research & Practice 6 (1991): 201-10. A study to determine the impact of reciprocal peer editing on special education students' knowledge of writing and revision found that students who worked in pairs to improve their compositions made more revisions and produced papers of higher quality that other students working alone. The paired students, however, showed no significant improvement when they too were working alone. 299. Stoddard, Barbra, and Charles A. MacArthur. "A Peer Editor Strategy: Guiding Learning-Disabled Students in Response and Revision." Research in the Teaching of English 27, no. 1 (1993): 76-103. A study evaluates a systematic strategy for seventh- and eighth-grade learning-disabled students to work in pairs to revise their writing. The students are given a set of evaluation criteria, specific revision strategy, and an overall strategy for the revision process. The results showed the students' proportion of revisions rose dramatically and were overwhelmingly improved. 300. Tompkins, Gail E., and Marilyn Friend. "After Your Students Write: What's Next?" Teaching Exceptional Children 20, no. 3 (1988): 4-9. The authors describe how they teach mildly handicapped students how to revise their writing by first having them as a group assess the strengths and needs of a problem essay provided by the teacher. Then small groups of students offer comment on each others' first drafts, followed by editing and proofreading. The authors suggest teaching students proofreading markings to eliminate much of the drudgery. 301. Wong, Bernice Y. L., Deborah L. Butler, Sheryl A. Ficzere, Sonia Kuperis, Margaret Corden, and Judy Zelmer. "Teaching Problem Learners Revision Skills and Sensitivity to Audience through Two Instructional Modes: Student-Teacher versus Student-Student Interactive Dialogues." Learning

70


Disabilities Research and Practice 9, no. 2 (1994): 78-90. A study determines that interactive dialogues between teacher and student and between pairs of students effectively helped students with learning disabilities or students for which English is a second language understand writing as a process and the need for revision to arrive at what they want to say in writing assignments. 302. Wong, Bernice Y. L., Roderick WTong, Deanna Darlington, and Wayne Jones. "Interactive Teaching: An Effective Way to Teach Revision Skills to Adolescents with Learning Disabilities." Learning Disabilities Research and Practice 6, no. 2 (1991): 117-27. The authors describe two studies involving the teaching of revision skills to secondary schools students with learning disabilities. The students were taught keyboard skills and planning techniques for writing reports, including thinking-aloud and outlining. After the students wrote initial drafts, the instructor read those drafts aloud, stopping to ask questions whenever the text was unclear. Students then revised the drafts. Pretest, immediate post-test, and maintenance tests taken a week after the immediate post-test, showed improvement in the students' abilities to revise and to recognize when portions of their essays needed further revision. Materials for Teaching Revision 303. Baker, John P. "Developing Technical (Re) Writing Assessment." Exercise Exchange 41, no. 2 (1996): 24-25. Students select from a textbook one or two pages composed of text and graphics to begin analyzing the relationship between text and graphics. Once students have developed principles of document design, each student selects from a textbook one or two pages that her or she believes are poorly designed and written. The students revise the text and graphics to produce thumbnail sketches of new pages designs. Then the students write justifications for their sketches. 304. Couch, Lezlie Laws. "Anatomy of a Writing Assignment, or How Dieting Can Improve Your Students' Writing." English Journal 72, no. 5 (1983): 29-31. While developing, researching and writing a newsletter for personal use, Couch realizes that the varied tasks are the same as those required in her students' writing classes. She then develops a plan to have her students create their own newsletters as a challenging and interesting way to practice and improve their writing skills. 305. Cunningham, Donald W., and Ronald G. Dobler. "Teaching by the Numbers: An Exercise in Organization and Revision." Exercise Exchange 22, no. 1 (1977): 36-40. The authors present an exercise designed to help writing students understand the importance of organization in writing. They give students a sample of a student's unrevised work, with the paragraphs numbered. The students then are given a revised version of the student paper, with paragraphs lettered. The improvements - groupings of ideas and logical flow are tangible and easy for the students to follow. 306. Davis, Ken. "The Cloze Test as a Diagnostic Tool for Revision." In Revising: New Essays for Teachers of Writing, edited by R. Sudol, 121-126.


71

Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English, 1982. The cloze test provides readers with a piece of writing in which blank lines replace words, and readers are asked to fill in the blanks. Davis shows his students how to create a cloze test from their writing, and then peers fill in the blanks. Peers' words are compared with the writer's words to determine whether the writer needs to revise for greater clarity. Davis sees four reasons for using the cloze test as a diagnostic tool for revision. For instance, "the cloze test brings a certain precision to the revision process, focusing as it does on specific words and their relation to the larger context" (126). 307. Folks, Jeffrey. "Improving Rough Drafts: An Evaluation Sheet Technique." Journal of Developmental & Remedial Education 2, no. 3 (1979): 7-8. The author describes his use of evaluation sheets and small groups in teaching revision practices to basic writers. The article includes a copy of a sample evaluation sheet. 308. Palumbo, Roberta M. "Revise!: More Than a Command." Exercise Exchange 22, no. 1 (1977): 33-36. Palumbo presents a three-step process to guide students through effective revision of their writings: Reading the essay aloud, once each for organization, control, and style. She offers a series of questions students should ask about the essay during each step. 309. Weigl, Bruce. "Revision as a Creative Process." English Journal 65, no. 6 (1976): 67-68. The author discusses the importance of revision-of re-seeing the writing, of adding and subtracting, and of shaping. He offers a revision checklist to help writers through the process, with tips such as not binding oneself to the original intention of the article and looking anywhere to find what should be the beginning, middle, and end. Non-Native Writers/ESL Classes 310. Allwright, R. L., M-P. Woodley, and J. M. Allwright. "Investigating Reformulation as a Practical Strategy for the Teaching of Academic Writing." Applied Linguistics 9, no. 3 (1988): 236-56. The authors used the reformulation technique to promote revision in non-native writers. Reformulation consists of the following steps: (1) the non-native students are given a scrambled piece of writing and asked to reorganize it; (2) the students then write their own version of the unscrambled writing; (3) a native speaker rewrites the students' rewritten reversions; (3) the students as a class discuss the native speaker's rewritten version; (4) the students compare their rewritten versions with the native speaker's rewritten version and write a new version that conforms more closely to the native speaker's version; (5) the teacher comments on the students' compositions produced in step 4. The authors also devised eight text measures and applied those measures to the reformulations of two non-native students, finding that reformulation did help the two students write papers in more conformity to native speakers' standards than they had written before having access to native speakers' written examples.

72


311. Bates, Linda, Janet Lane, and Ellen Lange. Writing Clearly: Responding to ESL Compositions. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle, 1993. The authors provide a comprehensive approach to responding to ESL compositions, from responding to the content of students' writing to grading that writing. Thus, the authors discuss the importance of responding to content, how to respond effectively to content, and when during the writing process to respond to content. Likewise, the authors provide advice about how to respond to sentence-level errors, providing symbols that can be used to mark such errors. Then, the authors integrate advice about responding to content and sentences by talking about the end comment and its role in the grading of a student's writing. Examples of marked papers are provided, as are suggestions for helping students correct writing errors. An appendix treats the development of grading standards and provides examples. 312. Connor, U., and Asenavage, K. "Peer Response Groups in ESL Writing Classes: How Much Impact on Revision?" Journal of Second Language Writing 3 (1994): 257-276. In conducting a study of two ESL writing groups, the authors asked two questions: "(a) What types of revisions were made based on peer comments? and (b) what was the relative impact of peer responses as compared to responses from the teacher and others?" (259). The focus of the authors' study was on the second session of the peer-writing groups in which "each student read his or her draft aloud, soliciting oral peer comments" (261). In analyzing transcripts from the second session and revisions resulting from that session, the authors found that in the ESL writing group in which peers provided revision suggestions at the surface level, writers in that group made more surface-level revisions than text-level revisions. In the writing group in which peers provided text-level suggestions for revision, writers in that group made more text-level revisions than surface-level revisions. However, "although the students in both groups made a large number of revisions, a relatively small number was identified as resulting from peer responses" (265). In addition, the authors note, "Overall, the results show that approximately 5% of the revisions resulted from peer comments, 35% could be described as resulting from teacher comments, and about 60% of the revisions occurred as a result of self/others. It is noteworthy that the revisions based upon teacher comments were primarily surface level" (267). In short, the authors say that the small impact of peers' comments on peer revisions is disappointing, and list five practices they are reconsidering in their own ESL classrooms based upon the results of their study. 313. Connor, Ulla, and Mary Farmer. "The Teaching of Topical Structure Analysis as a Revision Strategy for ESL Writers." In Second Language Writing: Research Insights for the Classroom, edited by Barbara Kroll, 126139. Cambridge University Press, 1990. Connor and Farmer describe their use of topical structure analysis in the teaching of students for whom English is a second language. The authors explain how they teach ESL students to identify sentence topics, to determine sentence progression, following Lautamatti's schema of parallel, sequential, and extended parallel progressions, and to chart the progress of sentence topics. They provide sample student essays and topical


73

structure charts and argue that teaching the method as a revision tool improves student writing "specifically in regard to clearer focus . . . and better development of subtopics" (134). 314. Cumming, Alister, and Sufumi So. "Tutoring Second Language Text Revision: Does the Approach to Instruction or the Language of Communication Make a Difference?" Journal of Second Language Writing 5, no. 3 (1996): 197-226. A study of 20 adult English as a second language determines that the students focus on local levels of compositions whether the tutors used conventional error correction or procedural facilitation, and whether the tutoring was in English or the students' native languages. The authors suggest that further studies should look at whether it is more effective for tutors to direct error corrections or to use a more Socratic method. 315. Hafernick, J. "The How and Why of Peer Editing in the ESL Writing Class." CATESOL Occasional Papers 10 (1984): 48-58. The author outlines the benefits of using peer editing in the ESL classroom, offers guidelines to encourage student interaction, and provides a sample list of questions instructors can use to help lead students in revising their papers. 316. Hafernick, Johnnie Johnson. "The How and Why of Peer Editing in the ESL Writing Class," 1983. ED 253 064. See (315 Hafernick). Hafernik outlines the advantages of peer editing, lists eight procedural guidelines teachers can use to use peer editing effectively in the ESL writing class, supplies answers to common questions about peer editing in the ESL writing class, and provides two sample edit sheets, one for an intermediate and the other for and advanced ESL class. 317. Hedgcock, J., and N. Lefkowitz. "Collaborative Oral/Aural Revision in Foreign Language Writing Instruction." Journal of Second Language Writing 1 (1992): 255-76. The authors provide results of study of an oral revision process for adult learners to help them develop written fluency in a foreign language. The study included two groups of college-level French learners, all of whom were given a writing assignment that required three drafts. In the control group, only the instructor provided feedback, which was written. However, in the experimental group each learner received oral feedback from the group members after reading his or her paper aloud. The analysis of the final drafts showed significantly higher scores for those assignments produced by the experimental group. The findings suggest that the revision process used in the experimental group enables students to identify and correct surface errors more effectively than students in the control group. 318. Huang, Su-yueh. "The Efficacy of Using Writing Groups To Help Students Generate Ideas for Writing and Revise Drafts in an EFL University Writing Class." 17 Nov 95. Huang conducted a study of Chinese speaking college students at a university in Taipei who were enrolled in a freshman English class. The students were divided in two groups: LI in which students used Chinese in the prewriting discussion and peer response session, and L2 in

74


which students used English in the prewriting discussion and peer response session. Students were given a topic for a persuasive paper and provided articles in Chinese and English related to the topic. In analyzing the students' writing, Huang found that students relied more on the articles than they did on their own ideas, their peers' suggestions, and the teacher's ideas to write their papers. In fact, Huang compared students' papers to the article in English and found significant overlaps in ideas and borrowing of language. He speculates that students "probably resorted to copying ideas from the English article in order to avoid the trouble of finding the right words and sentence structures for expression" (8). Huang also found that the prewriting group discussions and peer response sessions did not make a difference in the quality of writing between the LI and L2 groups. This lack of difference in quality may be attributed to the lack of time in the study (eleven 50-minute class periods), which did not allow for sufficient time for students to learn to work together effectively; lack of ability of both groups to give adequate feedback to their peers; and students' inability to translate arguments from the English article into their own expressions. Huang further found that the LI group had more confidence in their ability to provide effective feedback than the L2 group had. However, comments from members of the LI group suggest that the members "liked receiving feedback more than giving feedback" (11). Two implications of Huang's study are (1) it takes time for students to develop the ability to work effectively in the prewriting group and as peer reviewers and (2) "while prewriting group discussion may promote development of ideas and peer response sessions may help students discern writing strengths and weaknesses, there may nonetheless be a gap between what the students want to write and what their L2 ability allows them to accomplish" (13). 319. Johns, Ann M. "The ESL Student and the Revision Process: Some Insights from Schema Theory." Journal of Basic Writing 5, no. 2 (1986): 70-80. Schema theory says that people organize information in their memories according to particular structures. These structures then become expectations that readers use when they interpret a text. Johns explains how she used schema theory, i.e., reader expectations based on a problem-solution schema, to guide a Chinese student in revising her writing. In working with the student, Johns asks questions about reader expectations and charts the way those expectations are or are not met on an Expectation Network Chart. Johns also notes that the student's essay can be duplicated and given to her classmates so that they can ask questions about reader expectations so that the essay can be revised effectively. 320. Mendonca, Cassia O., and Karen E. Johnson. "Peer Review Negotiations: Revision Activities in ESL Writing Instruction." TESOL Quarterly 28, no. 4 (1994): 754-69. A study of twelve advanced ESL learners indicates that peer reviews are effective in helping the young writers. The study describes the negotiations that occur during the reviews and found that certain patterns of negotiations occurred more frequently in twosomes from different fields of study than in pairsfromthe same field.


75

321. Nelson, Gayle L., and John M. Murphy. "Peer Response Groups: Do L2 Writers Use Peer Comments in Revising Their Drafts?" TESOL Quarterly 27, no. 1 (1993): 135-41. A study investigates the assumption that peer-group assessment in English As a Second Language is doomed to fail because students may not value other students' input on their writing and because many come from cultures that focus attention on the teacher as authority. After assessing the writing of four ESL students working in a peer-group situation, the authors found the interaction valuable as long as a tone of cooperation could be maintained in discussions. 322. Sanaoui, Razika. "The Use of Reformulation in Teaching Writing to ESL Students." 1984. ED 264 725. Sanaoui discusses the reformulation technique that he has used successfully while teaching creative writing to students of French as a second language. Reformulation, which comes after several revisions of an article and discussions about it with peers, requires the instructor to rewrite the article so that the student can compare vocabulary selection, syntactic choices, cohesive devices and other major writing changes. 323. Zamel, Vivian. "The Composing Process of Advanced ESL Students: Six Case Studies." TESOL Quarterly 17, no. 2 (1983): 165-87. Noting that the process approach to writing can be applied to the way ESL students are taught to write, Zamel studied the writing of six students in her composition class. Concerning the students' approach to revising, Zamel says that "students rewrote as they wrote, some revising entire chunks of discourse, some attending to the clarification of a previously stated idea. Thus, one of the major findings of this study was the extent to which ESL advanced writers understood that composing involves the constant interplay of thinking, writing, and rewriting" (172). In preparing various drafts, the students generally spent more time on their first drafts than they did on subsequent drafts of the same paper, and in subsequent drafts, students made "a greater number of changes in vocabulary, syntax, and spelling" (174) than they did on their first drafts. However, the weakest writer of the six students saw the first draft as the final draft. "Her second and third drafts . . . were basically neater copies of her original" (180). Zamel concludes by stressing the need for teachers of ESL students to use the writing process to help ESL students learn "to appreciate the purposefulness of revision" (183). Revising and Peer Groups 324. Belanger, Joe, and Denis Rodgers. "Revise! Revise!: A Checklist and Classroom Procedures." English Quarterly 16, no. 1 (1983): 20-27. The authors assert that a major factor in many students' reluctance to revise is "an inability to formulate questions which will allow them to consider necessary improvements" (27). To solve the problem, they recommend the use of an "Editor's Checklist," which asks questions relating to a paper's value, purpose, audience, form, and expression, asks students to reflect on the answers to those questions before revising, and distinguishes between revision and proofreading. The article provides a "Concise Editor's Checklist" (24-25) and an expanded

76


version (21-24), as well as suggested classroom procedures for peer editing using the checklist as a guide (25-26). 325. Block, Cathy Collins. Teaching the Language Arts: Expanding Thinking through Student-Centered Instruction. 2nd ed. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, 1997. Chapter 8 in Block's textbook is devoted to revising, and Block begins by noting, "Revising focuses on improving word choices, sentence variety, paragraph organization, and clarity of ideas" (286). She recognizes that teaching grammar and teaching revising are not necessarily complementary, but she provides reasons why students should be taught grammar; describes tradition, structural, and transformational-generative grammars; and discusses sentence combining. She also explains the revising committee approach in which students work together to revise a piece of writing using grammatical principles. Then Block provides a variety of activities teachers can use to promote revision and various resources teachers can consult. 326. Clark, Irene Lurkis. "Listening and Writing." Journal of Basic Writing 3, no. 3 (1981): 81-91. Clark maintains that basic writing students can learn to revise by listening to their papers being read because such listening helps "to cultivate a necessary detachment from their own writing and an imaginative attention to audience" (81). Clark cites theoretical works to show that reading, speaking, writing, and listening are inseparable, so when teachers help students to listen skillfully to writing that is being read, students are learning how to read critically and revise effectively. Clark provides five points that students should focus on when listening and shows how those five points can be incorporated into a worksheet that students can use to evaluate their writing and their peers' writing. 327. Christenbury, Leila. "Structuring the Classroom for Peer Revision of Composition." In Structuring for Success in the English Classroom, edited by Candy Carter, pp. 120-125. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English, 1982. Christenbury offers warm-up activities, grouping, the establishment of roles and tasks, and reinforcement techniques for effective peer-group revision classes. She also presents a sample student role assignment sheet and a sample worksheet/checklist for a comparison/contrast essay. 328. Cooper, Alan. "Daily Writing for Peer Response." College Composition and Communication 37 October 1986): 346-48. Cooper outlines a method in which his writing students make daily entries in a notebook that they and their peers will review throughout a semester. Students will give the entries an ungraded but careful analysis for a variety of writing skills and objectives. The method gives students daily practice in achieving sureness and fluidity in writing and a greater sense of writing for an audience without being inhibited by worrying about their course grade. 329. Dahl, Darin L. "Writers Teaching Writers: What Children Learn in Peer Conferences." English Quarterly 21, no. 3 (1988): 164-73. In a two-phase study, Dahl conducted research in a class of 24 fourth graders. For the first


77

phase of the study, students were given mini-lessons on writing, afforded time to write, and asked to work with peers to discuss their writing. For the second phase, the mini-lessons were focused on aspects of revising, students had student-teacher conferences, and students met in groups of four with the teacher to discuss students' writing. In analyzing data from the study Dahl found that "learners not only provided information that could be acted upon but that learners took that information seriously. Obviously, fourth graders expected to get substantive help in peer conferences and their expectations were met. Conferencing peers talked about revision and many actual changes resulted from these suggestions" (173). 330. Danis, Francine. "Weaving the Web of Meaning: Interaction Patterns in Peer-Response Groups." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication, San Francisco, CA, March 1982. ED 214 202. Danis studied student peer-response groups in her writing classes. These four-student groups were designed to give each member of the group feedback on a draft of his or her writing so that the writing could be revised. Danis found that students used four main ways to participate in the groups: "raising questions, making suggestions about their own papers, commenting on the suggestions they received, and discussing the purposes they had been trying to fulfill in their papers" (7-8). She also provides six hypotheses based on her study, including the hypothesis that "Writers aren't sure how to stand outside their own writing, how to imagine alternatives to what they've actually done" (9). Then Danis provides three main suggestions about using peer-response groups, including "having writers identify the rhetorical situation of each paper, having students write out comments before discussions begin, and providing a list of questions which both writer and responders can use as guides" (11). 331. Fitzgerald, Jill, and Carol Stamm. "Effects of Group Conferences on First Graders' Revision in Writing." Written Communication 7, no. 1 (1990): 96-135. Using a single-subjects-with-replicates design, the four-month study investigated the influence of group conferences on sixteen first graders' knowledge about revision and revision activity. The authors conclude that the most positive effects were with children with the least amount of revision experience and whose writing was of the lowest quality. 332. Gere, Ann R., and Ralph S. Stevens. "The Language of Writing Groups: How Oral Response Shapes Revision." In The Acquisition of Written Language: Response and Revision, edited by Sara Warshauer Freedman, 85-105. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1985. The authors studied the responses of writing groups in middle school and high school to determine what impact oral peer response has on a writer's revision of his or her writing. The authors found that oral peer response did have an impact on the revision practices of writers because peers told a writer how they were interpreting what the writer wrote. That is, peers asked writers questions about the writing to help the writers revise their writing to satisfy readers' needs. In comparing peer response to student writing with teacher response, the authors found that teachers gave little helpful response

78


because teachers read student texts using abstract criteria. Thus, "teacher comments were much more general [than student comments] and gave students few directions for rewriting" (101). While "group response is often intent on forming the text by informing i t . . . . teacher comments may be said to attempt to form student writing by conforming it" (103). Students, therefore, approach a text rhetorically while teachers approach a text pedagogically. 333. Graner, M. "Revision Workshops: An Alternative to Peer Editing Groups." English Journal 76, no. 3 (1987): 40-45. A study compares the effectiveness of a traditional peer-editing approach for prep school writing classes with a revision workshop approach that required students to work as a group to analyze outside students' papers and then to apply what they learned to their own compositions. After nine months, the revision workshop group had improved just as much as the other, Graner says, without the loss of teacher control that is associated with the peer-editing approach. 334. Grimm, Nancy. "Improving Student's Response to Their Peers' Essays." College Composition and Communication 37 (February 1986): 91-94. Hoping to prevent peer-group work from feeling "like the blind leading the blind" (92), Grimm suggests a series of guidelines that provide a blueprint of what students should do. The guidelines include having the writer read the piece aloud while peers mark areas for discussion on their written copy and allowing for silence after the readings to give participants time to compose their thoughts. 335. Hanson, S., and L. Vogt. "A Variation of Peer Critiquing: Peer Editing as the Integration of Language Skills." In Strategies in Composition: Ideas That Work in the Classroom, Vol. II, edited by Marsha S. Bordner, 575-578. McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1989. In a college class designed for basic writers, the authors develop a successful peer-editing technique that integrates the language skills of writing, reading, and listening. 336. Hawkins, T. "Intimacy and Audience: The Relationship between Revision and the Social Dimension of Peer Tutoring." In Tutoring Writing: A Sourcebook for Writing Labs, edited by M. Harris, 27-31. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman, 1982. After reviewing journals kept by student tutors in a writing center, the author concludes that the peer review provides a vital link between writer and reader. The tutors are successful because they can give large amounts of time in an atmosphere of trust while helping the students get past the formality of academic English that is hanging them up, Hawkins says. 337. Healy, Mary. "Using Student Writing Response Groups in the Classroom." In Teaching Writing: Essays from the Bay Area Writing Project, edited by James Gray, 266-91. Healy describes a classroom peer-group response process that she believes helps students get over anxiety, make discoveries about the subject, take into account an audience and realize that the development of the paper progresses through drafts. The process is intended to shape students' attitudes for constructive criticism, to sharpen their sense of language, and to understand the protocol of interaction and the stages of writing.


79

338. Herrington, Anne Jeborah, and D. Cadman. "Peer Review and Revising in an Anthropology Course: Lessons for Learning." College Composition and Communication 42 (1991): 184-99. The authors demonstrate the value of peer review by showing how it was used by students in an anthropology class. The process, as shown through students' observations and reflections, is intended to create occasions for active and reciprocal decision-making where students are their own authorities, to allow them to give sound advice to their peers, and to create a climate in which students can profit from feedback they receive on their own writings and from reading the drafts of others. The authors stress that the learning through peer review is contingent upon the teacher creating a classroom environment "where we give students the gift of having some responsibility some authority for their own learning" (197). 339. Herrmann, Andrea. "Teaching Writing with Peer Response Groups: Encouraging Revision." ERIC Digest May 1989. ED 307 616. After reviewing more than two dozen analyses relating to the effects of peer group review of student writing, the author concludes that writing instruction reflects an increasing appreciation of the value of talk as teachers encourage students to give, seek, and react to oral feedback. She also notes that use of computers changes the process in some cases, and even appear to promote a collaborative environment for growth. 340. Hughes, Judy A. "It Really Works: Encouraging Revising Using Peer Writing Tutors." English Journal 80, no. 5 (1991): 41-42. Hughes describes an experiment in which seniors in high school tutored sophomores on a writing project. Both groups appeared to benefit - the younger group getting extra attention with their writing, and the older students, under peer pressure to push themselves as teachers, were forced to review their own writing-revision process and came to view it as a succession of small achievable steps. 341. Killgallon, Don. "Word Processing without Computers: Demystifying the Revision Process." English Journal 83, no. 4 (1994): 79-84. Killgallon describes the process he uses to help students use computer commands (keep, add, delete, change, and move) to provide revision comments for peers' writing. He begins by training students to use the computer commands listed on a worksheet. Then students use the worksheet to made revision suggestions for peers' writing. In using the worksheet, students follow three ground rules and a round-robin process that allows each student to receive four responses to his or her writing. Before students review the peer responses to their writing, they complete a self-response to the same piece of writing their peers evaluated. Killgallon also recommends seven variations on the basic method. Concerning the order of students' responses to peers' writing, Killgallon notes that "In doing the substantive revising first and the editing/proofreading second, students learn an important point about the revision process. . . . that it requires two kinds of attention: (1) attention to meaning; (2) attention to presentation—things that matter in the publication—editing skills concerned with readability, conventions, mechanics, manuscript form, and so on" (82).

80


342. Kirby, Dan R., and Tom Liner. "Revision: Yes, They Do It; Yes, You Can Teach It." English Journal 69, no. 3 (1980): 41-45. "Learning to revise," the authors say, "is part of the larger developmental process of learning to write" (42). To help teachers help students learn how to revise, the authors stress eight points. First, they note that revision is divided into three parts: in-process revision, editing, and proofreading. Two, teachers should consider teaching revision in relation to the writing process. Three, students need to master a mode of writing before they can revise successfully in that mode. Four, students need to be interested in what they are writing if they are going to spend time revising it. Implications of the need for student interest are that the teacher needs to provide adequate time for students to write and revise. "Teachers hurry up the writing process, and they teach mediocrity," (43) the authors note. Teachers also can encourage writing by showing genuine interest in students' writing, by asking students to select a piece of their writing to revise from several pieces, by in-class publishing of students' writing, by having students work in peer groups to revise their writing, by reading aloud student papers to the class, and by encouraging students to revise to improve their grade. Five, teachers should conduct individual conferences with students so that students get ideas about how to revise their writing. Six, teachers can help students know what good writing is by providing a revision checklist. Seven, teachers should write and revise their work with students to model effective revision. Eight, teachers should allow flexibility in revision practices because students do not follow uniform revision practices. 343. Kuhlmann, Sandra Muse. "A Positive Approach to Revision." College Student Journal 14, no. 2 (1980): 183-89. To promote revision in student writing, Kuhlmann uses six tactics (e.g., letting students revise in pairs and groups) and provides examples of forms that can be used to evaluate rough drafts. 344. Lewes, Ulle Erika. "Peer-Evaluation in a Writing Seminar." 1981. ED 226 355. Lewes describes a composition class—a writing workshop—that she taught in which she used a variety of methods to convince students to become effective readers of their peers' writing. In responding to writing, students also learned how to revise and edit their own and their peers' writing. Lewes attributes the success of the workshop to students' total immersion in the writing process and their increased audience awareness. Concerning total immersion, Lewes says that "students were writing, editing, rewriting, discussing writing, thinking about writing and reading about writing all week long" (5). Students also learned that responding to writing is complex. "The problems and issues the students encountered when they attempted to be constructive critics and editors showed them that responding to writing is a complex activity" (3-4). 345. Lillios, Melina, and Marie Iding. "How Ninth Graders Respond to Teacher and Peer Comments on Their Writing." Teaching and Change 3, no. 3 (1996): 211-26. In studying high school students' responses to teacher and peer comments on their writing, the authors found that students found the following types of comments useful: Additional information, mechanics, structure, praise,


81

rephrase, and clarification. Additional information was the most frequently selected type of comments, with the others following infrequencyas listed. The authors explain their findings and offer ten recommendations for improving the method they used and for using comments effectively. For instance, the authors recommend that students work in groups of four or five instead of in pairs because students "need to be aware that there are not always right and wrong answers in editing or responding" (222). The authors also recommend implementing peer-revision exercises in elementary schools. "If a student learns at an early age that writing is more than just a grammatical exercise," the authors say, "and that the teacher is not the only authority when it comes to learning how to write, then carrying out peer-revision exercises would be a more powerful tool for both students and teachers" (224). 346. Matsuhashi, Ann, and Eleanor Gordon. "Revision, Addition, and the Power of the Unseen Text." In The Acquisition of Written Language: Response and Revision, edited by Sarah Warshauer Freedman, 226-49. Norwood: Ablex Publishing Corporation, 1985. A study of 110 college beginning writers reveals that students told to add things to their essays were able to behave in the manner of skilled writers, in contrast to students who where simply told to revise their essays to improve them. Students able to review their texts while making additions showed more improvements than those who were not allowed to review, but both groups, freed from the "overwhelming knowing that," were able to move toward a "knowing how," the authors found. 347. Meyer, Emily, and Louise Z. Smith. The Practical Tutor. New York: Oxford University Press, 1987. In Chapter 7, "Tutoring Revision through Paper Comments," (136-56), the authors discuss how teachers' written comments can help writers and tutors assess needs and set priorities most effectively when the teachers give process-oriented conceptual comments but avoid confusing the issues with negative process-oriented conceptual comments. 348. Mlynarczyk, Rebecca Williams. "Finding Grandma's Words: A Case Study in the Art of Revising." Journal of Basic Writing 15, no. 1 (1996): 3-22. In a case study of the writing processes of one of her basic writing students, Mlynarczyk learns that the most important thing she as an instructor can do is to listen to what students are trying to say, to be less prescriptive in her written comments, and to be more open in how she conducts conferences. 349. Monahan, B. D. "Revising Strategies of Basic and Competent Writers as They Write for Different Audiences." Research in the Teaching of English 18, no. 3 (1984): 288-304. A study of four basic and four competent twelfthgraders writing and revising compositions for two audiences-teachers and peers-reveals strikingly different outcomes. The competent writers made more revisions for the peer audience, made a wider range of revisions, and revised in extended episodes in which one revision was cued by an earlier revision. Basic writers revised more for teachers and made isolated revisions. Monahan concludes that the nature of the cues that cause writers to revise in episodes or isolated revisions should be investigated.

82


350. Mabrito, Mark. "Electronic Mail as a Vehicle for Peer Response: Conversations of High- and Low-Apprehensive Writers." Written Communication 8, no. 4 (1991): 509-32. Mabrito conducted a study comparing the ways high- and low-apprehensive writers acted as peer critiquers and writers using e-mail and face-to-face encounters. He found that high-apprehensive writers "produced more directive comments [for suggested revisions] in e-mail than they did in face-to-face sessions" (524). In responding to revision comments directed to them, high-apprehensive writers tended to focus on changes at the sentence level, not global changes. Mabrito suggests that peer response via e-mail allowed high-apprehensives to take more risks as critiquers than they did in face-to-face revising sessions. 351. Murphy, Elaine. "Group Paragraphs: A Route to Revision." In Process and Portfolios in Writing Instruction: Classroom Practices in Teaching English, edited by Kent Gill, 35-39. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English, 1993. Lamenting the inefficiency of getting students involved in a constructive peer-review writing exercise, Murphy suggests having them write group papers. The students write their own individual body paragraphs and then learn to be open to others' ideas and sense of style. They also learn to negotiate over how the information will be presented. Students are graded individually on their own writing and as a group of other aspects. 352. Neubert, Gloria A., and Sally J. McNelis. "Peer Response: Teaching Specific Revision Suggestions." English Journal 79, no. 5 (1990): 52-56. Hoping to show elementary school students in the peer-response role how to be more specific in their evaluations of each other's essays, the authors emphasize the formula PQP - praise, question and polish. They also provide sample questions to show students how to be more focused in their critiques. 353. Nystrand, Martin. "Learning to Write by Talking about Writing: A Summary of Research on Intensive Peer Review in Expository Writing Instruction at the University of Wisconsin-Madison." 1984. ED 255 914. Nystrand describes how peer review is used extensively in a university's expository writing classes, resulting in more progress in students' writing abilities because they see revision as recontemplation rather than editing and view readers as collaborators in a process of communication. 354. Olson, Vicki L. Brakel. "The Revision Processes of Sixth-Grade Writers with and without Peer Feedback." The Journal of Educational Research 84 (September/October 1990): 22-29. Olson conducted a study to evaluate the effects of revision instruction and peer feedback on sixth-graders' revision of an autobiographical essay. Students were divided into four groups: the RI/PP group received instruction in revision and worked in peer editing groups; the PP group worked in peer editing groups but received no instruction in revision; the RI group received instruction in revision but worked alone on revision; the C group received no instruction on revision and worked alone on revision. Based on evaluations of the last of six essays written by the students, the author found that all students revised mostly at the word level; that all but the RI group made


83

surface structure revisions and substitutions more than any other types of revisions; that all but the RI group revised more often while drafting than between drafts; and that students in the RI group did more revising of content than was expected, although that revision did not always result in improved essays. 355. Paulis, C. "Holistic Scoring: A Revision Strategy." Clearing House 59 (October 1985): 57-60. Paulis discusses her adaptation of holistic evaluation to enable her students to score one another's papers for effective revision. She presents a sample lesson that underscores communication, using criteria established by the Center for UFO Studies in Evanston, Indiana. 356. Pomerenke, Paula J. "Rewriting and Peer Evaluation: A Positive Approach for Business Writing Classes." The ABCA Bulletin 47, no. 3 (1984): 33-36. Pomerenke describes how upper-level college business students asked to use peer-revision workshop techniques produced thoughtful, audience-based reports, learning both the process of how to revise effectively and gaining valuable real-world editing experience. 357. Prior, Paul. "Response, Revision, Disciplinarity: A Microhistory of a Dissertation Prospectus in Sociology." Written Communication 11, no. 4 (1994): 483-533. (See Prior 51). Prior describes his ethnographic study of writing and response in a sociology seminar, focusing on the revision of a graduate student's dissertation prospectus. The author examined six drafts of the student's prospectus, a transcript of a two-hour seminar response to a draft of his prospectus, and "semistructured and text-based interviews" with the student and his advisor, who also taught the seminar (492). The two hours of oral response in the seminar, Prior notes, focused almost exclusively on the concepts in the prospectus rather than textual issues, and "the most radical revision of [the] text occurred retrospectively and did not involve a single textual change. Instead, the revision effected a reinterpretation of the text and its function in [the student's] dissertation activity" (513). Prior concludes that the give-and-take of the seminar discussion and similar activities "may constitute a key social practice in disciplinary activity, the kind of specialized social tool that is both powerful and taken for granted" (515). He suggests that further research is needed to understand the role of Baktinian dialogic activity in the shaping of disciplinarity, even though "this depiction of disciplinarity . . . problematizes any attempt to treat disciplines as anonymous systems that govern our actions by natural right" (523). 358. Proert, Jackie, and Kent Gill. The Writing Process in Action: A Handbook for Teachers. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English, 1986. In Chapter 3, "After Students Write," the authors discuss the importance of helping students experience "the adventure of rewriting" (21), and urge using peer-response groups to encourage writing for an audience. The authors give guidelines for setting up peer-response groups and argue that papers should be evaluated on students' understanding of the writing process.

84


359. Sitko, Barbara M. "Writers Meet Their Readers in the Classroom: Revising after Feedback." In Constructing Rhetorical Education, edited by Marie Secor and Davida Charney, 278-94. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 1992. Sitko finds that students who receive audiotape feedback from other students on their essays are overwhelmingly responsive to revising the essays to overcome audience concerns, particularly in comparison to teachers' written comments. 360. Smagorinsky, Peter. "The Aware Audience: Role-Playing PeerResponse Groups." English Journal 80, no. 5 (1991): 35-40. To teach the value of revising writing, the author outlines a sample lesson giving students a wide audience to address. He then walks his students through five steps of writing an essay: appropriate procedures for writing; determining audience expectations; producing a draft; forming role-playing peer-response groups; and revising and resubmirting. 361. Spear, Karen. Sharing Writing: Peer Response Groups in English Classes. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook, 1993. Recognizing that the theoretical underpinnings of student peer response groups is sound, Spear notes that the practice of student peer response groups may not be beneficial in improving students' writing. Thus, she provides a two-part book that reinforces the theory of student peer response groups and provides applications of theory to make peer response groups useful in promoting effective revision of student writing. Part I of her book is entitled Challenges of Peer Response Groups and includes the following chapters: The Composing Process and the Interpersonal Process, Conflict and Confusion Over Sharing Writing, Reading Peers' Drafts, Revising in Groups—Reconceiving or Rewording?, and Moving from Teacher Surrogate to Peer Collaborator. Part II is entitled Developing Productive Peer Response Groups and includes the following chapters: A Successful Revision Session, Starting a Peer-Centered Writing Class, Developing Reading Strategies for Sharing Writing, Listening: The Foundation for Sharing, Giving Feedback, and Troubleshooting: A Miscellany of Suggestions. 362. Spear, Karen. "Spiraling Toward Maturity: Peer Response as a Window on Intellectual and Social Development." In Peer Response Groups in Action: Writing Together in Secondary Schools, edited by Karen Spear, 251-62. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, 1993. Spear compares freshmen and advanced students as they work in groups to help peers revise their writing. She notes that the freshmen students "tend to work with what's there in a draft; the advanced writers consider what's missing" (257). Thus, she contends, freshmen have not shifted "from being a holder of meaning to being a maker of meaning" (259). Spear explains that such a shift requires accepting the need for commitment and relativism and recognizing "that creativity and objectivity are not polar opposites" (260). Collaborative groups can help students grow intellectually and develop the analytic skills they need to gain insight into helping peers revise their writing, she concludes.


85

363. Stallworth, Clarke. "Computing, Editing on Big TV Makes Good Teaching Tool." Journalism Educator 42, no. 1 (1987): 46-48. The author describes how students accepted and even appreciated group critiquing of their papers when the text was displayed on a large screen with a computer-as long as the good things in the paper were noted before the parts that needed to be improved. 364. Stanley, J. "Coaching Student Writers To Be Effective Peer Evaluators." Journal of Second Language Writing 1 (1992): 217-33. In seeking an answer to the usefulness of peer evaluations in ESL classrooms, Stanley conducted a study in which one group of students was provided a lengthy coaching process to prepare them to be effective peer evaluators and another group was given less and more conventional preparation to be effective peer evaluators. When comparing the peer-evaluation sessions and students' drafts of both groups, Stanley found that the group that was provided the coaching process were more engaged in the task of evaluation and provided clearer advice for revising drafts than did the group that was given less and more conventional preparation as peer evaluators. 365. Stover, Lois. "Partner Outlining: A Strategy to Help Students Revise." In Strategies in Composition: Ideas That Work in the Classroom, edited by Marsha S. Bordner, vol. 2, 39-40. 1989. ED 306 587. Stover explains the strategy of partner outlining, in which pairs of students outline their own and each other's essays while learning to revise their writing and to become better readers of others' work. Stover says the process helps students to relate context and function, and how good writing conveys its message. 366. Styslinger, Mary E. "Some Milk, a Song, and a Set of Keys: Students Respond to Peer Revision." Teaching and Change 5, no. 2 (1998): 116-38. A survey of high school seniors about the peer-revision writing process reveals considerable discontent with their experiences and the attitudes of their peers and teachers. The author calls for teachers to become more active in the peerrevision process by better teaching about reading, commenting, communicating, and character-building among students. 367. Sultan, Gerry. "No More Sixes, Nines, and Red Lines: Peer Groups and Revision." English Journal 11, no. 5 (1988): 65-68. Sultan recounts how the radical introduction of peer-revision and individual instruction succeeded in dramatically improving the writing abilities of eleventh-grade minority students in Mississippi. 368. Tsujimoto, Joseph I. "Re-Visioning the Whole." English Journal 13, no. 5 (1984): 52-55. The author suggests and discusses a variety of exercises to help students resee their writing during revision. The exercises include partner revision, in which students read and comment on each other's papers, rewriting papers from memory, oral and written group feedback on essays, and revising by varying the point of view, form of discourse, speaker, and the purpose of the essay.

