w-m-aawen; 3th?) g2“: ‘3 . fink. 1:92 31:02.; is ~47... :‘ ..~.'.’ m‘: ..., . .1 g.“- '4» rum 1:». 1:! $114. ..- .,. 1: .. ,.... ..;..,...':' Wm"... ...,..- ”..., .1 v . J. ..‘. “"321",, . 4».. I;~.p‘y.~ ' “Jur- ”.1". ...1. ,,....,.'. ,.u... . an n Jun m... .~»1~¢'~“V": “- v 15"...“ , ,..... . T... . .. .. J .. . “1..."? ‘a.,.. 3. «249* _ {2 *1 w- ...... w" k , ...-gm 4.5.3194... ,J .....LJLMV. 4.1:: 7:... . .. ..-... "m...” ,4“: .~ .3: .;.::;L‘.':‘22:‘:3.. ... «... -.. ~- ”Mm-"n A.» ...... ”w” A. II‘ .. ~. .....: ...:.;:"r :_'.".".:.. V "(1.- - r "J ‘7 . . . .l .I u a 1A ~ ....-...... .3133 ....-...«A"... ,-.,...:.'.'. ....-.- r. ..,.:..,,.,_:...:... n a - ....V 0 .... —"--4.,-. ...... .. ~.,.....,.-,,.. .... .... -.....,....-,..-'a':. .-.... -..”... .V .V . .. .. ,, w m .-..-;.;;:..~ ...... ...-.V‘f. ..--#17:“-..w. .-.- .-. .-.. .. . ,. .... .. 7;. .. . .a , .. r' 57.; . “....-. ..- ..-... :.1.:._.:....:"Z_..:..=..;...» . -... .. ~"1'..;:V'...-.....~:::. .... ‘3 :22: ...-.-’£"""'”"“"' W .... ... Mm- In?" .._.. ...:..';;:.'1':‘:.;..1_. "1......“ :1. - ‘3... 3'2. .... . ...... . 3. .. ”...“...m-..“ - WV...” .-W%-MW .... ......g... 1 111111?“ .. .,.........:.. M........-............ ”......m... **W~..t~“.. .. V ...“...4. .... a EEO-v ‘ “:odaid::—It?~ WW :v A011- m"... ...... -..... .... .. ...-......" “"1 awn—31¢... ....mrwm mm~m..~_..c.m :au :0. . o....:.u:~ no . — .m-uw ...»- ...-Anna m::~u~w.--:w ~uw~- .... Wfll—"o‘uw v. .. ' 2...,” «p.23: ...L... a . ‘- “flu“..cfim—fifim ...». ”9.22:3 "V?“‘w " m.§%£m’7§1’w .... .‘ . .. .. w. 1-~-1-.~--u._a.~.-H.V. ;1\-.~!’Vb.V - ...--w ,,.. V4 .Jn.v-nvrua ....“ . um. .— ”r O1 4., L...:..:' . r- _fé-.ZZ~‘ ‘31-»); lllllllllllllllllIllIHHIIHIIHIHIUHIllllllllllllllllllll 31293 00781 5800 LIBRARY iMlchlgan State University This is to certify that the dissertation entitled A Study of Teacher and Peer Garments In the Revision Process of College Writers presented by Carol Francine Bender has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for ___2hD__ degree in English_ ~ Major professor Date —October_23,_19.89 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0- 12771 25/22& 870 PLACE W RETURN BOX to remove thte checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE MSU Is An Affirmative ActionlEquel Opportuniiy Institution emanate-e1 A STUDY OF TEACHER AND PEER COMMENTS IN THE REVISION PROCESS OF COLLEGE WRITERS By Carol Francine Bender A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of English 1989 Q, a) (7 I :5 {J'X ABSTRACT A STUDY OF TEACHER AND PEER COMMENTS IN THE REVISION PROCESS OF COLLEGE WRITERS By Carol Francine Bender This study investigated theoretical and pedagogical implications of teacher and peer comments in revision processes of college writers. The following questions were explored: What role do written teacher comments play; to what extent are peer comments helpful in the absence of or in addition to teacher comments; to what degree do writers rely on self- generated ideas for revision? A review of recent composition research in England and America was presented, focusing on strategies for, types of, responses to, and problems with teacher and peer comments. The review was followed by investigation of two classes: an Advanced Expository class in which written teacher comments were not made, and a Freshman Composition class in which written teacher comments were made. The investigator acted as participant/observer, recording observations, collecting information ampss fling El ‘ U ’51:: 'll 0 AbA‘l H 1 3159.3 '1 n ' .