86


369. Viera, Carroll. "Some Strategies for Teaching Revision." Missouri English Bulletin 41, no. 6 (1983): 41-45. The product approach to writing has promoted a faulty understanding of revision, and students, when they are introduced to the process approach, will need to learn that "good writing demands more than correctness" (42). Viera proposes ways to promote revision. For instance, she suggests that teachers pair students. Then student pairs interview each other about their writing experiences, attitudes, and habits. Following the interview, each student writes a writer's autobiography as though he or she were the person he or she interviewed. The person who was interviewed also writes a writer's autobiography. Both autobiographies are not signed, but the name of the person who is the subject of the autobiography is listed. The teacher divides the class into groups of four or six students and gives the group both copies of the autobiographies of everyone in the group. The group reads the autobiographies and decides which one of each pair of autobiographies was written by the author of the genuine autobiography. Then students can revise the autobiography they wrote based on their partner's writing experiences, attitudes, and habits. Viera says that this process helps students write for actual audiences, revise according to actual information, and learn how to evaluate peers' writing. Another way to promote revision is to provide students with "mechanically perfect drafts with significant deficiencies in areas such as an awareness of audience or commitment to a purpose" (43) and ask students to discuss weaknesses with the draft and ways to revise those weaknesses. Teachers also can provide students with examples of adding, substituting, omitting unnecessary material, embedding, and rearranging so that students learn ways to revise their writing. Viera notes that revision "is an activity to be practiced rather than a body of material to be memorized" (44). 370. Wauters, Joan K. "Non-Confrontational Critiquing Pairs: An Alternative to Verbal Peer Response Groups." The Writing Instructor 1, nos. 3-4 (1988): 156-66. Wauters describes her method of "non-confrontational critiquing" (157) which she believes increases writing students' understanding of the role of peer respondent and the need for writers to listen to them. The key is that the writer is not present when the paper is being critiqued. 371. Wells, Mary C. "Improving Students' Expertise and Attitudes during the Postwriting Stage of the Writing Process through Collaborative Revision." ED 347 554. 1992. A practicum finds that putting students into peer groups for writing revision results in increased levels of fluency in writing and closer adherence to standard English conventions. 372. Werner, Warren W. "Reading in the Writing Class: Conventions, Socialization, and Revision." Paper presented at the meeting of the Gulf Coast Conference on the Teaching of Writing, Point Clear, AL, June 1987. ED 285 184. Werner describes his technical and business writing classes that rely heavily on peer evaluation and interaction on writing assignments to increase students' understanding of audience awareness and teamwork.


87

373. Wolter, Daniel R., and Walter J. Lamberg. "The Effect of Feedback on Writing: Research Review and Implications." English in Texas 8, no. 3 (1977): 67-70. The authors review the merits of various kinds of teacher and peer group feedback and suggest that the most effective feedback may be selective, taskrelated feedback, controlled by measurement instruments and provided to students themselves and to their peers. 374. Zeni, Jane. "Oral Collaboration, Computers, and Revision." In Writing With: New Directions in Collaborative Teaching, Learning, and Research, edited by Sally Barr Reagan, Thomas Fox, and David Bleich, 213-26. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1994. Zeni studied the writing of two sixth-grade girls in their classroom and found that their oral collaboration in either a collaborative writing assignment or in single-author assignments was a powerful force in helping them revise their writing. Zeni also studied the girls as they wrote collaboratively at the computer and found that the "computer merely facilitates the physical work of revision by making it easy to add, delete, substitute, or rearrange parts of a text. But the technology does little for a student who does not think to question a text, to wonder if it might sound better a different way" (223). Thus, the catalyst for revision is not technology but dialogue and "the environment of the writing workshop—and the environment of the collaboration it fosters—that drives" the revision process (224). Revising and Adult Writers 375. French, Martha S. "What They Say and What They Do: Revision Strategies of Adult Developmental Writers." In National Association for Development Education Annual Conference Proceedings, edited by Barbara Gallow Lyman and Emily Miller Payne, 22-23. 1992. ED 369 322. French conducted a study of adult development writers to determine whether the way they revised their writing matched what they thought about revision. She found that high apprehensive students had less success at revising their writing than low apprehensive students. However, both types of students really believed that error-free writing was good writing. Students may not have known how to correct surface errors, but their "obsession with error corrections had not disappeared just because the error correction has not taken place" (22). 376. Nold, Ellen W. "Revising." In Writing: The Nature, Development, and Teaching of Written Communication. Volume 2. Writing: Process, Development and Communication, edited by Carl H. Frederiksen and Joseph F. Dominic, 67-79. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1981. Nold explores a simple model of the writing process that illustrates the differences between skilled and unskilled adult writers. Unskilled adults tend to review their writing against their intended meaning first, "unaffected by audience constraints either in revising or planning" (74). The more skilled adults, Nold found, were more sophisticated socially and thus more able to respond to the varying needs of different audiences.

88


Examples of Revision 311. Shuman, R. Baird. "H.G. Wells' The Outline of History: A Study in Revision." In Revising: New Essays for Teachers of Writing, edited by Ronald A. Sudol, 43-51. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English, 1982. Schuman analyzes and comments on two pages in H.G. Wells' The Outline of History-the original and a revised version-to show the process and the need for revision in writing. He also notes several other authors and their well-known works that underwent substantial revision. 378. Sloan, Gary. "Revision: Its Scope, Function, and Value." Arizona English Bulletin 24, no. 2 (1982): 54-59. ED 274 992. Sloan discusses examples of famous authors' exhortations to revise writing, the importance of the art of revision before writing, and the critical task of revision once a draft is complete. Sentence Combining 379. Argall, Rebecca S. "Sentence Combining: An Incisive Tool for Proofreading." Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication, 1982. ED 214 186. Argall describes the use of sentence combining exercises as a teaching tool in a developmental writing class, using the students' own writing. After five weeks of instruction limited to sentence-combining, students were asked to revise a paragraph written before the sentence-combining sequence began and to write a new paragraph on a different topic. Argall reports that both the students' revised paragraphs and their new paragraphs improved as a result of the sentence-combining work. 380. Mellon, John C. "Can Sentence Combining Play a Role in the Revision Process?" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council of Teachers of English, Boston, MA, November 1981. ED 211 979. The author uses practice sessions of sentence combining to help writing students learn how to revise texts by elaborating and developing themes. Technology Word Processing 381. Beal, Carole R., and Elizabeth A. Griffin. "Learning to Use a Text Editor." Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Washington, DC. April 1987. ED 287 459. Beal and Griffin report on a study of 25 third- and fourth-grade students who were taught to use a simple Macintosh text editor and then compose and revise a variety of texts. The authors found that the children had little difficulty learning to edit with the system but noted that most of the children's revisions were to correct typographical errors; only "10% of the changes made by third graders and 14% of those made by fourth graders altered the meaning of their work" (5). Beal and Griffin conclude that initially the use of word processing may result in more revision, but that much of the revision may be a result of the larger number of errors the children make as they learn to use the keyboard and editor.


89

382. Bean, John C. "Computerized Word-Processing as an Aid to Revision." College Composition and Communication 34, no. 2 (1983): 146-48. Bean describes a pilot project at Montana State University in which twelve instructors and four freshman composition students were trained to use the university's central computer for word processing. The limited experiment, Bean concluded, showed that students focused more on context and less on surface features when editing with the computer, and thus "for some students at least, the computer can make a significant positive impact on revising habits" (148). 383. Catano, James V. "Computer-Based Writing: Navigating the Fluid Text." College Composition and Communication 36, no. 3 (1985): 309-16. Based on interviews with two novelists who used computers to write their novels, Catano affirms that "computer technology and creativity are not incompatible" (315). In fact, computers allowed the novelists to work with a fluid text, one that was constantly being revised. The concept of the fluid text suggests that revision is central to composing and that students should be given the opportunity to participate in the development of fluid texts so that they learn to take risks in their writing. Catano discusses ways that computers can be used to encourage students to see text as fluid. 384. Clark, Beverly Lynn. "Revising by Computer." English Record 35, no. 4 (1984): 6-9. Teachers should encourage students to use computers to write and to revise writing. Such encouragement is made easy because computers all revision to become "a game, not a punishment" (6). In fact, computers can free students to write multiple drafts, and allow students to recognize that the perfect first draft is not a realistic goal. Clark provides examples of how she revised an article using the computer and notes that students in her classes find value in using computers to write and revise their assignments. 385. Cohen, Michael E., and Richard A. Lanham. "HOMER: Teaching Style with a Microcomputer." In The Computer in Composition Instruction: A Writer's Tool, edited by William Wresch, pp. 83-90. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English, 1984. Cohen and Lanham describe the use of HOMER, a computer program based on Lanham's book, Revising Prose, that identifies potential prose problems in student essays. The program finds, labels, and counts prepositions, be verbs, words ending with tion or sion, and vague words, as well as provide a statistical summary of the number of words, sentences, and average words per sentence in a text. The authors conclude that a computer "can help teach style, but only a teacher can decide when and how to use the machine" (91). 386. Collier, Richard M. "The Word Processor and Revision Strategies." College Composition and Communication 34, no. 2 (1983): 149-55. After reviewing his study in which four students' writing revision skills were not enhanced when using a word processor instead of more conventional methods, Collier suggests that the word processor itself should be redesigned. His suggestions include allowing writers to see more than one page simultaneously as well as close-ups of specific parts of text and infinite vertical scrolling.

90


387. Cronnell, Bruce. "Computer Instruction for Generating and Revising/Editing Narrative Text." 1982. ED 223 244. The paper outlines a proposed procedure for using an interactive computer-based approach to help students in composing, revising and editing narratives on a word processor. Cronnell concludes that the computer specifications for appropriate instructions would be complex and that programming for just one story would be a major project requiring considerable time and resources. 388. Curtis, Marcia S. "Windows on Composing: Teaching Revision on Word Processors." College Composition and Communication 39, no. 3 (1988): 377-344. Curtis critiques disappointing experiments in using the word processor to encourage students to revise their writing. She concludes that teachers have expected the word processor's ease of use would magically teach students deeper thought processes when, in fact, students need to be guided through the steps just as they always have been. 389. Daiute, Colette. "Physical and Cognitive Factors in Revision: Insights from Studies with Computers." Research in the Teaching of English 20, no. 2 (1986): 141-59. Daiute conducted a study of junior high school students to determine what effect using a computer would have on their writing. In her study, Daiute compared the revising processes of students who used a computer and students who used pen and paper. She also compared the revising process of students who used a computer-prompting program and students who did not. She found that students who used the computer to write "added more words to the ends of their draft texts and corrected more word- and sentence-level errors, but they did not make more global text revisions than they did when they used pen" (158). However, students "made relatively more revisions when they used" (158) a computer-prompting program. Indeed, the students who used the prompting program "balanced their additions within the text and at the end" (158). These results suggest that students revise more when they are called upon to interact with the text using some sort of prompting mechanism. 390. Flinn, Jane Zeni. "The Role of Instruction in Revising with Computers: Forming a Construct for 'Good Writing'." 1986. ED 274 963. A year-long study of four classrooms of sixth graders, some using computers and others using the traditional pen-and-paper method, indicated that those using computers performed slightly higher when revising their writings. The most striking difference between the groups, however, was how the students scored on fluency, word choice, and mechanics, depending upon which aspect the various teachers stressed. 391. Friedlander, Alexander, and Michael H. Market. "Word Processing and Writing: Effects of the Macintosh on the Drafting and Revising of Technical Writing Assignments." In IPCC 1988 Conference Record: On the Edge: A Pacific Rim Conference on Professional Technical Communication, pp. 169172. Seattle, WA: IEEE Professional Communication Society, 1988. Friedlander and Market report on a study involving 17 students in an undergraduate technical writing who were asked to write and revise two


91

descriptive essays, one using a Macintosh computer and MacWrite wordprocessing software and one using pen and paper. Students in one group used the computer to write a mechanism description and pen and paper to write a process description; the other group wrote the process description on the computer and the mechanism description with pen and paper. All of the students were experienced Macintosh and MacWrite users. Two experienced technical writing teachers independently evaluated the 34 essays and found although the essays written with the Macintosh were superior, the difference was not statistically significant. Essays written on the computer were longer, however; and students told researchers they believed they wrote better using the computers. The authors concluded, however, that "the Macintosh by itself does not significantly improve the quality of writing" (171). 392. Gebhardt, Richard C. "Computer Writing and the Dynamics of Drafting." Journal of Teaching Writing 5, no. 2 (1986): 193-201. " . . . one of the best ways I have found to make the complex and simultaneous processes of writing clear to students," Gebhardt notes, "is through computer writing" (200). Computers, for instance, help students conceive of text as fluid, so students feel more open to revise text that does not appear permanent. However, students will not automatically use computers successfully to revise their writing, so Gebhardt recommends that writing teachers "become fluent computer writers . . . to show students the dynamics of drafting" (197). Gebhardt recommends five ways that writing teachers can help students become effective in writing and revising using the computer. 393. Gerrard, Lisa. "Using a Computerized Text-Editor in Freshman Composition." 1981. ED 227 512. The author drafts two freshman composition classes into using the interactive text manipulation system Wylber to determine whether a computerized text editor would help them revise their papers. The students reported that although the system was at least manageable, it was frustrating and it took too much extra time to learn it. The students mostly confined themselves to simpler procedures, overlooking commands that suggested wholesale revision and complained that time restrictions and expense discouraged full-scale revision. 394. Gerrard, Lisa, ed. Writing at Century's End: Essays on ComputerAssisted Composition. New York: Random House, 1987. See "Processing Words and Writing Instructions: Revising and Testing Word Processing Instructions in an Advanced Technical Writing Class" (000 Erna Kelly) and "Test-to-Voice Synthesis: What We Can Learn by Asking Writers to proofread with Their Ears" (430 Elaine O. Lees). 395. Gould, John D. "Composing Letters with Computer-Based Text Editors." Human Factors 23, no. 5 (1981): 593-606. An experiment using 10 experienced letter writers determines that the writers spent 50 percent longer to create a text-edited letter than a hand-written letter of comparable quality, in part because they made more changes and needed extra time for formatting, text

92


positioning, and reviewing and modifying the formatted version of the textedited letter. 396. Grejda, G. F., and M . J. Hannafin. "The Influence of Word Processing on the Revisions of Fifth Graders." Computers in the Schools 8 (1991): 89-102. Grejda and Hannafin conducted an experiment to determine the effects of word processing on the ability of fifth-grade students to identify and correct errors in texts. Their study involved 59 fifth-graders who were divided given weekly instruction for five weeks in the use of a word processing program and then divided into three groups: one group used paper and pencil to make all corrections on a pretest, posttest, and seven daily assignments; a second group used computers and word processing exclusively for the same tasks; the third group used paper and pencil for the pretest and posttest, but computers and word processing for the seven daily assignments. The two groups that used paper and pencil outperformed the computer-only group in finding and correcting errors of punctuation, quotation marks, possessive nouns, sentence structure, and paragraph unity. There was no significant difference in the groups' abilities to identify and correct errors of capitalization and comma usage. An attitude survey found that the students who used word processing exclusively were less enthusiastic about writing and about computers than students in the other groups. 397. Grejda, Gail F., and Michael J. Hannafin. "Effects of Word Processing on Sixth Graders' Holistic Writing and Revisions." Journal of Educational Research 85, no. 3 (1992): 144-49. A study to determine whether using word processors would improve sixth graders writing ability shows that those using the program rather than paper and pen made more mechanical and organizational revisions, and corrected more first-draft errors. The holistic writing quality, however, was not significantly better than that of the control group. 398. Hawisher, G. S. "The Effects of Word Processing on the Revision Strategies of College Freshmen." Research in the Teaching of English 21 (1987): 145-59. A study with 20 advanced college freshmen indicates that word processing computers do not improve the students' ability to revise texts, and that essays produced by a control group with pen and typewriter received comparable quality ratings to those produced with a computer. 399. Irizarry, Estelle. "Correcting Composition on the Computer." Hispania 71, no. 2 (1988): 448-50. Irizarry discusses the way she responds to students' writing on the computer by using a column feature of word processing so that students' papers fit in one column on the monitor and the teachers comments fit in the other column. Irizarry says that this approach to responding to students' writing helps them to revise because students "make the corrections themselves with the help of the prompts that appear in the right-hand column and thus do not have to rewrite material needlessly" (449-50). In addition, printed copy can be eliminated because students and teachers can exchange copies via email.


93

400. Joram, Elana, Earl Woodruff, Mary Bryson, and Peter H. Lindsay. "The Effects of Revising with a Word Processor on Written Composition." Research in the Teaching of English 26, no. 2 (1992): 167-193. Noting that research suggests that word processing may facilitate revision by lessening "the cognitive load placed on writers" (168), the authors conducted a study with eight-grade students to determine whether word processing does facilitate revision. The eighth graders were divided into above average writers and average writers and were studied both under conditions of using a word processor to compose and using pen and paper to compose. In analyzing data from their study, the authors found that composing with computers is not always beneficial to students. The authors say that "assumptions should not be made about the general benefits of word processing without considering the specific writing and text-editing capabilities of the students under consideration" (190). 401. Kelly, Erna, and Donna Raleigh. "Integrating Word Processing Skills with RevisionSkills." Computers and the Humanities 24, nos. 1-2 (1990): 5-13. Noting that word processing skills have not proved to help students revise their writing as much as writing teachers had hoped those skills would, the authors discuss two techniques they used to help students revise at the computer. The two techniques are a WHAT-IF game and prompting macros. The authors explain how they used these techniques with students, saying that students were able to learn skills that were needed for making more than surface revisions. In addition, the authors note that the techniques helped students to become independent revisers so that students "might be able to go beyond a blind rewrite and possibly diagnose, select a remedy, and apply it" (9-10). 402. Kiefer, Kate. "Revising on a Word Processor: What's Happened, What's Ahead." ADE Bulletin no. 87 (Fall 1987): 24-27. In pondering the value of word processing programs as aids to revision, Keifer notes that the research about the effectiveness of revision on students' writing is mixed, neither endorsing the value of such programs nor denying that they can are totally ineffective. Kiefer adds to this mixed review her own experiences with student writers as they used word processing programs to help them revise their writing by saying that "computer revision programs won't necessarily help students see major revisions for a text" (25). "In fact," she says, "I suspect that, left on their own, most students would ignore or misuse most computerized revision aids" (25). Keifer also speculates about how word processing programs will be able to help students revise in five and ten years. 403. Kurth, Ruth J. "Using Word Processing to Enhance Revision Strategies during Student Composing." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA, April 1986. ED 277 049. Similar to (404 Kurth article in Educational Technology.) 404. Kurth, Ruth J. "Using Word Processing to Enhance Revision Strategies during Student Writing Activities." Educational Technology 27, no. 1 (1987): 13-19. Kurth conducted a study of high school students to find out what impact word processing had on their ability to revise their writing. Two groups of

94


students, one that did not have access to computers and one that did, were taught the writing process and asked to write seven different papers. When Kurth compared the quality of the texts from the two groups, she found that both groups used similar global revisions and about the same number of global revisions. However, the group that wrote using computers felt more positive about the writing instruction they were given, their ability to write, and their work in editing groups than did the group that did not write using computers. Kurth notes that the "use of word processing cannot substitute for quality instruction in the entire writing process. However, the use of computer word processing in writing programs seems to have motivational value, seems to facilitate group discussions about writing, and may help foster peer editing" (18). 405. Kurth, Ruth J. "Word Processing and Composition Revision Strategies." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC, April 1987. ED 283 195. Similar to (404 Kurth article in Educational Technology.) 406. LeBlanc, Paul. "How To Get the Words Right: A Reappraisal of Word Processing and Revision." Computers and Composition 5, no. 3 (1988): 29-42. The "computer will not make the student a significantly better reviser" (41) LeBlanc notes, after providing data from a study of six students who composed using a computer. In the case studies LeBlanc reports, one student's revision practices deteriorated because the student was able to write faster with a computer than with pen and paper, and the student spent less time thinking about text he had written. As LeBlanc says, ". . . technology has not created new revision strategies. Word processing neither adds to nor subtracts from the sum total of models. Experience with text and modes of discourse, and the ability to imagine a better version of what lies before the writer on the page or the monitor are the keys to revision" (38). LeBlanc calls for a taxonomy of writers and computer strategies that would enable teachers to analyze particular students' writing habits and help students use the computer effectively to revise their writing given their writing habits. 407. Milone, Michael N., Jr. "Painless Grammar: Revising with the Help of a Grammar Checker." Classroom Computer Learning 10, no. 7 (1990): 18-20, 22-23. Milone espouses student use of computer grammar checkers as the first step in the revision process, and offers ten sample assignments to help students become familiar with the tool. He also evaluates four grammar checker programs and lists costs and purchasing sources. 408. McAllister, Carole, and Richard Louth. "The Effect of Word Processing on the Revision of Basic Writers." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication, Atlanta, GA, March 1987. ED 281 232. The authors conducted a study of the writings of 100 college basic writers to determine whether using word processors would affect the quality of their revisions. Experimental groups using the word processor achieved a significantly higher quality of revision than students who wrote and


95

revised by hand. The differences, the authors conclude, were attributable to student attitude, environmental influence, and the distance provided by students making suggested changes to text on a screen rather than reviewing comments on their handwritten work. 409. McAllister, Carole, and Richard Louth. "The Effect of Word Processing on the Quality of Basic Writers' Revisions." Research in the Teaching of English 22 (1988): 417-27. A study on the revision practices of 100 basic college writers indicates that those who used word processors enabled the writers to revise their work more effectively. 410. Markel, Mike. "The Effect of the Word Processor and the Style Checker on Revision in Technical Writing: What Do We Know, and What Do We Need to Find Out?" Journal of Technical Writing and Communication 20, no. 4 (1990): 329-42. Markel dismisses the current literature on text-editing capabilities and style checkers as flawed and inconclusive. He calls for systematic and objective studies of the various factors that determine the value of word-processing aids, including the relationships between revising and quality, as well as the effectiveness of various kinds of computers and software for computer-sawy and computer-illiterate students. 411. Markel, Michael H. "The Writing Process Teaching the Writing Process Revising." College English, 50, No. 5 (September 1988): 509-10. In a streamof-conscious essay, Markel illustrates the thinking/writing process before formal revision. 412. Monahan, B. "Computing and Revising." English Journal 71, no. 7 (1982): 93-94. Monahan incorporated the word processor into the English classroom, having students type their essays on it and then use it to revise. He concludes that the new technology helped students make more and better revisions because of the ease in moving elements around and adding information, and that these skills were transferred to student efforts when writing with pen and paper. 413. Moosally, Michelle J., and Roland D. Nord. "A Discussion and Annotated Bibliography of Research on the Use of Style Checkers in the Computer-Assisted Writing Classroom." Proceedings 40th Annual ConferenceCommunication Roundup, pp. 450-53. Arlington, VA: Society for Technical Communication, 1993. A study looks at the style checker software program Right Writer 4.0. Asked to determine whether the programs suggestions are useful, freshmen composition students, beginning technical writing students and advanced technical writing students ignored about half of the suggestions. Discussion of the study is followed by a 34-enrry annotated bibliography. 414. Morton, Larry L. "Word Processing and the Editing-Revising Process." Computers in the Schools 5, no. 1 (1988): 165-78. A study of nine 10- to 13year-olds indicates that using a word processor for writing results in much longer papers than those that are hand-written and that vocabulary and thematic

96


maturity measured on the Test of Written Language (TOWL) posttest increases. Morton suggests the results make a case for introducing word processing more systematically into the elementary schools, particularly to help avoid curriculum-induced writing disabilities. 415. Nathan, Ruth. "Throw the Gimmicks Out with the Trash-Please, Pretty Please!: Rewriting with Computers." Writing Notebook: Creative Word processing in the Classroom 8, no. 1 (1990): 26-28. Nathan describes how her first or second-grade students divide into groups to brainstorm a story, and then dictate it to the teacher, who types it onto a large screen computer, making changes as the students suggest them. The process helps students understand the process and value of revision, while the computer appears to give the seal of significance to their efforts, Nathan argues. 416. Owston, Ronald D., Sharon Murphy, and Herbert H. Wideman. "The Effects of Word Processing on Students' Writing Quality and Revision Strategies." Research in the Teaching of English 26, no. 3 (1992): 249-276. A study examined the influence of word processors on writing quality and revision strategies by eighth-graders experienced with the machine. Evaluators found the papers written on word processors significantly better, although most of the revision consisted of microstructural changes. The study also revealed that the students revised at all stages of their writing, but most took place during the initial drafting stage. 417. Petit, Susan. "The Computer and Freshman Composition Revising and Editing Simplified." Inside English 12, Oct. 1984: 5,7. ED 288 574. Petit, writing from the historical perspective when computers were expensive and used infrequently by students, discusses the pros and cons of students using computers in composition classes. She notes that computers could truncate the revising process, but she also says that computers have many advantages that promote revision. She also discusses the use of a spell checker as a tool for helping students become better spellers. 418. Pufahl, John P. "Alone on the Word Processor: Writing and Rewriting." Teaching English in the Two-Year College 13, (February 1986): 25-29. A study of college freshmen using a word processor to compose their essays indicates that those who preferred to work alone relished the ease of using a computer to revise and refine their work. Students who preferred peer and teacher comment, however, found the computer was merely an efficient tool to make basic proofreading corrections. 419. Pufahl, John. "Response to Richard M. Collier, 'The Word Processor and Revision Strategies'." College Composition and Communication 35, no. 1 (1984): 91-95. Pufahl discusses the need for students to be taught how to revise their writing while working on a word processor. The author offers a multi-step procedure, from handwritten drafts input into the computer to subsequent revisions during multiple sessions with teacher comment at stages along the way.


97

420. Schriner, Delores K. "Risk Taking, Revising, and Word Processing." Computers and Composition 5, no. 3 (1988): 43-53. A study of first-year university students finds that those writing on a computer make more, but not necessarily better, high-level revisions on their essays. The author believes the results suggest that increased instruction may be necessary for writing classes where computers are used. 421. Steelman, Jane D. "Revision Strategies Employed by Middle Level Students Using Computers." Journal of Educational Computing Research 11, no. 2 (1994): 141-52. In a study of sixth-grade students, Steelman found that students who used computers to revise their writing used significantly more language strategies and organizational strategies than did students who did not use computers to revise their writing. 422. Strickland, James. "Computer Strategies for Teaching Revision It May Be Convenient, but It's Not Easy." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council of Teachers of English, St. Louis, MO, November 1988. ED 301 890. Strickland discusses revision strategies that work well with word processors and gives examples: outlining, creating a stairway of logically elaborated points, writing cumulative sentences, writing new introductions, using the search and replace key to correct style, and creating a computer monitor exchange for collaborative revision among students to enable them to be both writers and readers. 423. Stromberg, Linda, and Ruth J. Kurth. "Using Word Processing to Teaching Revision in Written Composition." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, Austin, TX, November-December 1983. ED 241 953. The authors conducted a study of eighth-grade students' use of computers to produce, revise and edit their writing. The results of a questionnaire suggested that "students were very positive about their experiences with a word processing system" (3), and the authors note that because students worked together in one location on computers, they helped each other by making useful comments about revising each other's work. Computers can help students overcome two obstacles to writing—the labor or rewriting and recopying and the lack of a reason to revise—but the teacher has to use a process approach to writing for students to recognize how important revision is in the writing process. 424. Sudol, Ronald A. "Applied Word Processing: Notes on Authority, Responsibility, and Revision in a Workshop Model." College Composition and Communication 36, no. 3 (1985): 331-35. With the advent of computers, composition teachers should discard the traditional lecture-discussion-reading assignments-writing assignments model and begin to teach in a workshop model, the author says. He argues that the computer workshop gives students time for writing and revision; for brainstorming, free writing, and the exchange of drafts, making a community in which writing becomes a public act and creating a climate for collaborative learning.

98


425. Walker, Cynthia L. "Computers, Revision, and the Developmental Writer: A Case Study of On-Screen Versus Off-Screen Revision Processes." Research and Teaching in Developmental Education 14, no. 1 (1997): 23-34. A study of eight first-semester freshmen writing students found that the students made more than twice as many editing changes when they revised their essays on a word processor than they did when using pen and paper. The vast bulk of the changes on the word processor were beyond the mechanical or word level, but the students tended not to see many of the surface-level changes on the word processor that needed to be made. 426. Williamson, Barbara L. "Writing with a Byte. Computers: An Effective Teaching Methodology To Improve Freshman Writing Skills." ED 362 245. A study of the effectiveness of the artificial intelligence software "Writer's Helper" found that using the program helped college freshmen writing students trim their use of "to be" verbs from an average of 24 in the first draft of an essay to 21.5 in the final version. The vast majority of students reported they found the program helpful and recommended it for future classes. 427. Womble, Gail G. "Revising and Computing." In Writing On-Line: Using Computers in the Teaching of Writing, edited by James L. Collins and Elizabeth A. Sommers, 75-82. Upper Montclair, NJ: Boynton/Cook, 1985. Womble describes how using a word processor combined with sound instruction inspired her tenth-grade students to become more fluent writers. She reports that students focused first on mechanics, but then with a clean copy of their writing they were easily able to manipulate their words to experiment with ideas, additions, and true revision. 428. Wright, Anne. "Teaching Writing While Jumping through New Technological Hoops." English Journal 11, no. 7 (1988): 33-38. Wright analyzes the impact of the computer word processor on writing classes and lists ten adjustments teachers must expect to make. Among the changes are learning to share equipment, being flexible in the format of papers, and requiring more revisionto shifting the composition process to the classroom instead of as homework. Speech Synthesizers 429. Berry, Eleanor. "Speech Synthesizers as Aids to Revision." Computers and Composition 6, no. 3 (1989): 81-92. Berry argues that speech synthesizers—computer software that reads orally what a writer had written— should be standard equipment for teaching writing because synthesizers allow students to become audiences for their own work and provide the opportunity for students to hear things in their writing that need to be revised. Berry notes that speech synthesizers are already being used to help people who have visual or motor handicaps write and he says that synthesizers can also be used with basic and advanced writers. In fact, students can try out revisions and synthesizers will let "students hear the effects of changes as they try them out" (88).


99

430. Lees, Elaine O. "Text-to-Voice Synthesis: What We Can Learn by Asking Writers to Proofread with Their Ears." In Writing at Century's End: Essays on Computer-Assisted Composition edited by Lisa Gerrard, 45-54. New York: Random House, 1987. Lees reports on the results of using a text-to-voice synthesizer to help a student revise his writing. The student revised (or proofread) his writing three times before he revised the writing using a text-tovoice synthesizer, which read his text to him. Using the synthesizer, the student made significantly more changes in his text than he did during his first three attempts to revise without using the synthesizer. Lees also reports on other research she conducted using a text-to-voice synthesizer to help students revise their and their peers' writing. She suggests that "synthesized readings do affect writers editing their own texts differently from writers editing others' work" (51) for two possible reasons. First, the synthesizer can help authors overcome their egocentrism. Because a synthesizer "can neither judge nor remember, the machine preserves its social innocence; it can address egocentrism without jeopardizing ego" (51). Second, synthesizers differ from other electronic editorial aids, such as spell checkers, by providing a single reading of a text; "it cannot slip from one interpretive system to another" (51). General Technology 431. Daiute, Colette. "Do Writers Talk to Themselves?" In The Acquisition of Written Language: Response and Revision, edited by Sarah Warshauer Freedman, 133-59. Norwood: Ablex Publishing, 1985. The question in Daiute's title refers to self-monitoring. That is, do writers talk to themselves about their writing as they write? The answer is "Yes." What Daiute wanted to find out was how computers might help students talk to themselves about their writing, particularly when computers offered prompts about the text a student is writing. To conduct research on the relationship of computer prompts to changes students make in their writing, Daiute used a computer program called Catch to evaluate the revision activities of twelve-year-olds. Daiute found that computer prompts did help students revise their writing. However, "some children revise more when the computer talks to them, but others do better on their own" (155). 432. Daiute, Colette A. "The Computer as Stylus and Audience." College Composition and Communication 34, no. 2 (1983): 134-45. Daiute lays out the various physical and psychological constraints on writers, noting that the computer can help writers overcome these constraints. For instance, a psychological constraint is short-term memory. According to Daiute, "the computer can temporarily relieve some burdens on short-term memory" (14041), allowing the writer to consider readers' point of view. The text editor provides the writer with a simulated audience of sorts, allowing the writer to learn how to practice self-monitoring. In addition, "Error identification programs can also guide the writer to revise one step at a time. At each stage in revising, the writer can focus on one task, thus ensuring more success because fewer activities are competing for attention space in short-term memory" (142). In short, the computer acts as an audience, helping the writer to think about what

100


questions readers might ask of a piece of writing, and as stylus "that stimulates writers to write more" (144). 433. Flinn, Jane Zeni. "Case Studies of Revisions Aided by Keystroke Recording and Replaying Software." Computers and Composition 5, no. 1 (1988): 31-44. A study using COMPTRACE software with two sixth-grade students of widely differing writing ability indicates that the system's unobtrusive recording of the revision process is well-suited to helping writers at any level of development see and articulate the composing process. 434. Hill, Charles A., David L. Wallace, and Christina Haas. "Revising OnLine: Computer Technologies and the Revising Process." Computers and Composition 9, no. 1 (1991): 83-109. The authors review several studies of the effects of using computers on the writing process and conclude that the inconsistent results are in large part because of the wide variety of computer programs used. Their own study of student and experienced writers indicates that using a computer makes no difference in the quality of writing and revision. Instead, based on the writers' conception of revision - his or her task definition - student writers continued to treat revision as a sentence-level task while the experienced writers generally focused on a whole-text task needing global-level changes. 435. Kiefer, Kathleen, and Charles Smith. "Improving Students' Revising and Editing: The Writer's Workbench System." In The Computer in Composition Instruction: A Writer's Tool, edited by William Wresch, 65-82. Urbana: National Council of Teachers of English, 1984. The authors discuss the use of the Writer's Workbench System, a software program designed for computer text editing of writing. In initial tests of the System, the authors found "students improved [their writing] dramatically with even limited exposure to editing programs" (66). Then, as the authors included more students and more teachers in classroom experiments with the System, the authors found that both students and teachers found the System useful for helping students revise and edit their writing. Students learned "that the greatest value of Workbench lies in its ability to raise questions, to help with revision and reconsideration—not merely to point out error" (76). 436. Kincaid, J. Peter, James A. Aagard, John W. O'Hara, and Larry K. Cotrrell. "Computer Readability Editing System." IEEE Transactions on Professional Communications 24, no. 1 (1981): 38-41. The authors describe a computer program with word lists designed for those who read at the eighthgrade level. The computer program checks written materials to determine whether they are at the eight-grade reading level and flags words that do not match the word lists. An editor can then revise the written materials, check the revisions by using the computer program, and make more revisions if necessary. When the written materials meet the required reading level, they are published. The authors suggest that the computer system that uses the word lists can be improved by adding on-line editing capability.


101

437. Lewin, Larry. "Rewriting—Using the Best of Both Worlds." In Teaching Process Writing with Computers, revised edition, edited by Randy Boone, pp. 81-82. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education, 1991. ED 338 218. Lewin advocates the use of interpersonal pedagogical methods and computer programs to help students learn to revise. He lists various computer programs he has found helpful in motivating students to revise, and he uses worksheets, teacher-student conferences, proofreading partners or editing groups, and guest speakers. 438. Selfe, Cynthia L., and Billie J. Wahlstrom. "Beyond Bandaids and Bactine: Computer-Assisted Instruction and Revision." 1979. ED 232 182. The authors explain Wordsworth II, a computer instruction program they developed to offer students effective revision heuristics to apply at various stages of their rethinking and rewriting efforts. The program is designed as a series of seven modules, each covering a specific kind of writing assignment found in freshman composition classes. Each module includes parts on planning and polishing. 439. Smith, William E. "Computers vs. Paper in Delivering News Story Rewrite Advice." Journalism Educator 48, no. 1 (1993): 52-58. A study finds that journalism students using computers and computer-programmed writing tips produced better leads and believed they learned more than students working on paper. The improvement, however, did not transfer to future lessons, and the author suggests that the computer writing suggestions be redesigned to be more of a tutor than a crutch. 440. Sommers, Jeffrey. "The Effects of Tape-Recorded Commentary on Student Revision: A Case Study." Journal of Teaching Writing 8, no. 2 (1989): 49-75. Sommers argues that a teacher's tape-recorded comments on student essays are more effective than often-misinterpreted written ones. He gives an example of a recorded interaction between student and teacher. 441. Schwartz, Helen J. "Monsters and Mentors: Computer Applications for Humanistic Education." College English 44, no. 2 (1982): 141-52. In this progress report for educators in English studies, Schwartz reviews available computer applications for teaching and the applications' characteristics, capabilities, limitations, and dangers. She also suggests how to get, evaluate and incorporate computer applications into the classroom, as well as how to begin developing one's own programs. 442. Sterkel, Karen S., Mildred I. Johnson, and Douglas D. Sjogren. "Textual Analysis with Computers to Improve the Writing Skills of Business Communications Students." The Journal of Business Communication 23, no. 1 (1986): 43-61. A study shows that students using ten Writers' Workshop computer programs and two designed by the authors in a business communications class scored significantly higher in writing concreteness, conciseness and overall. The students also spent more time on their writing and

102


reported more enthusiasm for the assignments, leading the authors to recommend further refinement of the programs. 443. Thompson, Diane P. "Using a Local Area Network to Teach Computer Revision Skills." Journal of Teaching Writing 8, no. 2 (1989): 77-85. Thompson describes a college collaborative writing revision session in which students using linked computers were able to read, analyze, make suggestions, and see text being changed. She argues that the students better understood the thought processes of revision and learned techniques for using word processors to make changes in their writing within the computer writing environment. 444. Woodruff, Earl, Carl Bereiter, and Marlene Scardamalia. "On the Road to Computer Assisted Compositions." Journal of Educational Technology Systems 10, no. 2 (1981-82): 133-48. Two studies explore the feasibility of computer assisted composition programs in helping sixth- and eighth-graders handle high-level aspects of the composing process. The first program, which offered help in selecting structural elements to include in opinion essays, found the children came to rely on the program too much. The second program, in which intervention was strengthened, was found to be too intrusive. The authors offer suggestion for further studies. 445. Wresch, William, ed. The Computer in Composition Instruction: A Writer's Tool. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English, 1984. See "Improving Students' Revising and Editing: The Writer's Workbench System" (435 Keifer and Smith) and "HOMER: Teaching Style with a Microcomputer" (385 Cohen and Lanham). GENERAL ISSUES IN REVISION 446. Clapp, Ouida, ed. Teaching the Basics—Really! Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English, 1977. See "Managing a Proofreading Dialogue" (Gillett 627), "Profitable Proofreading" (Benson 622), and "Revision: A Basic Skill" (Calabrese 632). 447. Ede, Lisa. Work in Progress: A Guide to Writing and Revising. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1989. Chapter five, six, and seven focus on revision. Chapter five is entitled "Strategies for Successful Planning and Drafting." Chapter six is entitled "Strategies for Successful Revision: Managing the Revision Process." Chapter seven is entitled "Strategies for Successful Revision: Revising for Style and Structure." 448. Fulwiler, Toby. "Teaching Teachers to Teach Revision." In Revising: New Essays for Teachers of Writing, edited by Ronald A. Sudol, 100-108. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English, 1982. Fulwiler describes two- to four-day workshops on writing that he and a colleague conduct for faculty in all disciplines. At the workshops, Fulwiler explains, faculty keep journals which they are asked to write in at various times; they respond to student writing and discuss their responses in small groups; and they write


103

during the session and then submit that writing for peer review with other participants. They also revise their writing overnight and make copies for review by larger writing groups. 449. Feathers, Karen M. "Revision: The Heart of Writing." In Teacher as Writer: Entering the Professional Conversation, edited by Karin L. Dahl, pp. 233-242. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English, 1992. Feathers discusses three types of revision: author initiated, reader initiated, and editor initiated. The focus of author-initiated revision is the audience, and Feathers provides questions authors can ask about their writing to help satisfy reader expectations. She also notes that authors can do four things to revise a text: add information, delete information, substitute words for other words, and rearrange the text. When authors review reader-initiated suggestions for revision, they need to make judgments about which suggestions are good. Ultimately, the writer is in charge of the text, so reader-initiated suggestions should not be accepted automatically. Editor-initiated revisions take two forms: acceptance of a manuscript with the requirement that certain revisions be made and rejection of the manuscript. In sum, Feathers notes, "Writing is . . . the creation of thoughts in print" and "revision . . . is a process of taking a new look at our ideas and coming to new conclusions" (241). 450. Fleming, Margaret, ed. Arizona English Bulletin 26, no. 1 (1983). "Redeeming Revision" (155 Lee Ann Leeson), "Creative Revision through Collaborative Re-vision" (000 Frank C. Cronin), and "The Eleven Functions of Revision" (145 Carolyn Boiarsky). 451. Grout, Donna M. "A Normal Constant." Missouri English Bulletin 41, no. 6 (1983): 1-4. Grout suggests that students will respond to the revision process when shown that revision is a constant throughout the writing process and that some efforts will take more time than others even for teachers. 452. Green, Andrew and Barry Lane, eds. The Portfolio Sourcebook, 83-92. Shoreham, VT: Vermont Portfolio Institute, 1994. Section III, "Linking Assessment and Instruction: Practical Exercises for the Reading/Writing Classroom," contains advice about proofreading, editing, and revising, including a style sheet for editing, an editing checklist, ideas for an editing conference, and ten "Rules for Revising Our Concept of Revision." 453. Harper, Laura. "The Writer's Toolbox: Five Tools for Active Revision Instruction." Language Arts 74, no. 3 (1997): 193-200. In her seventh-grade classroom, Harper used a workshop approach to writing, but she found that "student conference partners didn't hear or couldn't articulate the weaknesses in each others' writings" (193). To provide students with tools for a revision toolbox, Harper showed students how to use "Questions, Snapshots, Thoughtshots, Exploding a Moment, and Making a Scene" (194). She explains how each tool can be used to promote revision in the classroom, noting that by giving students "a way to talk about, to make decisions about, and eventually to

104


perform revisions, the Writer's Toolbox transformed my students from recopiers to writers more in control of their craft" (199). 454. Henley, Joan. "A Revisionist View of Revision." Washington English Journal 8, no. 2 (1986): 5-7. Henley notes that students often make their texts less effective by revising them. She wonders why this is the case and suggests that teachers may be giving students incorrect signals about revising. "We," Henley says of teachers, "need to be sure that we are not transmitting a contextfree hierarchy of form and strategies that inhibits analysis of specific rhetorical situations" (7). 455. Hiatt,MaryP. "Student at Bay: The Myth of the Conference." College Composition and Communication 26(1975): 38-41. Hiatt characterizes the student-teacher writing conference as ineffective when traditional jargon (e.g., antecedent, subject-verb agreement, subordination) is used to explain writing problems that the student writer cannot understand because he or she does not understand the jargon. Such conferences, Hiatt maintains, are harmful because students respond passively to what the teacher is saying, tuning out the teacher, knowing that the mistakes being addresses demonstrate students' writing failures. To counter such conferences, Hiatt recommends that teachers either explain thoroughly the language they are using or change the language so that it is easier for students to understand. 456. Kroll, Barry M. "'Writer' and 'Reader' as Complementary Roles." Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the North Central Reading Association, Champaign, Illinois, October 1977. ED 150 568. Using James Britton's model of writing as prewriting, writing, revising, and editing, Kroll considers the first two parts of the model as the writer's role and the second two parts as the reader's role. He notes that writers need to understand that writing is to be read and, therefore, writers need to assume a reader's role in revising and editing. Students can be taught to assume a reader's role by hearing peers respond to their writing and by learning techniques of surveying or scanning, which Kroll defines as recognizing how important information is highlighted: "by stating the thesis clearly, by using special signal words, and by clarifying references to major concepts through repeating key terms" (7). 457. Lehr, Fran. "Revision." ERIC Digest. October 1987. ED 323 551. In reviewing selected literature on revision in student writing, Lehr notes that students do not generally make global revisions, teachers need to help students learn to revise effectively, and literature on the effectiveness of computers in helping students revise is inconclusive. 458. McGee, Lea M., and Gail E. Tompkins. "Distancing From and Revising Text." In Teacher as Writer: Entering the Professional Conversation, edited by Karin L. Dahl, 225-232. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English, 1992. The authors provide three definitions of revision, focusing on the definition that explains revisions as the manipulation intended, actual, and possible texts. The intended text is the text a writer has in his or her head and


105

wants to convey to an audience. Possible texts are the various ways the intended text can be manifested. To find possible texts, writers need to "distance and detach themselves for their writing" (227) The authors suggests various ways writers can distance themselves, noting that putting "time between the writing of the draft and the revising" (228) of the draft is the best way to achieve distance. McGree and Tompkins also debunk six myths about revision. 459. McNabb, Scott, ed. Writing Teachers: What We Say about What We Do. Rochester, MI: Michigan Council of Teachers of English, 1983. See "Stalking Elephants in Academia: A Vision of Revision" (56 Ashbaugh) and "Focus on Feedback" (000 Roessler). 460. Madden, David, and Richard Powers. Writers' Revisions: An Annotated Bibliography of Articles and Books about Writers' Revisions and Their Comments on the Creative Process. Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press, 1981. The authors divide their bibliography into two parts. The first part, "Articles and Books about Writers' Revisions," is organized alphabetically according to literature about a particular author. Thus, the entries begin with James Agee and end with W. B. Yeats, and books and articles about each author are listed under his or her name. The second part, "Writers Talk about the Creative Process," includes entries dealing with revising. Index 2 is a listing of various revisions problems and the places in the bibliography where those problems are addressed 461. Marder, Daniel. "Revision as Discovery and the Reduction of Entropy." In Revising: New Essays for Teachers of Writing, edited by Ronald A. Sudol, 312. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English, 1982. Marder discusses adapting the metaphor of entropy to the revision of rhetorical systems. By using the equation: Entropy equals meaningful complexity and noise divided by meaningful redundancy, writers can better order their critical sensibilities for the revision of written texts. 462. Mier, Margaret. "Teacher Commentary on Student Writing in the Process-Oriented Class." Arizona English Bulletin 28, no. 1 (1985): 77-81. Mier suggests that teachers' written comments on student writing projects will be more effective and more often read if the comments convey positive regard for students' intelligence and honesty, show empathic understanding of their ideas and feelings, and strive for positive rather than negative evaluations. 463. Mohr, Marian M. Revision: The Rhythm of Meaning. Montclair, NJ: Boynton/Cook, 1984. Mohr's book is an interspersion of comments students have made about writing and revision, examples of student work with comments about how that work could be revised, Mohr's comments about writing and revising, suggestions to writers about writing, and suggestions to a students in a class about writing. Chapter one is an attempt to define revision using students' comments about revision. Chapter two discusses the goal of revision in terms of meaning and form. Chapter three addresses assigned writing. Chapter four focuses on audience. Chapter five provides drafts of experienced writers and of student writers. Chapter six discusses reactive revision. Chapter seven

106


discusses active revision. Chapter eight provides a model of revision. Chapter nine provides an example of how the model might be used in a classroom. 464. Murray, Donald M. The Craft of Revision. Forth Worth, TX: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1991. Murray's book is designed for teaching writing with a particular focus on revision. Thus, in nine chapters Murray provides various insights about revision. Chapter one is an overview of revision. Chapter two is a discussion of drafting as an exploratory activity. Chapter three explains how reading one's first draft can be an aid to revision. Chapters four through eight focus on particular aspects of revision: for meaning, audience, order, evidence, and voice. Chapter nine is an explanation of rewriting before one writes and rewriting while one writes. 465. Murray, Donald M. "Internal Revision: A Process of Discovery." In Research on Composing: Points of Departure, edited by Charles R. Cooper and Lee Odell, 85-103. Urbana: National Council of Teachers of English, 1978. Tossing aside the three generally accepted principles of the writing process: prewriting, writing and rewriting, Murray explains writing as a process of discovery through prevision, vision, and revision, which is divided into internal revision and external revision. He also suggests numerous areas for research, from describing the process of internal revision to attitudes effective writers bring to internal revision. 466. Pearlman, Daniel D., and Paula R. Pearlman. Guide to Rapid Revision, 5th ed. Macmillian Publishing Company, 1993. The Pearlmans have created a handbook that lists in alphabetical order various topics related to writing. The authors note that the handbook has four logical groupings: Writing Style, Sentence Correctness, Punctuation, and Points of Grammar and Mechanics. 467. Penfield, Elizabeth F. "Revision Revisited." Exercise Exchange 22, no.2 (1978): 19-22. Penfield describes a classroom exercise using specific sentences and their myriad possible alterations to show students the importance of precise language and how their words and syntax help develop their thoughts. 468. Pleasants, Heather Mikkelson, Carol Barnes Johnson, and Stanley C. Irent. "Reflecting, Reconceptualizing, and Revising: The Evolution of a Portfolio Assignment in a Multicultural Teacher Education Course." Remedial and Special Education: RASE 19, no. 1 (1998): The authors describe how they worked through "iterations of reflection, discourse, reconceptualization, and revision" (56) to produce a portfolio assignment that enabled students to learn effectively in a multicultural teacher education course. 469. Secor, Marie, and Davida Charney, eds. Constructing Rhetorical Education. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 1992. See "Writers Meet Their Readers in the Classroom: Revising After Feedback" (359 Sitko).


107

470. Shear, Marie. "Fixing Rotten Writing: A Cameo Case History." The Journal of Business Communication 18, no. 2 (1981): 5-14. Using an example of a poorly written government document, Shear demonstrates a process of revising it to make it more readable. She starts by reading the document thoroughly to determine its goal, then trims unnecessary words and phrases before overhauling it by deleting, adding and reorganizing. She follows with a careful review of her own work. 471. Shear, Marie. "Solving the Great Pronoun Problem: 14 Ways to Avoid the Sexist Singular." ASNE Bulletin 688 (July/August 1986): 16-18. Offended by the purists' insistence on using the male pronoun when sex is in doubt, Shear offers guidelines to avoid making such a judgment, from adding "or she" when "he" is used or using the second person, to deleting the pronoun entirely, using "who" or rewriting the work. 472. Sudol, Ronald A. ed. Revising: New Essays for Teachers of Writing. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English, 1982. See "Revision as Discovery and the Reduction of Entropy" (Marder 461), "Revising: Intentions and Conventions" (Nold 190), "A History of Revision: Theory versus Practice" (Hodges 7), "H.G. Wells' The Outline of History: a Study in Revision" (Shuman 377), "Insights from the Blind: Composing without Revising" (Gere 224), "The Pragmatics of Self-assessing" (Beach 142), "A Holistic Pedagogy for Freshman Composition" (Windhover 791), "Teaching Teachers to Teach Revision" (Fulwiler 448), "Psycholinguistic Perspectives on Revising" (Daiute 3), "The Cloze Test as a Diagnostic Tool for Revision" (Davis 306), "On Parapraxes and Revision" (Gregory 222), "Revision and Improvement: Making the Connection" (Smith 124), "The Delphi Technique: Revising as Problem Solving" (Denn 68), "Revision and Risk" (Ruszkiewicz 000), '"But It's Just My Opinion': Understanding Conflict with Students about the Expression of Opinion" (Miller 98), "Empathy and Re-vision" (Spear 127), and "An Annotated Bibliography on Revision" (Duke 283). This collection of essays is designed to bring composition teachers closer to understanding how to help students effectively revise their work. They discuss definitions of revision, discuss when and why revision should take place, and how revision expands learning itself. The first six essays concern theoretical and intellectual backgrounds, the last ten discuss applications. 473. Thomas, Brook. "Re-Reading Re-Writing." CEA Forum 11, no. 3 (1981): 1-6. Brook argues that reading and writing are inextricably linked, so much so that writing is a form of reading and reading is a form of writing. In considering the relationship between reading and writing, Brook suggests that teaching writing should be based on a proper theory of reading. Thus, he discusses the New Critical literary model and the expressionistic model, showing why they are not the best critical models for teaching writing. He proposes the reader response textual model as the best model for teaching writing because that model "gives a theoretical basis to deal with the problems of audience, re-reading, and re-writing that all writers must face" (4). Indeed, the "process of reading and the process of writing need to be taught and taught

108


together" because "unless students know how to read, they cannot learn how to write and unless students know how to read well they will not write well" (5). 474. Willis, Meredith Sue. Deep Revision: A Guide for Teachers, Students and Other Writers. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English, 1993. The premise of Deep Revision is that writing, drafting, and revising are inextricably intertwined, and deep revision is that point, often late in the writing process, where a writer realizes that a piece of writing needs substantial additions. Willis provides numerous exercises throughout her book to help writers try their hand at revising, and she includes samples of writing from all age groups because she believes that the principles of revision apply to any person's writing. In particular, she considers revision in relation to peer review, to reading a work in draft form aloud, to responses to fiction, and to nonfiction using the techniques of fiction. 475. Witte, Stephen P. "Revising, Composing Theory, and Research Design." In The Acquisition of Written Language: Response and Revision, edited by Sarah Warshauer Freedrnan, 250-84. Norwood: Ablex, 1985. Witte argues that researchers should broaden their definition of "revising" to include changes writers make in the "pre-text" stage-before putting words to paper. "Expanding the concept of revising to include not only retranscribing but also revising a pretext necessitates our rethinking the role of 'discovery' during composition," Witte explains (266). A successful theory of revising, Witte contends, "must in some way accommodate the writing task, composing and its subprocesses, the pre-text, the text produced, and the interactions among them" (264). 476. Wyman, Linda, ed. Revising. Missouri English Bulletin 41, no. 6 (1983). See "A Normal Constant" (Grout 451), "Response and Responsibility: The Role of Teachers' Comments in Revision" (Coles 213), "Combating the Elevator Essay" (Hodges 770), "Reconciling Revision with Reality in Composition Teaching" (Pixton 110), "Emerging Rhetorical Modes" (Hiller 778), "Discovering Audience/Inventing Purpose: A Case Study of Revision in a Cooperative Writing Workshop" (Glassner 79), "Helping Basic Writers to Revise" (Wolcott 241), "Some Strategies for Teaching Revision" (Viera 369), and "Synesthesia in Revision" (Walker 240).

Teaching Revision in Nonacademic Settings IN THE WORKPLACE 477. Berkenkotter, Carol. "Decisions and Revisions: The Planning Strategies of a Publishing Writer." College Composition and Communication 34, no. 2 (1983): 156-72. Berkenkotter describes what she terms a "naturalistic study" of the writing and revising practices of Donald M. Murray, a Professor of English at the University of New Hampshire (157). The three-stage project included a 62-day period in which Murray spoke aloud and tape-recorded his thoughts while writing or thinking about his writing wherever he might be. In the second stage, Murray was given a one-hour writing task in a laboratory setting, using thinking-aloud protocols made popular by Linda Flower and John Hayes. Murray and Berkenkotter then engaged in a dialogue on audiotapes in which Murray compared his normal composing activities with those in the laboratory setting. The third-stage consisted of a two-day visit by Berkenkotter to Murray's home where she observed him thinking aloud for 2Vi hours as he revised a journal article, followed by the taping of another four hours of questions and answers. Berkenkotter reports that her original plan to, evaluate Murray's "planning, revising, and editing activities" had to be altered to include a fourth category, "evaluation of text or content" (160). She reports that Murray "collapsed planning and revising into an activity that is best described as reconceiving" (162). Berkenkotter concludes that Murray's "decisions and revisions form an elaborate network of steps as the writer moves back and forth between planning, drafting, editing, and revising" (166). Murray comments on Berkenkorter's study as an addendum to the article concluding, "It has helped me in my thinking, my teaching, and my writing" and urging other writers to subject themselves to similar scrutiny (172).

110

Teaching Revision in Nonacademic Settings

478. Carliner, Saul. "Revisions: A New Writer's Challenge." In Proceedings 31st International Technical Communication Conference, pp. WE-67—WE-69. Seattle, WA: Society for Technical Communication, 1984. The author outlines his growth as a technical writer through small, medium and large revisions of manuals. The increasingly difficult and creative tasks taught him the discipline of consistency and prepared him for complicated tasks. 479. Daniel, Reva. "Revising Letters to Veterans." Technical Communication 42, no. 1 (1995): 69-75. Daniel consulted with the Veterans Administration (VA) to revise letters the VA sent to veterans asking for information. She explains the method used to revise the old-style letters to create new-style letters: "The subject-matter specialists learn how to write for the reader, to test drafts with veterans, and to write and revise in collaborative teams" (70). Daniel also explains how data was collected and analyzed to show that the new-style letters were more effective than the old-style ones, noting that such data is important when technical writers conduct a value-added project. 480. Fagan, Bon. "Executive Writing and Internal Revision." English Quarterly 18 (Summer 1985): 69-74. Fagan describes an executive's struggle to think through and discover what he thought by writing and revising a report. Fagan suggests that teachers model that correspondence between language and writing by allowing students to watch as the teacher poses a question on which the class has some knowledge and then writes all his thoughts on the board as the answer takes shape. 481. Graves, Michael F., W. H. Slater, D. Roen, T. Redd-Boyd, A. H. Duin, D W. Furniss, and P. Hazeltine. "Some Characteristics of Memorable Expository Writing: Effects of Revisions by Writers with Different Backgrounds." Research in the Teaching of English 22, no. 3 (1988): 242-65. Three pairs of writers-two text linguists, two college composition instructors, and two former Time-Life editors-revise portions of a history textbook to improve readability. The first two pairs limited themselves to word choice and structural changes, while the editors strove to "make the texts interesting, exciting, vivid, rich in human drama, and filled with colorful language." (249) While the changes by the linguists and composition instructors resulted in some improvement in the recall level of eleventh-grade students reading the revised texts, the changes instituted by the editors nearly doubled those scores. 482. Graves, Michael F. and Wayne H. Slater. "Could Textbooks Be Better Written and Would That Make A Difference." American Educator, Spring 1986: 36-42. After reviewing the results of a study in which portions of a history texts revised by former Time-Life editors proved far more memorable to eleventhgrade students than revisions of the same material by text linguists or college composition instructors, the authors urge the involvement of professional writers, particularly journalists, in the creation of textbooks that are "more appealing, more memorable and filled with the sort of writing that would encourage students to become lifelong readers" (42).


HI

483. Hanna, Jim. "Rewrite Creatively (Part 1)." Technical Communication 39, no. 2 (1992): 271-82. Using a slide-show method that shows changes to each line, the author revises a government report to half its original size by eliminating unnecessary words and facts for an intermediate rewrite. A final version is promised for the next edition of the publication. 484. Hanna, Jim. "Rewrite Creatively (Part 2)." Technical Communication 39, no. 3 (1992): 428-36. Hanna completes a two-part revision of a government publication, picking up the text that has been shortened to an intermediate rewrite and going further to reorganize the information. By using slides to show the changes, students can consider their own choices before seeing another possible solution. 485. Kaufer, David S., Erwin R. Steinberg, and Sarah D. Toney. "Revising Medical Consent Forms: An Empirical Model and Test." Law, Medicine & Health Care 11, no. 4 (1983): 155-63, 184. Noting that physician consent forms are legal documents, the authors stress the importance of consent forms being intelligible to patients. Thus, the authors explain a model for revising consent forms and discuss the need for testing revised versions of forms. The model consists of three major parts: Duplication, information, and layout. The authors discuss all three parts and provide an example of how the model was used to revise a particular consent form. Then the authors discuss the need to test revised forms for effectiveness. The authors suggest three ways to test revised forms: "(1) readability formulas, (2) computer-based test evaluation programs and (3) user tests" (160), noting that "the most important and reliable technique for evaluating the worth of a revision is to test original and revised forms on the clientele who must use them" (162). 486. Lowenthal, David. "Mixing Levels of Revision." Visible Language 14, no. 4 (1980): 383-87. Lowenthal describes the ways he writes an essay for publication, noting that he goes through six drafts. His method for creating an essay did not work when he wrote a book, so he had to cope with the untidiness of writing a chapter for the book, a chapter he thought was complete, and then returning later to that chapter to find that he had to rewrite the chapter because the other chapters he had written caused him to reconsider the content of the chapter. Lowenthal notes several advantages of the new process he developed to revise the books chapters. For instance, he says, "Each successive revision demands re-reading the text in a different way—a change of pace that can yield valuable perspectives on outstanding problems. In revising for meaning and structure, for example, I may come to grief over a source so murky that I despair of elucidating it. But I can handle it on the next revision, which moves to an examination of the text phrase by phrase and word by word" (386). 487. Murray, Donald M. "The Maker's Eye: Revising Your Own Manuscripts." The Writer (October 1973): 14-16. To produce a progression of drafts that leads to a good piece of writing, a writer must be his own best enemy, Murray says. He or she also must learn to read the drafts critically, focusing on the subject, audience, form, structure, development, dimensions, and tone.

112


488. Myers, Greg. "From Discovery to Invention: The Writing and Rewriting of Two Patents." Social Studies of Science 25, no. 1 (1995): 57-105. Myers contrasts the language and foundational information which scientists and inventors use when writing articles and when applying for patents. He discusses the strategies and textual devises appropriate to the discourse of patents, including nesting claims, constructing an ideal reader and doubling the story. 489. Shwom, Barbara L., and Penny L. Hirsch. "Managing the Drafting Process: Creating a New Model for the Workplace." The Bulletin for the Association for Business Communication, June 1994: 1-10. Improving writing in the workplace depends upon writers' attitudes about the writing process and the structures or dynamic relationship in the workplace, the authors find. They describe a model that gives managers a mental picture of the drafting process-a model that prompts writers to decide what kind of draft they can write, to perform the appropriate self-review after drafting, and to take control of the kind of response they want from readers. The authors include a writer's checklist and graphics of the several writing stages. 490. Stull, Susan, Steven J. Peterson, and Carol A. Gerich. "Re-Writing the Wrongs: Revision Practices in the Scientific Community." In Proceedings 39th Annual Conference Society for Technical Communication: Communication Crossroads, p. 118. Society for Technical Communication, 1992. The authors argue that collaborative revision on scientific papers has been institutionalized and works well, although they suggest that editors become involved earlier in the process.

Teaching Editing in Academic Settings THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES 491. Dayton, David. "Technical Editing Online: The Quest for Transparent Technology." Journal of Technical Writing and Communication 28, no. 1 (1998): 3-38. Dayton reviews literature on the emergence of online technical editing and notes that while online editing is touted as a wave of the future, starting in the 1980s, technical editors have historically resisted online editing by favoring pen and paper editing. Reasons for this resistance include the difficulty of reading computer text for long periods of time, the problem of navigating easily within a text so as to flip back and forth in a document the way editors can access paper texts, and the impossibility of using standard editing procedures—copyediting symbols, marginal comments, author queries—in online editing programs. However, the literature on online technical editing has historically assumed that these problems could be fixed by development of appropriate technology. Dayton disagrees, citing Christina Haas' theory of the materiality of text as a factor in literacy. "Haas identified four variables affecting interaction with the writing/reading systems: the amount of text we can access at once, its legibility, how quickly the computer responds to our actions, and the blending of tactile and visual sensations that mediate our sense of the system's materiality" (31). Dayton believes that Haas' understanding of the materiality of text explains why editors prefer pen and paper to online editing. He notes, however, that online editing will most likely become standard in business and industry, so technical editors need to take the lead in "defending methods that ensure the quality of the information products produced and arguing for the selection and adaptation of tools and techniques that enhance the author-editor relationship and editors' working conditions" (32). Dayton concludes by posing research questions that need to be addressed about online editing.

114

Teaching Editing in Academic Settings

492. Dragga Sam, and Gwendolyn Gong. Editing: The Design of Rhetoric. Amityvlle, NY: Baywood, 1989. The authors note that editing is not a mechanical process; indeed, the editor is an artist. As an artist, the editor must understand the canons of rhetoric—invention, arrangement, style, and delivery—and edit using those canons. Thus, the authors devote a chapter to each canon, providing a theoretical argument for each canon followed by a section on practice, i.e., exercises for applying the theory to text. Each practice section focuses on three genres: a technical publication, a news publication, and a promotional publication. The chapter on delivery deals extensively with graphics. Because editing is an art, it is "impossible to identify a single process of editing that is always satisfactory. . . . Explicit rhetorical analysis using the editor's inventories for invention, arrangement, style, and delivery is thus especially important to the beginning editor" (217). 493. Feyerherm, Joel. "Errors, Editors, and English Teachers." IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication 31, no. 1 (1988): 10-12. Examining the concept of error from phenomenological and rhetorical perspectives, Feyerherm questions whether rigid observance of the rules of "correct" diction can sometimes be a barrier to communication by distracting the reader. 494. Plunka, Gene A. "A Critical Analysis of Current Research in Scientific and Technical Editing." IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication 33, no. 4 (1990): 193-96. Plunka reviews six significant books and monographs published on editing between 1985 and 1990. Although valuable when used along with other style manuals or reference works, Plunka believes there is still a need for a definitive, comprehensive writing text. RESEARCH ON EDITING 495. Calvert-French, Suzy. "Technical Editing in Industry." Teaching English in the Two-Year College 4, no. 2 (1978): 129-31. The author reminds readers that a technical writer's major responsibilities are to ensure good communication, mostly through improving the language usage and acting as an objective stand-in for an audience. She emphasizes that tack and flexibility with the different deadlines and writers' personalities are essential for success. Equally important, she says, is to train workers to act as a publication team as they learn to master time management and the many steps required in producing a final document. 496. Cook, Claire Kehrwald. Line by Line: How to Improve Your Own Writing. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1985. Speaking as a copyeditor, Cook notes that the purpose of her book is to teach authors how to edit their own work. Thus, the book "focuses on eliminating the stylistic faults that most often impeded reading and obscure meaning. These errors fall into five categories, corresponding to the chapters of the book: (1) needless words, (2) words in the wrong order, (3) equivalent but unbalanced sentence elements, (4) imprecise relations between subjects and verbs and between pronouns and antecedents,


115

and (5) inappropriate punctuation" (viii). In addition, two appendices are provided, one discussing the parts of a sentence and the other identifying questionable usage. 497. Crook, James A. "How the New Technology Affects Student Editing." Journalism Educator 31, no. 4 (1977): 12-15, 46. A survey of newspaper editors reveals that the recent adoption video display terminals in the newsroom results in cleaner copy from wire services, and a significant time savings in the news and composing rooms. A timed test, however, of 52 editing students indicates that although using the VDT for editing does not diminish accuracy, the students using computer terminals took longer to edit the same copy because of the number of mechanical steps required. 498. Daneman, Meredyth, and Murray Stainton. "The Generation Effect in Reading and Proofreading: Is It Easier or Harder to Detect Errors in One's Own Writing?" Reading and Writing 5, no. 3 (1993): 297-313. The authors conducted two experiments to determine whether a writer has more trouble detecting errors in his or her writing than the writer would have in detecting errors in others' writing. In the first experiment, undergraduates wrote an essay, took a reading comprehension test, and then proofread either their own writing or the writing of one of their peers. During the reading comprehension test, experimenters created errors in the essays. An analysis of the experiment showed that "familiarity that came from composing one's own text hindered proofreading performance whereas experimentally-induced familiarity facilitated it" (305). In the second experiment, the authors wanted to find out whether personal familiarity with the text could be minimized by introducing a two-week period of time between generating and proofreading one's text. Thus, the authors essentially replicated the first experiment but allowed two weeks between generating and proofreading text. They found that "the inhibitory effect on proofreading was easily eliminated by introducing a two-week interval between text generation and subsequent proofreading" (309). 499. Daneman, Meredyth, and Murray Stainton. "Phonological Recording in Silent Reading." Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 17, no. 4 (1991): 618-32. The authors conducted four experiments to study phonological recoding when university students read a text. Thus, students were asked to identify homophones and pseudohomophones the authors had introduced into the text. In addition, the authors provided students with a correct copy of a text that the students read before they were given the text with errors to proofread. Each experiment used this basic design. The authors found that "phonological likeness interfered with the detection of homophonic error words" (629). Thus, readers compute the phonological representation of a word from the word's orthographic features and then verify the word using a spelling test by recalling from memory the best candidate for the word. "Thus, the printed word hare might occasionally be mistaken as hair if the false candidate hair were made available to the verification procedure and the mismatch in spelling slipped by undetected" (629).

116


500. Dittmar, Mary Lynne. "Proficiency and Workload in Simultaneous and Successive Proofreading Tasks." The Journal of General Psychology 121, no. 4 (1994): 319-32. Dittmer tested nine subjects to determine their ability to proofread alphanumeric codes under two conditions: successive or side-to-side, that is, going from hard copy to the video display terminal and simultaneous or head-on, that is, not using hard copy but just using the video display terminal. Dittmar found subjects made fewer errors using the simultaneous method and "overall workload scores were higher under conditions of successive proofreading compared with the simultaneous method" (329). Dittmar notes "that proofreading is a highly complex and demanding activity" (329). 501. Dittmar, Mary Lynne, John Woo, and Henry Nocke. "Proofreading Performance by Disabled Adults." Perceptual and Motor Skills 78 (1994): 1051-58. The authors conducted a study in which twelve disabled adults were trained to proofread on a computer monitor and then tested to determine how well they performed as proofreaders. The authors found that the disabled adults performed well and that disabled people are able "to cope with the prolonged attentional demands" (1056) of proofreading. 502. Gordy, Constance E., and B. Michael Thorne. "Proofreading Ability as a Function of Personality Type." Journal of Psychological Type 28 (1994): 2936. The authors sought to determine whether there was a relationship among personality type, gender, and proofreading ability. Thus, the authors tested 195 university students by giving them a proofreading task and the MBTI. In analyzing their data, the authors found that females were better proofreaders than males and that Ns (intuitives) were better proofreaders than Ss (sensing types). The authors suggest that the differences in proofreading abilities could be attributed to either verbal ability or search strategy. Concerning search strategy, Ss tend to use an analytic strategy and Ns a holistic strategy. 503. Hull, Glynda. "The Editing Process in Writing: A Performance Study of More Skilled and Less Skilled College Writers." Research in the Teaching of English 21, no. 1 (1987): 8-29. To test whether focused re-reading serves as a catalyst for editing, Hull looks at the writings of two groups of college students under several conditions: a self-written essay and three essays written by others, with no feedback and with feedback on location of error. The group of 11 more skilled writers almost always corrected more errors than the 13 less skilled writers, but the two groups performed similarly on self-written essays. Both groups performed better on standard essays and better with feedback. 504. Jones, Dylan M., Christopher Miles, and Jean Page. "Disruption of Proofreading by Irrelevant Speech: Effects of Attention, Arousal or Memory?" Applied Cognitive Psychology 4, no. 2 (1990): 89-108. The authors conducted five experiments in which they sought to determine the impact of speech on the performance of subjects who were asked to complete a proofreading task. The authors found that "proofreading is susceptible to disruption by irrelevant speech. Proofreading is immune both to the intensity of the speech . . . and its


117

physical location. The main feature which determines the degree of interference is the meaning of the irrelevant speech" (104). 505. Levy, Betty Ann. "Proofreading Familiar Text: Constraints on Visual Processing." Memory & Cognition 11, no. 1 (1983): 1-12. In analyzing data from two experiments on proofreading, Levy concludes that prior knowledge of a text helps readers detect errors in the text. As Levy notes, ". . . it is easier to proofread a familiar than an unfamiliar text, and this is true whether the passage is easy or difficult to read and comprehend" (5). She also found, however, in one experiment that "any change from an exact repetition of passages between the familiarization and proofreading tasks led to a decrease in the magnitude of the improvement in proofreading performance" (7). Thus, "proofreading improves with familiarity" (10). 506. McCusker, Leo X., Michael J. Cosky, and Philip B. Gough. "Phonological Interference in Proofreading: Evidence for the Primacy of Phonological Recoding in Lexical Access." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, New Orleans, LA, December 1977. ED 149 319. Seeking to determine the importance of phonological recoding on reading, the authors tested one group of students by reading aloud a passage with misspellings. They had another group seek misspellings quietly, with the addition of a spelling test of the misspelled words and a brief questionnaire about them. In both cases, students failed significantly more phonologically consistent misspellings than phonologically inconsistent misspellings. The study concludes that phonology manifests an unavoidable route from print to meaning and that it is the swiftest and most efficient route. 507. Niemi, Pekka, and Markku Virjamo. "Proofreading: Visual, Phonological, Syntactic or All of These?" Journal of Research in Reading 9, no. 1 (1986): 31-38. A study to determine whether function and content words are processed differently while proofreading a text indicated that misprints are hardest to detect in words that retain the original shape. The authors report that short function words and long content words most frequently prevented the detection of mistakes. 508. Polya, George. "Probabilities in Proofreading." The American Mathematical Monthly 83, no. 1 (1976): 42. Polya presents a mathematical formula to determine the number of misprints that remain unnoticed and uncorrected after an article has been read by two proofreaders. 509. Simon, Judith C. "The Effect of Directed Proofreading Practice on the Development of Proofreading Skill in a College-Level Typewriting Class." Journal of Business Education 52 (February 1977): 240. A study using two groups of college-level typewriting students indicates that adding proofreading exercises in a course improves students' abilities in that area. At the end of the study, which used a pretest-posttest method, students in the group that used the proofreading exercises averaged .33 proofreading errors on the posttest, compared to the control group's .75 errors.

118


510. Simon, Judith C. "Proofreading Skill Can Be Improved." Journal of Business Education 55, no. 1 (1979): 64-65. A study of two groups of collegelevel typewriting students indicates that the group that participated in proofreading exercises scores better in proofreading tests at the end of the course. 511. Swaney, Joyce Hannah, Carol J. Janik, Sandra J. Bond, and John R. Hayes. "Editing for Comprehension: Improving the Process through Reading Protocols." 1981. ED 209 642. The authors report on several experiments that explore the effectiveness of standard editing practices to improve clarity and reveal that reading protocols can provide a powerful editing tool when standard editing techniques fail. 512. Wallace, Benjamin. "Hypnotic Susceptibility and Proofreading Accuracy." The American Journal of Psychology 100, no. 2 (1987): 289-94. A study found that students who are high in hypnotic susceptibility perform significantly better in proofreading to find misspellings in text than students who were tested as low hypnotic susceptibility. The study found that the low susceptibility group generally searched for errors word-by-word, looking at the first two letters, while the high susceptibility group searched word-by-word looking at the whole word, using a holistic strategy rather than an analytic strategy. 513. West, Leonard J. "Review of Research on Proofreading: With Recommendations for Improving Proofreading Proficiency." Journal of Business Education 58, no. 8 (1983): 284-88. West discusses barriers to typing student's good proofreading-from carelessness to the psychological tendency to see what one expects to see-and suggests strategies to overcome those barriers. He recommends grading proofreading separately from typing accuracy, proofreading every exercise twice-once moving one's lips to help hear mechanical errors and again silently for content errors - and proofreading in two-person teams. 514. Zimmerman, Donald E., Alison Ann Day, Martha Tipton, and Ellen Willging. "Using the Signal Stopping Technique as a Measure of Editing Skills." In Conference Record International Professional Communication Conference: Crossing Frontiers, 793-96. IEEE Professional Communication Society, 1992. The authors conducted a study of a class of technical editing students to determine whether the Signal Stopping Technique can be used as a diagnostic tool in determining a person's editing skills. The Signal Stopping Technique asks a person to stop and insert a slash whenever the person sees a problem in a text. The authors classify editing problems into three categories: "(1) content, (2) communication effectiveness, and (3) surface-level characteristics" (794). After analyzing data from their study, the authors determined that the "Signal Stopping Technique does discriminate among the editing skills and thus it holds promise as a diagnostic examination for assessing editing skills" (795).


119

CLASSROOM ISSUES College Composition and Graduate Classes 515. Bloom, Lynn Z. "Re-Creating Creators: Teaching Students to Edit Autobiographical Materials." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication. San Francisco, CA, 1982. ED 219 748. Bloom asserts that college-writing students can learn a great deal about editing and writing by editing the autobiographical writings of others. The author notes that such a project requires student editors to make informed judgments about the writing itself, to determine whether the writing will interest other readers, and to learn the historical and sociological contexts in which the material was written. Moreover, well-chosen, well-edited biographical material often is publishable, Bloom says. 516. Castro, Caridad, Ivonne Lamazares, and Elena Perez. "A Pedagogically Sound Approach to the Development of Editing Materials." Paper presented at the National Association of Developmental Education Conference, Orlando, FL, March 1988. ED 296 321. The authors detail a project to develop curriculum used to bridge the gap between community college students' passive command of grammatical rules and active use of them in their writing. The project determined that successful exercises resembled student errors as much as possible, focused on simple rules of the language and used a minimum of potentially confusing terminology. In addition, the study determined that skills should be presented one at a time and as a problem-solving activity. 517. Coggin, William O. "A Workshop Approach to the Editing Class." In Teaching Technical Editing, Anthology Number 6, edited by Carolyn D. Rude, 43-50. The Association of Teachers of Technical Writing, 1985. Coggin describes a graduate technical communication course that goes beyond the traditional mechanics, grammar and levels of editing to incorporate learning to manage a publishing process, practicing working with authors and reviewers, and editing practices in various fields of publishing. He explains how organization and the defining of roles and goals by student and professional participants are essential to the course's effectiveness. 518. Cohen, Alan S. "The Viking Portable." Exercise Exchange 30 (Fall 1984): 24-25. The author suggests having writing students review, edit and make lasting conclusions on their "selected works" as an effective way to end a course. The folder - put into a special folder edition a la Viking Portable editions ~ should contain students' observations about writing style and content, work habits and suggestions for continued growth. 519. Gwyn, Cindy, and Deborah Swanson-Owens. "Essay Editing: Helping Students Teach Themselves." 1980. ED 192 327. The authors believe that by requiring composition students to edit their essays in class, students are forced to break their writings into a series of steps and to understand that writing is a process. One successful method is to then incorporate peer-review (with carefully constructed guidelines included in this essay) and detailed instruction

120


on how to read essays critically. Another successful method, the authors suggest, is to spend the first half of a semester instructing and the last half editing. 520. Hackos, JoAnn T. "A Graduate Editing Course with a Research Component." In Teaching Technical Editing, Anthology Number 6, edited by Carolyn D. Rude, 36-42. The Association of Teachers of Technical Writing, 1985. The author discusses how she teaches a college technical writing class with the goals of instructing students in all levels of editing, introducing them to career opportunities, stimulating discussion on problems in the workplace, and introducing them to research related to technical editing. 521. Masse, Roger E. "Editing in Technical Communication: Theory and Practice in Editing Processes at the Graduate Level." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication, Detroit, MI, March 1983. ED 229 790. Masse describes a course at New Mexico State University designed to help graduate students become efficient and effective technical editors. The multi-level course includes research on editing, theory of editing processes, and students developing their own theories and practices of editing. 522. Harrigan, Jane. "Editing: The Last Step in the Process." Nuts and Bolts: A Practical Guide to Teaching College Composition, edited by Thomas Newkirk, 151-177, Boynton/Cook Publishers, 1993. Harrigan offers vignettes, games and lists of sample questions and answers to help teachers tackle college composition students' increasing ignorance of the basic rules and conventions of grammar. 523. Horner, Bruce. "Rethinking the 'Sociality of Error: Teaching Editing as Negotiation.'" Rhetoric Review 11, no. 1 (1992): 172-99. Arguing that the distinction between "error" and its social implications in writing is false and results in flawed research and teaching based on that distinction, Horner suggests that students be empowered in individual conferences and small groups by allowing them to negotiate particular errors on which to focus. "Making marking practices negotiable would have the added bonus of demystifying those practices, making their meanings explicit through the process of negotiation, and thus offering another example of how conventions of notation come to be conventions (in the sense of 'agreements')" (191). 524. Jack, Judith. "Teaching Technical Editing: A Structured Approach." In Proceedings 30th International Technical Communication Conference. Edition 30 Spirit of Technical Communication, RET-11—RET-12. Washington: Society for Technical Communication, 1983. In discussing an editing course she teaches to college students, Jack notes that prerequisites for the class are a good grasp of grammar and the ability to write. She says that her approach to teaching editing is a structured approach in which "subjects are presented in logical sequence, and the assignments take students from introductory through intermediate and advanced levels of editing" (RET-12). Jack briefly outlines the structure and content of the course.


121

525. Lees, Elaine O. "The Exceptable Way of the Society: Stanley Fish's Theory of Reading and the Task of the Teacher of Editing." In Reclaiming Pedagogy: The Rhetoric of the Classroom, edited by Patricia Donahue and Ellen Quandahl, 144-63. Carbondale and Edwardsville, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 1989. Editing and proofreading (Lees uses the terms interchangeably) seem to require the existence of standards to which students, who perform editing and proofreading functions, can appeal when they make decisions both as writers and as editors. However, research Lees conducted, in which she asked ten teachers of composition to mark errors on a student's paper, showed that these experts did not always agree about what constituted an error. In addition, Stanley Fish's theory, which is anti-foundational and thus inimical to immutable standards, raises questions about the possibility of standards to which editors and proofreaders can appeal. What, then, can be said about basing a pedagogy of editing in a Fishian theory of reading? Lees suggests that the relationship between pedagogy and theory, particularly Fishian theory, is complex, even self-contradictory at points. However, writing teachers can recognize the difficulties students encounter when they are told to edit and proofread based on the assumption that they know how to read a text for errors that not all members of a discourse community would classify as errors. Lees suggests that writing teachers help students see conventions as dependent on particular readers to some extent. In addition, writing teachers can enter into dialogue with students when students question the reason for or the reasonableness of conventions. 526. Mandel, Barrett J. "Losing One's Mind: Learning to Write and Edit." College Composition and Communication 29, no. 4 (1978): 362-68. In a challenge to increasingly complicated methods of teaching writing, Mandel urges teachers to toss theories and discuss "writing and editing as they exist in experience" (362). Thinking about writing before sitting down with pen and paper merely "establishes a frame of mind in which writing is likely to occur," he says. Then he writes whatever he writes, notices what he has written, judges it, and edits it so that an audience can understand it. 527. Mandino, Bob. "Helping Student Writers Be Their Own Editors." In Proceedings 29th International Technical Communication Conference, W-68W-71. Washington, DC: Society for Technical Communication, 1981. Mandino offers strategies to help student writers learn to edit with an audience in mind, including creating classroom rapport with positive feedback and working with students of varying abilities and interests. 528. Masse, Roger E. "Theory and Practice of Editing Processes in Technical Communication." IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, PC-28, no. 1 (1985): 34-42. Masse outlines the curriculum of an advanced workshop in technical writing that is intended to help graduate students develop and use levels of edit and editorial dialogue, and to develop theories of editing through research and experience.