‘C L: 3‘”! A qt 0; through questionnaires, and analyzing first and final drafts of six case study writers. The investigator found that students' development can be accomplished in ways other than written teacher comment. Through editing guides, peers provided feedback which stimulated and motivated revision; challenged students to clarify and organize; encouraged respect for writing; provided support for the writer. Confident, advanced student writers incorporate explicit peer cues about revision if cues are compatible with their own assumptions about the direction and needs of the writing. Advanced and novice writers who lack confidence need teacher support for writing in addition to peer‘ support and suggestion. Peer comments supplement and occasionally supplant teacher comments when that is in line with the teacher's goal and when class is structured accordingly. The investigator concluded, however, that written teacher comment has benefits as well. It encourages students to re-see content, organization and style; it enhances understanding of the connection between readers and revision; it assists in assimilation of the idea that revision is discovery. Because both approaches have benefits, students who engage in a three-way written dialogue--writer, peer editor, teacher--will stand to profit most. How responsibility for revision should be shared in the writing community is one of the implications for further research discussed. ”any; 4,“! 1.5)" ‘4‘“ at ‘-‘ {5101. i ”ii? ‘ Copyright by CAROL FRANCINE BENDER 1989 To Kristin ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to thank Dr. Stephen Tchudi, my doctoral adviser, for his insight and encouragement; committee members, Dr. Marilyn Wilson and Dr. Kathleen Geissler, for their supportive, informed response to drafts; committee member, Dr. Linda Wagner-Martin, for her kind assistance; my writing students for their efforts and interest; my friends and colleagues at Central Michigan University, Saginaw Valley State University and Alma College for their faith and support; and the members of my family for their confidence and comfort throughout the writing of this dissertation. iii ISTOFT 3730M Clam TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES INTRODUCTION Chapter I. A REVIEW OF RESEARCH IN ENGLAND AND THE US: II. THE ROLE OF TEACHER AND PEER COMNIENTS IN THE REVISION PROCESS OF COLLEGE WRITERS Types of Teacher Comments Responses to Teacher Comments Revision Without Teacher Comment Peer Comment and the Writing Process Conclusions and Implications for This Study CASE STUDY RESEARCH AND METHODOLOGY Research Participants Classroom Context Advanced Expository Writing Class Freshman Composition Class Research Procedures iv Page viii $388888? 8'2 8855‘” A Ca Ca III. PEER COMMENT AND THE REVISION PROCESS IN THREE ADVANCED EXPOSITORY CASE STUDIES Advanced College Writers Define Revision Changes Advanced College Writers Make As They Revise Advanced College Writers' Estimates of Revision Times Advanced College Writers' Evaluations of Peer Comment Case Study # 1: Alma Process Analysis Essay: "Rail Car Crunch" Informative/Persuasive Essay: "Smoking on Domestic Flights" Editorial: "My Turn to Bark: An Open Letter to Residents of Waskevitch Subdivision" Magazine Article: "Soft Aerobics: Gain Without Pain" Investigative Report: "R. Foster Winans: Unethical or Illegal?" Proposal: "1989 Mid Budget: Recharge Spread to User Groups" Case Study: "Diane Carter" Conclusions Case Study # 2: Dawn Process Analysis Essay: "Changing a Tire" Informative/Persuasive Essay: "Persuasion with Desserts" Editorial: "Drunk Driving" Magazine Article: "A Tragic Accident" Investigative Report: "Concentration" Proposal: "Proposed Test Procedure: Elias Brothers" Case Study: "Case Study" Conclusions Case Study # 3: Mark Process Analysis Essay: "Weight Lifting" Informative/Persuasive Essay: "Mercy Killing" Editorial: "Seatbelts" Magazine Article: "Does Education Count?" Investigative Report: "Names: How They Can Affect Your Life" Proposal: "Better Bottle Production" Case Study: "Alcohol: A Behavior Changer" Conclusions Implications of the Advanced Expository Study als‘a‘ala! d§3388888$$8§ 8383838E3 E3 238 8 $6868; E$$ & V. Ca Ca IV. WRITTEN TEACHER AND PEER COMMENT AND THE REVISION PROCESS IN THREE FRESHMAN COMPOSITION CASE STUDIES 78 Freshmen Define Revision 79 Changes Freshmen Writers Make As They Revise 83 Freshmen Estimates of Revision Times % Freshmen Evaluations of Peer and Teacher Comment 89 Conclusions 93 Case Study # 4: Kara 94 Personal Narrative: "To My Fear" 95 Descriptive Essay: "The Beach" 97 Assertion with Proof Essay: "Is Organization What You Need?" % Critical Analysis Essay: "A Critical Decision" 99 Conclusions 100 Case Study # 5: Cami 101 Personal Narrative: "The Square Dance" 101 Descriptive Essay: "The Enchanted Gardens" 101 Assertion with Proof Essay: "Cheerleading Restrictions" 103 Critical Analysis Essay: "Untitled" 105 Conclusions 106 Case Study # 6: Mary 107 Personal Narrative: "Is the Lady of the House There?" 