122


529. Metzger, Margaret Treece. "Talking Back to Students: Responding to Student Writing." English Journal 71, no. 1 (1982): 39-42. A teacher finds that when she writes her own reactions throughout students' essays that the students become more and more interested in what they are writing. Then, and only then, is it time to do the red-pencil copyediting, Metzger says. She also includes fifteen stock comments to help novice teachers respond to their own students' papers. 530. Moran, Charles. "Teaching Teachers of Writing: Steps Toward a Curriculum." College Composition and Communication 33, no. 4 (1982): 42025. Moran suggests that writing teachers should be trained to be writers and editors, and he outlines a possible workshop that could help teachers achieve those skills. 531. O'Mealy, Joseph, and James Register. "Editing/Drilling/Draft-Guiding: A Threefold Approach to the Services of an Editing Workshop." College Composition and Communication 35, no. 2 (1984): 230-33. The authors explain a three-pronged approach to helping beginning college writers of varying abilities. For skilled students, they provide editing and polishing, while students who need to overcome one or two weaknesses get drilling or intensive unit instruction. The authors assign a methodical series of total revisions for students with the widest range of problems. 532. Plumb, Carolyn, Earl C. Butterfield, Douglas J. Hacker, and John Dunlosky. "Error Correction in Text: Testing the Processing-Deficit and Knowledge-Deficit Hypotheses." Reading Writing 6 (1994): 347-60. A study of high school and college writers indicates that most know how to correct errors in their compositions but that they do not detect them. The author believes this processing deficit-whether because of lack of error-finding strategies, lack of motivation, or failure to understand the task-calls for further study of the relative contributions of cognitive-level knowledge and metacognitive-level management and control in writing. 533. Wilson, Sidney R., and Eugene H. Soules. Did I Say That?: Editing Your First Draft. San Rafael, CA: Individual Learning Systems, 1976. The authors discuss the role and goals of reading as an editor, editing for clarity, and revising for grammatical terms and principles. They provide various exercises for students to practice skills in each of those areas. 534. Young, Gene. "Student Editing Internships in Low Industry Geographical Areas." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication, Atlanta, GA, March 1987. ED 280 030. Young explains how to develop an internship program for a small, rural college with few opportunities for internships in industry. He used campus or community agencies as sources for internships and provides examples of actual internships. Because campus or community agencies can be unpredictable, Young insists upon "written controls and standards for the actual


123

conduct of the internship" (8), and lists advantages and disadvantages of the internships. K-12 High Schools 535. Andrews, Richard. "The Role of Editing in English." The Use of English 34, no. 1 (1982): 61-68. Andrews describes a journalistic writing and editing exercise that students enjoy and uses it as a springboard for discussion of the role of revision and editing in the English classroom. Andrews defines editing broadly, saying it can "involve restructuring, revision and rethinking as well as correction, extension and deletion" (67). He concludes that as students learn editing skills, they also become better writers. 536. Christensen, Linda, ed. "A Guide to Teaching SelfTPeer Editing." 1982. ED 249 513. The author offers techniques to help teachers use peer and selfediting as learning devices. Discussion includes editing decisions and the writing process, including charts that depict steps writers follow in the prewriting, writing, and rewriting stages. Other sections present procedures for teaching peer and self-editing, suggestions and cautions while planning peerediting training and sample assignments for use in elementary, middle and high school. 537. Claussen, Dane S. "40 Tips for High School Editors." Scholastic Editor 61, no. 1 (1981): 28-30. The 17-year-old editor of a school newspaper offers a practical series of tips that range from defining the newspaper's audience, role and responsibility to increasing student staffs' morale, efficiency and pride in their paper. 538. Fuller, Stan. "Peer Editing and Instant Grading: A Practical Approach." In Write Angles: Strategies for Teaching Composition, edited by Gail E. Tompkins and Claudette Goss, 10-14. 1987. ED 298 529. Fuller encourages secondary school teachers to use a four-stage process involving peer editing and instant grading to encourage revision and reduce teachers' workloads. To make the system work, Fuller says students must be taught editing principles, content editing skills, and grammar and usage editing techniques. After students become proficient peer editors, Fuller recommends that teachers use the same techniques to grade individual papers during class period, providing oral response comparable to that in the peer-editing sessions. 539. Goldsmith, Eleanor. "Peer Editing with Guidelines." In Teachers at Work: Articles from the Ohio Writing Project, edited by Mary F. Hayes, Max Morenberg, and Janet Ziegler, 46-52. Oxford: Miami University, 1983. ED 232 209. Goldsmith outlines her seventh-grade students' success in peerevaluation writing sessions as they follow specific guidelines to rate each other's efforts based on specific details, vivid verbs, honest writing, overall impression, and mechanics.

124


540. McDonald, Susan. "Becoming Editors." English Quarterly 25, no. 1 (1993): 14-18. McDonald describes how her ninth-grade students' attitudes about editing change when they are asked to function as real editors for a college class's task of writing an abbreviated psychology textbook. After taking that task seriously, the ninth-graders applied their new-found skills and interest to each others' papers much more honestly and constructively. 541. Steinlage, Theresa M. "Getting the Wrinkles Out: Students Become Their Own Editors." English Journal 79, no. 5 (1990): 60-61. Steinlage describes how she switched from being the de facto copy editor of her high school class's literary magazine to teaching her students to copy edit their own work through error pattern charts, reading aloud to one another, and editing in groups. Middle and Elementary Schools 542. Hinrichs, Ronald W. "An Old But Valid Procedure." English Journal 52, no. 2 (1975): 249-52. Hinrichs argues the tried-and-tested procedures are still the best for teaching spelling proficiency and that such teaching is efficiently and effectively done in a whole-class situation. He provides a guideline that would enable youngsters to learn the 4,000 most commonly needed words between the second and eighth grades and recommends the teststudy-test procedure, with a self-correction aspect that incorporates the visual, aural, and kinesthetic learning modes. 543. Mehan, Hugh, Barbara Miller-Souviney, and Margaret M. Riel. "Research Currents: Knowledge of Text Editing and Control of Literacy Skills." Language Arts 61, no. 5 (1984): 510-15. Convinced that computer instruction is most effective when coordinated with in-class tasks, the authors describe their success with an Internet newsletter connecting elementary school students in many states. As each group writes and disperses their newsletter and collects efforts from other groups, the students learn the importance of writing and communicating with an audience. This incentive resulted in significant increases in the quality of writing, the authors found. Business Classes 544. Christian, Rod. "An Editing Process That Works." The Bulletin of the Association for Business Communication 50, no. 3 (1987): 27-28. Christian presents a four-step coaching method relying on positive feedback and an organized method of editing to help business students write better business letters. The method includes team and individual writing progressively specific feedback from the instructor. 545. Goodrich, Elizabeth Anne. "The Need for Accurate Communications in Today's Office." Business Education Forum 35, no. 7 (1981): 8-11. Goodrich congratulates business instructors for recognizing the growing need for accurate communications, and urges them to add specific instruction in proofreading and editing in a specific class, with the content decided by and approved by the entire department.


125

546. Hughes, Robert S., Jr. "Developing Business Communications Skills with the Overhead Projector: Student-Centered Techniques That Work." The ABCA Bulletin 47, no. 2 (1984): 21-24. Hughes suggests putting students armed with an overhead projector into the center of the writing process by using teams to attack problems on business writing projects from analyzing letter parts, forms and types of letters, to evaluating a resume. He includes a guide to running the project, including a list of necessary materials, specific instructions for students, how to prepare for editing groups, and effective time limits. 547. Pinsker, Sanford. "Business and Communicating: Rework, Revise, Rewrite!" Business 35, no. 3 (1985): 54-55. Using two examples, Pinsker describes steps to effective editing of business communications, including attacking the verb, keeping language simple, and trimming unnecessary words. Developmental/Basic Writing Classes 548. Hull, Glynda. "Current Views of Error and Editing." Topics in Language Disorders 1, no. 4 (1987): 55-65. The author reviews new research on editing problems for inexperienced writers and suggests two instructional principles: constrain the task and divide the writing process between generating text and its revision, and revision from editing; give specific feed back, trying out different hypotheses about the nature of a mistake and how to correct it. 549. McCutchen, Deborah, Glynda A. Hull, and William L. Smith. "Editing Strategies and Error Correction in Basic Writing." Written Communication 4, no. 2 (1987): 139-54. Two studies with college beginning writers indicates that students have two different strategies in correcting errors: the intuitive, in which something sounds right; and the consulting, in which they need to look up rules. The studies indicated that an interactive computer benefited students with consulting errors, but the authors conclude that writing classes which focus largely on the consulting function may hinder the equally important intuitive tool that students already have. 550. Mehlmann, Marybeth Ames, and Michelle Korry Waters. "From Write to Right." Academic Therapy 20, no. 5 (1985): 583-86. The authors present a holistic program for teaching students to identify and correct their copyediting skills. Using anonymous student errors, the regimen progresses from diagnosing trouble areas and building skills by means of clues to independently finding problems. The students are particularly motivated by finding other students' mistakes. 551. Sedgwick, Ellery. "Alternatives to Teaching Formal, Analytical Grammar." Journal of Developmental Education 12, no. 3 (1989): 8-10, 12, 14, 20. This article discusses alternative methods for teaching syntax, such as sentence combining, expansion and modeling, and transformation exercises and inductive grammars. Sedgwick concludes, however, that "perhaps the most effective methods for developing correct usage involve teaching students to edit

126


and proofread their own writing" (12), and he provides advice on classroom exercises designed to teach editing and proofreading skills. 552. Timmons, Theresa Cullen. "Marking Errors: A Simple Strategy." Teaching English in the Two-Year College 14, no. 1 (1987): 18-21. A study asking developmental students to use highlighters to identify errors in mechanics such as commas and passive verb forms resulted in dramatic improvement compared to a class that simply identified the problems but did not highlight the errors. Timmons argues that once students are confident in their ability to write mechanically correct papers, they will be freed to explore content and revision. 553. Ziegler, Alan. "Editing in Teaching and Writing." Teachers and Writers Magazine 17, no. 4 (1986): 1. Ziegler finds it odd that when students are taught to write, they are not also taught about editing because editing is a normal part of the writing process in which professionals engage. As Ziegler notes, "Editors, like teachers, help writers conceive, shape, and revise writing." Thus, teachers of writing should include instruction in editing in their classrooms. Journalism Classes 554. McKeen, William. "As a Teacher . . . I Find Myself Serving as That Editing Partner with My Students." The Bulletin of the C.S.P.A.A. 4, no. 1 (1986): 8-10. Good journalism demands a partnership between editor and writer, says journalism teacher William McKeen, who then provides an example of how he teamed with a student who had never written an article to guide her through research and writing an award-winning, in-depth news story. 555. Ponder, Janace. "Copyediting: Tips for Teaching a 'Lost Art.'" Community College Journalist 8, no. 1 (1979): 10-11. Ponder discusses the need for competent newspaper copyeditors and suggests tips on how to teach college students to write headlines quickly and to develop strong copyediting skills. 556. Winford, George M. "Reporting, Editing Courses Merged into Single Course." Journalism Educator 40, no. 4 (1986): 14-15. Winford describes the successful merging of reporting and editing courses, arguing that journalistic writers must know both aspects before they can be effective in current markets. 557. Winford, George M. "Slower Starts Lead to Better Grades in Editing Class." Journalism Educator 37, no. 3 (1982): 13-14. Because students are entering journalism editing classes with poor grammar skills, Winford recommends giving them a three-week crash course in grammar, spelling, punctuation, AP style, and the basic components and structure of a news story, followed by three weeks of practicing those skills. Then and only then, Winford says, are the students able to "run" through copy under deadline pressure (13). 558. Workman, Gale. "Wordplay Enlivens Editing Class, Helps Teach Editing Skills." Journalism Educator 41, no. 4 (1986): 50. Workman describes her college newspaper editing students' success at mastering Associated Press


127

style and the verbal skills and thought processes used by editors by playing board games in six of their 32 class periods. The games covered style, spelling, vocabulary, and performing verbal skills on deadline. Technical Writing Classes 559. Annett, Clarence H. "An Editor's View: Ten Common Errors in Technical Writing." Journal of Technical Writing and Communication 12, no. 3 (1982): 185-90. Annett lists and discusses what he has observed are the ten most common errors made by technical writers. The list, in order: affect/effect, hyphenation, verbs made from nouns, commas, introductory words, jargon and slang, personification of inanimate objects, "neutering" a manuscript, colloquialisms, and minor points (187-89). Annett suggests that the list should provide "a starting point both for the teacher of technical writing and for the practicing technical writer who wishes to improve" (189). 560. Barkman, Patricia R., Barbara Brady, Mary M. Lay, and Herb Smith. "Interpersonal Skills: An Essential Component in the Editing Class." In Teaching Technical Editing, Anthology Number 6 in the ATTW Series, edited by Carolyn D. Rude, 109-28. Lubbock, TX: The Association of Teachers of Technical Writing, 1985. The authors explain the importance of interpersonal skills in editor-writer relations and describe a technical editing class in which development of those skills becomes an integral part of the course. They provide a list of "useful questioning skills" and "conversing techniques" for editors and present a lengthy, annotated writer-editor conference that they use in their technical editing course. 561. Beck, Charles E. "Conducting an Editing Workshop." IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication PC-28, no. 1 (1985): 43-45. Beck describes a two-to four-hour editing workshop, usually divided into two or more class periods, in which students examine logic, verb usage, sentence introductions, and use of conjunctions in nearly completed drafts of their writing. Each of the four steps in Beck's editing technique relies on three processes - identification, analysis, and rewording. To examine logic, students create mini-outlines of the main ideas in their papers to determine its logic and structure. Next, they identify sentences with forms of to be verbs and rewrite them using active verbs. The students then examine sentence beginnings, marking them as beginning with either the main subject or anything else, including introductory phrases or dependent clauses, and compute the balance between the two types of sentence openings. In the final step, students examine their use of conjunctions, to determine whether they are using sufficient subordination to "match syntactic logic with content logic" (45). 562. Bell, R. DerMont, Ted D. Stoddard, Devern J. Perry, and Max L. Waters. "Using Small Groups to Develop Editing Skills." Bulletin of the American Business Communication Association 57, no. 2 (1994): 50-53. "The ability to edit—to correct surface-level errors—contributes to strong writing," the authors note (50). Further, in the debate about the usefulness of teaching grammar to improve writing, the authors take the position that the teaching of grammar can

128


help students become better editors and hence better writers. To promote effective editing, the authors provide students individually with 20 to 25 sentences that contain errors. Each student is asked to find the errors in the sentences; then, students are formed into groups and each group, using the same sentences, produces one edited version of the faulty sentences. The teacher evaluates each group's edited version of the sentences. The authors suggest that the group approach to editing can motivate students to become better editors. 563. Bostian, Frieda F. "Elements of Style in Technical Writing Classes." The Technical Writing Teacher 10, nos. 2-3 (1983): 124-25. Bostian laments the lack of effective editing instruction in most technical writing textbooks and describes her use of Strunk and White's The Elements of Style in her technical writing classes. Bostian introduces The Elements of Style during the first two weeks of the course, and students use it as a guide to identify and rewrite sentences and sections of papers written by students in previous technical writing classes. As the semester progresses, Bostian identifies problems in student papers by noting the appropriate section in Strunk and White. 564. Chaffee, Patricia. "Human Engineering and Technical Writing." The Technical Writing Teacher 10, nos. 2-3 (1983): 130-33. Chaffee offers examples of how student technical writers can learn the dynamics of the relationship between authors and editors in the classroom, so that they will be better prepared for a constructive working pattern and avoid the ego, fear, insecurity and defensiveness that can sabotage projects. 565. Chavarria, Linda Stout. "Using Workshop Sessions in Teaching Technical Editing." The Technical Writing Teacher 9, (1982): 95-99. The author describes how workshop sessions giving technical writing students group feedback on their writing improves both interest in writing and its quality. The process also results in students' increased awareness of their audience, better choices, form and content, and the development of the writer's voice. Chavarria outlines how the teacher must create a physical and intellectual environment for the workshops to flourish. 566. Cheney, Patrick, and David Schleicher. "Teaching Comprehensive Editing: A Proposal for University Writing Programs." In Teaching Technical Editing, Anthology Number 6, edited by Carolyn D. Rude, 10-20. The Association of Teachers of Technical Writing, 1985. The authors argue that university writing programs should go beyond teaching the more conventional levels of copy editing and to instruct students in what they call "content" editing - to reword and revise texts until they are clearly understood by an audience in the working world. Cheney and Schleichter seek to prove their point by editing 16 papers headed for scientific journals and give examples of how the vast majority needed major revision from titles and abstracts to bodies and conclusions. The authors also offer suggestions on how useful writing courses can be structured.


129

567. Coffey, Kathy. "Recycled Responses: Bringing the Editor into the Classroom." English Journal 76, no. 3 (1987): 70-71. To demonstrate to writing students how she gets articles published, Coffey has students "grade" dozens of responses she received from editors accepting or rejecting her offerings. As she had hoped, the exercise reduced their naivete about the ease of publishing and silenced opposition about her grading system. Unexpected benefits, however, included the students' careful study of word choices that contributed to the tone of the letters, a new awareness of the high standards in the professional writing field, and a strong conviction of the need for respect between editor and writer and of teacher and student. 568. Colby, John B. "Paragraphing in Technical Writing." In Technical Editing: Principles and Practices, Anthology Series Number 4, edited by Lola M. Zook, 42-46. Washington: Society for Technical Communication. (Also published in IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication PC-20, no. 1 (1977): 20-23, and>4 Guide for Writing Better Technical Papers, edited by Craig Harkins and Daniel L. Plung, 104-06. New York: IEEE Press, 1982.) The author outlines the several types of paragraphs and advocates placing summarizing topic sentences at the beginning of the paragraphs to enhance readability and comprehension. 569. Cook, John M. "The Technical Writing Student As Editor." The Technical Writing Teacher 10, nos. 2-3 (1983): 114-17. Because technical writing students must be able to edit their own writing and, should they ever become managers, edit others' writing as well, Cook advocates letting students experience the role as editor in the classroom by editing other students' writing. Also important is teaching them the entire spectrum that an article will experience, from the conceptual phase to its publication. 570. Corrigan, Ralph L., Jr. "Editing Tips for Real Audience Writing." Connecticut English Journal 14, no. 2 (1983): 95-97. Corrigan lists and gives examples of tips to make students' writing more vigorous and concise. After having them write articles intended for the school newspaper or other specific audiences, he has students delete extra words, avoid the overuse of "to be" verbs, avoid vague language, vary their sentence lengths and structures, and vary the beginnings of sentences. 571. Cheney, Patrick, and David Schleicher. "Redesigning Technical Reports: A Rhetorical Editing Method." Journal of Technical Writing and Communication 14, no. 4 (1984): 317-37. Cheney and Schleicher describe a five-stage method for rhetorical editing of technical reports. Recognizing that their method requires a total rewriting of a report, the authors note that merely editing words or sentences may not be sufficient to create a report that addresses the needs of particular audiences. Thus, the first stage in their process is identifying the purpose and audience of the report. The second stage is analyzing the concepts in the draft report. The third phase is synthesizing the ideas into a revised version of the report. The fourth stage is to review the revised version of the report with the technical authors. The fifth stage is to

130


work with the technical author to create a polished report. The authors believe that their approach to editing is superior to conventional editing, which "does little more than reveal the authors' rhetorical limitations" (336). Rhetorical editing, however, causes editors and authors "to impose on . .. reports the scope and structure their readers need" (336). 572. Calvert-French, Suzy. "Technical Editing in Industry." Teaching English in the Two-Year College 4, no. 2 (1978): 129-31. The author reminds readers that a technical writer's major responsibilities are to ensure good communication, mostly through improving the language usage and acting as an objective stand-in for an audience. She emphasizes that tack and flexibility with the different deadlines and writers' personalities are essential for success. Equally important, she says, is to train workers to act as a publication team as they learn to master time management and the many steps required in producing a final document. 573. Eisenberg, Anne. Guide to Technical Editing. NY: Oxford University Press, 1992. Eisenberg's book is divided into three sections. The seven chapters under Discussion are Chapter 1, "Edit for organization that shows main points and significance"; Chapter 2, "Edit for titles, headings, and subheadings that mark main points and their order"; Chapter 3, "Edit for definitions crucial to reader understanding"; Chapter 4, "Edit for a concise, consistent style"; Chapter 5, "Edit for tables that display data vividly and concisely"; Chapter 6, "Edit for figures that identify and explain"; and Chapter 7, "Edit for completeness, accuracy, and consistency." The second section, Dictionary, contains entries in three areas: "Basic terms in grammar, usage, and style that come into play in technical editing . . . . Printing and production terms . . . . Major types of technical writing" (vi). The third section, Exercises, provides eight types of editing exercises 574. Farkas, David K. "Teaching the Administrative and Policy Aspects of Editing." In Teaching Technical Editing, Anthology Number 6, edited by Carolyn D. Rude, 165-69. The Association of Teachers of Technical Writing 1985. Farkas discusses an editing class assignment that exposes students to broader editing issues such as budgeting, scheduling, and establishing communication policies for an editing project. Samples of student responses included in this paper indicate that the assignment gave them an opportunity for practical, creative communications reasoning extending beyond line-by-line editing into logistics and policy. 575. Forbes, C. J. "Developing Editing Skills in the Beginning Technical Writing Class." The Technical Writing Teacher 13, no. 2 (1986): 122-34. Forbes recommends a structured sequence of peer-editing activities in beginning technical writing classes, including the use of editing sheets and oral feedback. To stress the importance of the peer-editing process, Forbes assigns 30 percent of each paper's final grade to the rough draft that is submitted for peer editing and 20 percent to the student's editing sheets. The author acknowledges that these activities consume a great deal of class time, but argues that they also


131

"prepare students for the more complicated and rigorous problems of technical editing that they will encounter in academic and professional activities" (133). 576. Hageman, Mary S., and Louise M. Vest. "A Monologue-Dialogue Workshop for Teaching Editing." Technical Communication 32, no. 4 (1985): 66. The authors outline a role-playing unit in their editing classes that helps students develop editing skills, gain confidence in handling both positive and negative criticism, and appreciate the importance of creating a positive professional relationship in the workplace. 577. Heilman, Christine W. "Techniques for Collaborative Technical Writing and Editing Projects Applied in a Technical Writing Classroom." Society for Technical Communication, 41st Annual Conference (1994): 97. Heilman briefly describes a study in which college technical writing students worked in teams to develop a manual for prospective students. In addition to planning and determining the purpose and audience, the students negotiated their roles within the group to produce a useful document and gain valuable experience in "real world" situations. (97) 578. Jack, Judith. "Teaching Analytical Editing." Technical Communication 31, no. 1 (1984): 9-11. To help students edit seemingly impenetrable technical prose, Jack recommends teaching them telegramming, a three-step method of editing. The first step is to identify key words, such as nouns and verbs. The second step is to eliminate all the words but the key words. The third step is to rewrite the key words into clear technical prose. On virtue of the telegramming method is that "students gain confidence when they learn that they can edit technical writing competently without having to understand every term" (10). 579. Jordan, Michael P. "Using Non-Finite Clauses in Editing." The Technical Writing Teacher 13, no. 3 (1986): 296-301. Jordan teaches students how to use -ed, -ing, and verbless clauses by providing a published technical passage he has altered. Students are given the passage and told to use non-finite clauses to improve the passage. When students have edited the passage, they are given the original passage from which Jordan created his altered passage and told to compare their editorial work with the original passage. 580. Kantrowitz, Bruce W. "Recipe for a Cooperative Technical Editing Program." In The Council for Programs in Technical and Scientific Communication Proceedings, edited by David L. Carson, 73-88. 1978. ED 252 866. Kantrowitz, a technical editor at the New York Sea Grant Institute, enlisted the help of a technical writing professor whose students edited manuscripts Kantrowitz provided. Kantrowitz explains the method he used to prepare students to edit the manuscripts, the process the manuscripts went through, and the cost of manuscript preparation, which included a consulting fee for students who edited the manuscripts. 581. Kemnitz, Charles F., ed. Technical Editing: Basic Theory and Practice. Arlington, VA: Society for Technical Communication, 1994. Kemnitz divides

132


his anthology into six major sections: The Job of Editing, Basic Editing Theory, Basic Editing Practice, Editing Graphics, Document Design, and Editors Editing. Each section contains reprints of articles, some of which are annotated in Speck's Editing: An Annotated Bibliography published by Greenwood in 1991. Appendix A, which contains "Practical Editing Experience: A Classroom Exercise" is included in this volume as (582 Kemnitz). 582. Kemnitz, Charles F. "Practical Editing Experience: A Classroom Exercise." In Technical Editing: Basic Theory and Practice, edited by Charles F. Kemnitz, 130-31. Arlington, VA: Society for Technical Communication, 1994. Kemnitz provides advice about how he uses "Risk Reduction for Boring Operations Relative to Buried Underground Services," Appendix B in (581 Kemnitz). "Risk Reduction" is a technical editing exercise for students. 583. Losano, Wayne A. "Editing for Style and Consistency: The MultipleAuthor Manuscript." In Teaching Technical Editing, Anthology Number 6, edited by Carolyn D. Rude, 63-71. The Association of Teachers of Technical Writing, 1985. Losano notes that editing students need to learn how to edit a document created by multiple authors, so he provides ideas about how to help students edit such documents. He suggests that students can edit an article, perhaps from Scientific American, to add headings, which helps students make a manuscript more consistent. In addition, Losano refers to the need to standardize figures and references, lists and tables. In terms of stylistic changes, Losano discusses concreteness; formality, restraint, and objectivity; and sentence structure, length, and variety. 584. Mancuso, Joseph C. "'Jabberwocky' Helps Students Decipher Technical Manuscripts." In Teaching Technical Editing, Anthology No. 6, Association of Teachers of Technical Writing, 1995, edited by Carolyn D. Rude: 141-45. The author illustrates how humanities students can learn to edit technical manuscripts by practicing three techniques with "Jabberwocky." Students learn that structure words give clues to the nonsense content words, that known content words create a context, and that a backlog of processed information concerning the technical reading influences the editor toward a greater understanding of the text. 585. Mancuso, Joseph C. "Teaching Interview Strategies for the Technical Editors." Technical Communication 32, no. 1 (1985): 43. Mancusco describes several activities to help potential technical editors learn how to interact with the technical author, including role-playing and behaviors that create an environment of respect and professionalism. 586. Mancuso, Joseph C. Technical Editing. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall, 1992. Mancuso's textbook contains 19 chapters: "Introduction to Technical Editing," "The Technical Editor and the Documentation Process," "The Technical Editing Process," "The Role of the Technical Editor," "Skills of the Technical Editor," "Responsibilities of the Technical Editor," "Theories of Technical Editing," "The Computer as an Editing Tool," "Gather Reference


133

Books," "Gather Implements," "Mark the Manuscript," "Identify the Requirements, Audience, and Purpose of the Manuscript," "Read the Manuscript," "Collaborate with Others," "Edit for Organization," "Edit for Conciseness," "Edit for Clarity," "Edit for Correctness," and "Proofreading and Checking." 587. Mandersloot, Wim. G. B. "Logical Criteria Applied in Writing and in Editing by Text Analysis." Journal of Technical Writing and Communication 26, no. 1 (1996): According to Mandersloot, writers and editors should deal first with a document's structure, including logic and text analysis. In discussing logic, Mandersloot lists traditional and fuzzy logic methods. Concerning text analysis, Mandersloot discusses what is contained in a portion of a text, what is the appropriate discourse sequence, and what the criteria are for lists and headings. Thus, Mandersloot notes, "In preparing and evaluating communications, text analysis for structure, based on the application of logical criteria extending beyond the traditional, provides a powerful and effective procedure" (67). 588. Mazzatenta, Ernest. "In-House Writing Courses: Aids or Anachronisms?" In Teaching Technical Writing and Editing-In-House Programs That Work, Anthology Series No. 5, edited by James G. Shaw, 1-4. Washington, DC: Society for Technical Communication, 1976. The author discusses the advantages and alternatives to in-house corporation technical writing courses. 589. Monagle, E. Brette. "Error Pattern Analysis in a Workshop Format." Proceedings 29th International Technical Communication Conference: Technical Communication-Charting the Course of Technology, E-74-E-76. Washington, DC: Society for Technical Communication, 1982. Monagle describes how she uses error pattern analysis to identify, classify and keep a frequency count on errors in students' technical writing, enabling them to recognize their individual pattern of errors and to recognize their need to overcome the errors. 590. Norman, Rose, and Marian Smith. "Bringing the Classroom to the Real World: An Industry Project for Writers and Editors." In Proceedings Ninth Annual Practical Conference on Communication, 127-40. Knoxville, TN: The University of Tennessee, 1985. The authors describe a joint college-corporation venture intended to give college technical editing students real world experience in the knowledge and skills they will need. The collaborative editing project linked students with authors and required students to follow a seven-step process: editing a manuscript cold; talking with the author; conferencing with the instructor; re-editing; talking with the author; conferencing with the teacher; and preparing the final copy and a project report. The authors argue that "working with professional writers who enjoy writing . . . gives students a positive learning experience" (137).

134


591. Philbin, Alice I. "Editing Statistics." In Teaching Technical Editing, Anthology No. 6, edited by Carolyn D. Rude, 72-88. The Association of Teachers of Technical Writing, 1985. Philbin discusses the need for technicalediting students to have greater competence in handling numbers and suggests way to help them attain proficiency. She includes samples of assignments, along with good and poor revisions. 592. Philbin, Alice I. "Logistics, Forms, and Management in Publication." In Teaching Technical Editing, Anthology No. 6, edited by Carolyn D. Rude, 12937. The Association of Teachers of Technical Writing, 1985. Philbin describes techniques to teach technical writing students to do professional-quality editing, to better trace documents out at review, to keep track of documents as they move from editing to production, and to identify problem areas as the document moves toward mass production for distribution. 593. Pieper, Gail W. "Editing Equations for Form, Grammar, and Style." In Teaching Technical Editing, Anthology No. 6, edited by Carolyn D. Rude, 16164. The Association of Teachers of Technical Writing, 1985. Pieper offers methods and exercises to help technical-editing students successfully handle layout, punctuation, style, and mechanics of mathematical text. She finds that this competence often transfers to greater attention to detail in other, lesscomplicated tasks. 594. Samson, Donald C, Jr. "Degrees of Edit." In Proceedings 40th Annual Conference Society for Technical Communication: Communication Roundup, 115-18. Alexandria, VA: Society for Technical Communication, 1993. Samson suggests that focusing on degrees of editing - light, medium, or heavy simplifies decisions about editorial work on a technical document. It is also helpful to further clarify heavy editing into macro- or micro-size tasks, he explains. 595. Samson, Donald C, Jr. "An Editing Project for Teaching Technical Editing." Technical Communication 37, no. 3 (1990): 262-67. Samson outlines an editing project designed to develop students' editing skills and to familiarize them with the technology of their field by pairing them with a technical author to edit an article for a target journal. The assignment familiarizes students with publication structure, and gives them editing experience for publication and a document for their portfolio. 596. Samson, Donald, C, Jr. Editing Technical Writing. NY: Oxford University Press, 1993. Chapter 1, 'Writing, Editing, and Proofreading"; Chapter 2, "Creating Technical Documents"; Chapter 3, "Using Editing and Proofreading Symbols"; Chapter 4, "Editing Text"; Chapter 5, "Editing Graphics"; Chapter 6, "Degrees of Edit"; Chapter 7, "Style Guides"; Chapter 8, "Editing Types of Documents"; Chapter 9, "Proofreading"; Chapter 10, "Staffing, Scheduling, and Estimating Costs"; Chapter 11, "Grammar"; and Chapter 12, "Punctuation."


135

597. Samson, Donald C, Jr. "Teaching Technical Editing." In Proceedings 39th Annual Conference: Communication Crossroads, 553-56. Arlington, VA: Society for Technical Communication, 1992. The author argues that technical editing students should be introduced to the editors' roles through various specific assignments. He describes several sample assignments, including analysis of instructions to authors, analysis of an article on effective communication, and a book review. 598. Sartoris, Brenda E. "Editing to Teach." In Proceedings 39th Annual Conference: Communication Crossroads, 179-81. Arlington, VA: Society for Technical Communication, 1992. Sartoris offers tips to help technical authors become more receptive to editing, including offering basic rules, asking questions, giving authors choices, and providing examples of better ways to express ideas. This helps authors see editing as a significant contribution to creating a quality document, Sartoris reports. 599. Shenk, Robert. "Editing Government Documents for Conciseness and Clarity." In Teaching Technical Editing, Anthology No. 6, ed. Carolyn D. Rude, 149-60. The Association of Teachers of Technical Writing, 1985. Shenk provides a series of exercises designed to help students improve their ability to proofread and to make sense of bureaucratically written government documents. He includes revisions of two documents as a guide to measure editing effectiveness. 600. Smith, Howard Bud. "Technical Editor Looks at Technical Writing." Industrial Education 71, no. 9 (1982): 14-16. Smith discusses the importance of the editor's role in good communication through writing and offers and explains basic tips for editing success. The tips include know your subject, meet your deadline, be a reader's writer, and use examples. 601. Southard, Sherry G. "Teaching Editing: Copy and Production." Teaching Technical Editing, Anthology No. 6, edited by Carolyn D. Rude, 2735. The Association of Teachers of Technical Writing, 1985. Southard describes how she has structured an editing course to include both copyediting and production editing so that students will understand better how their jobs fit into the whole publishing picture. She includes a syllabus and sample exercises. 602. Stibravy, John A. "Dirty Battles in the Trench: Is It Wise to Use Real Materials for Editing in a Technical Writing Class?" In Proceedings 40th Annual Conference: Communication Roundup, 198-201. Arlington, VA: Society for Technical Communication, 1993. Stibravy argues that despite the difficulty in obtaining real materials, the diminished use of the textbook and potential liability problems, it is well worth using real-life examples in the technical editing classroom because students relate well to the work environment, increase their critical thinking, and are more motivated. 603. Stohrer, Freda, and Susan Kirby. "An Advanced Collaborative Editing Assignment: The Statement of Work." In Collaborative Technical Writing:

136


Theory and Practice, edited by Richard Louth and Ann Martin Scott, 279-89. The Association of Teachers of Technical Writing, 1989. The authors present a simulated statement of work designed to give advanced technical writing students a realistic experience in editing in a professional setting. 604. Unikel, Graham. "The Two-Level Concept of Editing." The Technical Writing Teacher 15, no. 1 (1988): 49-55. The two-level concept of editing, as described in a two-volume style guide published by Lockheed, can be used to help students prepare for editorial duties in the world of work. According to Unikel, "First-level editors . . . will take whatever steps are necessary to ensure clarity of meaning and hence effective communication of message" (52). Second-level editing focuses on graphics. "Like first-level editing," Unikel says, "second-level editing is concerned with the what—with content and message. It is also concerned with the how—with the steps, procedures, directions, or methods that are required in the publications process" (54). Unikel champions the two-level concept of editing because it "avoids an elaborate of classification" (54) and stresses rhetorical principles, thus enabling "aspiring and practicing editors to recognize the applicability of these principles to the basic components of a technical document—text and graphics" (55). 605. Zimmerman, Donald E. "Teaching Content Editing." In Teaching Technical Editing, Anthology No. 6, edited by Carolyn D. Rude, 21-26. The Association of Teachers of Technical Writing, 1985. Zimmerman outlines the editing course he teaching to undergraduate seniors. He notes that students, when they work as editors in business and industry, will have to edit for content because specialists who write a document often miss content errors. To prepare students for such editing, Zimmerman is teaching them about problem solving, scientific investigation, reliability and validity, and statistics and logic. In addition, he provides examples of scenarios that raise issues about content problems in a manuscript. In discussing the problem of editors pointing out content mistakes to specialists, Zimmerman suggests that "the safest approach is for the editor to ask for an explanation, because he or she is confused" (25). 606. Zook, Lola M. "We Start with Questions: Defining the Editing Curriculum." In Teaching Technical Editing, Anthology No. 6, edited by Carolyn D. Rude, 3-9. The Association of Teachers of Technical Writing, 1985. Zook outlines the content for a technical editing course. She notes that students need to learn how to pay attention to detail, but they also need to learn how to meet readers' needs. She defines technical editing, noting that the "technical editor needs to know everything that the general editor knows (with the possible exception of material having a strong 'literary' flavor, and even that is debatable)" (4). The course itself would probably include two types of students, those preparing to become technical editors and those who want to learn more about editing as a part of their job as a subject-matter specialist. Zook notes, "Anyone preparing a draft functions first as a writer, but becomes an editor as the steps of revising and rewriting begin" (5). Zook lists the themes the course would include and the content and methods for the course. She concludes that students, having finished such a course, would acquire a skill in editing, an


137

attitude about the author-editor relationship, and an appreciation for the use of language in communicating knowledge. Proofreading College Composition 607. Camp, Sue C , "Proofreading - Teach It Systematically." Business Education World, Vol. 60 (1979): 26+. Few business curricula place an emphasis on proofreading, even though employees at every level are increasingly expected to detect errors or verify accuracy in letters, product deliveries and other areas, Camp says. She suggests that proofreading be offered as a separate, required course, but gives a nine-step recommended proofreading procedure that could be integrated into other courses if necessary. 608. Conely, James. "A Class Exercise in Proofreading: Getting Students to Read What They Write." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the College English Association, Pittsburgh, PA, March 1992. ED 3506 le. Conely offers a peer-review classroom procedure that encourages writing students to learn to proofread their own compositions for logic and content. The process involves having student peers identify a paper's thesis statement, topic sentences or other elements before returning it to the author. Judging by the audience's reaction, the student will then know what revisions might be necessary. 609. Feldman, Ruth. "Proofreading." Southern Review 26, no. 3 (1990): 662. Feldman's poem describes the struggle to overcome one's expectations and assumptions to be able to see what is actually there and needs to be changed 610. Harris, Jeanette. "Proofreading: A Reading/Writing Skill." College Composition and Communication 38, no. 4 (1987): 464-66. Convinced that teachers do not consistently explain the differences between revising and proofreading, Harris explains some of the cognitive barriers and offers tips to help students see their writing anew. 611. Johnson, Diane E. "Recognizing Proofreaders' Marks and Using Them in Editing." 1980. ED 230 793. Johnson provides an instructional packet designed to be used with color slides. The packet includes a list of common proofreading errors, proofreading tips and techniques, and proofreading exercises. 612. Jones, Maletta M. "Inspecting and Evaluating. Editing Written Communications." 1977. ED 155 471. Jones has produced a packet of materials for teaching students how to proofread and edit business documents. The packet includes a business report and two business letters for students to edit and a list of proofreading symbols. 613. King, Mary. "Proofreading Is Not Reading." Teaching English in the Two-Year College 12, no. 2 (1985): 108-12. Proofreading is not reading because reading does not allow a person to see "both letters and words, both

138


form and meaning, at the same instant" (109), and proofreading requires a person to concentrate on the form of the words, not their meaning. Students can be taught to proofread by directing their attention to the words on the page through reading the writing again and again and again. When students do that that "can learn to attend to what is on the page, can learn to perceive the graphic marks on the page, can learn the non-reading behavior that we call proofreading" (111). 614. Monk, Andrew F., and Charles Hulme. "Errors in Proofreading: Evidence for the Use of Word Shape in Word Recognition." Memory and Cognition 11, no. 1 (1983): 16-23. A study reveals that undergraduates seeking to identify misspelled words were more likely to notice words in which the shape is changed by the misspelling. In a second study designed to preserve the word shape, the effect disappeared, with the results interpreted as evidence for a supraletter feature corresponding to word shape. 615. Peterson, John C, and John Staples. "Declare War on Undetected Typing Errors." Business Education World 49, no. 7 (1969): 9-10, 22-24. The authors discuss the types of typing errors that mostfrequentlygo undetected and recommend proofreading techniques for college business students. 616. Seitz, Margaret A. "Teaching Proofreading for Quality Control." Business Education Forum 40, no. 6 (1986): 18-20. Seitz advocates moving from simple to complex tasks when teaching proofreading. She suggests several exercises that help teach students to detect and accurately mark all types of errors with standard symbols so that they can be corrected quickly and accurately. 617. Zagummy, Matthew J., and C. Merle Johnson. "Using Reinforcement and Goal Setting to Increase Proofreading Accuracy." Perceptual and Motor Skills 75, no. 3 (1992): 1330. The authors tested the proofreading skills of undergraduate students using four conditions: reinforcement, goal setting, goal setting and reinforcement, and control. The authors found that "accuracy was best when reinforcement and goal setting were combined." High School and Middle School Classes 618. Alexander, Bonnie. "Pay Dollars the Last Month of School." The Journal of Business Education 50, no. 6 (1975): 239-40. Alexander describes a program in which high school students were "paid" for producing error-free texts in typing class and "billed" for errors during the final month of the school year. In addition to earning imaginary dollars for producing correctly typed text, students could supplement their earnings by proofreading the works of others, although proofreading errors also "cost" the student workers. Alexander reports improved performance and interest in production and correctness as a result of the program, and concludes, "Perhaps, there is validity in initiating a program for beginning typing which is closely akin to an actual job situation" (240).


139

619. Andrasick, Kathleen D. "Independent Reparterning: Developing SelfEditing Competence." English Journal 82, no. 2 (1993): 28-31. Andrasick describes her methods of teaching high school writers to become better selfeditors. One method involves students keeping 5x8 note cards on which they record errors listed by Andrasick in the margins of their papers. They attach the card to each subsequent paper, noting a particular error they have sought to eliminate. Other techniques include the use of self-adhesive notes with spelling errors highlighted and students' inventories of patterns of errors they have eliminated and those they have not. 620. Arnold, Vivian. "A Comparison of Four Approaches to Teaching Proofreading to Third-Semester Typewriting Students at the High School Level." Delta Pi Epsilon Journal 30, no. 3 (1988): 92-108. Arnold conducted a study of high school typing students regarding their proofreading abilities. She found that students who were given no instruction in proofreading but graded on their proofreading skills abilities outperformed students who received proofreading instructions but were not graded on the task, leading her to conclude, "Proofreading instruction should also include a separate grade for proofreading" (106). 621. Barnard, D. P., and Robin Kendrick. "If You Want To Improve Student Spelling." The Clearing House 54, no. 4 (1980): 164-67. The authors argue that public school students can be taught correct spelling, if spelling instruction is taught within the context of editing students' own writing. They encourage the use of peer editing as a technique for improving spelling and stress the importance of teachers emphasizing correct spelling. 622. Bensen, S. Kenneth. "Profitable Proofreading." In Teaching the Basics—Really! edited by Ouida Clapp, pp. 80-84. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English, 1977. Bensen describes a method for stressing proofreading that requires students to revise grammatical and mechanical errors after papers have been graded, "not to change the grade of the theme, but as an exercise in proofreading" (81). Bensen lists correction symbols in the left margin of papers and students are required to make corrections and provide reasons for the changes. The article provides a sample theme with corrections. Bensen concludes that after doing the exercise students "tend to proofread more carefully before submitting themes" (84). 623. Chantland, Gloria. "How To Teach Them to Proofread." Today's Education 67, no. 1 (1978): 56-57. Convinced that high school students do not proofread papers because they do not know how, Chantland offers a process that incorporates having students read each others' papers to seek a series of specific problems and introducing a reflection period between the writing and proofreading activities. Students are sold on the program, the author says, as they monitor their own progress 624. Frasch, Dorothy K. "How Well Do Sixth-Graders Proofread for Spelling Errors?" Elementary School Journal 65, no. 6 (1965): 381-85. Frasch describes

140


a five-week classroom study in which 37 sixth-graders composed a theme in 35 minutes one day, proofread copies of the themes the next day, then submitted a revised draft. The revised drafts contained fewer spelling errors, Frasch reports, and most of the students demonstrated gains in proofreading ability by the end of the experiment. She also reports that the students were better atfindingerrors in their own writing than on a standardized spelling test. 625. Freed, Peggy. "Writing with the Opaque Projector." English Journal 70, no. 2 (1981): 31-33. Freed describes her use of an opaque projector and editing groups in teaching high school students peer editing and critiquing skills. On the day that first drafts of papers are due, four or five papers are projected on a screen and critiqued by the entire class. The next class day, students break into three- to five-member editing groups for peer editing and critique of one another's papers, with the final ten to fifteen minutes of the period reserved for students to work on their own papers. Freed argues that her method produces higher quality student papers and reduces teacher work load because students submit better edited papers that require less time to grade. 626. Friss, Dick. "Writing Class: Teacher and Students Writing Together." In Teaching Writing: Essays from the Bay Area Writing Project, edited by Gerald Camp, 291-323. Upper Montclair, NJ: Boynton/Cook, 1982. Friss describes his methods for teaching a tenth-grade English class comprised primarily of students who struggled in ninth-grade English. Friss shares his writing with the class, participates in peer-editing groups, and revises his essays based on comments from students. Friss provides sample essays of his own and multiple drafts of his students' work, including his comments and those of peer reviewers. 627. Gillett, Thomas D. "Managing a Proofreading Dialogue." In Teaching the Basics—Really! edited by Ouida Clapp, pp. 76-79. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English, 1977. Becoming aware that his high school composition students did not know how to proofread, Gillett developed a system that incorporates peer evaluation, comprehensive proofreading, class participation, and attention to the individual student. One of the most effective techniques, is to project a few carefully chosen, student-written sentences on a screen and have the class identify problems and suggest solutions. 628. Ormrod, Jeanne Ellis. "Proofreading The Cat in the Hat: Evidence for Different Reading Styles of Good and Poor Spellers." Psychological Reports 57 (1985): 863-67. A timed proofreading exercise for ninth- and tenth-grade students of similar IQ but differing spelling abilities revealed that both groups performed equally well in correctly spelled segments but that good spellers far outdid poor spellers on the misspelled segments. Ormrod argues that the results support U. Firth's "partial cues" hypothesis regarding different reading styles by good and poor spellers. 629. Sheal, P. R, and Susan Wood. "Proof-Reading as a Means of Reducing Student Errors." English Language Teaching Journal 35, no. 4 (1981): 405-07.


141

A four-hour proofreading course for pre-university students yields little improvement in use of tenses, concord or spelling, leading the authors to conclude that further courses should be longer and should target error patterns by each individual student rather than a general assessment of the class as a whole. Developmental/Basic Writing Classes 630. Black, Lynette C. "Basic Writing: Progressive Proofreading." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication, 1982. ED 217 410. Black outlines a multi-step method for teaching proofreading methods to basic writing students. She recommends that students be taught to search for one type of error at a time and that proofreading be separated from other types of editing. Black also suggests that as the course progresses, instructors should gradually reduce the information they provide students about their proofreading errors, requiring the students to find and correct errors on their own. 631. Caisley, Kathy. "Evaluation of Implementing Proofreading into the School Spelling Program." Educational Research Institute of British Columbia Report No. ERIBC-82:12. 1982. ED 221 880. The author developed a proofreading element to add to a standard spelling program in hopes that it would help students, young school children, improve their spelling skills. A nine-month test of the element with 160 students in grades K through 7th, however, failed to produce conclusive results because of the high mobility of the students and high initial scores. 632. Calabrese, Marylyn E. "Revision: A Basic Skill." In Teaching the Basics—Really!, edited by Ouida Clapp, xx-xx. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English, 1977. Instead of being drudgery, revising one's writing can be exciting, challenging and even fun work if students feel part of a group endeavor, Calabrese says. Essential to success are detailed comment on initial papers and teacher-student writing conferences scheduled during class time. Other successful techniques include having students assist each other in answering questions and starting on revision, by clearly recording students' progress, and by finding a way to publish their writings, if only in a classroom newspaper. 633. Carroll, Joyce Armstrong. "Ratiocination and Revision or Clues in the Written Draft." English Journal 71 (November 1982): 90-92. Carroll presents a method that requires students to color code parts of sentences, potentially imprecise words and other writing problems to help beginning writers identify areas in which they can improve. 634. Franke, Thomas L. "Proofreading: Implications of Psycho-Linguistic Reading Theory." English in Texas 8, no. 3 (1977): 51-52. Franke argues that successful proofreading requires "specialized reading skills" (51) that must be taught if students are to become successful proofreaders. He recommends that students not mix reading for content and reading for mechanical errors; that

142


students proofread by reading their papers aloud, once slowly to isolate errors in individual words and once at normal speed to listen for punctuation signals; that weaker readers read their papers into a tape recorder and then carefully compare the text and the recording; and that students read papers backwards, sentence by sentence, to help them find comma splices, fused sentences, and fragments. 635. Garner, W. Lee. "Proofreading: For Want of a Nail. . ." Proceedings 1980 from the Fourth Annual Practical Conference on Communication, Nov. 78, 1980, Glenstone Lodge, Gatlinburg, Term. The article presents the script and photographs of slides used in a half-hour tape-slide program outlining beginning approaches to proofreading. The presentation designed for typist-compositors needing first-time or review training stresses the need for accurate proofing, and highlights basic techniques, special danger areas, copy mark-up, and distinguishing between Greek and Roman alphabets. 636. Gentry, J. Richard. "Proof Positive." Instructor 98, no. 6 (1989): 97-98. The author offers nine activities, including group games and tips, to help even poor spellers learn to effectively proofread their writings. 637. Guckes, Lucille R. "Creation, Composition, Publication: Putting It All Together." Journal of Teaching Writing 5, no. 1 (1986): 103-12. Guckes outlines a Pyramid of Expression for writing, starting with a student's experience and including rewriting and proofreading. "Editing and revising," Guckes says, "means reconsideration of the idea content, the form, and the audience" (108), so she provides questions students can ask about their writing concerning content, form, and audience. She also discusses proofreading by proposing that students develop a proofreading chart and using it to evaluate their writing. The sample chart Guckes provides has five steps. Step 1, for instance, is "Do my sentences make sense?" and Step five is "Check the little things, margins, titles." 638. Houghton, Linda. "Maximizing Proofreading." Illinois English Bulletin 62, no. 2 (1973): 10-12. ED 088 048. Houghton finds that when she incorporates proofreading into her class sessions instead of expecting it to be done at home, students discard the assumption that proofreading is trivial. By allowing student work to contain last-minute penciled corrections, the group moves on to suggesting changes for each other and trading papers to proofread at home. Even poor writers proved adept at spotting others' errors, and "proofreading became almost fun," Houghton says. (12) 639. Irish, Gayle. "How to Deal with the Performance-Based Error of Basic Writers." Teaching English in the Two-Year College 10, no. 3 (1984): 227-33. Irish uses an oral proofreading method to enable basic writing students to correct their writing errors. After ensuring that students writing content that is valuable, in student-teacher conferences, Irish asks a student to read his or her paper aloud. However, the reading is slowed down so that the student can hear the discrepancies between his or her "intended word and the written word" (228). Once students hear discrepancies, Irish wants them "to question, in fact, to


143

capitalize on any doubts they have about correctness. Their doubts, students must learn, are their greatest hedge against error" (228). Irish does not intervene to show students errors because she believes that students have an untapped knowledge base that allows them to see an error and correct it. Thus, students take responsibility for learning and for correcting their errors. 640. Johnson, Roland. "Proofreading Practice-Who Needs It?" Business Teacher 43 (January-February 1966): 14. In advising typewriting teachers about how to help students turn in errorless papers, Johnson advises teachers not to accept papers that have errors. Rather, teachers should return the papers to students and ask them to ensure that all errors are corrected. Johnson also advises teachers not to mark errors for the students. 641. Jones, William. "The Monitoring Eye: Strategies for Proofreading for Basic Writers." 1986. ED 270 792. Jones teaches basic writers to analyze their writing for specific problems and then asks the writers to construct an editing checklist that can be used for the writers to proofread their papers. 642. Kelly, Lou. "Is Competent Copyreading a Violation of the Students' Right to Their Own Language?" College Composition and Communication 25, no. 4 (1974): 254-58. By copyreading Kelly means reading student papers so that they can be improved. She explains a method she uses, demonstrating the usefulness of her method from an African American student's writing that has significant grammar, punctuation, and mechanical problems. She reads the student's writing aloud and by doing so, the student hears problems and then records those problems in his Copyreading Guide. Kelly says her method is designed to help students "become competent copyreaders who can find and change the particular punctuation or spelling that might prevent their readers from hearing their ideas" (257). 643. Lees, Elaine O. "Proofreading as Reading, Errors as Embarrassments." In A Sourcebook for Basic Writing Teachers, edited by Theresa Enos, 216-30. New York: Random House, 1987. Lees says that errors are socially constructed and thus do reside neither in writers nor in texts but in readers. Thus, proofreading, the act of finding errors, is "an interpretive activity, an act of meaning-construction, a type of criticism" (219). The interpretive activity is "carried out within a cultural group" (220), and students, as students, are attempting to enter into the culture group of the academy by finding out what is acceptable proofreading. Lees notes that students don't make errors; rather they write, and whatever errors they produce are, for the students, not errors, but part of the writing they produced that does not contain errors. Thus, students often are not able to distinguish errors in their own writing, not about to proofread. In addition, errors carry social stigma. As Lees affirms, "In the social economy of errors, the error-maker is the injured party" (223). Lees shows that rules about what constitutes an error are not as airtight as some would think, and affirms that rules about error depend on the culture group to which a person belongs. Those who can move between two or more culture groups can construct alternate readings of a text, and, therefore, the whole notion of proofreading is

144


complicated. Lees is not sure how to address the problem of proofreading pedagogically. Some students may need to use various checklists or formulas to help them detect and correct errors. Word processors may help students identify errors. However, in hunting errors, writers and readers may go to places they had never intended to visit. 644. Madraso, Jan. "Proofreading: The Skill We've Neglected to Teach." English Journal 82, no. 2 (1993): 32-42. Concerned that students are often told to proofread their papers but not told how to do it effectively, Madraso presents a system that starts with having them read the papers aloud, or sub-vocally if silence is demanded, to identify problem areas. Students also are asked to scan papers for passive voice, nominalizations and other specific errors. To learn their own particular problem areas, Madraso suggests they keep a proofreading journal to track their errors and help them identify why they made the mistakes. 645. Morrow, Bobbie. "Written Communications: Module V-Proofreading, Composing and Editing." 1980. ED 197 375. As one of five modules on writing skills, this article is designed for teacher-directed and individualized learning of copyediting. The packet includes assignment sheets covering proofreaders' marks, proofreading methods, paragraph composition, and the composition of letters. Answers to assignment sheets are included, along with a pretest, two posttests, and their answers. 646. Moyer, Ruth. "Why Johnny Can't Proofread." The ABCA Bulletin 40 (December 1977): 21-23. The author provides an outline on teaching students to proofread, from establishing mastery of grammar and mechanics to paying special attention to various sections of an article. 647. Schell, Leo M. "B+ in Composition: C- in Spelling." English Journal 52, no. 2 (1975): 239-42. Schell suggests strategies to help students become competent proofreaders, including teaching proofreading beginning in first grade, developing easy-to-follow guidelines, using games and activities, and developing a teacher marking system. 648. Supramaniam, Saradha. "Proofreading Errors in Good and Poor Readers." Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 36 (August 1983): 60-80. A study of 7-year-old good and poor readers finds that the poor readers also have greater difficulty with proofreading, particularly with longer words or with short words in which the shape of the word is not significantly changed. The author urges further studies to guide effective teaching methods to assist young readers. 649. Wong, Shirley. "Preparing Proofreading Exercises." Journal of Business Education 52 (October 1977): 35-37. Wong presents a schema of classification and production categories to assist students learning proofreading. The tables include categories such as punctuation and word units, provided with a checklist on whether they should be omitted, are superfluous, need a substitute, or are transposed.


145

650. Wong, Shirley. "Problems in Proofreading Research." California Business Education Journal 11, no. 3 (1976): 25-26. Urging serious study on ways to improve the proofreading skills of business students so that they are prepared for the demands of a competitive workplace, Wong offers a schematic to help students identify common errors and asks colleagues for feedback to help her refine it. Technical Writing Classes 651. Bagin, Carolyn Boccella, and Jo Van Doren. "How to Avoid Costly Proofreading Errors." In Technical Writing: Principles, Strategies, and Readings, Diana C. Reep, pp. 460-462. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1991. Bagin and Van Doren recount examples of costly proofreading errors, offer a variety of proofreading strategies, and present a three-paragraph proofreading test followed by a corrected version. 652. Bagin, Carolyn Boccella and Jo Van Doren. "Everyone's a Proofreader: How To Check Your Documents." Simply Stated (March 1989): 3-4. Substantially the same as (Bagin and Van Doren 651 "How to Avoid Costly Proofreading Errors"), but with a different proofreading test. 653. Barton, Shirley. "A Comparison Proofreading Technique for Document Production." Journal of Education for Business 64 (Nov. 1988): 87-89. Barton recommends the use of what she calls a "Comparison Proofreading Technique" in office education classes. This technique permits students "to compare the documents they produce with a model document prepared by the teacher or copied from a teacher's manual" (87). Students first create their own document, compare it with the model document, edit their document using the model as a guide, return the model to the teacher, and then retype the edited version of their document, which also will be compared to the model document. Only after the document is error-free is it submitted to the teacher. According to Barton, the system enables teachers to spend less time grading papers and "makes homework, class assignments, and document production more meaningful to the student" (88-89). 654. Chytil, Helena. "The Final Step: Perfecting a Document." Technical Communication 36, no. 1 (1989): 53. The author provides a sample checklist to help technical communicators produce error-free products. Her systematic, organized approach includes developing a core list of items to check, ranging from grammar and punctuation to consistency in footnotes, typesetting instructions and appearance. 655. Mancuso, Joseph C. "'Jabberwocky' Helps Students Decipher Technical Manuscripts." In Teaching Technical Editing, Anthology No. 6, Association of Teachers of Technical Writing, 1995, edited by Carolyn D. Rude: 141-45. The author illustrates how humanities students can learn to edit technical manuscripts by practicing three techniques with "Jabberwocky." Students learn that structure words give clues to the nonsense content words, that known content words create a context, and that a backlog of processed information

146


concerning the technical reading influences the editor toward a greater understanding of the text. 656. Lewenstein, Bruce V. "What You See Is What You Get: How, Not What, to Proofread." Technical Communication 32, no. 1 (1985): 23-25. In offering advice about how to proofread, Lewenstein differentiates between twoperson reading and silent reading, and notes that he will discuss silent reading, the act of one person proofing a copy. When proofreading, the reader should "(1) read the original to find out what the copy is supposed to say, and then (2) read the copy to see if it actually says that" (24). This means reading slowly, paying attention ("not to content, but to the physical document—the letters, the spacing, the punctuation" (25)), and checking everything. Special Issues in Proofreading: 657. Abramovici, Shimon. "Errors in Proofreading: Evidence for Syntactic Control of Letter Processing?" Memory and Cognition 11, no. 3 (1983): 258261. The author conducted a study in which both children and adults read a piece of writing with intentional spelling errors, particularly for the verbs was, had, and have. The readers were asked to mark any errors as they read the piece of writing, and when they had finished reading, they took a comprehension test. In analyzing data from the study, Abramovici found that "errors in the lexical verbs [was, had, and have] were more readily detected than errors in auxiliary verbs [was, had, and have]" and because the lexical and auxiliary verbs were "graphologically identical, there can be no doubt that the effect was largely due to syntactic factors" (260). In addition, Abramovici found that changes in the shape of a word did not play an important part when subjects read the text. 658. Allen, Moira A. "Becoming Your Own Editor." The Writer (October 1988): 28-29. Speaking as an editor, Allen provides advice to authors so that they can prepare a manuscript that will be acceptable to an editor. She says that authors should get to the point in their opening paragraph, organize the manuscript by using subheads, eliminate text that is no needed, and provide clean copy. "When a manuscript is littered with misspellings, what assurance do I have," Allen asks, "that the writer has checked his facts, verified every phone number to make sure it is still correct, and double-checked figures and spellings of names?" (29). 659. Allen, Robert B. "Patterns of Manuscript Revision." Behaviour and Information Technology 1, no. 2 (1982): 177-184. Allen describes a study of the revision practices of researchers and staff at Bell Laboratories. In the study, changes were found to be the most common form of revision, whether of single word or multiword edits. Insertion of new material was the most common form of multiword revision and changes were the most frequent type of single word revisions. Allen concludes that "stylistic corrections" and "elaboration of ideas" underlie most changes. 660. Anderson, Kristen Joan, and Revelle William. "Impulsivity, Caffeine, and Proofreading: A Test of the Easterbrook Hypothesis." Journal of


147

Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 8, no. 4 (1982): 614-24. Easterbrook's hypothesis is that "as arousal increases, performance on a task requiring a broader range of cue utilization will be hindered before performance on a task requiring fewer cues" (614). To test this hypothesis, the authors conducted a study in which college students who were identified according to their impulsivity level were given either caffeine or a placebo and then asked to proofread texts. The authors' analysis of the data they collected from the study supports the Easterbrook hypothesis, since, in the authors' study, "increases in arousal are associated with a reduction in the range of cue utilization" (623). In addition, the authors found that their data "suggest that caffeine is detrimental to the proofreading performance of less impulsive subjects" (623). 661. Anderson, Ruth I. "Proofreading: A Must in Word Processing." The Journal of Business Education 52, no. 2 (1976): 60-63. Anderson notes that the use of word processing does not always result in more accurate copy and suggests strategies for improving proofreading skills among students. She presents a hierarchy of proofreading errors and suggests that teachers develop exercises focusing on specific types of errors. She also includes a series of sample exercises demonstrating her methods. 662. Camp, Sue C, "Accuracy and proofreading: skills in demand." Business Education World/M.A, Vol. 63 (1983): 16. In the midst of explosive growth in technology, Camp underscores the ever-increasing need to emphasize strong accuracy and proofreading skills in typewriting classes. She cautions that new technology has given a false sense of security and that there is even less time to correct mistakes before information is duplicated and disseminated electronically. 663. Ferguson, T. S., and J. P. Hardwick. "Stopping Rules for Proofreading." Journal of Applied Probability 26, no. 2 (1989): 304-13. The authors apply a mathematical model to detect the number of misprints in manuscripts and software. Going beyond models that allow a Poisson number of misprints in the manuscript, the authors look at "possibly more realistic models, those in which the number of misprints is binomial, and those in which the misprints themselves may have differing probabilities of detection." Proofreading and Non-Native/ESL Students 664. Fox, Len. "What to Do When Grammar Exercises No Longer Help: Group Proofreading." College Composition and Communication 32, no. 3 (1981): 332-33. Fox describes a group proofreading exercise that he uses with English As a Second Language students. Fox photocopies a student's essay, divides the class into groups of three or four, has the groups proofread and negotiate necessary changes, and has each group read its edited version of a portion of the paper, with Fox himself acting as the final arbiter of changes. 665. Gryder, Robert, and Isabelle Gryder. "Proofreading: A Neglected Area of Typewriting Instruction." Business Education Forum 30, no. 1 (1975): 18-

148


20. Concerned that teaching proofreading skills is woefully neglected in business typing classes, the authors suggest tips to help students through the staged learning process. 666. Howard, Janet M. "Teaching Proofreading for Information/Word Processing." Business Education Forum 35, no. 8 (1981): 11-12. Concerned that secretarial students are increasingly unprepared for the workplace because their spelling, grammar, word usage, sentence structure and other basic skills are lacking, Howard identifies four methods of proofreading, ranging from reading articles at an angle to a three-step review designed to help students produce accurate work. 667. Hunter, Linda. "Student Responses to Using Computer Text Editing." Journal of Developmental and Remedial Education 8, no. 2 (1984): 13-14, 29. Hunter describes her experience in teaching a class of remedial writers how to use a computer to write, revise, and edit their texts. In comparing students who used computers to students who did not, Hunter notes, "students who used text editing made more complex and extensive revisions about asfrequentlyas they used word and sentence revisions" (14). Indeed, "it appears that students revise more extensively when using the computer" (14). 668. Joyner, Randy L. "Hidden Agendas for Proofreading Skills." In The Hidden Curriculum. National Business Education Yearbook, No. 30, edited by Anna M. Burford and Vivian Arnold, 36-49. Reston, VA: National Business Education Association, 1992. ED 344 995. Teachers of office skills should prepare students to proofread because proofreading is a vital office skill. The use of computers in offices might improve proofreading, but computers introduce new problems, such as "computer-screen resolution quality, color, and contrast configurations" (46). Thus, computers may help proliferate proofreading errors. Because proofreading is so important, it "should be incorporated early into the curriculum and reinforced throughout the curriculum" (45). 669. Lacy, Richard. "Teach Proofreading Techniques in Typewriting Courses." Business Education Forum 32, no. 2 (1977): 16, 18. Typing students should be taught how to proofread the documents they type. "Specifically, a typist should check for grammar, spelling, punctuation, word division, figures, and dates, plus any other numbers found in the copy" (16). Lacy also endorses team proofreading and provide nine suggestions for reading a document aloud to a person who is proofreading it. He also recommends that typing teachers use proofreading marks when they mark students' papers and require students to use proofreading marks when they mark their papers. 670. Lees, Elaine O. "Proofreading with Ears: A Case Study of Text-toVoice Performance of a Student's Writing." Collegiate Microcomputer 3, no. 4 (1985): 339-44. In analyzing the writing of a student Lees calls Chuck, she found that when he heard his writing through the use of text-to-voice technology, he was able to make more changes in it than when he tried to edit


149

the writing otherwise. In fact, Chuck spent more time revising his writing using the text-to-voice technology than he had spent previously. Less suggests several reasons why text-to-voice technology helped Chuck, including the possibility that with the text-to-voice technology a writer is free to the role of spectator while the technology performs the role of actor. 671. Payan, Irene. "Peer Proofreading." In How to Handle the Paper Load, edited by Gene Stanford, 124-25. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English, 1979. Payan describes a proofreading process that includes an entire class and notes that peers point out errors that she may intentionally overlook. In Payan's system, high school writers read each others' essays for specific writing and style problems. By rotating the reading assessments from student to student, the author sustains interest and peer involvement. 672. Shane-Joyce, Marguerite P. "Proofreading Skills for Today's Electronic Office." Journal of Education for Business 65, no. 2 (1989): 89-90. The author emphasizes the continuing need for proofreading skills in the era of microcomputers and electronic equipment, particularly the basic skills of language arts, capitalization, punctuation, spelling, and attention to detail. 673. Shell, Walter. "Improving Students' Proofreading Skill." Journal of Business Education 57, no. 8 (1982): 304-07. Shell argues that typewriting students will become more effective proofreaders of their own work if they are taught to go beyond looking just for typographic errors to a careful examination of the work for all errors. He provides a comprehensive checklist of typing, English, content, form, and appearance errors. 674. Wong, Shirley M. "What Are We Doing about Proofreading?" The Journal of Business Education 49, no. 3 (1973): 122-24. Wong describes the average college typing students' poor performance in proofreading and suggests several procedures to improve it. Exercises include independent, line-by-line review, cooperative or team review, with one reading aloud while another checks the copy; and proofreading machines such as an optical scanner, tape recorders to enable students to hear the text while reviewing the copy, or overhead projectors to magnify the work and make errors more obvious. Special Issues in Editing Creative Writing 675. Anderson, Kathleen M. "Editing: The Teaching of Craft." Teachers and Writers Magazine 17, no. 4 (1986): 7-9. Anderson describes editing as "an advanced form of teaching" and laments that it is absent from most undergraduate creative writing classes. She argues that editing can be taught to entire classes, "so that students can then pair off to edit each other's work" (7). Such experiences, she asserts, also help students become better at editing and revising their own work.

150


676. Cummings, Don, and John Herum. "The Teacher as Editor: Part One, Verse." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Secondary English Conference, Boston, MA, April 1976. ED 122 304. The authors describe an approach for teachers to use in editing students' poems, beginning with editing first drafts concentrating on figures of speech, the schemes and tropes emergent within the students' writing. Teachers can then move on to help students develop those themes, arranging them to heighten parallelisms. 677. Ziegler, Alan. "Editing Student Work for Publication." Teachers and Writers Magazine 17, no. 4 (1986): 14. Ziegler provides comments from five people who have worked with children and explain what they do to edit children's writing, including poetry. 678. Ziegler, Alan. '"Midwifing the Craft'—Teaching Revision and Editing." In Creative Writing in America: Theory and Pedagogy, edited by Joseph M. Moxley, 209-25. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English, 1989. Ziegler identified four types of literary feedback, explains how editors provide feedback to authors in the publishing industry, and discusses ways to use feedback in a creative writing workshop. The four types of literary feedback Ziegler discusses are reactive, descriptive, prescriptive, and collaborative, and he gives examples of each type. He even suggests that a fifth type—no feedback—be considered. "Providing good feedback," he notes, "means knowing when to discourage revision" (212). In explaining how editors provide feedback to authors in the publishing industry, Ziegler divides editing into line editing and copyediting, noting that the "line editor participates in the internal revision stage, and the copyeditor is involved with external revision" (214). Ziegler also provides examples of feedback that can be used in a creative writing workshop, cautioning that a "teacher/editor needs to consider how large and frequent the dosages of criticism should be" (217). In conducting workshops, he tries to foster an "atmosphere where it's safe to take risks" (219), and he teams up students so that they can edit each other's writing. Editing Process 679. Anderson, Kathleen M. "Editing: The Teaching of Craft." Teachers and Writers Magazine 17, no. 4 (1986): 7-9. Anderson describes editing as "an advanced form of teaching" and laments that it is absent from most undergraduate creative writing classes. She argues that editing can be taught to entire classes, "so that students can then pair off to edit each other's work" (7). Such experiences, she asserts, also help students become better at editing and revising their own work. Interpersonal Skills 680. Smith, Herb. "Methods for Training the Technical Editor in Interpersonal Skills." IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication PC28, no. 1 (1985): 46-50. Smith outlines a course that puts technical editing students in a collaborative workshop environment to learn to appreciate the writing act from both a writer's and an editor's perspective. Smith believes that


151

the understanding gained improves students' communication skills as they go on to work with authors in the business world. 681. Smith, Herbert J. "Training the Technical Editing Student in Interpersonal Skills." In Proceedings 30th International Technical Communication Conference: Edition 30: Spirit of Technical Communication, RET-52-RET-54. Washington, DC: Society for Technical Communication, 1983. Smith suggests ways to improve the inexperienced editor's interpersonal skills by getting the editor involved in the writing process so he or she can perceive the interrelated nature of editing and writing. His advice to editors includes taking adequate time to understand an author's intended meaning, and avoiding getting into adversarial relationships with the author. Non-Native Writers/ESL Classes 682. Dicker, Susan J. "Applying the Monitor Model to the Editing of Compositions." Paper presented at the annual TESOL Summer Meeting, New York, NY, July 1981. ED 209 925. Dicker asserts "that editing is not an automatic part of the writing process. It is a skill which, like any other language skill, must be specifically taught and reinforced" (13). To help ESL students learn editing skills, Dicker proposes a model composed of time and a two-fold focus on communicative accuracy and grammatical and structural accuracy. Dicker points out that ESL students, when given the opportunity to edit their writing for grammatical and structural accuracy, focus instead on communicative accuracy. Thus, students can learn how to edit by selecting a language rule which the student can apply in a discrete-point task, learn other rules the student does not know and provide examples of how those rules are applied, and apply the rule to his or her writing. Thus, the student learns how to monitor his or her own writing. 683. Enginariar, Husnu. "Sentence Combining Plus: A New Use for an Old Technique." ELT Journal 48, no. 3 (1994): 214-24. Husnu presents a supplementary teaching method and examples for ESL/EFL students that involves sentence combining, ordering the sentences into a meaningful text, and finally editing and revising the constructions initially used in the combining process. 684. Ferris, Dana. "Teaching Students to Self-Edit." TESOL Journal 4, no. 4 (1995): 18-22. Ferris teaches a three-stage process to help teach ESL students overcome grammatical and lexical inaccuracies by becoming self-sufficient editors. He focuses on major patterns of error, personalizing editing instruction to each student's needs, and working to solve the most frequent, global or stigmatizing errors. 685. Hunt, Susan. "The Graduation Speech: Editing for a Real Life Ritual." Journal of Teaching Writing 8, no. 2 (1989): 109-14. Hunt describes how her English As A Second Language students use writing their graduation speeches to focus on a specific audience and to learn real-life lessons in writing. Filled

152


with a sense of purpose, the students choose themes, analyze subtopics, write rough drafts for group critiques, and give oral practice presentations. Peer Editing 686. Cramer, Ronald L. "Pass Out the Red Pencils." Instructor 86, no. 5 (1977): 80-84. To help sixth-graders learn to correct and revise their own writing, Cramer introduces editing workshops based on the entire class commenting on one student's paper - first to identify the good qualities and then to suggest "changes." Students are then asked to look for one or two types of changes, such as ending all sentences with periods or making sure the sentence sequence is logical, that they go back to apply to their own work. He stresses that workshops must be positive, and refuses to let students use the terms "wrong" or "error" lest the students' confidence, and thus their interest in revision, be stifled. 687. Gregory, Peggy Doyle. "Practice Makes Competent Copyreaders." Scholastic Editor 58, no. 2 (1978): 25-26. Students can learn to be competent copyreaders by writing a feature based on the same interview with an administrator or teacher. The features are copied and students edit their peers' features. Then the entire class discusses the various ways students wrote about the interview. Students are given the opportunity to rewrite their features based on editorial and class feedback. 688. Hardaway, Francine. "What Students Can Do To Take the Burden off You." College English, January 1975: 577-80. Hardaway presents a composition class model that maximizes peer-group evaluation, with students doing virtually all of the pre-editing, planning and critiquing of each other's papers under specific guidelines. The plan limits teacher interaction to occasional in-class student conferences, during which the instructor can act as a check or balance. 689. Harp, Bill. "When the Principal Asks "Why Aren't You Using Peer Editing?" The Reading Teacher 41, no. 8 (1988): 828-30. The author describes procedures for peer editing for one-on-one exchanges, editing committees, and small groups. 690. Harris, Carol E. "Effective Strategies in Peer Evaluation of Writing." ED 272 897, 1986. A study of 76 advanced placement English students indicates that peer evaluation of essays is more effective in improving student composition than a bifurcated process that starts with self-editing and ending with peer revision. 691. Hawkins, Rose. "Classroom Assessment: Who Needs It?" Teaching English in the Two-Year College 20, no. 4 (1993): 306-13. After many years of being convinced that editing groups were effective but not seeing adequate results from those groups, Hawkins evaluated her classroom practices. Using classroom assessment techniques, she found that she needed to ask students to respond anonymously about their understanding of and experience with editing


153

groups. She found that 83 percent of the students did not have minimum qualifications for being part of an editing group. Thus, Hawkins began to help students become effective members of editing groups. For instance, she found that what she characterized as laziness on the part of students was really a lack of understanding about how to identify and correct errors. She also found that students needed more time to correct errors their peers had identified, so she adjusted her syllabus to accommodate students' needs. 692. Hogan, Pat. "Peer Editing Helps Students Improve Written Products." Highway One 1, no. 3 (1984): 51-54. Hogan suggests 10 steps valid for any grade level for introducing peer editing in the classroom, and includes question checklists for both content and copyediting. She argues that it is essential to teach students to edit writing sensitively and accurately, to show them how to work in groups, and to trust students with the task of editing one another's work. 693. Karegianes, Myra L., Ernest T. Pascarella, and Susanna W. Pflaum. "The Effects of Peer Editing on the Writing Proficiency of Low-Achieving Tenth Grade Students." Journal of Educational Research 73, no. 4 (1980): 20307. The authors conducted a study in which one class of tenth-grade students' writing was edited by their teacher and the other class of tenth-grade students were taught to peer edit each other's writing. All students' finished writing was evaluated and the authors found that the quality of the peer-edited writing was better than the quality of the teacher-edited writing. The authors note, "Under conditions where students are carefully taught procedures for editing and assessing each other's work, they can effectively function as editors" (206). 694. O'Donnell, Angela M., Celia O. Larson, Donald F. Dansereau, and Thomas R. Rocklin. "Effects of Cooperation and Editing on Instruction Writing Performance." Journal of Experimental Education 54, no. 4 (1986): 207-10. The authors report the results of a study of instruction writing by psychology students that found that two-person teams tended to write instructions that were more communicative and more complete than those of individuals. The study also found that students' editing experience in one set of instruction writing generally did not transfer to a second instruction-writing task. 695. O'Donnell, Cathy. "Peer Editing: A Way to Improve Writing." Paper presented at the combined annual meeting of the Secondary English Section Conference and the Conference on English Education, Omaha, NE, March 1980. ED 189 604. O'Donnell's analysis of peer editing techniques discusses the advantages and disadvantages of peer group editing, and gives advice on forming groups, using sentence combining exercises to facilitate trust-building, sequencing assignments, editing responses, and evaluating responses. 696. Pianko, Sharon, and Abraham Radzik. "The Student Editing Method." Theory Into Practice 19, no. 3 (1980): 220-24. ED 198 546. The authors discuss the benefits of peer editing and suggest checklists of questions to help students analyze and contribute constructive comments about each others' writing.

154


697. Pierson, Howard. "Peer Correction vs. Teachers' Correction of Writing." 1967. ED 017 502. Pierson reports on a study that concludes peer editing of compositions is far more effective than teachers' comments on the same work, as long as the peer editors receive some training in editing, class instruction on the composition process, and check lists and guidelines on what to look for and how to phrase constructive comment. 698. Powers, Rachel Lawhon. "The Editors' Table: Best Seat in the Classroom." Perspectives in Education and Deafness 13, no. 3 (1995): 20-21. Powers describes a system in which high school students learn to edit each others' writing, a system that helps teach them strategies to understand the importance of audience, grammar and usage skills, and the need to revise. 699. Shirk, Henrietta Nickels. "Collaborative Editing: A Combination of Peer and Hierarchical Editing Techniques." In Collaborative Writing in Industry: Investigations in Theory and Practice, edited by Mary M. Lay and William M. Karis, 242-61. Amityville, NY: Baywood, 1991. A study comparing the effectiveness of peer and hierarchical editing reveals that each has strengths and weaknesses that complement one another. Shirk finds that using both forms of review provides a "community of collaborators" (258) that results in effective editing. 700. Smith, Herbert J. "Toward a Better Understanding: Use of Peer Evaluation and Contractual Arrangement to Promote Effective Technical Editing Skills." In Proceedings 1982 Canadian Regional Business and Technical Communication Conference. Your Brand of Communication, edited by David Pilfold, 135-41. Ontario: Queen's University at Kingston, 1982. Smith describes a workshop-style technical editing class that uses role playing and group assignment contracts to generate student interest and responsibility for projects and increased learning in problem-solving skills. 701. Weeks, Janet O., and Miriam B. White. "Peer Editing Versus Teacher Editing: Does It Make a Difference?" Paper presented at the meeting of the North Carolina Council of the International Reading Association, Charlotte, NC, March 1982. ED 224 014. A study comparing the writing of two groups of sixth and eighth grade writers showed that the groups that had participated in peer groups for writing revision performed slightly better in mechanics and overall fluency of writing than groups whose writing was edited by teachers and then revised by students. 702. Woodman, Leonora. "Creative Editing: An Approach to Peer Criticism." Paper presented at the annual convention of the National Council of Teachers of English, San Diego, CA, November 1975. ED 116 217. Woodman describes a five-week study in which high school students were involved in peer editing sessions to help them write and revise non-narrative essays and to master creating a thesis statement. Woodman concludes that if written discourse is considered as thought that is shaped and designed, directed and controlled, there


155

is no child who lacks the conceptual resources to engage in the task. She includes examples of student essays. 703. Ziegler, Alan. "Peer Editing." Teachers and Writers Magazine 17, no. 4 (1986): 10-11. Students can help their peers by acting as editors of their peers' writing. The editorial role is different than the peer critique role in that the editorial role has more authority than the peer critique role. Ziegler cites three different approaches to the editorial role—role-playing, on the page, and face-toface—and explains each approach. In role-playing, two students role play the author and editor when they critique a piece of writing neither student has written. On the page, the student editor marks another student's work and then the two meet to discuss the writing. In face-to-face, the editor and author discuss editorial changes. Ziegler comments, "It is crucial that all editors and authors understand the fundamental law of literary property: authorship equals ownership. The editor offers suggestions; the writer decides which ones to accept" (11). Editing and Adult Writers 704. Epes, Mary, Carolyn Kirkpatrick, and Michael Southwell. "Investigating Error in the Writing of Nontraditional College Students." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Modern Language Association of America, New York, NY, December 1978. ED 168 018. To help nontraditional students not ready for conventional instruction in composition because their problems with the medium overwhelm the content of their writing, the authors suggest a model basic writing course that separates the writing (content) and editing (correctness) elements. Students are taught composing in a traditional classroom settling, while editing is developed in a self-teaching laboratory. Spelling 705. Conely, James. "Speling." College Composition and Communication 25, no. 4 (1974): 243-46. Conely concludes that the four major reasons for spelling errors are the language itself, mispronunciation, confusion of similar words, and confusion of root words. After analyzing the various problems, he offers suggestions to help students remediate the last three problems: Use rules that help the individual student; make a list of the student's most troublesome words and memorize it; and develop a "suspicion quotient" so that potentially difficult words can be recognized. 706. Hodges, Richard E. "Smart Spelling." Instructor 100, no. 7 (1991): 69-70. "The conflict between teaching correct spelling and encouraging the writing process is something most teachers haven't resolved," (69) Hodges notes. The way to resolve this conflict is not by drill and practice but by providing students with strategies for spelling. Hodges provides examples of various strategies, including "reinforcing students' spelling study by linking it with editing and proofreading activities" (70).