107 Descriptive Essay: "Hacienda to Migrant" 109 Assertion with Proof Essay: "My Reward of Helping Children" 110 Critical Analysis Essay: "The Teaching of Reading" 111 Conclusions 112 Implications of the Freshman Composition Study 114 V. EFFECTS OF TEACHER AND PEER COMMENT ON THE REVISION PROCESS IN SIX CASE STUDY WRITERS 116 Teacher and Peer Comment and the Stimulation of Ideas 117 Teacher and Peer Comment and Building Confidence of Student Writers 133 Teacher and Peer Comment and Fostering Intellectual Exchange 142 Teacher and Peer Comment and the Process of Giving and Receiving Criticism 147 Teacher and Peer Comment and Developing a Critical Sense 152 Teacher and Peer Comment and Giving Student Writing Added Dignity 157 vi VI. PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS OF WRITTEN COMMENTS BY TEACHERS AND PEERS Reflections on the Classroom Procedures in Advanced Expository Writing Optional Oral Conferences Writer Responsibility and Confidence Summary of Peer Group Benefits and Limitations in Advanced Expository Editing Guides and the Peer Review Process Teacher Response to Peer Editing Guides Advanced Expository Writers Evaluate Peer Groups Teacher Evaluation of Peer Comment Reflections on the Classroom Procedures in Freshman Composition Summary of Benefits and Limitations of Written Teacher Comment in Freshman Composition Student Response to Written Marginal Comments Written Teacher Response and Writer Responsibility Written Teacher Comment and Writer Confidence Limitations of Written Teacher Comment Freshman Composition Writers Evaluate Written Teacher Comments Teacher Evaluation of Written Teacher Comments Summary of Conclusions Implications for Future Research APPENDIX A: EXPOSITORY WRITING ASSIGNMENTS AND EDITING GUIDES APPENDIX B: FRESHMAN COMPOSITION ASSIGNMENTS AND EDITING GUIDES APPENDIX C: WRITING QUESTIONNAIRES LIST OF REFERENCES GENERAL REFERENCES vii 91‘ »> lane F...‘ . "0 pm Table LIST OF TABLES Advanced Expository Student Estimates of Writing Time (Age 24 Years and Younger) Advanced Expository Student Estimates of Writing Time (Age 25 Years and Older) Freshman Composition Class Student Estimates of Writing Time Case Study Test Scores on the Daly-Miller Test of Writing Apprehension viii Page 135 I ' F F'apO 5.. Jr-AI.“ U; 3:531 ( .CEHQ’: -..,_ " PL Wk... 1;, lit-es A ‘ 1‘- ‘i'unl‘ ~. 1‘5: fhn‘ I h‘k 4. ‘N :_ i he ‘15},‘1‘ o ‘o- , kg“: .~' {,2 ‘WI‘IN INTRODUCTION This is a study about writing, mainly revision, from an individual point of view. It comes out of an interest in student drafting procedures, a subject of some discussion over the past few years, particularly in North America and Great Britain. More specifically it comes out of a question I posed about the written comments that typically appear on returned scripts: Do the supportive, facilitating marginal comments by an instructor actually teach college writers to revise? Janet Emig in W says it is "magical thinking" to assume that what teachers teach is what students learn. So, after six years of "teaching" college composition by using a combination of student examples, written teacher and peer comment, and revision, I began to question the role of written teacher comment in the revision process. For each student's draft I spent an average of twenty minutes, first reading, then writing what I hoped were caring, constructive comments and questions for revision. Eventually students all seemed to