156


707. MacKay, Donald G. "Input Testing in the Detection of Misspellings." American Journal of Psychology 85, no. 1 (1972): 121-27. In a study to investigate why subjects either detected or did not detect misspellings, MacKay provided subjects with phonetically compatible and phonetically incompatible words tachistoscopically. In analyzing the results of his study, MacKay found that previous models of perception were inadequate to explain his findings. Therefore, MacKay developed an input-testing model to explain his findings. 708. Manolakes, George. "The Teaching of Spelling: A Pilot Study." English Journal 52, no. 2 (1975): 243-47. A study of the spelling abilities of more than 2,000 students in grades 2 through 6 helps educators focus further research on when students learn spelling principles, male-female differences in achievement, differences in kinds of errors students make, and whether socioeconomic status is a factor in learning certain kinds of words. 709. Monson, Jay A. "Is Spelling Spelled Rut, Routine, or Revitalized?" English Journal 52, no. 2 (1975): 223-24. Monson suggests eight ideas on how to make learning spelling interesting to students. Ideas include including spelling throughout the daily curriculum, focusing on the 3,000 words most used by adults, having students work in groups to study spelling lists, and pencil games such as Hangman or Scrambled Words. 710. Personke, Carl, and Lester Knight. "Proofreading and Spelling: A Report and a Program." Elementary English 44, no. 7 (1967): 768-74. The authors report on a study that seeks to find ways of improving the transfer of students' abilities to spell words correctly on tests to being able to spell those words correctly in composition. Results suggest that teaching children proofreading techniques can help, but that instruction in how to use a dictionary does not. 711. Pierson, Robert M. "Set a Spell." Writer's Digest 65 (April 1985): 2023. The author discusses the importance of teaching spelling and suggests techniques to help students identify their individual problems so that they can overcome them. 712. Wong, Shirley M. "Proofreading Pitfalls." Business Education Forum 29, no. 8 (1975): 16-17. Wong discusses the perceptual difficulties of identifying misspellings while proofreading and suggests research on how to help students-even good spellers-how to overcome the obstacle. Technology Word Processing 713. Cheney, David R. "Advantages and Problems of Editing Letters on the Computer." In Sixth International Conference on Computers and the Humanities, edited by Sarah K. Burton and Doublas D. Short, pp. 89-93. Computer Science Press, 1983. To edit the letters of Leigh Hunt, Cheney used a computer and found how important it is to ensure that the software an editor selects fits the needs of the editing project. Cheney states the advantages of


157

using a computer, "such as ease of correcting errors, moving text around, formatting, automatic footnote numbering, etc." (90), and explains how valuable a computer is for creating various types of indexes. GENERAL ISSUES IN EDITING 714. Cunningham, Mia. "Finding Rules for Substantive Editing." Intercom (April 1993): 3, 10. Cunningham suggests and gives examples in using four rules for substantive editing, including avoiding unintentional variety; telling stories clearly, treating every new manuscript as a first draft, and developing strategies for querying authors. 715. Cantry, Donald J. "Teaching Editing." E-ITV 17 (Oct. 1985): 62-5. Cantry provides three approaches to helping students edit film. 716. Donelson, Ken. "Writing, Editing, and Miracles." In Teacher as Writer: Entering the Professional Conversation, edited by Karin L. Dahl, p. 95-106. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English, 1992. Speaking as the editor of English Journal, Donelson provides insights into how authors can produce publishable articles. For instance, he explains reasons manuscripts are accepted and rejected, and he suggests ideas for publishable articles. In explaining the relationship between publishing advice and classroom teaching Donelson says, "We [he and his co-editor] asked writers to remember the advice they would give to students at all levels: organize the material, stick to the topic, given enough details to make a case but know when enough is enough, and remember that it is the author's job to attract the attention of busy English teachers and then keep their interest" (97). Donelson also notes that advice to English teachers about publishing articles should have an impact on classroom teaching because English teachers should be writing for publication. "Piano teachers who teach but cannot play would either be laughed at or scorned. . . . English teachers who claim that writing is important but who do not themselves write lack credibility" (106). 717. Dahl, Karin L., ed. Teacher as Writer: Entering the Professional Conversation. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English, 1992. See "Writing, Editing, and Miracles" (000 K. Donelson), "Distancing from and Revising Text" (000 L. M. McGee and G. E. Thompkins), and "Revision: The Heart of Writing" (000 K. M. Feathers). 718. Gregory, Peggy Doyle. "Practice Makes Competent Copyreaders." Scholastic Editor 58, no. 2 (1978): 25-26. Students can learn to be competent copyreaders by writing a feature based on the same interview with an administrator or teacher. The features are copied and students edit their peers' features. Then the entire class discusses the various ways students wrote about the interview. Students are given the opportunity to rewrite their features based on editorial and class feedback.

158


719. Gilmore, Gene, and Robert Root. Editing in Brief, 2nd ed. San Francisco, CA: Boyd & Fraser, 1977. The five chapters on editing that comprise this textbook are taken from (756 Gilmore and Root). This textbook is divided into seven parts. The first part is The Copyeditor and Copyediting, which includes the following chapters: The Scanner, The Nature of Desk Work, The Alert Professional, The Copyeditor Takes Aim, Copyediting Shorthand, and The Copyeditor's Goals. The second part is Copyediting Techniques, which includes the following chapters: The Probing Editor, Color and Completeness, Balancing the Reporter's judgment, Polishing Pointers, Saving Space, and Guidebooks for Accuracy. The third part is Writing Headlines, which includes the follow chapters: Hazards in Heads, Heads of Quality, Modern Head Styles, Head Schedules, Basic Rules for Heads, Creating the Headline, Making Heads Fit, Making Heads Attractive, Instructing the Printer, Writing a Headline, Developing the Knack, Decks and Kickers, and Subheads and Jump Heads. The fourth part is Printing: The Future Is Here, which includes the following chapters: Beginnings Timid, Changeover Difficult, Printing Measurements, Types of Type, Electronic Engraving, Engraving for Offset, Color, Format, and What of Tomorrow? The fifth part is The Editor and Journalistic Writing, which includes the following chapters: The Editor as Teacher, The Meanings of Style, The Sources of Style, Theories of Readability, and Assessing the Audience. The sixth part consists of two appendices: Tips for Copyeditors and Glossary. The seventh part is Editing Exercises, which includes the following: Introduction, A Style Book, Editing Exercises I, Headline Schedule, and Editing Exercises II. 720. Hample, Dale, and Judith M. Dallinger. "Individual Differences in Cognitive Editing Standards." Human Communication Research 14, no. 2 (1987): 123-44. The authors conducted a study to determine "what standards people apply in editing their arguments: Why is one argument offered, and another suppressed?" (124). The variables they tested were argumentativeness, verbal aggression, interpersonal orientation, and respondent gender. The authors found that their subjects could be divided into two types: those with a task orientation and those with a relational orientation. 721. Hollstein, Milton, and Larry Kurtz. Editing with Understanding. New York: Macmillan, 1981. This textbook on newspaper editing is divided into five parts. Part One, entitled The News Function, contains seven chapters: Introduction, What Is News?, Where News Comes From, Preparing News Copy, Electronic Editing, Style, and Story Structure and Conventions. Part Two, entitled Language, is divided into five chapters; Writing and Language: The Editor's Role, Making It Grammatically Correct, Using Words Correctly, Spelling It Right, and Making It Tight and Clear. Part Three, entitled Accuracy and Credibility, is divided into four chapters: Accuracy, Figures, Taste, and Libel. Part Four, entitled News Stories, is divided into eight chapters: Business; Public Relations; The News Services and "Wire Copy"; Police and the Courts; Obituaries, Sports; Science, Medicine, and other Technical Subjects; and Disaster and Fire. Part Five, entitled Headlines, is divided into four chapters: Writing Meaningful Headlines, Headline Typography, Other Headline Forms,


159

and Headings that Sing: Writing Sprightly, Off-beat, and Humorous Headlines. Most chapters include exercises. 722. Haber, Ralph Norman, and Robert M. Schindler. "Error in Proofreading: Evidence of Syntactic Control of Letter Processing?" Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 1, no. 3 (1981): 573-79. A study that asked 25 adult readers to detect misspellings indicated that misspellings in content words were much more readily identified than those in content words of equal length, as were misspellings that changed the overall shape of a word. 723. Karis, William. "TWI Resource File: Contrasting Proofreading and Revision." The Writing Instructor 6, no. 2 (1987): 97. Karis explains a threestep exercise, which he uses to show differences between proofreading and revision. In step one, he provides student with text that has errors, and he asks the students to identify, but not correct, the errors. In step two, he gives the students a second text and asks them to rewrite it. In step three, he asks students to compare the differences between what they did for each text. He finds that students note the first text required them to consult rules while the second text required them to consider more complex stylistic and rhetorical issues. In short, when revising the second text, students had to pay attention to the text's meaning. Karis also notes that the "better students tend to see proofreading as a component of revision, rather than as an entirely separate process, as they are able to manage both processes simultaneously." 724. Liu, Fasheng. "A Note on Probabilities in Proofreading." The American Mathematical Monthly 95, no. 9 (1988): 854. Liu provides mathematical formulas for estimating the probability that a proofreader detects any given misprint, noting that the formulas can be useful in quality control. 725. Oleson, Quentin C. "Proofreading Can Be Taught." Typewriting News 1 (Spring 1972): 1, 6. Oleson suggests that typewriting students would become better proofreaders of their copy if they have a say in the grading system adopted for the class. He recommends the teacher and individual students setting "new standards of quality and speed as the student progresses in the course" (6). 726. Plug, Cornelis. "Measuring the Efficiency of Proofreading." Perceptual and Motor Skills 66 (1988): 898. Plug offers a mathematical formula to determine the number of errors in a text based on the errors found during independent readings by two proofreaders. 727. "Proofreaders: Cold-Type Printing Rendered Them Obsolete—Or Did It?" Presstime 11, no. 3 (March 1, 1989): 36-37. Before the use of computers to produce newspapers, proofreaders were critical in reducing the number of errors in newspapers, but with the advent of computers in the newspaper industry, editors replaced proofreaders. Rykken discusses the demise of proofreaders, noting that the service proofreaders performed is not easily replaced by editors.

160


728. Shreeve, William, Janet R. Norby, Arnold F. Stueckle, William G. J. Goetter, Barbara DeMichele, and Thomas K. Midgley. "Quality Circles in Research and Writing." The Clearing House 60, no. 8 (1987): 372-74. The authors describe the formation of the Eastern Washington University Department of Education Research and Editorial Group, its procedures, and its rationale for applications to academic endeavors. The authors argue that a cooperative quality circle approach to research, writing, editing, and publication tasks-a concept they say is growing in favor in corporations and government agencies-can work in academe if members make a strong commitment to the concept and the practice of cooperative work. 729. Smith, Peggy. Mark My Words: Instruction and Practice in Proofreading. Alexandria: Editorial Experts, 1987. Smith's book is divided into eight chapters and four appendices: Chapters 1, "The Principles of Proofreading"; Chapter 2, "Standard Proofmarks"; Chapter 3, "Standard Proofmarks, Continued"; Chapter 4, "More on Marks"; Chapter 5, "Methods of Proofreading"; Chapter 6, "Process, Procedures, and Tasks"; Chapter 7, "Queries and Corrections"; Chapter 8, "Tips, Traps, and Reminders"; Appendix A, "Proofmarks: A Cheat Sheet"; Appendix B, "Proofreader's Job Description"; Appendix C, "Standards for Proofreaders"; and Appendix D, "Tools for Measuring Type." 730. Smith, Peggy. Proofreading Manual and Reference Guide. Alexandria, VA: Editorial Experts, 1981. This manual is divided into three parts. Part I, Mechanics of Proofreading, includes Chapter 1, "Introduction to Professional Proofreading"; Chapter 2, "Fundamentals of Marking"; Chapter 3, "Additional Marks"; Chapter 4, "Interpreting Author's and Editor's Marks"; Chapter 5, "General Procedures"; Chapter 6, "Methods of Proofreading"; Chapter 7, "Queries and Author's Changes"; Chapter 8, "Tips and Cautions"; and Chapter 9, "Modified Marking Techniques." Part II, Specifications and Standards, includes Chapter 10, "Type and Its Specification"; Chapter 11, "Composition"; Chapter 12, "Typographic Standards"; Chapter 13, "Final Steps in Production"; Chapter 14, "Editorial Style"; Chapter 15, "Spelling"; Chapter 16, "Notes, Notation, Heads, and Quotation"; Chapter 17, "Symbols, Mathematics, and Foreign Languages"; Chapter 18, "Figures and Tables"; and Chapter 19, "Specifications for Proofreading." Part III, Appendixes, is entitled Resources and References. 731. Smith, Peggy. Simplified Proofreading. Arlington, VA: National Composition Association, 1980. Simplified Proofreading is divided into the following chapters: "Introduction," "General Rules," Five Classes of Correction," "Changing the Spacing or Positioning of Type," "Review," "Some Special Problems," "Copy Errors and Querying," "Working with a Partner or Alone," "Tips and Cautions," "Review of Simplified Proofreading," and "Final Note." The book also includes five appendices: Appendix A, "Sample Correction List"; Appendix B, "Professional Proofreading Marks for Punctuation and Symbols"; Appendix C, "Rulers for Typewritten Copy";


161

Appendix D, "Pica Ruler for Typeset Copy"; and Appendix E, "Answer Keys to Exercises." 732. Spirrison, Charles L. "The Constructive Thinking Inventory and Detecting Errors in Proofreading." Perceptual and Motor Skills 76, no. 2 (1993): 631-35. The authors conducted a study to determine whether any scales of the Constructive Thinking Inventory were significantly associated with a proofreading task. The authors found that the Naive Optimism Scale had a significant negative correlation with the errors subject made because people who score high on the Naive Optimism Scale tend to be naively optimistic and gloss over errors. However, the Validity Scale was positively related to subjects' finding errors because that Scale measure attention to detail, and success in proofreading tasks also requires such attention to detail. 733. Stoughton, Mary. Substance & Style: Instruction & Practice in Copyediting. Alexandria, VA: Editorial Experts, 1989. This textbook is divided into 14 chapters and 4 appendices: Chapter 1, "Introduction to Copyediting;" Chapter 2, "Grammar: If You Don't Know It, You Can't Correct it"; Chapter 3, "Copyediting Marks: Getting Started"; Chapter 4, "Copyediting: Working With Text"; Chapter 5, "Subjects and Verbs: They Will Agree"; Chapter 6, "Active and Passive Voice: Who's doing What"; Chapter 7, "Pronouns: Case and Number Agreement"; Chapter 8, "Parallelism: A Delicate Balance"; Chapter 9, "Modifiers: They Dangle, Squint, and Get Lost"; Chapter 10, "Punctuation: The Pause That Clarifies"; Chapter 11, "Editorial Style: Manuals and Word Lists"; Chapter 12, "Concise Language: Or, a Rose by Any Other Name"; Chapter 13, "Citations and Tables: The Supporting Documentation"; Chapter 14, "Conclusion: Editing in the Electronic Age"; Appendix A: Additional Exercises; Appendix B: Simpler Words and Phrases; Appendix C. Reference Books; and Appendix D: Selected Readings. 734. Tarutz, Judy. Technical Editing: The Practical Guide for Writers and Editors. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1992. Tarutz's textbook is divided into three parts. The first part, entitled "The Editor's Role," has the following chapters: "What Is Technical Editing?," "The Twelve Basic Rules," "Editing As a Mind Set, Not Just a Skill Set," "The Editor As Team Player," and "Working with Writers: Ten Lessons I had to Unlearn." The second part, entitled "The Editor's Job," has the following chapters: "Types of Editorial Reviews," "The 100 Most Common Errors," "Levels of Edit," "Following, Breaking, and Making the Rules," "How to Write a Style Guide Writers Will Want to Use," "Tips and Tricks of the Trade," and "Editing Computer Manuals." The third part, entitled "The Editor's Career," has the following chapters: "Editing in a Desktop Publishing Environment," "Managing Projects and Time," "How to Get Hired As a Technical Editor and How to Hire Technical Editors," and "Is Editing Becoming Obsolete?" Three appendices, "Case Studies," "Sample Style Guides," and "Answers to Exercises," are included.

162


735. Tiedt, Iris M. "Sexism in Language, An Editor's Plague." Elementary English 50, no. 7 (1973): 1073-74. Tiedt offers six suggestions to help writers avoid sexist language, ranging from using other words or names instead of pronouns to using the plural form or switching to the passive voice. 736. Wallace, Benjamin. "Imaging Ability and Performance in a Proofreading Task." Journal of Mental Imagery 15, nos. 3/4 (1991): 177. Wallace conducted a study to determine whether a person's ability to be a vivid imaginer had any relationship to the person's ability to proofread. After testing subjects to identify their imaging ability, high imagers and low imagers were given proofreading tests, in which errors had been introduced, to determine how well they could proofread. After the tests, the subjects were asked to identify their strategies for proofreading. The results of the study showed that imaging ability was a significant factor in proofreading accuracy. High imagers were better proofreaders than low imagers. However, when a "misspelling was created through the substitution of a different-shaped letter, vivid and poor imagers performed in a comparable fashion" (185). Wallace also confirmed previous findings that function words are more likely to be missed in a proofreading exercise than content words are, especially "if the shape of the words is preserved by the misspelling" (186). Good imagers proofread by checking each letter of a word. Poor imagers checked the first two letters of a word and made a decision about whether it was spelled accurately based on those first two letters. Wallace suggests that if imaging ability is related to proofreading ability, poor proofreaders could be trained to perform better by using the strategies of good proofreaders.

Teaching Editing in Nonacademic Settings IN THE WORKPLACE 737. Chapman, Victor W. "Training the Technical Editor." In Proceedings 38th International Technical Communication Conference: Communication City, pp. ET-81—ET-84. Arlington, VA: Society for Technical Communication, 1991. Chapman describes the process and content of training an editor on the job, with guidelines that focus on professional roles even more than style. He outlines the steps of the process and offers numerous examples on how to help the student editor learn what is expected in both the editing and personalrelationship roles. 738. Coggin, William O., and Lynnette R. Porter. Editing for the Technical Professions. New York: Macmillan, 1993. The ten chapters in Coggin and Porter's textbook are entitled What Is Editing?, What Do Editors Need to Know?, How Does an Editor Work with an Author?, How Do Editors Approach Editing?, What Is Hardcopy Editing?, How Does an Editor Edit Soft Copy?, How Does an Editor Edit Graphics?, How Does an Editor Copyedit and Proofread Copy?, How Does an Editor Manage Documents?, and How Does a Freelance or Contract Editor Work? 739. Cummings, Ralph M. "Industrial Training of Technical Writers." In Teaching Technical Writing and Editing—In-House Programs That Work, Anthology Series Number 5, edited by James G. Shaw, 37-40. Washington: Society for Technical Communication, 1976. ED 172 264. Cummings discusses the Chrysler Corporation Missile Division's technical writing course designed to train inexperienced, apprentice writers, to indoctrinate newly hired, experienced writers, and to refresh the skills of experienced writers. After the

164

Teaching Editing in Nonacademic Settings

program's first year, the author is confident that the two-stage, six-month plan is effective and suggests that others interested in developing similar programs obtain expert communications instructors, provide extensive reviews of the fundamentals of English grammar and composition, and consider training a continuing process. 740. Scheiber, H. J. "From Prose Paladin to Peer Editor: Teaching Engineers (and Others) to Write and Communicate." Journal of Technical Writing and Communication 17, no. 4 (1987): 385-95. Scheiber offers ways to help technical/managerial professionals learn to write reader-centered memos and reports. He includes examples of both writer-centered and reader-centered documents. 741. Scott, Sandra Davidson. "Staying out of Hog Water: Tips for Writers." ETC.: A Review of General Semantics 58, no. 3 (1993): 276-87. Citing the Readers' Digest as a model of clarity and good editing, Scott offers tips for writers in the professions that will help them communicate better with any audience. The tips range from how to avoid redundancies to avoiding anything that propels the reader backward. 742. Stohrer, Freda F. "Training Apprentice Editors." In The Council of Programs in Technical and Scientific Communication Proceedings, edited by David L. Carson, 62-68. 1978. ED 252 866. Stohrer describes a studentteacher team-editing project with a NASA research center designed to give students on-the-job training and teachers knowledge and practice in work world demands. FOR PUBLICATION Newspapers 743. Baskette, Floyd K, and Jack Z. Sissors. The Art of Editing. New York: Macmillan, 1971. This textbook, which is designed for teaching newspaper copyediting, contains seventeen chapters on various aspects of editing. Appendix II is dedicated to proofreading. 744. Berner, R. Thomas. Editing. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1982. In ten chapters, Berner provides an overview of newspaper editing. In particular, Chapter Three broadly discusses an editor's duties; Chapter Four discusses how to edit stylistically; Chapter Five discusses grammatical issues; Chapter Six deals with headlines; Chapter Seven addresses design issues; Chapter Eight focuses on photographs. Of the four appendices, one lists editing symbols and another provides a condensed stylebook. 745. Civil Service Commission. "Professional Journalism Skills." 1977. ED 140 298. This 69-page document provides guidelines and exercises designed for a three-day seminar to encourage effective, objective journalistic writing. Topics discussed include communication theory, general rules in interviewing, writing


165

news and feature stories, editing and headlines. Appendixes include Associated Press style guide exercises and story fact sheets. 746. Copperud, Roy H. Handbook for Journalists. 1973. ED 089 310. Copperud's book, designed to provide guidance for students working on a school newspaper, is divided into six sections: General Advice, Reporting, Copyreading, Pictures, Proofreading, and Stylebook. Under Copyreading, Copperud explains how to revise text, and under Proofreading, he discusses the correction of proofs. 747. Crowell, Alfred A. Creative News Editing, 2nd ed. Dubuque: Wm. C. Brown, 1975. Crowell's book is divided into three sections: Editing, Headlines, and Layout, Production. Under Editing, he discusses theories of editing, types of editing (copyreading, backstopping, creative copyediting), editing techniques (e.g., proof correction, rewriting, overwriting), and picture editing. Under Headlines, he explains how to create and edit headings. 748. Dodd, Julie. "Copyreading." Communication: Journalism Education Today 12, no. 1 (1978): 2-3. Dodd compares student newspapers with errors to pheasant served on a paper plate. "The guest will be so taken aback by the paper plate that his/her attention shifts away from the main course to the impropriety of the paper plate" (2). To eliminate the culinary mismatch, Dodd recommends that copyreading be part of the entire production process, beginning with the reporter, who checks his or her article for accuracy, to the typist, who ensures that the typed copy matches the handwritten copy, to the section editor and copy editor. Dodd notes that the copy editor is a critical person on the newspaper staff and provides six pieces of advice about selecting and enabling the copy editor to do his or her job well. Concerning proofreading, Dodd says that the purpose of proofreading is not to find errors in the original story before it was submitted to the printer. Rather, proofreading "should be to find the errors made by the printer" (3). Dodd includes a table of copyreading symbols. 749. Erb, Lyle L., and Howard B. Taylor. "Writing and Copy Reading." Seminar 33 (1974): 9-11. The authors give tips for clarity and brevity in newspaper articles and headlines. 750. Evans, George P. "Freshen Up That Copy, Mr. Editor!" School Press Review 48, no. 5 (1972): 1, 4-5, 7-8. The author gives examples to help high school and college newspaper copy editors go beyond the superficial to hone articles for news value, precision, clarity, brevity and readability. 751. Evans, George P. "Good Copyediting Is Knowing Your ABC's." School Press Review 51, no. 6 (1976): 1, 4, 10, 12, 15-16. In extolling the virtues of copyediting, Evans lists five characteristics of good copyeditors and then explains the role of accuracy, brevity, and clarity (the ABC's of copyediting). He notes that reporters for high school and college newspapers need copyeditors and that ideally, editing "must be exhaustive" (4). Although deadlines may

166


militate against the necessity of exhaustive editing, Evans says that the copyeditor is the last person to approve copy and thus is responsible for accuracy and clarity, including the accuracy needed to avoid charges of libel. 752. Gibson, Martin L Editing in the Electronic Era. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press, 1979. Gibson's textbook focuses on editing in the electronic newsroom and discusses the job of the copy editor, editing symbols, how to "trim fat," how to write headlines, libel, typeface, newspaper layout, photographs, and cutlines. 753. Gilmore, Gene, and Robert Root. Modern Newspaper Editing. Berkeley, CA: The Glendessary Press, 1971. In nineteen chapters, the authors discuss copyediting and related topics. Chapter include copyediting techniques, writing headlines, sub-editors, picture editing, legal issues related to copyediting, ethics, and editorial management. 754. Harrigan, Jane T. The Editorial Eye. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1993. Harrigan's textbook is divided into three parts: Copy Editing, Page Editing, and Content Editing. The chapters in the first part are What Is an Editor?, The Copy Editor's Role, Editing for Grammar, Editing for Style, Editing for Accuracy and Fairness, and Legal and Ethical Issues for Editors. The chapters in the second part are Writing Headlines, Thinking Visually, and Designing Pages. The chapters in the third part are Working with Writers, Editing Information, Editing Meaning: The Big Picture, and The Future for Editors. 755. Irby, Janet R. "Editorial Conference Dialogues in the News Laboratory." Journalism and Mass Communication Educator 50, no. 1 (1995): 63-78. Irby conducted case studies of two college journalism students who collaborated with a teacher-editor to prepare news stories in a news laboratory. She found that both students negotiated with the teacher-editor concerning issues related to story content, but the one student, who had not worked in a news laboratory before, was less willing to collaborate with the teacher-editor because the student envisioned writing as an individual effort. Thus, the student did not see the need to compromise with the teacher-editor in preparing a story for publication. Irby notes that conference dialogues in the news laboratory are valuable because "the majority of conference dialogue can center more on meaning issues in revision, issues that require higher order thinking" (77). Students can learn how to develop "alternate claims and rationales for text choices" and realize "that content, organization, and some stylistic decisions in composing are complex process that have a contingent nature" (77). 756. McGiffert, Robert C. The Art of Editing the News. Philadelphia: Chilton Book Company, 1972. McGiffert begins his textbook by saying, "The newspaper copy editor, know by newsmen as the copyreader, has three jobs: to improve copy, to tell the printer how to assemble stories and what type to use, and to write headlines" (1). Thus, McGiffert provides twenty-one chapters related to these three responsibilities. For instance, chapter titles include The


167

Editor's Job, Marking the Copy, Printing Instructions, Leads, Story Organization, Quotations, Grammar, Wordiness, Cutting for Space, Libel and Fairness, Cutlines, and Headlines. 757. Stovall, James G., Charles C. Self, and Edward Mullins. On-Line Editing. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Pentice-Hall, 1984. The authors'book includes the following chapters: Chapter 1, "Editing and the News Organization"; Chapter 2, "The Editing Process"; Chapter 3, "Electronic Editing", Chapter 4, "Grammar, Punctuation, and Spelling"; Chapter 5, "Style and the Stylebook", Chapter 6, "Accuracy, Clarity, and Brevity"; Chapter 7, "Wire Copy"; Chapter 8, "Headlines"; Chapter 9, "Pictures and Cutlines"; Chapter 10, "Design and Layout"; and Chapter 11, "The Editor and the Law." The following appendices are also included: Appendix A, "English Diagnostic Test"; Appendix B, "Code of Ethics"; Appendix C, "Glossary"; Appendix D, "Newspaper Style"; Appendix E, "Instructions for Mycro-Tek 1100 VDT System"; and Appendix F, "Instructions for Hendrix 6100 VDT System." 758. Vivian, John H. "Classes Simulate 'Good Gray Lady' in Producing 'Borrowed Times'." Journalism Educator 37, no. 1 (1982): 44-47. Vivian describes a class he taught in which students produced a newspaper that mimicked The New York Times. Students wrote copy for the newspaper, The Borrowed Times, and made editorial decisions about placement of stories. Vivian says that the genesis of the simulation was dissatisfaction "with the cookie-cutter approach that says that editing need be no more than blindly plugging formulas into any and all situations" (47). 759. Van Ommeren, Roger L. "Editing Students Learn Accuracy Is More Than Facts." Journalism Educator 38, no. 2 (1983): 27-28. University students in a journalism class were given a story that appeared in a newspaper and asked to comment on the accuracy of the story from a reader's perspective. Then the reporter who wrote the story and the reporter's source cited in the story came to the journalism class and explained what had been edited out of the story. Upon hearing how the story had been edited, students changed their views about the credibility of the reporter's source. 760. Westley, Bruce H. News Editing, 2nd ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1972.Westley discusses the role of the news editor, how the newsroom functions within the newspaper as a whole, and editing, which is the focus of Chapter 3, "Basic Editing Skills" and Chapter 4, "Some Advanced Editing Skills." 761. Wimer, Arthur, and Dale Brix. Workbook for Head Writing and News Editing, 2nd edition. Dubuque: Wm. C. Brown, 1973: 192-195. The authors provide a list of proofreading marks and examples of how they are used by proofreaders at a newspaper. Magazines 762. Click, J. W., and Russell N. Baird. Magazine Editing and Production. Dubuque: Wm. C. Brown Company, 1974. Chapter 7 discusses the mechanics

168


of editing, dealing with issues such as how to develop article titles and cutlines. The authors also provide twelve practices for effective layout based on layout studies. Further, the authors deal with editorial issues such as how to choose content for a magazine and how to gain information about magazine audiences. Chapter 12 is a more detailed exposition of layout. Chapter 13, "Working with Words," focuses on evaluating and copyediting a manuscript. Chapter 15 discusses the editor's role in selecting and using illustrations. 763. Culbertson, Hugh, and Byron T. Scott. "Some Editorial Games for the Magazine Editing or Writing Class." Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism, Seattle, Washington, August 1978. ED 165 154. The authors describe how to construct editorial games to help students assess their professional values and priorities and to compare news values with actual publication decisions or audience ratings. One game uses the Repertory Grid, the other a co-orientation model. 764. Dobbertin, John, Jr. "Let the Student Editors BE Editors." The Quill 52, no. 5 (1964): 22-23. Dobbertin argues that student editors of magazines produced under the auspices of a university or college should be given the rights and responsibilities that professional editors have. That is, student editors should have the responsibility to create a publication that will support itself. Thus, the viability of the publication is determined by students' willingness to purchase the publication. Dobbertin also argues against censorship of student publications, and provides an example of how he helped resurrect a magazine *at the University of Michigan. 765. Hubbard, J. T. W. Magazine Editing. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1982. The chapters in this book are "A New Approach to the Magazine," "What Makes a Good Story Great," "Together They Spell SHIP" [four major types of articles: Service, Human interest, Informative-news, and Personality profile], "Editors and Writers: Story Ideas, Outlines, and the Book of Bad Beasts," "Three Ways to Start a Story," "Story Organization I: The Personality Profile . . . Warts and All," "Story Organization II: Do-It-Yourself, Trends, and Disasters," Editing I: Heads, Decks, and the Changing of the Palace Guard," "Editing II: Fine Tuning—Transitions, Signposts, and Quasars," "Magazine Production: Ideas Into Print," "Magazine Management: Starting Your Own Magazine," and "Building a Career: How to Be Lucky."

Editing and Revision in the Writing Process BASIC/DEVELOPMENTAL CLASSES 766. Duke, Charles R. "The Student-Centered Conference and the Writing Process." English Journal (December 1975): 44-47. Duke argues that writing teachers can use student-centered conferences, based on psychologist Carl Rogers' non-directive method of responding, to help students gain confidence in their writing as they learn effective revision skills. Duke urges teachers to use short, conferences that focus on a single problem, rather than lengthy conferences that attempt to deal with multiple problems in a piece of writing. 767. Hodges, Karen. "Combatting the Elevator Essay." Missouri English Bulletin 41, no. 6 (1983): 11-18. Hodges explains how she attacks poor student writing on three fronts: modeling the writing process by allowing students to critique her writing efforts and revisions before they move on to peer review; reseeing their writings by changing the focus, structure, point of view or audience; and using a checklist to rework the re-seen as they prepare final revisions. 768. McFarland, Betty. "Writing and Proofreading: An Alternative Program for Basic Composition Courses." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southeastern Conference on English in the Two-Year College, Nashville, TN, February 1977. ED 150 618. McFarland describes a college level course for marginal composition students using the Personalized System of Instruction model, a self-paced system to help students master designated skills. In it, the teacher prepares written course and assignment information before the course, then is available to tutor students during class periods on topics they have chosen.

170

Teaching Editing and Revision in the Writing Process

769. Marder, Daniel. "Envisioning and Revisioning." Rhetoric Review 3 (September 1984): 13-19. Hoping to balance research into writing as process, Marder discusses the implications of considering expression as an entity apart from communication. One solution, he suggests, is to "divide the reading self in two": one as an implied reader who acts as an idealized version of the writer's own understanding; and the other as an alien distant from and critical of the author's understanding (14). 770. Marting, Janet. "Writers on Writing: Self-Assessment Strategies for Student Essays." Teaching English in the Two-Year College, 18 (May 1991): 128-32. The author presents a list of questions for beginning writers to help them discover topics and develop composing strategies. The questions are intended to put them on the road to understanding "the self as a writer and the development of the discerning reader in the writer that help transform students into writers" (132). 771. Perl, Sondra. "A Look at Basic Writers in the Process of Composing." Basic Writing, Essays for Teachers, Researchers, and Administrators, edited by Lawrence N. Kasden and Daniel R. Hoeber, National Council of Teachers of English (1980): 13-32. A study of unskilled community college writers looks at how they write, how their processes can be analyzed, and possible ways to teach them to be more reflective. Perl concludes that basic writers already have writing strategies and suggests ways to provide guidelines to "loosen" (31) the process by reading one's own material, sustaining the flow, shaping the discourse, and directing the discourse to others. 772. Stephens, Rory D. "Variations in Composing Style." Journal of Advanced Composition 2, nos. 1-2 (1981): 45-52. After interviewing numerous writers on their writing processes, Stephens concludes that there are myriad patterns but only two cognitive styles: the "think-write" style, in which the writer spends considerable time thinking about that he or she is going to write before they start; and the "write-rewrite" style, in which the writer gets the information down into a draft and then revises extensively. Stephens suggests that teachers should understand both styles to be effective in helping students find their own way. 773. Turner, Maxine. "Using Checklists in Education and Training." In Proceedings 6th Annual Practical Conference on Communication, 89-92. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee, 1982. Turner discusses the value of providing checklists to help students of varying disciplines know the expectations of writing assignments and the criteria on which they will be evaluated. 774. Wiess, Adair B. "MORE: A Classroom Approach to the Development of Writing Skills at the Upper High School Level." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Florida Council of Teachers of English Fall Conference, Cocoa Beach, FL, October 1984. ED 252 888. Wiess describes an approach to developing upper-level high school students' writing skills that includes having


171

them watch the teacher model writing within the same time limits faced by the students, using hidden markers so student authors are not identified when other students read and give advice for revision, and giving two grades for the final product, one on content and one that assesses the visible corrections and adjustments made on the draft. COLLEGE CLASSES 775. Hiller, Janet. "Emerging Rhetorical Modes." Missouri English Bulletin 41, no. 6 (1983): 27-31. Frustrated over the poor quality of papers written by college composition students trying to create essays in the various rhetorical modes, Hiller decided to teach free writing with a point of view and see what happened. Surprisingly, the essays adopted the rhetorical voice and usually loosely fit one or another rhetorical mode, making it easy for Hiller to guide them to further examination and understanding of those modes. She concludes, "We need to teach writing-about-something-to-someone, rather than writing writing." (30) 776. McCarthy, Patricia, Scott Meier, and Regina Rinderer. "Self-Efficacy and Writing: A Different View of Self-Evaluation." College Composition and Communication 36, no. 4 (1985): 465-71. The authors assessed the writings of nearly 200 freshmen students at the beginning and end of a term and also questioned them each time on whether they could demonstrate specific writing skills. Because the results indicate that the students' perceptions of their writing skills are related to their actual writing performance, the authors suggest that teachers expand the concept of self-evaluation to include evaluation of one's writing abilities as well as assessment of one's written work. 777. Mandel, Barrett J. "The Writer Writing Is Not at Home." College Composition and Communication 31, no. 4 (1980): 370-77. Contending that focusing solely on conscious writing procedures inhibits students' expression, Mandel advocates allowing students to write non-stop to "discover" their points of view, and conversely to have them copy well-written prose passages to allow the "experience of producing mature prose without conceptualizing consciously at all" (376). 778. Marsello, Angie Ward. "Boosting Student Esteem All the Way-to Failure!" English Journal 80, no. 1 (1991): 72-73. After loving her students and lying to them for years, Marsello announces in this essay, designed to spark comment, that she will stop withholding the truth: "mediocrity is not acceptable," even at the price of the student's self-esteem (72). Marsello vows to force students to become equally competent in writing content and mechanics. 779. Perl, Sondra. "The Composing Process of Unskilled College Writers." Research in the Teaching of English 13, no. 4 (1979): 317-36. A study of five unskilled college writers reveals that they had stable composing processes, but that the processes and writing outcomes may have been hampered by premature and rigid attempts to correct and edit their work. The author questions the

172


validity of teaching students to focus on cosmetic corrections at the expense of developing their thoughts. 780. Perl, Sondra. "Understanding Composing." College Composition and Communication 31, no. 4 (1980): 363-69. Perl describes a study in which writing teachers audiotaped their thoughts as they composed aloud so that they could see their own writing processes at work. Among her conclusions are that many writers see prospective structuring-an important part of the composing process-as if it is the entire process. 781. Pianko, Sharon. "Reflection: A Critical Component of the Composing Process." College Composition and Communication 30, no. 3 (1979): 275-78. A study of traditional and remedial college freshmen writers shows that the better writers were much more reflective while writing, pausing to think about what they wanted to say and rescanning their work much more often. The author suggests that teachers can be more effective if they change focus from evaluating and correcting finished papers to helping students expand and elaborate-to be more reflective writers. 782. Schafer, John C. "Punctuation and Process: A Matter of Emphasis." English Journal 11, no. 8 (1988): 46-49. Concerned that "overly zealous advocates of the process approach to writing" (46) are slighting the teaching of punctuation, Schafer offers eight suggestions on how to incorporate this essential skill. Foremost is to teach punctuation as a means to achieve a larger goal, which can be emphasized by showing how punctuation conveys messages more effectively, arranging for a wider audience for the written work, and presenting mini-lessons on punctuation at the beginning of scheduled writing. 783. Stiegler, C. B. "Trends in the Content of the Basic Business Communication Course: An Editor's Viewpoint." The ABCA Bulletin 40 (June 1977): 14-19. Stiegler reviews the writing expectations in the business world and summarizes the changing college course content to prepare students, from basic grammar and business writing forms to library skills and interpersonal relationships. 784. Taylor, Karl K. "The Processes of Inexperienced and Experienced Writers." Teaching English in the Two-Year College 10 (1984): 219-25. A study compares the writing habits and processes of high school and college students with older professionals who have written extensively as part of their work. Taylor finds that younger writers quickly begin their writing with little planning, work alone for hours at a time, generally in the afternoon or evening. They generally are happy with their product. Older writers appeared to do considerable planning before they write for shorter periods, generally in the mornings. Older writers also tend to know their problem areas and edit heavily during and after writing. They are seldom completely satisfied with their product.


173

785. Trillin, Alice. "A Writer's Process: A Conversation with Calvin Trillin." Journal of Basic Writing 3, no. 3 (1981): 5-18. Calvin Trillin talks about how he creates nonfiction and fiction pieces. In creating nonfiction pieces, he produces a vomit-out draft (a draft in which he writes what he remembers without referring to the notes he has developed, which includes interviews and other resources), a second draft, a yellow draft (which is written on yellow paper), and a final draft or drafts. In writing fiction, Trillin does not produce a vomit-out draft because he doesn't have to figure out where he is going with the writing, as he does in nonfiction writing. Rather, he follows the ideas and characters in his fiction writing wherever they go. Of the writing process, he says, "Obviously, a writer's process is very personal. There is no formula that works for all people" (12). 786. Tricomi, Elizabeth Taylor. "Krashen's Second-Language Acquisition Theory and the Teaching of Edited American English." Journal of Basic Writing 5, no. 2 (1986): 59-69. Tricomi adapts linguistic theory on the differences between language acquisition and language learning of a second language in order to develop more successful ways to help students use their first language more effectively - particularly in mechanics. Instead of focusing on the drudgery of learning rules, which many will not do, she suggests teachers offer editing tricks to draw on their ear for language and to replace error-based exercises with in-depth looks at the students' writing for ambiguities and confusion. 787. Walling, Donovan R. "A Model for Teaching Writing: Process and Product. Fastback 256." 1987. ED 281 215. Walling offers a model for writing conceptualized in three phases: stimulus, process, and product. The process is examined from the perspectives of consciousness, speed and elaboration, and mental/physical interaction. The author presents several suggestions for writing teachers, including modeling the several process options. 788. Windhover, Ruth. "A Holistic Pedagogy for Freshman Composition." In Revising: New Essays for Teachers of Writing, edited by Ronald A. Sudol, 8799. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English, 1982. Windhover discusses the differences between the previous theory that writing is a process of prewriting, writing, and rewriting with the newer belief that writing is a recursive one in which revision and invention can occur at any stage. She describes how she teaches a freshman writing course as a workshop featuring strategies for the entire class and individual instruction, using both written comments and conferences. TECHNICAL WRITING CLASSES 789. Curry, Jerome. "Teaching Definition to Technical Students: Beyond the Course Textbook." Bulletin of the Association for Business Communication 54, no. 2 (1991): 16-18. Curry presents a ten-stage process to help technical writing students determine what terms in a document need to be defined, the types of definitions, appropriate methods of extension, whether visuals are needed, and where to place the definitions.

174


790. Cheek, Madelon. "Technical Writing Resources. A Handbook for Engineering and Technology Faculty at Purdue." 1984. ED 261 402. Cheek presents ideas for technical writing assistance and resources for faculty who incorporate writing into their courses. The handbook offers guidelines for developing writing assignments, suggestions on evaluating the papers, and standards and specifications for good technical report writing. The handbook also offers suggestions on writing lab assistance and computer-aided assistance. 791. Farkas, David K. How To Teach Technical Editing. Washington: Society for Technical Communication, 1987. Farkas presents a guide to teachers of editing in the academic situation or for those who are new editors in the workplace. The guide discusses language and computer skills, introducing students to typical work settings and to production, substantive and rhetorical editing, marking copy, preserving the author's meaning. It also discusses levels of editing possible under time constraints and how to strive to achieve consistency. 792. Giles, Timothy D. "The Readability Controversy: A Technical Writing Review." Journal of Technical Writing and Communication 20, no. 2 (1990): 131-38. Giles reviews literature concerning the use of readability formulas in technical writing. Although some scholars note that readability formulas can be useful to technical writers and editors, the majority opinion is that such formulas are not useful. For instance, readability formulas "fail to indicate how technical writers should revise their writing" (133). In addition, readability formulas do not take into account sentence structure, technical vocabulary, layout and design, figures and tables. "Readability formulas," as Giles notes, "can misled writers by focusing on factors that may be irrelevant to writers' needs, completely ignoring other factors" (137). 793. Lay, Mary M. "Procedures, Instructions, and Specifications: A Challenge in Audience Analysis." Journal of Technical Writing and Communication 12, no. 3 (1982): 235-42. Lay provides examples of procedures, instructions, and specifications and questions technical writers and editors can use to determine whether the documents are addressing audience needs. Lay says, ". . . precise and imaginative audience analysis is demanded in very specific communication tasks that seem to have a common purpose, such as procedures, instructions, and specifications" (241). 794. Santelmann, Patricia Kelly. "Teaching Technical Writing: How To Focus on Process." The Technical Writing Teacher 14, no. 1 (1987): 103-07. The author outlines a four-class-session assignment to help technical writing students develop sensitivity to audience, strategies for analytical problem solving, an understanding of the patterns of organization, and mastery of editing skills. Her main goal is to shift students' writing stance from that of passive fulfillers of teacher requests to that of active decision makers in the writing task. 795. Shirk, Henrietta. "Collaborative Reporting at Technology Transfer, Inc." In Collaborative Technical Writing: Theory and Practice, edited by Richard


175

Louth and Ann Martin Scott, 175-188. Association of Teachers of Technical Writing, 1989. Shirk outlines a technical writing classroom exercise that has students assume the roles of facilitators, technical experts, writers, and editors to enable them to work in small collaborative groups. The groups allow the students to experience a typical work situation, to develop an awareness of the techniques and issues involved in writing for multiple audiences, and to master several written communication and oral/interpersonal skills. The author includes a sequence of instruction for teachers. 796. Werner, Warren W. "Models and the Teaching of Technical Writing." Journal of Technical Writing and Communication 19, no. 1 (1989): 69-81. Students of technical writing may not be able to find errors in texts, "at least in their own texts, errors which the students take for virtues because they seem to be part of what the assignment calls for" (70). This problem of error is related to the inappropriate use of models and the confusion of models and examples. Models are abstracts that cannot be used whole cloth to complete a writing assignment. Models require rhetorical decisions, and when students do not take into account the need to make rhetorical decisions, they fail to write to a particular audience. In fact, because writing is a social act, the pressure to produce textual features that are ineffective in communicating to an audience can continue "even after instruction on avoiding or revising these features" (73). Stress in the classroom "underlies one reason that students persist in writing habits contrary to their benefit" (73). To enable students to use models and examples effectively, Werner provides suggestions for teachers of technical writing to help writers "adapt the models and examples available to the situation at hand with flexibility" (75). Thus, he discusses types of models, noting that teachers can "devise ways to teach models to our students so that they will resist the urge to lean on them like the crutches of formulae" (80). SPECIAL ISSUES Creative Writing 797. Mariani, Paul. "Lowell's Turtles: Visions and Self-Revisions." In Only Connect: Uniting Reading and Writing, 255-62. Upper Montclair, NJ: Boynton/Cook, 1986. Writing is tracking out a fiction that the writer hopes the reader too will assume, Mariani says. But the writing is really an exploration into the thoughts and realities of the writer, as illustrated by the changing selfawareness of the poet Robert Lowell's images of turtles over a fifteen-year span. Language Classes 798. Swenson, Barbara E. "Recycle, Reformulate, Reevaluate: The Three R's for Writing in the Language Classroom." Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Central States Conference on Foreign Language Teaching (April, 1997). ED 413 777. The author suggests teaching writing as a process to students learning a second language. She identifies the stages: recycling previous information to generate ideas; reformulating ideas in successive drafts; and teacher reevaluation of the final draft. Included are grading guidelines.

176

Editing and Revision in the Writing Process

Learning Disabled Students 799. MacArthur, Charles A., and Steve Graham. "Learning Disabled Students' Composing Under Three Methods of Text Production: Handwriting, Word Processing, and Dictation." The Journal of Special Education 21, No. 3 (1987): 22-42. A study of writing by 11 fifth- and sixth-grade learning-disabled students indicates that allowing them to dictate stories freed them from troublesome mechanical difficulties and enabled them to create much longer and far more grammatically correct work than they were able to do when writing by hand or using a word processor. The authors suggest that dictation could be a valuable educational tool for learning-disabled students, and their work could be used to generate content for later, more structured writing. Technology 800. Sommers, Elizabeth A., and James L. Collins. "Microcomputers and Writing." Computers and Composition (August 1985): 27-35. The authors review the philosophical shift from teaching writing as a solitary, examinationstyle exercise to that of a collaborative, process-oriented endeavor. They argue that teaching the writing process in a computer classroom can be more effective than without computers as long as teachers continue to be collaborator, audience, facilitator and assignment-maker. GENERAL ISSUES 801. Gill, Kent, ed. Process and Portfolios in Writing Instruction: Classroom Practices in Teaching English. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English, 1993. See "Group Paragraphs: A Route to Revision" (351 Murphy) and "Glossing: A Revision Technique" (277 Calabrese). 802. Gage, Thomas. "Composing: The Art of Letting Your Right Brain Recognize What Your Left Brain Is Recalling." Paper presented at the Sociolinguistic Conference, San Francisco, CA, July 1977. ED 157 098. Gage discusses the different contributions of the left and right sides of the brain and posits that teachers, who often fixate on punctuation, grammar and other relative trivia, inhibit beginning writers from expressing their sense of knowing, from which all writing must begin. He labels and analyzes five stages of writing: knowing; meaning; deep structure; mulling syntactic and word choices as one approaches the writing process; and the actual act of writing script. 803. Wixon, Vincent, and Pat Stone. "Getting It Out, Getting It Down: Adapting Zoellner's Talk-Write." English Journal 66, no. 6 (1977): 70-73. Arguing that students must develop their own plan to present and understand a topic before they can write effectively about it, the authors advocate the talkwrite method in which small groups of students work on large sheets of paper taped on a wall so that they can see a problem more clearly, develop greater problem-solving accuracy, produce clearer ideas, pay more attention to a goal, be more conscious of the steps they took, make sudden insights to solve the problem, and see the basic puzzle relationship.

Editing and Revision in the Writing Process

177

PROFESSIONAL WRITERS 804. Grow, Gerald. "Lessons from the Computer Writing Problems of Professionals." College Composition and Communication 39, no. 2 (1988): 217-20. In working with professionals who write as part of their job, Grow found that many of the professionals used computers to compose. However, the professionals are self-taught computer writers, not knowing about the writing process. Thus, they can use computers in ways that are counterproductive in terms of producing good writing. Grow cites four ways that computers can hinder professionals from writing effectively, and provides suggestions for teachers of writing when they prepare students to write with a computer in the world of work after college. 805. Pitts, Beverly J. "Model Provides Description of News Writing Process." Journalism Educator 44 (Spring 1989): 12-19, 59. Pitts describes an analysis of audio-tape comments made by professionals and student journalists as they thought through and wrote newspaper articles, which reveals that reporting and writing are not separate acts but instead are closely attuned to one another. Pitts found that writing the lead, usually intended to engage readers, is equally important to help the writer focus on the meaning and to determine the shape of the article. She also reports that much of the revision that occurs takes place during the actual writing of the article.


Author Index The numbers in this index refer to entry numbers, not page numbers, in the bibliography. Aagard, James A., 436 Abbott, Robert D., 21 Abramovici, Shimon, 657 Afflerbach, Peter, 162 Albertson, Luann R., 163 Alexander, Bonnie, 618 Allen, Jo, 244 Allen, Moira A., 658 Allen, Robert B., 659 Allwright, J.M., 310 Allwright, R. L., 310 Ames, Nancy H., 1 Amick, Maureen, 192 Amsden, Dorothy Corner, 245 Anderson, Kathleen M., 675, 679 Anderson, Kristen Joan, 660 Anderson, Ruth I., 661 Andrasick, Kathleen D., 619 Andrews, Richard, 535 Annett, Clarence H., 559 Argall, Rebecca S., 379 Armstrong, Cherryl, 263 Arnold, Vivian, 620 Asenavage, K., 312 Ashbaugh, Gwendolyn, 56 Bagin, Carolyn Boccella, 651, 652 Baird, Russell N., 762 Baker, John P., 303 Bakst, Kathy, 174

Balajthy, Ernest, 164 Bamberg, Betty, 57 Barkman, Patricia R., 560 Barnard, D. P., 621 Bartlett, Elsa Jaffe, 175 Barton, Shirley, 653 Baskette, Floyd K., 743 Bates, Linda, 311 Beach, Richard, 8, 9, 10, 58, 141, 142 Beal, Carole R., 11, 12,13,14, 15, 16, 176,381 Bean, John C, 382 Beason, Larry, 259 Beck, Charles E., 561 Beck, Isabel L., 17 Becker, Geoffrey, 264 Belanger, Joe, 324 Bell, R. DerMont, 562 Bensen, S. Kenneth, 622 Benton, Stephen L., 18, 19 Bereiter, Carl, 20, 23, 195,444 Berkenkotter, Carol, 59, 60,477 Berliner, David, 165 Berner, R. Thomas, 744 Bernhardt, Stephen A., 206 Berninger, Virginia, 21 Bernstein, Abraham, 143 Bernthal, Craig A., 61

180 Berry, Eleanor, 429 Berthoff, Ann E., 207, 208 Beyer, Barry K., 260 Billingsley, Felix F., 163 Birdsall, Eric, 276 Bishop, Wendy, 265 Black, Lynette C, 630 Blickle, Margaret D., 246 Block, Cathy Collins, 325 Blohm, Paul J., 19 Bloom, LynnZ., 515 Bloomstrand, David, 247 Boiarsky, Carolyn, 144, 145 Bond, Sandra J., 511 Bonitatibus, Gary J., 16, 176 Booley, Heather A., 146 Bostian, Frieda F., 563 Bracewell, Robert, 28 Brady, Barbara, 560 Brannon, Lil, 91 Bretcko, Barbara A., 125 Bright, George W., 53 Britton, Bruce K., 43 Brix, Dale, 761 Bryson, Mary, 46, 400 Butler, Deborah L., 301 Butterfield, Earl C, 44, 532 Cadman, D., 338 Caisley, Kathy, 631 Calabrese, Marylyn E., 277, 632 Calkins, Lucy McCormick, 177, 178, 185 Calvert-French, Suzy, 495, 572 Camp, Sue C, 607, 662 Cannady, Criss E., 209 Cantry, Donald J., 715 Canuteson, John, 62 Carey, Linda, 36, 72 Carifio, James, 45 Carino, Peter A., 210 Carliner, Saul, 478 Carlson, Diana M., 278 Carroll, Jeffrey., 2 Carroll, Joyce Armstrong, 633 Carter, Ronnie D., 22, 63 Casanova, Ursula, 165 Castro, Caridad, 516 Catano, James V., 383

Author Index Cavin, G.E., 147 Chaffee, Patricia, 564 Champagne, Mireille, 23 Chantland, Gloria, 623 Chapman, Victor W., 737 Charney, Davida, 469 Chaudron, Craig, 24 Chavarria, Linda Stout, 565 Cheek, Earl H., 188 Cheek, Madelon, 790 Cheney, David R., 713 Cheney, Patrick, 566, 571 Chenowith, N. A., 211 Chimombo, Moira, 64 Christenbury, Leila, 327 Christensen, Linda, 536 Christian, Rod, 544 Christiansen, M., 65 Chytil, Helena, 654 Cirincione, Joseph A., 202 Civil Service Commission, 745 Clapp, Ouida, 446 Clark, Beverly Lynn., 384 Clark, Irene Lurkis, 326 Claussen, Dane S., 537 Click, J. W., 762 Coe, Richard M., 66 Coffey, Kathy, 567 Coggin, William O., 517, 738 Coggshall, Gordon E., 203 Cohen, Alan S., 279, 518 Cohen, Barbara L., 290 Cohen, Michael E., 385 Cohick, Joanne, 158 Colby, John B., 568 Coleman, Eve B., 212 Coles, Nicholas, 213 Collier, Richard M., 25, 386 Collins, James L., 800 Cone, Randy E., 204 Conely, James, 608, 705 Connor, Ulla, 312, 313 Cook, Claire Kehrwald, 496 Cook, John M., 569 Cooper, Alan, 328 Copeland, Ann, 67 Copperud, Roy H., 746 Corden, Margaret, 301

Author Index Cornell, Cynthia, 26 Corrigan, Ralph L., Jr., 570 Cosky, Michael J., 506 Cottrell, Larry K., 436 Couch, Lezlie Laws, 304 Cramer, Ronald L., 686 Craven, Gerald A., 248 Crawford, Wayne, 280 Cronnell, Bruce, 387 Crook, James A., 497 Crowell, Alfred A., 747 Crowhurst, Marion, 27, 166 Culbertson, Hugh, 763 Cumming, Alister, 314 Cummings, Don, 678, 676 Cummings, Ralph M., 739 Cunningham, Donald W., 305 Cunningham, Mia, 714 Cunningham, Patricia M., 167 Curry, Jerome, 789 Curtis, Marcia S., 388 Dagostino, Lorraine, 45 Dahl, Darin L., 329 Dahl, Karin L., 7217 Daiute, Colette A., 3, 168, 389, 431,432 Dallinger, Judity M., 720 Daneman, Meredyth, 498, 499 Daniel, Reva, 479 Danis, Francine, 330 Dansereau, Donald F., 694 Darlington, Deanna, 302 Davidson, Phebe, 4 Davis, Ken, 306 Day, Alison Ann, 516 Dayton, David, 491 DeLaPaz, Susan, 291 DeGroff, Linda-Jo Caple, 179 Della-Piana, Gabriel M, 266, 267 DeMichele, Barbara, 728 Denn, Robert J., 68 DeRemer, Mary, 28 Dicker, Susan J., 682 Dieterich, Daniel, 281 Dietz, Cynthia, 282 Dittmar, Mary Lynne, 500, 501 Dobbertin, John, Jr., 764 Dobler, Ronald G., 305

181 Dodd, Julie, 748 Dogan, Nukhet, 43 Donelson, Ken, 716 Douglas, George H., 249 Dragga Sam, 492 Dudenhefer, John Paul., 29 Duffy, Thomas M., 30 Dufresne, John, 268 Duin,A.H.,481 Duke, Charles R., 283, 284, 285, 766 Dunlosky, John, 532 Dworsky, Nancy, 269 Eaton, Sara, 10 Ede, Lisa, 447 Edelsberg, Charles, 148 Effros, Charlotte, 31 Eisenberg, Anne, 573 Elling, Rien, 32 Endo, George T., 267 Engel, Mary F., 69 Enginariar, Husnu, 683 Englert, Carol Sue., 33 Epes, Mary, 704 Erb, Lyle L., 749 Essa, EvaL., 174 Estabrook, Iris W., 180 Estrem, Heidi, 129 Evans, George P., 750, 751 Fagan, Bon, 480 Faigley, Lester, 34, 76 Farkas, David K., 574,791 Farmer, Mary, 313 Feathers, Karen M., 449 Feldman, Ruth, 609 Felker, Daniel B., 81 Feng, Yuen, 21 Fergenson, Laraine, 214 Ferguson, T. S., 663 Ferris, Dana, 684 Feyerherm, Joel, 493 Ficzere, Sheryl A., 301 Fine, Jonathan, 23 Fiske, Donald W., 70 Fitschen, K., 215 Fitzgerald, Jill, 5, 6, 35,41,169, 181,182,331 Fitzgibbon, Joseph, 170

182 Flanigan, Michael, 71 Fleming, Margaret, 450 Flinn, Jane Zeni, 390,433 Flower, Linda S., 36, 37, 38, 72, 216 Flynn, Elizabeth A., 39 Folks, Jeffrey, 307 Folta, Bernarr, 183 Forbes, C. J., 575 Ford, Margaret I., 184 Fortune, Sarah D'Eloia, 217, 220 Fourdrinier, Sylvia, 286 Fox, Len, 664 Francis, Mardean, 47, 171 Franke, Thomas L., 634 Frasch, Dorothy K., 624 Fredrick, Vicki, 40 Freed, Peggy, 625 Freeman, Donald C, 218 French, Martha S., 375 Friedlander, Alexander, 391 Friend, Marilyn, 300 Friss, Dick, 626 Fulkerson, Richard, 74 Fuller, Stan, 538 Fulwiler, Toby, 75, 219, 261, 448 Furniss, D.W.,481 Gage, Thomas, 802 Gaitens, Judi, 76 Gardner, Phillip, 77 Garner, W. Lee, 635 Garrod, Andrew C, 16, 176 Gebhardt, Richard C, 83, 223, 392 Gee, Thomas W., 149, 150 Gentry, J. Richard, 636 Gentry, Larry A., 42 Gere, Ann Ruggles, 224, 332 Gerich, Carol A., 490 Gerrard, Lisa, 393, 394 Gibson, Martin L., 752 Gibson, Walker, 83 Gilbertsen, Michael, 250 Giles, Timothy D., 792 Gill, Kent, 358, 801 Gillett, Thomas D., 627 Gilmore, Gene, 719, 753 Glassner, Benjamin M., 78, 79 Glover, John A., 18

Author Index Glynn, Shawn M., 43 Goetter, William G.J., 728 Goldsmith, Eleanor, 539 Gong, Gwendolyn, 492 Goodrich, Elizabeth Anne., 545 Gordon, Eleanor, 346 Gordy, Constance E., 502 Gorrell, Donna, 82 Goswami, Dixie, 81 Gough, Philip b., 506 Gould, John D., 395 Graham, Steve, 291, 292, 293, 294, 297, 298, 799 Graner, M, 333 Gratz, Ronald K., 39, 242 Graves, Donald H., 185, 186, 270, 481,482 Gredja, G. F., 396 Green, Andrew, 452 Greene, Brenda M., 221 Gregory, Peggy Doyle, 687, 718 Gregory, Robert, 222 Grejda, Gail F., 397 Griffin, Elizabeth A., 381 Grimm, Nancy, 334 Grout, Donna M., 451 Grow, Gerald, 804 Gryder, Isabelle, 665 Gryder, Robert, 665 Gubb, Jenny, 271 Guckes, Lucille R., 637 Gwyn, Cindy, 519 Haas, Christina, 434 Haber, Ralph Norman, 722 Hacker, Douglas J., 44, 532 Hackos, JoAnn T., 520 Hafernick, J., 315 Hafernick, Johnnie Johnson, 316 Hageman, Mary S., 576 Haley-James, Shirley M., 151 Hample, Dale, 720 Hanlon, Patti-Anne, 129 Hanna, Jim, 483,484 Hannafin, M.J., 396, 397 Hansen, Barbara, 84, 152 Hanson, S., 335 Hardaway, Francine, 688 Hardwick, J.P., 663

Author Index Harp, Bill, 689 Harper, Laura, 453 Harrigan, Jane T., 522, 754 Harris, Carol E., 690 Harris, Jeanette, 610 Harris, Muriel, 85, 225 Hatch, J.A., 136 Hawisher, G. S., 398 Hawkins, Rose, 691 Hawkins, T., 336 Hayes, John, 36, 37, 38, 72, 135, 136,511 Hazeltine,P.,481 Healy, Mary, 337 Hedgcock, J., 317 Heilman, Christine W., 577 Heineken, Edgar, 44 Henley, Joan, 454 Herrington, Anne Jeborah, 338 Herrmann, Andrea, 339 Herum, John, 676, 682 Hiatt, Mary P., 455 Hicks, Joyce, 226 Hiebert, Elfrieda H., 33 Hildick, Wallace, 272 Hill, Charles A., 434 Hiller, Janet, 775 Hink, Kaye E., 86 Hinrichs, Ronald W., 542 Hirsch, Penny L., 489 Hoddeson, David, 227 Hodges, Karen, 7, 767 Hodges, Richard E., 706 Hogan, Pat, 692 Hollstein, Milton, 721 Horner, Bruce, 523 Horning, Alice S., 87 Houghton, Linda, 638 House, Beverly A., 204 Howard, Janet M., 666 Huang, Su-yueh, 318 Hubbard, J. T. W., 765 Huff, Roland K., 88 Hughes, Judy A., 340 Hughes, Robert S., Jr., 546 Hull, Glynda, 503, 548, 549 Hulme, Charles, 614 Hunt, Susan, 685

Hunter, Linda, 667 Iding, Marie, 345 Irby, Janet R., 755 Irent, Stanley C, 468 Irish, Gayle, 639 Irizarry, Estelle, 399 Jack, Judith, 524, 578 Jackson, Ina, 45 Jacobs, Suzanne E., 89 Janik, Carol J., 511 Johns, AnnM., 319 Johnson, C. Merle, 617 Johnson, Carol Barnes, 468 Johnson, Diane E., 611 Johnson, Jan, 187 Johnson, Karen E., 320 Johnson, Mildred I., 442 Johnson, Roland, 640 Johnstone, Velerie M., 153 Jones, Dylan M, 504 Jones, Maletta M., 612 Jones, Wayne, 302 Jones, William, 228, 641 Joram, Elana, 46,400 Jordan, Michael P., 579 Joyner, Randy L., 668 Kabance, Paula, 30 Kantrowitz, Bruce W., 580 Karegianes, Myra L., 693 Karis, William, 723 Karliner, Adela B., 89 Kaufer, David S., 485 Kearns, Michael, 229 Keith, Philip M., 90 Kelly, Erna, 251, 401 Kelly, Lou, 642 Kemnitz, Charles F., 581, 582 Kendrick, Robin, 621 Kerr, Shannon, 47 Kiefer, Kathleen, 402, 435 Killgallon, Don, 341 Killingsworth, M. Jimmie, 250 Kincaid, J. Peter, 436 King, Mary, 615 3 Kirby, Dan R., 342 Kirby, Susan, 603 Kirkpatrick, Carolyn, 704 Knight, Lester, 710

184 Knoblauch, C. H., 91 Kritsonis, Diane, 188 Kroll, Barry M., 456 Kruidenier, John, 168 Kuhlmann, Sandra Muse, 343 Kuperis, Sonia, 301 Kurth, Ruth J., 403, 404, 405,422 Kurtz, Larry, 726 Labercane, George, 156 Lacy, Richard, 669 Lai, Phooi Ching., 92 Lamazares, Ivonne, 516 Lamberg, Walter J., 373 Land, Robert E., 154 Lane, Barry, 273, 452 Lane, Janet, 311 Lange, Ellen, 311 Lanham, Richard A., 385 Larson, Celia O., 694 Larson, Laura, 93 Lay, Mary M, 560, 793 LeBlanc, Paul, 406 Lees, Elaine O., 430, 525, 643, 670 Leeson, Lee Ann, 155 Lefkowitz, N., 317 Lehr, Fran, 457 Leverson, LuAnn D., 201 Levy, Betty Ann, 505 Lewenstein, Bruce V., 656 Lewes, Ulle Erika, 344 Lewin, Larry, 437 Lillios, Melina, 345 Lindsay, Peter, 46, 400 Lindsey, Jimmy D., 188 Liner, Tom, 342 Liu, Fasheng, 724 Livingston, Sue, 295 Losano, Wayne A., 583 Louth, Richard, 408, 409 Lovejoy, Kim Brian., 94 Lowenthal, David, 486 Ludwig, JayB., 61 Luttmer, Rudy, 156 Lyons, Bill, 95 Mabrito, Mark, 350 MacArthur, Charles A., 293, 294, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300, 301, 799 MacKay, Donald G., 707

Author Index MacNealy, Mary Sue, 96, 98 Madden, David, 460 Madraso, Jan, 644 Mancuso, Joseph C, 584, 585, 586, 655 Mandel, Barrett J., 526, 777 Mandersloot, Wim. G. B., 587 Mandino, Bob, 527 Manolakes, George, 708 Marder, Daniel, 252,461, 769 Mariani, Paul, 797 Markel, Michael H, 410, 411 Market, Michael H., 391 Markham, Linda R., 169 Marsello, Angie Ward, 778 Marsh, John L.s 133 Marting, Janet, 770 Martycz, Virginia Kennedy, 97 Masse, Roger E., 521, 528 Matalene, Carolyn, 289 Matsuhashi, Ann, 346 Mazzatenta, Ernest, 588 McAlexander, Patricia J., 287 McAllister, Carole, 408, 409 McCarthy, Patricia, 776 McCulley, George A., 39 McCusker, Leo X., 506 McCutcheon, Deborah, 47, 171, 549 McDonald, Susan, 540 McDonald, W. U., Jr., 288 McFarland, Betty, 768 McGee, Lea M., 458 McGiffert, Robert C, 756 Mcllroy, Christopher, 189 McKeen, William, 554 McKeown, Margaret G., 17 McNabb, Scott, 459 McNeilis, Sally J., 352 McPhillips, S. P, 172 Mehan, Hugh, 543 Mehlmann, Marybeth Ames, 550 Meier, Scott, 776 Mellon, John C, 380 Mendonca, Cassia O., 320 Menendez, Diane, 71 Metzger, Margaret Treece, 529 Meyer, Emily, 347

Author Index Meyers, G. Douglas, 253 Midgley, Thomas K., 728 Mier, Margaret, 462 Miles, Christopher, 504 Miller, Edmund, 98 Miller, W., 136 Miller-Souviney, Barbara, 543 Milone, Michael N., Jr., 407 Mlynarczyk, Rebecca Williams, 348 Mohr, Marian M., 463 Monagle, E. Brette, 589 Monahan, B., 412 Monahan, B. D., 349 Monk, Andrew F., 614 Monson, Jay A., 709 Moosally, Michelle J., 255, 413 Moran, Charles, 530 Morrow, Bobbie, 645 Morton, Larry L., 414 Moser, G., 136 Mosher, Katherine E., 254 Moyer, Ruth, 646 Mullins, Edward, 757 Murphy, Elaine, 351 Murphy, John M., 321 Murphy, Sharon, 416 Murray, Donald M., 99, 100, 101, 102,270,464,465,487 Muth, K. Denise., 43 Myers, Greg, 488 Nathan, Ruth, 415 National Assessment of Educational Progress, 48 Naugle, Helen Harrold, 103 Nelson, GayleL., 321 Neubert, Gloria A., 352 Newkirk, Thomas, 230 Newman, Jerrie M., 157 Newton, Robert, 26 Niemi, Pekka, 507 Nocke, Henry, 501 Nold, Ellen W, 104, 190,376 Norby, Janet R., 728 Nord, Roland D., 255, 413 Norman, Rose, 590 Nystrand, Martin, 353 O'Donnell, Angela M., 694

185 O'Donnell, Cathy, 695 O'Hara, John W., 436 O'Mealy, Joseph, 531 Obstfeld, Raymond, 274 Odell,Lee, 158 Ogawa, Ann, 192 Oleson, Quentin C, 725 Olson, Vicki L. Brakel, 354 Omanson, Richard C, 17 Onore, Cynthia S., 105 Orlett, Margaret, 191 Ormrod, Jeanne Ellis, 628 Owston, Ronald D., 416 Page, Jean, 504 Palumbo, Roberta M., 308 Pascarella, Ernest T., 693 Paulis, C, 355 Pavlisin, Peggy Irene., 49 Payan, Irene, 671 Pearlman, Daniel D., 466 Pearlman, Paula R., 466 Peck, Wayne C, 106 Peitzman, Faye, 107 Penfield, Elizabeth F., 467 Perez, Elena, 516 Perl, Sondra, 771, 779, 780 Perry, Devern J., 562 Personke, Carl, 710 Peterson, Bruce T., 256 Peterson, John C, 615 Peterson, Steven J., 490 Petit, Susan, 417 Petrosky, Anthony R., 134 Pferrer, Suzanne, 108 Pflaum, Susanna W., 693 Philbin, Alice I., 591,592 Pianko, Sharon, 109, 696, 781 Pieper, Gail W., 593 Pierson, Howard, 697 Pierson, Robert M., 711 Pinsker, Sanford, 547 Piolat, Annie, 50 Pitts, Beverly J, 805 Pixton, William H., 110 Plake, Barbara S., 18 Pleasants, Heather Mikkelson, 468 Plug, Cornelis, 726 Plumb, Carolyn, 44, 532

186 Plunka, Gene A,, 494 Poger, Fran, 192 Polin, Elane, 231 Polya, George, 508 Pomerenke, Paula J., 356 Ponder, Janace, 555 Pople, Martha T., 17 Porter, Lynnett R., 738 Powers, Rachel Lawhon, 698 Powers, Richard, 460 Primeau, Ronald, 111 Prior, Paul, 51,357 Proett, Jackie, 358 Pufahl, John P., 418, 419 Quathamer, Daniel, 44 Radzick, Abraham, 696 Raleigh, Donna, 401 Redd-Boyd,T,481 Redish, Janice C, 81 Register, James, 531 Riel, Margaret M., 543 Rinderer, Regina, 776 Rocklin, Thomas R., 694 Rodgers, Denis, 324 Roellich, Carol, 280 Roen,D.,481 Root, Robert, 719, 753 Roussey, Jean-Yves, 50 Rykken, Rolf, 727 Samson, Donald, C, Jr., 594, 595, 596, 597 Sanaoui, Razika, 322 Sanders, Scott P., 245 Sanford, Betsy, 193 Sanford, Elizabeth, 194 Sanford, James F., 243 Santelmann, Patricia Kelly, 794 Sartoris, Brenda E., 598 Saur, Pamela S., 232 Sawyer, Thomas M., 69 Scardamalia, Marlene, 20, 23, 195, 444 Schafer, John C, 782 Scheiber, H. J., 740 Schell, Leo M., 647 Schindler, Robert M., 722 Schleicher, David, 566, 571 Schor, Sandra, 112,233

Author Index Schriner, Delores K., 420 Schriver, Karen A., 113, 114,115 Schwartz, Alix, 116 Schwartz, Helen J., 441 Schwartz, Mimi, 117, 196 Schwartz, Shirley, 294, 297, 298 Schweiterman, Hank, 118 Scott, Byron T., 763 Scott, Sandra Davidson, 741 Sears, Peter, 275 Secor, Marie, 469 Sedgwick, Ellery, 551 Seitz, Margaret A., 616 Self, Charles C, 757 Selfe, Cynthia L. 119,438 Selzer, Jack, 120 Shane-Joyce, Marguerite P., 672 Shaw, Margaret L., 234 Sheal, P. R, 629 Shear, Marie, 470,471 Shell, Walter, 673 Shenk, Robert, 599 Shirk, Henrietta Nickels, 699, 795 Shreeve, William, 728 Shriver, Karen, 72 Shuman, R. Baird, 121, 122, 123, 377 Shwom, Barbara L., 489 Siegel,Alan, 81 Silk, CM., 136 Simon, Judith C, 509, 510 Simpson Barbara, 97, 98 Sissors, Jack Z., 743 Sitko, Barbara M., 159, 359 Sjogren, Douglas D., 442 Slater, W.H, 481 Slater, Wayne, 482 Slaughter, Judith Pollard, 197, 198 Sloan, Gary, 378 Smagorinsky, Peter, 360 Smelstor, Marjorie, 199 Smith, Charles, 435 Smith, Gayle L., 124 Smith, Herbert J., 257, 560, 680, 681,700 Smith, Howard Bud, 600 Smith Louise Z., 347 Smith, Marian, 590

Author Index Smith, Myrna, 125 Smith, Peggy, 729, 730, 731 Smith, William E., 439 Smith, William L., 549 Snyder, William C, 235 So, Sufumi, 314 Sommers, Elizabeth A., 800 Sommers, Jeffrey, 440 Sommers, Nancy, 52, 126, 236 Soules, Eugene H., 533 Southard, Sherry G., 244, 601 Southwell, Michael, 704 Spear, Karen, 127, 361,362 Spears, Lee A., 258 Speck, Bruce W., 97,98 Spirrison, Charles L., 732 Stainton, Murray, 498, 499 Stallard, Charles K., 160 Stallworth, Clarke, 363 Stamm, Carol, 182,331 Stanley, J., 364 Staples John, 615 Steelman, Jane D., 421 Steinberg, Erwin R., 485 Steinlage, Theresa M., 541 Stephen, Naomi, 4 Stephens, Rory D., 772 Sterkel, Karen S., 442 Stetson, Maura, 173 Stevens, Ralph S., 332 Stewart, Sharon R., 33 Stibravy, John A., 602 Stiegler, C. B., 783 Stine, Peter W., 128 Stoddard, Barbra, 299 Stoddard, Ted D., 562 Stohrer, Freda F., 603, 742 Stone, Pat, 803 Stoughton, Mary, 733 Stovall, James G., 757 Stover, Lois, 365 Stratman, James, 72 Streckfuss, Richard, 237 Strickland, James, 422 Stromberg, Linda, 423 Stueckle, Arnold F., 728 Stull, Susan, 490 Styslinger, Mary E., 366

187 Sudol, Ronald A., 424, 472 Sultan, Gerry, 367 Sun, Lulu C. H., 238 Supramaniam, Saradha, 648 Swaney, Joyce Hannah, 511 Swanson, H.L., 21 Swanson, Phillip N., 291 Swanson-Owens, Deborah, 519 Swarts, Heidi, 37, 38 Swenson, Barbara E., 798 Tarutz, Judy, 734 Taylor, Howard B., 749 Taylor, Karl K., 784 Tchudi, Susan, 129 Thomas, Brook, 473 Thompson, Diane P., 443 Thompson, George J., 130 Thome, B. Michael, 502 Tiedt, Iris M., 735 Timmons, Theresa Cullen, 552 Tipton, Martha, 516 Tohtz, Jack E., 131 Tompkins, Gail E., 300,458 Toney, Sarah D., 485 Tricomi, Elizabeth Taylor, 786 Trillin, Alice, 785 Tschumy, Ruth D., 239 Tsujimoto, Joseph I., 368 Turner, Maxine, 773 Unikel, Graham, 604 Van Doren, Jo, 651,652 Van Gelderen, Amos, 200 Van Haalen, Teresa, 53 Van Ommeren, Roger L., 759 Vest, Louise M., 576 Viera, Carroll, 369 Virjamo, Markku, 507 Vivian, John H., 758 Vogt, L., 335 Vukelich, Carol, 201 Wahlstrom, Billie J., 438 Walker, Cynthia L, 425 Walker, Nancy, 240 Wall, Susan, 133, 134 Wallace, Benjamin, 512, 736 Wallace, David L., 135, 136,434 Walling, Donovan R., 787 Ward, Dean A., 137

188 Waters, Max L., 562 Waters, Michelle Korry, 550 Wauters, Joan K., 370 Weeks, Janet O., 701 Weigl, Bruce, 309 Welch, Nancy, 138 Wells, Mary C, 371 Werner, Warren W., 372, 796 West, Leonard J., 513 Westley, Bruce H., 760 Whitaker, Diane, 21 White, Miriam B., 701 Wideman, Herber H., 416 Wiess, Adair B., 774 Willging, Ellen, 516 William, Revelle, 660 Williamson, Barbara L., 426 Willis, Meredith Sue, 474 Wilson, Allison, 139 Wilson, Sidney R., 533 Wimer, Arthur, 761 Windhover, Ruth, 788 Winford, George M., 556, 557 Witte, Stephen P., 34, 54, 75,475 Wixon, Vincent, 803 Wolcott, WillaJ., 241 Wolf, Dennis P., 55 Wolter, Daniel R.,373 Womble, Gail G., 427 Wong, Bernice Y.L, 301, 302 Wong, Roderick, 302 Wong, Shirley, 649, 650, 674, 712 Woo, John, 501 Wood, Susan, 629 Woodley,M-P.,310 Woodman, Leonora, 702 Woodruff, Earl, 46, 400, 444 Workman, Gale, 558 Wresch, William, 445 Wright, Anne, 428 Wunsch, Daniel R., 205 Wyman, Linda, 476 Yagelski, Robert P., 161 Yoder, Sharon L., 140 Young, Gene, 534 Zagummy, Matthew J., 617 Zamel, Vivian, 323 Zarro, Jo, 262

Author Index Zelmer, Judy, 301 Zeni, Jane, 374 Ziegler, Alan, 553, 677, 678, 680, 683,703 Zimmerman, Donald E., 514, 605 Zook, Lola M., 6

Subject Index The numbers in this index refer to entry numbers, not page numbers, in the bibliography. accuracy, 662, 757 and credibility, 721 and proofreading, 662 adaptation to the workplace, 76 adjunct aids, 18 adult writers, 34, 52, 55, 375, 376 advanced composition, 63, 80, 772 advising, 259 annotated paragraph, 210 apprehensive writers, 350 Aristotle, 7 assess, 9 assessing writing, 58, 142, 201 assessment form, 58 group, 229 of educational progress, 48, 201 of planning, 21 peer-group, 321 strategies, 770 audience, 7, 36, 54, 58, 59, 60, 66, 78,79,91,94,100,103,108, 115,124,128,131,133,154, 159,160,180,190,216,220, 224,225,240,246,249,251, 301,324,326,328,336,337, 344, 349, 358, 359, 360, 369, 372, 376, 432, 463,464, 473, 476, 487,495, 526, 543, 577,

586, 637, 685, 698, 763, 767, 782, 794, 796, 800 assessing of, 142, 719 classroom techniques, 691 high school newspaper, 537 audience analysis, 142, 258, 793 audience and purpose, 36 audience awareness, 100, 344, 372 Bacon, Francis, 7 basic writers, 206, 212, 227, 335, 408, 409, 476, 639 and composing, 771 and proofreading, 630, 639, 641 and revision, 221, 228, 232, 235, 241,307,349 basic writing classes, 210 course model, 704 editing strategies in, 549 teaching, 234, 326, 771 bilingual students, 53 See ESL biology laboratory reports, 39 blind adults, 224 business communication, 783 using computers, 442 writing projects, 546 business writing, 202, 204 coaching methods, 544 course design of, 356, 372

190 CDO procedure, 292 censorship, 764 characters, 264, 785 child development, 12, 14 children's problems, 23 Cloze test, 306 cognitive thought, 253 cognitive processes and Hayes-Flower theory, 21 coherence, 3, 17, 45 college composition, 26,49, 62, 63, 66, 69, 73, 79, 84, 90, 94, 103, 104, 107, 108, 116,119,125,128,148, 252, 256, 263, 280, 284, 330,379,408,515,521, 534, 630, 775 teaching, 522 comment numbering system, 196 communication barriers to, 493 theories, 745 comparison/contrast inconsistencies in, 33 essay, 327 complex acceptance and relevance problems, 32 composing, 46, 57, 80, 91, 120, 140,148,158,224,361,383, 387,472,475, 645, 755, 779, 780 and beginning writers, 107, 109, 155,186,771,802 and ESL students, 323 problem-solving model, 6 social interactive model, 6 stage model, 6 strategies, 403, 770, 780 teaching, 148, 158,207,216, 704 variations in style, 772 with computers, 400,418, 444 composing process, 46, 96, 107, 109,140,154,433,444,779, 780,781 keystroke recording and replaying, 117