expect a liberal dose of the corrective pen. In general, I was pleased with the results my method produced, but because I always made written comments, I had no accurate basis for comparison. I did recognize, however, that there were major diffe tame DIE “all cements 2 major differences in the degree of skill with which students handled the comments. What would happen, I wondered, if I did not make marginal comments? I had several doubts: Would college writers organize and revise; would they, in fact, even consider audience and purpose without written support and suggestion from me; would these writers rely more on peer editors in the absence of written teacher comment? Perhaps they would ignore peer comment altogether, or fail to revise at all. Would their confidence as writers be enhanced or diminished without written teacher comments? In short, what role do written teacher comments play in the revision process of student writers; to what extent are peer editors' comments helpful in the absence of or in addition to teacher comments; and to what degree do student writers rely on self-generated ideas for revision? To answer these and other questions, I undertook this writing study. Since the 1966 Dartmouth Seminar in the US. and the 1967 founding of the Writing Research Unit at the University of London, composition researchers here and in Britain have worked concurrently to better understand the written products and the composing processes of student writers. It is clear from the evidence that teachers and researchers hold writing in high esteem--an attitude widely held by society in general. Yet, it is also apparent that in spite of these two significant historical events, writing in which the first draft is also regarded as the finished product is the norm in many British classrooms as well as in many classrooms in North America. Why? Is revision an underrated and underused element of be writing 4 :4 .. ‘ mica. \. M “”3 I wk '- H 'I 5 1 3 the writing process? To answer this question I will look at the issues and individuals involved. Chapter I of this study will contain a review of recent research in England and America, focusing on strategies for, types of, responses to, and problems with teacher comment in the revision process. It will address revision without teacher comment, as well as peer comment and the revision process. In Chapter II, I will examine how case study research generally works in a composition classroom and explain my methodology as a researcher (both participant and observer) in the settings I investigated. In Chapter III, I will describe a study: an advanced college composition class in which written teacher comments were not made. This chapter will also include a close investigation of three case studies from the class. Chapter IV will be an examination of a freshman composition class in which written teacher comments were made, along with a look at three case studies. In Chapter V, I will examine how teacher and peer comment affect all case studies in six areas: stimulating ideas; building confidence of student writers; fostering intellectual exchange; enhancing ability to give and receive criticism; developing a critical sense; and giving the business of student writing added dignity. Chapter VI will examine the implications of my study of written comments by teacher and peers for English teachers as well as for teachers in other disciplines. CHAPTER I A REVIEW OF RESEARCH IN ENGLAND AND THE U.S.: THE ROLE OF TEACHER AND PEER COMMENTS IN THE REVISION PROCESS OF COLLEGE WRITERS In "The Composing Processes and the Functions of Writing" (1978), James Britton called for more investigation into writers' drafting procedures. What goes on, he asked, between the first draft and a fully revised and edited piece of writing? Researchers here and abroad rose to Britton's challenge as they examined teacher and peer comment as well as self-directed revision strategies of student writers. What did they find? Although recent research