Subject Index composition, 1, 6, 229, 637, 645, 690, 697, 730, 739 advanced, 63, 80, 772 computer assisted, 385, 387, 394,399,400,417 courses in, 256, 768 cumulative comment sheet, 287 evaluating, 64 expressive, 26 freshman, 393, 472, 788 models, 80, 688 research in, 35 role of discovery, 475 teaching, 149,207,218,284, 344, 365, 385, 428,472,476, 522, 538, 704 theory, 207 with computers, 382, 385, 394, 399,405,406,413,417,420, 424,430, 433, 435,444, 445, 804 comprehension, 13, 15, 16, 17, 30, 44,92,175,176,498,511,568 comprehension monitoring, 13, 15, 16, 176 computer as a simulated audience, 432 and editing, 25, 55, 165, 395, 436,497,586,667,713 and revision, 26, 46, 53, 192, 251,262,339,374,382,384, 389,390,391,398,401,402, 404,406,407,417,418,419, 421,422,423,425,434,437, 438,443,485 and writing, 168, 255, 383, 392, 393,413,414,415,417,420, 426.428, 432, 435,439, 442, 800, 804 disadvantages of, 491, 804 in teaching writing, 363, 385, 387, 392, 393, 423, 424,427, 437.429, 438, 442, 543, 800 computer applications for teaching, 441 content-focused comments, 211 cooperative principle, 94 cooperative writing workshop, 476

Subject Index copyediting, 566, 601, 645, 678, 692,719,733,738,747,754, 762 characteristics of, 751 legal issues, 753 checklists, 692 creative, 747 marks, 170,491,733,748 teaching, 550 teaching newspaper, 743 teaching tips, 555 techniques, 719, 753 copyreaders, 642, 687 copyreading, 642, 746, 747, 748, 756 accuracy in, 751 exercises, 718 in production process, 748 correcting errors, 375 correctness, 6, 57, 92, 245, 466, 586,618,704 creative process comments on, 460 creative writing, 265, 282, 678 editing, 675, 679 teaching, 265, 322 workshopping strategies, 265, 678 creative writing teachers, 265 critiquing, 225, 284 group, 363 non-confrontational, 370 peer, 39, 335, 370, 688 skills, 625 cross-curricular writing, 256 curricular administration, 40 deaf students, 295 Delphi technique, 68, 472 descriptive writing, 50 detecting problems, 72, 175 developmental writing, 379 diagnosis and revision, 235 diagnostic writing, 229 dialogue, 2, 196,219,264,274, 301,374,446,528,576 conference, 755 proofreading, 627 disciplinarity, 357

191 disinterested perspective, 130 dissonance of discovery, 52 double-correction method, 214 drafting process, 18, 88, 155, 284 model of, 489 drafts, 8, 43, 46, 51, 75, 101, 118, 126, 129, 141, 153, 155, 161, 169, 177, 179, 193,238,239, 243,259,263,271,277,281, 286, 288, 292, 293, 294, 300, 301,307,318,321,323,337, 339, 343, 354, 357, 369, 384, 419,424,487,676,785 examples of, 463 reading critically, 3, 10,40, 361, 479,487,561,798 Easterbrook hypothesis, 660 editing, 6, 30, 46,47, 51, 63, 75, 118,139,153,164,165,167, 197,198,199,212,223,238, 246,257,259,260,261,284, 300,333,341,342,344,345, 353, 356, 363, 382, 387,400, 404,410,417,425,430,435, 436, 445,452, 456, 477,492, 497,514,515,516,526,531, 533, 535, 538, 540, 547, 571, 574,575,578,581,582,592, 596,603,604,611,612,621, 637,645,667,675,677,681, 682,685,690,694,699,716, 717,719,720,728,734,738, 743,744,751,754,757,758, 760, 765, 794 and communication, 600 and credibility, 658 and inexperienced writers, 548 and literacy skills, 543 and multiple authors, 583 and re-reading, 503 and second language, 786 and the electronic newsroom, 753 approaches, 676, 738 arguments, 720 as a form of teaching, 679 as an artistic process, 492 as process of negotiation, 523

192 autobiographical writings, 515 barriers to, 493 business letters, 544, 547 careers in, 734 checklist, 641, 654 children's poetry, 677 collaborative, 699 computer, 55, 363, 414, 586, 667,713,734 computer manuals, 734 conducting workshops, 531 content, 566 course development, 556 course outline, 605 course structure, 601, 606 current views on, 548 defined, 604 effective, 261 effects on performance, 694 electronic, 733, 752, 757 exercises, 174, 258, 518, 535, 567,573,574,581,591,599, 685,706,719,734 Fishian theory, 525 for accuracy, 573, 754 for audience, 570 for comprehension, 511 for content, 754 for correctness, 6 for definitions, 573 for grammar, 754 for headings, 573 for organization, 573 for style, 573, 583, 754 for tables, 573 freelance, 738 grading standards, 525 groups, 354, 437, 546, 625, 689, 691,695 guidelines, 245, 598 headlines, 745, 747 hierarchical, 699 homophonic words, 499 in groups, 541 instruction in, 545 internships, 76, 534 learning excercises, 558 legal issues, 753

Subject Index levels, 47, 604, 734, 791 line editing, 678 manuscripts, 580, 658, 716 measuring effectiveness of, 599 mechanics of, 762 newspapers, 721, 743, 744, 746, 750, 760 online, 491 peer review, 686 personalized instruction in, 684 polish, 140 practices, 511 pre-editing, 688 premature, 43 problems, 514 process, 492, 503, 521,528, 544, 757 professional responsibilities, 738 reading protocols, 511 relational oriented, 720 research, 521 research in, 494 responding to student writing, 529 rhetorical, 571 role-playing, 576 rules in, 714 sexist language, 735 strategies, 549 statistics, 591 student, 497, 696, 764, 794 symbols, 794 task oriented, 720 teacher workshops, 530 teacher-team, 742 teaching, 520, 521, 522, 523, 524,525,536,551,553,554, 557, 569, 577, 578, 592, 598, 601,606,619,675,678,679, 715,737,741,763,791 teaching analytical, 578 teaching ESL students, 682 teaching methods, 519 technical, 30, 250, 491,494, 495,521,572,576,590,602, 791 technical editing course, 606 technical manuscripts, 655

Subject Index technical writing, 569 techniques, 153, 335, 655, 747 theories, 521,528, 747 tips, 570, 600, 786 with audience, 527 workshop approach to, 517 workshops, 686 editing groups business communication, 546 editing process performance study, 503 editorial aids, 430 duties, 245, 344, 490, 530, 553, 581,587,604,605,681,738, 744, 753, 791 games, 558, 763 groups, 728 issues, 571,703, 755, 762 reviews, 734 role, 597, 703 style, 730, 733 editors, 174,493,525 becoming, 540 high school, 537 newspaper, 497 peer, 538, 697 student, 515, 527, 540, 541, 693, 764 teachers as, 131, 286 technical, 491, 522, 564, 585, 606, 734, 792, 793, 795 text, 25, 395 EFL Writing Class, 318 eighth-graders, 40, 46, 170, 175, 291,297,299,400,416,423, 436,444,542,701 elaboration in writing, 18, 19 elementary school, 11, 13, 14, 179, 184,187,188, 191,192,195, 293, 348, 352, 414, 543, 624 eleventh-graders, 154 Eliot, George, 7 emergent writers, 174, 180, 185 English as a second language, 314, 321,664,685 entropy, 252 reduction of, 461,472

193

enumeration, 33 epistemological viewpoints, 35 endogenic/interpretive view exogenic/positivist, 35 social-interactive model, 35 error analysis, 218, 235, 287, 525,619 content, 513 copy, 731 correction, 44, 93, 128, 175,314,375,381,396, 532, 549, 562, 639, 691 detection, 44, 498, 505, 512,589,607,643,732, 748 identifying, 396, 552, 630, 691 in grammar and spelling, 29,171,206,214,293, 624, 657 mechanical, 93, 112,239, 513,622,634 proofreading, 611, 614, 648,651,652,657,661, 668, 726 response, 311 typing, 615, 674 ESL compositions, 311 learners, 24, 320 writing instruction, 315, 316,320 ESL students and computers, 501 and editing, 315 and revision, 683 teaching editing, 682, 683 teaching self-editing, 684 essays, 233, 775 and outlines, 150 as assignments, 120 by teachers and students, 74, 105, 139, 150, 158, 702 computer-assisted, 251, 385,391,394,398,412, 418,420,425,430,444

194 drafts, 238 feedback, 159,334,440, 503, 529 grading, 150,287 meaningful, 77 on revision, 472 opinion, 444 organization in, 48 peer evaluation, 352, 359, 365,519,671,690 prewriting, 139 revision of, 105, 137, 154, 158,195,206,225,293, 302, 346, 354, 359, 368, 420,425, 472, 626, 702 self-assessment of, 770 structure, 225, 313 types of, 134 ethnicity, 48 evaluation sheets, 307 executive procedures, 20 expository prose, 33 inconsistencies in, 33 expression of opinion, 98, 472 facilitative responses, 91 Faulkner, William, 7 feedback, 20, 62, 159, 259, 279, 338,361,459,503,527,544 audiotaped, 359 effects of, 373 effects on revision, 24, 115, 159, 259,469 examples of, 678 group, 330, 368, 565, 718 internal, 20 literary, 678 oral, 339, 575 peer, 22, 24, 103,212,248,318, 354, 373, 687 teacher, 22, 67, 148, 153,212, 279 types of literary, 678 written, 205, 279 fiction writers, 268 fiction writing, 67, 785 fifth-graders, 40, 53, 396 film editing, 111,715

Subject Index first draft, 1, 43, 68, 100, 173, 179, 193, 206, 225, 230, 268, 272, 292,384,426,625,714 aid to revision, 101, 292, 293, 323,464, 676 checklist, 101 focus, 7, 23, 30, 100, 101,217, 219,239,280,288,767 and middle school students, 47 groups, 32 on processes, 6, 64, 181, 794 on revision, 6, 15, 73, 107, 115,197,447,464 on skills, 13 on text, 6 problems with, 23 form, 8, 53, 100, 101,117, 180, 292, 324, 342, 368,454,463, 487,565,593,613,637,673 fourth-graders, 193, 381 free writing, 8, 43 teaching, 775 freewriting, 4, 15 French as a second language, 322 freshman composition, 393, 472, 788 functional documents, 37, 38 Gates-MacGinitie test, 13 gender, 21, 48, 502, 720 gender difference, 21, 48 general reading skill, 13 goal-setting, 294, 617 grading, 280, 283, 284, 288, 311, 513,538,725 and revising, 153, 276 essays, 150 guidelines to, 798 methods of, 29 proofreading, 513 standards, 280, 525, 567 graduate assistants, 153, 276 grammar, 90, 92, 128, 214, 218, 223,279,288,466,517,538, 573, 596, 642, 654, 698, 733, 739, 754, 756, 757, 783, 802 and mechanics, 466

Subject Index errors in, 29,45 instruction, 522 issues in, 664, 744 mastering, 557, 593, 646, 664, 666 teaching, 325, 551, 562 using correctly, 407, 721 grammatical categories, 90 Grecian model, 94 group assessment, 229, 321 comment, 167 critiquing, 363 handicapped students teaching, 300 handwriting skills, 53 Hayes-Flower theory, 21 headlines, 744, 747 editing, 745 forms of, 721 humorous, 721 writing, 555, 719, 721, 749, 752, 753, 754, 756, 757, 761 hierarchical editing comparison of, 699 HyperCard, 262 ideal text, 91 in-class writing, 65 inexperienced writers, 34 and editing, 548 and revision, 222 challenges of, 72 strategies of, 25 informational writing, 162 internal feedback system, 20 internships. 77, 534 intertextuality, 4 interviewing, 177, 745, 772 introductory paragraphs, 77 journal entries, 74 journalism, 259 accuracy in, 759 credibility in, 759 new technology, 497 professional skills, 745 teaching editing, 554, 557 using computers, 439 writing news, 140, 719, 749, 755

195 junior-high writers, 21 keyboarding skills, 53 lab reports, 39, 242 language acquisition, 786 communities, 256 learning, 279, 786 learning disabilities, 291, 296, 297, 298,301,302,414 learning disabled seniors, 290 students, 292, 293, 799 teaching writing to, 799 linear revision, 113 linguistic development, 259 linguistics, 218, 311 mechanical errors, 93, 112, 239, 513,622,634 memory and proofreading, 504 and revision, 368 and spelling, 449 and writing, 3, 30, 224, 432 metacognitive abilities, 190 middle-school students, 47, 167 Milton, John, 7 miscues, 221 model analysis of professional writing, 39 model of revision, 72, 463 motivation, 49, 91, 148 Mmulti-draft writers, 85 Murray's theory of revision, 263 narrative writing, 4, 146 redrafting of, 146 strategies for, 50 news editing, 747, 752, 753, 756, 760,761 video display terminals, 497 news stories defining, 721 reporting, 746 types of, 721 news writing defining, 721 process of, 805 revision in, 805

196 newspaper editing, 721, 743, 744, 746, 750, 760 high school, 537 in teaching, 203, 632, 743 student rights, 764 non-native writers, 310 opinion, 98 oral discourse, 20 peer response, 332 revision, 128, 227 organization, 45, 241, 258, 279, 280,305,308,325,517,573, 586, 755 issue-centered 216 news, 757, 765 of text, 30 patterns of, 794 problems with, 48, 88 sentence structure, 97 story, 756 strategies, 421 outline, 66, 137, 151,246,377, 561,637,765 paper Comments, 347 peer assessment, 228 peer conferences, 179, 329 peer critiquing, 39, 335, 688 non-confrontational, 370 peer editing, 298, 324, 334, 335, 337, 354, 404, 536, 538, 539, 575,621,625,626,695,701 and ESL students, 315, 316 and role playing, 703 benefits of, 696 checklist, 697 comparison of, 699 effect of, 693, 694 effectiveness of, 697 groups, 333, 626 group techniques, 695 procedures, 689, 693 roles, 703 sessions, 702 steps in, 692 techniques, 698

Subject Index peer evaluation, 22, 65, 260, 356, 364, 372, 627, 690, 700 and technical editing, 700 checklists, 260 77 oral collaboration, 65, 627 rating performance, 278 strategies, 690 writing sessions, 539 peer feedback, 24, 354 peer group, 342 feedback, 373 revision, 22, 367, 701 peer response, 213, 312, 328, 352, 362 email, 350 inESL,312,318 oral, 332 peer response groups, 321, 339, 361,362,370 challenges of, 361 inESL,312,321 oral, 332, 339 role playing, 700 teaching writing, 339 peer review, 161, 184, 262, 296, 318,320,336,353,626,686, 767 and criticism, 69, 337, 702 and revision, 161, 242, 338, 448, 474 peer revision, 312, 327, 366, 690 in special education, 298 partner outlining, 365 peer tutoring, 165, 336 peer workshops, 93 peer/tutor criticism, 69 peer editing, 61, 65, 75, 689, 692 checklists, 692, 696 groups, 73, 626 training, 536 persuasive composition, 27 persuasive discourses, 51 Authoritative, 51 Internal, 51 persuasive documents, 43 phonological recoding, 499, 506 planning, 438, 447,477, 577, 688

Subject Index and performance, 106 and revising, 70, 376 assessment of, 21 guide to, 254, 302 skills, 21, 163 plot, 264, 274 poetry, 266, 267, 269, 677 poetry workshops, 269 portfolios., 87 postwriting, 199, 371 PQP method, 95 pre-editing, 688 premature editing, 43 pre-teen writers, 50 prewriting, 81, 132, 199, 212, 260, 318,465,536,788 Britton model, 465 problem solving, 68, 270,472, 605, 794 process writing techniques, 161 process-oriented strategies, 161 professional writers, 46, 116, 118, 144, 145, 237, 482, 590 professional writing model analysis of, 39 promoting revision, 45 pronouns, 244, 496, 733 politically correct, 735 proofread how to, 656 proofreaders, 502, 736, 761 demise of, 727 standards of, 525, 729 proofreading, 57, 92, 95, 123, 170, 238, 244, 300, 446, 498, 500, 509,513,525,586,596,609, 610,618,622,623,627,631, 634, 637, 643, 645, 648, 743, 746, 748, 768 accuracy, 512, 617, 662 accuracy measurements, 512, 736 activities, 636 and computers, 418, 608, 672 and disabled adults, 501 and irrelevant speech, 504 and memory, 504 and misspelling, 614

197 and personality type, 502 and reinforcement, 617 and revision, 92, 95, 123, 238, 244, 324, 342, 723 and spelling, 710 and word processing, 713, 661 and word shape, 614 approaches to, 635 as a skill, 668 as a social stigma, 643 barriers, 513, 610 course, 629 detecting errors, 498, 505, 611, 614,648,651,652,657,661, 663, 668, 722, 724, 726, 732 developing skills, 509 Easterbrook hypothesis, 660 exercises, 509, 608, 611, 622, 628,634,637,661,687 familiar text, 505 for profit, 618 for spelling errors, 624, 628 formulas in detection of errors, 726 general rules, 731 grading, 513 group exercises, 664 groups, 664 guide to, 731 guidelines, 730 imaging, 736 improving skills, 510 in the classroom, 640, 671 instruction in, 545, 729 learning, 649 marks, 170,611,645,730,761 mathematical probabilities, 508 methods, 642, 645 methods of, 729 oral, 639 partners, 437 peer-review, 437, 608 performance, 498 phonological, 506, 507 principles of, 729 procedures, 607, 730 process, 671 professional, 730

198 proficiency and workload, 500, 513 research, 504, 513, 650 simplified, 731 skills, 634, 662 strategies, 641, 651, 661 symbols, 596, 612, 622 teaching, 300, 341, 509, 551, 612,619,607,613,616,620, 622, 623, 628, 629, 634, 644, 646, 647, 656, 665, 666, 668, 669 teaching methods, 630 teaching methods in, 648 techniques, 49, 57, 92, 379,498, 615,627,638,644,653,669, 712 text to voice, 670 tips, 452, 611 tools, 729 typing checklist, 673 typing exercises, 674 visual, 505, 50 prose writing, 263 psychological laboratory assignments, 243 publication team, 495, 572 publishing, 517, 567, 601, 716 strategies, 477 student writing, 201, 342 punctuation, 29, 45, 53, 82, 260, 293, 466, 557, 593, 596, 634, 642,654,656,731,733,757 and process, 782 errors in, 396 inappropriate, 496 teaching, 782 quality of thought, 89 readability, 259, 341,436, 481, 568, 750, 792 theories of, 719 formulas, 30, 485, 792 readable writing, 30 reader expectations, 4, 319, 449 reader-writer relationship, 57 reading apprehension, 119 reconceptualizing portfolio assignment, 468

Subject Index recursive shaping, 107 reflective writing, 87 reformulation, 200, 284, 310, 322 regional differences, 48 remedial writers, 209, 667 re-organization, 297 reporting, 556, 795, 805 news, 746 research reports, 70, 219 re-seeing, 4, 129, 234, 309, 767 responding to content, 311 restructuring, 124, 535 revising, 3, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, 15, 21, 25, 29, 32, 37, 44, 45, 47, 50, 51,52,54,74,75,81,84,89, 90, 94, 95, 97, 98, 99, 102, 104, 107,112,113,115,118,129, 138, 148, 150, 151, 153, 155, 158, 164, 168, 171, 179, 184, 187,190,192, 195,200,201, 202,212,216,220,224,229, 233,235,241,251,254,257, 258,260,261,263,265,269, 270,275,282,291,294,296, 297,315,321,323,324,325, 329,341,342,348,350,359, 360,361,368,375,376,445, 452,454, 456, 458, 460, 463, 468,469,470, 472, 474,475, 476,477,533,606,610,637, 670,675,679,683,717 and grading, 276, 288 and learning disabled, 293 and peer review, 338, 361 and peer tutors, 340 and planning, 70 as problem solving, 68, 472 by bilingual students, 53, 319 case studies, 59 errors, 218 fiction, 274 focus in, 23 for meaning and structure, 47, 486 functional documents, 38 grammar checker, 407 guide to, 167 legal documents, 485

Subject Index manuscripts, 100, 268,487 persuasive documents, 43 processes, 149, 150, 156, 239, 292 rough drafts, 141 semantic structure, 28 strategies, 50, 104, 119, 155, 168,171,183,264,349 teaching, 133, 140, 27, 284, 325, 390,411,632 using computers, 262, 382, 384, 387,389,390,391,392,394, 400,402,410,412,414,417, 420, 422, 423, 427, 432, 434, 435 revision, 1, 2, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, 20, 22,27,28,29,30,31,35,36, 37,40,42,44,46,47,48,51, 54, 56, 57, 58, 59, 61, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 73, 77, 78, 79, 83, 86,87,91,92,93,94,101,102, 103, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110,111,113,114,121,123, 124, 130, 134, 147, 154, 155, 156, 162, 165, 166, 169, 181, 182, 183, 185, 186, 188, 189, 193,194,201,202,206,207, 208,210,212,215,219,220, 222,224,225,228,231,232, 235, 236, 242, 248, 252, 256, 261,264,265,267,270,273, 280,281,283,284,290,297, 307,308,309,324,329,331, 332, 336, 339, 342, 343, 346, 353, 357, 369, 372, 374, 377, 381,382,383,397,407,408, 415,416,434,446,447,459, 464,467,472,476,477, 535, 538, 552, 632, 717, 755, 797, activities, 144, 325, 407,431 aesthetic revision, 263 and feedback, 24, 259,469 alternating procedure, 195 analyzing, 34 and business writing, 202 and computers, 25, 26, 53, 384, 387,388,389,414,421,425, 429,433, 436, 437,443, 667

199 and memory, 368 annotated bibliography of, 283, 460,472 antithetical models, 139 applied word processing, 424 art of, 378 as a creative process, 309 audience and, 103, 180 barriers, 220, 230 blind students and, 472 case-study approach, 42 CDO procedure, 292 challenges to, 200 checklists, 191, 238, 309, 342, 643 classroom ideas, 5, 129,273 collaborative, 26, 371,450 component processes, 175 computer prompting, 389 computer strategies, 406 computer techniques, 401 contemporary definition, 41 contractual, 69 correction, 57, 84 critical reading, 5 deaf students and, 295 definitions of, 201,458,463, 472,475 diagnosis and, 235 diagnostic tools, 306 dimensions of, 263 dissonance-resolution process, 5 draft, 626 effects of, 17,75, 157,481 essays on, 74, 472 evaluation and, 148 exercises, 241, 291, 305, 467, 474 executive control, 291,292 facilitating, 91 forms of, 659 fostering skills in, 176 functions of, 145, 450 global, 136, 137 glossing, 277 goals of, 463 group, 327, 367 guide to, 148,210,228,474

200 history, 7, 472 in collaborative teams, 479 in news writing, 805 in scientific papers, 490 in technical writing, 410, 483, 484 in textbooks, 482 instruction, 44 internal, 100, 102,132,465, 480 learning disabled and, 299, 301, 302 learning to revise, 457 levels of, 486 limitations, 41 linear revision, 113 listening, 326 logic of, 100, 101 methods, 235, 633 model for legal documents, 485 models, 72, 88,463 motivations for, 100, 102, 107 myths about, 458 non-native writers and, 310, 312,313,314,317,319,320, 683 of manuscripts, 659 oral, 128,209,227,317,332, 374 patterns, 117 peer, 22, 151, 161,327,345, 349,351,356,361,366,367, 371,691 performance, 13 poetry, 266, 267, 269 problem solving, 68, 159, 270, 472, 605, 794 procedural, 247 procedures, 50 process, 8, 15, 16,49,69,71, 92,114,116,134,143,146, 149, 176, 209, 224, 225, 238, 239,270,319,341,354,380, 451,470 process approach, 1 product approach, 1 promotion in the classroom, 45, 453 protocol-aided, 114

Subject Index redefining, 135 reduction of entropy, 461 reflection and, 87 rethinking, 173 rules for, 452 safety instructions, 32 scenario principle, 37, 38 semantic structure in, 28 special education students and, 298 speech synthesizers in, 429, 430, 433 spirit of, 172 step by step, 97, 118 strategies, 27, 50, 52, 72, 87, 104,143,154,161,221,251, 295, 298, 355, 375, 386,404, 405,419,447 structured, 226 study of, 266 synesthesia, 240 systematic approach, 152 tape-recorded commentary, 440 task-definition, 113, 136 teaching, 26,49, 66, 71, 88, 110, 118,123,139, 140,152,165, 169,190,197,213,223,234, 238,255, 292, 342, 388,422, 423,448, 472, 678 techniques, 84, 75, 152, 183, 277, 632, 801 testing effectiveness of, 485 the writer's toolbox, 453 theme, 122 theories of, 4, 7, 191, 223, 263 tools, 453 transformation, 209 tutoring, 347 types of, 449 views of, 133, 164,454 ways to revise, 449 whole-text perspective, 113 word processing and, 391, 398, 403, 406,424 word processing programs, 402, 435 workshops, 333

Subject Index revision skills, 12 children and, 14 comprehension monitoring and, 13, 15, 16, 176 learning by computer, 443 revision strategies, 27, 50, 52, 72, 87,104,143,154,161,221, 251,295,298,355,375,386, 404,405,419,447 using computers, 404, 42 revoicing, 227 rewriting, 84, 100, 102, 177, 178, 196,228,250,254,260,261, 279, 284, 323, 332, 358,437, 438,464, 465, 488, 536, 637, 747, 788 children's writing process, 178 effect of, 204, 205 exercises, 204 fiction, 272 peer evaluation and, 356 strategies for children, 177 teaching, 211, 232 user manuals, 254 with computers, 415 rhetoric, 96, 207, 289, 476, 775 design of, 492 role-playing, 82, 360, 576, 587, 703 rough draft, 307, 343, 685 Schema theory, 319 scientific papers, 242,490 sector analysis, 3 sentence uncombining, 3 telegramming, 3 self assessment, 10, 142 self-evaluation, 8, 9, 71, 141, 776 strategies, 8, 9, 281 student, 141 self-monitoring, 431, 432 sentence combining, 325, 379, 380, 551,683 exercises, 695 sentence correctness, 466 sequence text structures, 33 short stories, 264 sixth-grade students, 12, 13, 169, 200, 390, 397

201 small groups, 562 problem-solving in, 803 socialization issues, 76 Socratic method, 314 sophomore composition, 56 special education strategy in, 298 students, 298 speech roles, 89 speech synthesizers, 429 and proofreading, 430 and teaching writing, 429 spelling, 29, 54, 163, 186, 188, 245, 323, 499, 628, 629, 666, 672, 730, 757 and proofreading, 710 detecting errors, 44, 45, 171, 260,506,512,624,658,669, 707,721 errors, 293, 624, 657, 705 exercises, 558, 709 instruction, 621 learning principles of, 708 overcoming errors, 206, 619, 705 strategies, 706 teaching, 542, 557, 631, 647, 706,708,709,711 teaching techniques, 711 student evaluations, 248 student self-evaluation, 171 student-teacher conferences, 89, 301, 329, 639,58,201,283,437 ineffectiveness of, 455 style checker software, 413 style checkpoints, 202 syntax, 323, 467 teaching, 551 task definition, 72, 136, 434 TCDIDC model, 90 teacher commentary, 105, 213, 259, 279,476, 697 on student writing, 148, 462 teacher conferences, 86, 89, 329, 640 teacher evaluation, 141, 148 teacher feedback, 22, 148,279

202 teacher-initiated guidelines, 69 teachers' comments, 105, 213, 259, 279,476, 697 teacher-student conferences, 58, 89, 201,283,301,329,437,639 technical editing, 517, 524, 572, 575, 580, 586, 590, 602, 700, 739,791 and interpersonal skills, 680, 681 assignments, 700 basic rules, 734 defining, 734 exercises, 579, 582 responsibilities, 495 signal stopping technique, 514 teaching, 517, 597 theory, 581,582, 586 workshop, 680 technical editors, 491, 521, 580, 586, 600, 680, 734 interview strategies for, 585, 734 responsibilities, 586, 606 skills, 586, 680 training, 737 technical reports, 252 editing methods, 571 technical writing, 90, 202, 249, 250,255,256,391,394,413, 520, 573, 575, 577, 578, 580, 584, 587, 588, 600, 603, 605, 655, 739 assignments, 391 authors and editors, 564, 586 common errors in, 559 communication techniques, 258 courses, 588 degrees of editing, 594 document design, 303 editing, 569, 585, 586, 596, 602, 603, 606 editing assignments, 597 editing exercises, 591, 593, 579 editing instruction in, 563 editing project, 595 editing techniques, 584 evaluation of, 248

Subject Index exercises in, 247, 258, 795 instruction in, 251, 793 model, 796 paragraphing in, 568 process in, 789 readability formulas, 792 recognizing errors, 589 resources in, 790 revision in, 410, 483, 484 students, 249, 413 teaching, 253, 559, 595, 685, 795, 796 teaching editing skills, 592 techniques, 255, 478, 577 text analysis, 587 theories, 586 training, 739, 740 types of, 573 workshop, 250, 528, 565 telegramming, 578 text evaluation, 12, 16,176 text measures, 310 thesis, 65, 81, 97, 184,245,456, 608, 702 thinking processes, 106 time-fixed writing assignments, 109 tone, 7, 73, 82, 97, 273, 321, 487, 567 topical analysis, 54 topical structure, 54, 313 transformer, 30 translating, 21 tutoring, 93, 156, 165, 314, 336, 347 typing students and proofreading, 509, 510, 620, 640, 662, 665, 673, 669, 725 value judgments, 98 videotaping, 51, 256 teaching revision, 256 voice, 1,82,100, 101, 126,219, 273,464, 565 active/passive, 190 reviser's, 220, 227 rhetorical, 775 text to, 394, 430, 670 Voice, 63, 76,108

Subject Index word lists, 436, 733 word processing, 296, 382, 386, 399, 402 affect on revision, 25, 53, 215, 296,341,381,388,391,393, 396,397,398,400,401,402, 403,404,406,408,409,415, 424,425,431 attitudes toward, 46 basic college writers and, 382, 409 benefits of, 400, 412 composing essays, 400, 418 composition and, 405, 420 editing-revising process, 387, 399,414,643,799 effects of style checkers, 410 elementary students and, 396, 397,414,416,427 freshman composition, 417, 425 impact on writing, 46, 382, 396, 397, 399, 404, 427,428,443 instruction in, 251, 293, 341, 394 in writing programs, 247, 386, 404 learning disabled and, 799 learning to use a text editor, 381 Macintosh, 391 proofreading and, 661, 666, 713 revision activities, 297, 431 revision strategies, 386, 419, 422 student writing quality, 416 teaching revision, 388, 423 written composition, 400 Wylber software, 393 write-back method, 153 writer's checklist, 489 writer-based prose, 216, 220 writers adult, 34, 52, 55, 375, 376 apprehensive, 350 Berthoff, Ann, 261 children's, 20, 163, 167, 178 college, 52, 54, 59, 60, 66, 105, 109,132,134,135,136,409, 503,532,771,779,781

203 computer, 392, 804 Elbow, Peter, 261 emergent, 174 fiction, 268 Flower, Linda, 261 high school, 52, 141,671 inexperienced, 25, 34, 72, 211, 222, 224, 548, 784 journalistic, 556 junior high, 21, 168 Macrorie, Ken, 261 middle school, 47, 166, 701 multi-draft, 85 Murray, Donald, 261 one-draft, 85 poetic, 263 pre-teen, 50, 163, 175, 354, 701 professional, 46, 116, 118, 144, 145, 237, 482, 590 remedial, 209 Shaughnessy, Mina, 261 short story, 264 Sommers, Nancy, 261 technical, 559, 564, 739, 792, 793 see also basic writers; ESL writing, 29, 220 activities, 101, 102, 129, 145, 199 affective features, 146 analysis, 90, 96 and language, 721 and reflection, 781 apprehension, 119 as a process, 64 assessment, 21, 22, 40, 58, 95, 98,142,201,283,285,312, 776 assignments, 48, 86, 115, 165, 243,302,304,372,374,425, 773,790 behavior, 160 business, 202, 203,204, 205, 356, 544, 546 checklists, 733 cognitive features, 146 cognitive process, 21 college, 87, 136, 212

204 composition, 65, 74 computer, 55, 168 cross-curricular, 256, 259 curricular administration, 40 deficiences, 22, 291, 292, 297 descriptive, 50 developing ideas, 777, 779 development, 280 drafts, 3, 8, 100, 179,263 elaboration in, 18, 19 emergent, 174, 180, 185 essays, 70, 233 evaluating, 24, 65, 71, 105, 278, 281,282,284,369 examination, 149, 150 examples of, 56, 74 exercises, 80,210, 305, 543 expression, 211 fiction, 67, 785 for audience, 103, 142, 145, 216,249,328,570,767 for publication, 716 groups, 18, 312, 318, 330, 332, 337, 362,448 habits, 784 headlines, 555, 719, 721, 747, 749, 752, 753, 754, 756, 757, 761 in-class, 65 informational, 162 instruction, 149, 261, 302, 317, 320, 339 internships, 76 lab reports, 39, 242 lack of motivation for, 532 manuscripts, 716 memory and, 3, 30, 224,432 motivations for, 404 narrative, 4, 50, 146 news, 745, 749, 758, 805 news stories, 755 nonfiction, 785 planning strategies, 477 poetry, 266 portfolio, 133 problems, 59, 110, 122, 127, 185,633

Subject Index process approach, 161, 179, 323, 423, 782 professional, 39 proficiency in, 31 prose, 263 quality circles in, 728 readable, 30 reflective, 87 semantic structures in, 28 sessions, 163 student conferences, 1, 9, 246, 766 style, 466 stylistic features, 146 talk-write method, 803 teaching, 20, 61, 62, 64, 73, 77, 82,85,86,91,93,100,101, 108,110,113,115,120,126, 131,137,138,140,144,145, 147, 153, 161, 162, 163, 167, 169,180,189,257,261,271, 273,277,278,289,304,310, 313,317,322,329,339,345, 353, 379, 428, 429, 440,464, 473, 525, 526, 530, 553, 626, 637,694,706,717,741,775, 777,781,787,798,800,802 teaching mechanics of, 778 teaching model, 787 techniques, 161 thesis, 81 timed, 109 tips for improving, 74, 163, 49 workshop, 78, 79, 91, 93, 133, 265, 344, 374, 425, 448, 453, 476, 565, 678 tutors, 219 see also basic writing; computers; creative writing; ESL; feedback; freewriting; technical writing, writing revision writing process, 20, 42, 83, 88, 90, 97,101,107,115,143,155, 156, 161, 164, 166, 184, 186, 188,190,199,207,233,236, 266,284,311,323,342,344, 348,358,366,376,404,411,

Subject Index 434,451,465,489,536,548, 553,681,682,706,767,780, 785 children's, 178 developing skills in, 157 patterns in, 772 research on, 769 teaching, 358,411,800 writing programs university creation of, 566 writing revision, see revision writing revision techniques, 7, 130 writing skills developing, 774 written communication, 227 63, 206 zero-drafting,, 88

205


About the Authors BRUCE W. SPECK is Associate Professor of English at the University of Memphis. DEAN A. HINNEN has directed university writing centers at Southwest Missouri State University and the University of North Carolina at Pembroke, taught composition at Southwest Missouri State University, Texas Christian University Sacred Heart University, and the University of North Carolina at Pembroke. KATHLEEN HINNEN has taught journalism at Southwest Missouri State University and the University of North Carolina at Pembroke.

Teaching Revising and Editing: An Annotated Bibliography (Bibliographies and Indexes in Mass Media and Communications)

Mass Communications and Media Studies: An Introduction

Abortion from the Religious and Moral Perspective:: An Annotated Bibliography (Bibliographies and Indexes in Religious Studies)

Survey Research Methodology, 1990-1999: An Annotated Bibliography (Bibliographies and Indexes in Law and Political Science)

Race and Crime: An Annotated Bibliography (Bibliographies and Indexes in Ethnic Studies)

Kurdish Culture and Society: An Annotated Bibliography (Bibliographies and Indexes in Ethnic Studies)

The Kurds and Kurdistan: A Selective and Annotated Bibliography (Bibliographies and Indexes in World History)

The Polish-German Borderlands: An Annotated Bibliography (Bibliographies and Indexes in World History)

Consulting Spirits: A Bibliography (Bibliographies and Indexes in Religious Studies)

Men and Aging: A Selected, Annotated Bibliography (Bibliographies and Indexes in Gerontology)

Stage Combat Resource Materials: A Selected and Annotated Bibliography (Bibliographies and Indexes in the Performing Arts)

Recruitment and Retention of Race Group Students in American Higher Education: An Annotated Bibliography (Bibliographies and Indexes in Psychology)

Black Populism in the United States: An Annotated Bibliography (Bibliographies and Indexes in Afro-American and African Studies)

Civilian Conservation Corps: A Selectively Annotated Bibliography (Bibliographies and Indexes in American History)

Native American Political Systems and the Evolution of Democracy: An Annotated Bibliography (Bibliographies and Indexes in American History)

Books on Early American History and Culture, 1981-1985: An Annotated Bibliography (Bibliographies and Indexes in American History)

The Holocaust and Its Religious Impact: A Critical Assessment and Annotated Bibliography (Bibliographies and Indexes in Religious Studies)

Church and State in Historical Perspective: A Critical Assessment and Annotated Bibliography (Bibliographies & Indexes in Religious Studies)

Heat and Mass Transfer in Porous Media

Comic Art of the United States through 2000, Animation and Cartoons: An International Bibliography (Bibliographies and Indexes in Popular Culture)

Dictionary of Media and Communications

Convergence in Broadcast and Communications Media

Pragmatics: An Annotated Bibliography (Library and Information Sources in Linguistics)

The New Woman in Print and Pictures: An Annotated Bibliography

Media Lost and Found (Communications and Media Studies)

Leopoldo Alas (Clarin): An Annotated Bibliography: Supplement I (Research Bibliographies and Checklists: new series)

Mass Media

Media and Culture: An Introduction to Mass Communication

The Boer War: Historiography and Annotated Bibliography (Bibliographies of Battles and Leaders)

The China-Burma-India Campaign, 1931-1945: Historiography and Annotated Bibliography (Bibliographies of Battles and Leaders)

Teaching Revising and Editing: An Annotated Bibliography (Bibliographies and Indexes in Mass Media and Communications)

Mass Communications and Media Studies: An Introduction

Abortion from the Religious and Moral Perspective:: An Annotated Bibliography (Bibliographies and Indexes in Religious Studies)

Survey Research Methodology, 1990-1999: An Annotated Bibliography (Bibliographies and Indexes in Law and Political Science)

Race and Crime: An Annotated Bibliography (Bibliographies and Indexes in Ethnic Studies)

Kurdish Culture and Society: An Annotated Bibliography (Bibliographies and Indexes in Ethnic Studies)

The Kurds and Kurdistan: A Selective and Annotated Bibliography (Bibliographies and Indexes in World History)

The Polish-German Borderlands: An Annotated Bibliography (Bibliographies and Indexes in World History)

Consulting Spirits: A Bibliography (Bibliographies and Indexes in Religious Studies)

Men and Aging: A Selected, Annotated Bibliography (Bibliographies and Indexes in Gerontology)

Stage Combat Resource Materials: A Selected and Annotated Bibliography (Bibliographies and Indexes in the Performing Arts)

Recruitment and Retention of Race Group Students in American Higher Education: An Annotated Bibliography (Bibliographies and Indexes in Psychology)

Black Populism in the United States: An Annotated Bibliography (Bibliographies and Indexes in Afro-American and African Studies)

Civilian Conservation Corps: A Selectively Annotated Bibliography (Bibliographies and Indexes in American History)

Native American Political Systems and the Evolution of Democracy: An Annotated Bibliography (Bibliographies and Indexes in American History)

Books on Early American History and Culture, 1981-1985: An Annotated Bibliography (Bibliographies and Indexes in American History)

The Holocaust and Its Religious Impact: A Critical Assessment and Annotated Bibliography (Bibliographies and Indexes in Religious Studies)

Church and State in Historical Perspective: A Critical Assessment and Annotated Bibliography (Bibliographies & Indexes in Religious Studies)

Heat and Mass Transfer in Porous Media

Comic Art of the United States through 2000, Animation and Cartoons: An International Bibliography (Bibliographies and Indexes in Popular Culture)

Dictionary of Media and Communications

Convergence in Broadcast and Communications Media

Pragmatics: An Annotated Bibliography (Library and Information Sources in Linguistics)

The New Woman in Print and Pictures: An Annotated Bibliography

Media Lost and Found (Communications and Media Studies)

Leopoldo Alas (Clarin): An Annotated Bibliography: Supplement I (Research Bibliographies and Checklists: new series)

Mass Media

Media and Culture: An Introduction to Mass Communication

The Boer War: Historiography and Annotated Bibliography (Bibliographies of Battles and Leaders)

The China-Burma-India Campaign, 1931-1945: Historiography and Annotated Bibliography (Bibliographies of Battles and Leaders)

Recommend Documents