in England and the United States indicates that written comments on the final nmdm of student writers produce little if any change in subsequent products, comments on drafts in progress receive more support. George Hillocks (1982) found that focused comments, coupled with the assignment and revision, produced a significant quality gain in student writing. In "Helping Pupils to Write Better or the Formative Assessment of Writing" W W 1982), Gordon Liddell refers to teacher comment as "formative assessment." It is about "what we say to the pupil, 4 5 how we approach his script, and what we encourage him to do with it next. It is also about what we are hoping to achieve in the longer term: how we can give the pupil confidence that, even when he has left the school, he still knows how to go about improving his own writing when he needs to" (4). Liddell suggests that the teacher's response to student writing should "occur as close as possible in time to the writing; bear in mind the pupil's previous level of performance; take account of the original purposes of the writing; be selective; identify only what the pupil is felt capable of improving; point the pupil towards means of improvement" (7). Liddell believes that only the student can take responsibility for changes or revisions in his or her writing. In his approach there are no teacher corrections on the pupil's script. Instead, the teacher assumes a mentoring position. Studies of twelfth grade and college writers in the US. near the same time (Ziv, 1981; King, 1979; Maranzo and Arthurs, 1977; and Kelley, 1973) looked at diverse modes of teacher comment and compared their effects. King found that student writers often do not comprehend teacher comments on their writing, and even when they do, they may not know how to implement them. Further, and perhaps more disturbing to King, when students do use the comments, they do not necessarily write more effectively as a result. Maranzo and Arthurs agree that different kinds of teacher comments on themes have small influences on student writing. However, such conclusions may be based on their study of teacher comments on the final product, rather than on drafts in progress. Ziv, in a study of college itshmen, 2:171le and direct merely ev 6 freshmen, found that intervention can affect writing improvement in multiple-draft assignments. Here, Ziv says, teacher comments stimulate and direct revision, providing the comments are facilitative rather than merely evaluative. Wants Numerous studies in the US and in England have catalogued types of teacher comments and have reported the diverse responses by students to such comments. In a research project based at Westminster College (Oxford, England 1985), Nicola Coupe looked at the responses of five teachers from one school on the narrative writing of first year secondary students. The teacher comments, Coupe found, "are the kind of comments with which all teachers, and generations of learner-writers, will be familiar" (123). In order of frequency of occurrence, the following headings emerged: General Evaluation; Content; Punctuation/Sentence; Spelling; Personal Response; Instruction for Child Action/Reflection; Paragraph/New Line; Grammar; Presentation; Length; Unspecified Error. Almost 25 percent of all comments were of a General Evaluation nature, which includes remarks such as "good"; "well-written"; "an excellent piece of work"; "merit"; "this isn't your best work"; or "you could do better". Coupe points out that most teacher comment can be interpreted by the student writer as meaning "I have read this piece of work, and I am pleased or disappointed in it." E as” r9 static} ' £2256 \. MINI . PMS V . v ...I 43...“. ”*K .0 W 7 Remarks in the Content category tended to be very general as well: "detail"; "description"; "ideas". Those comments in the Punctuation/Sentence and Spelling categories contained the usual notations: "Your sentences are far too long"; "Write in sentences"; "Your spelling is very weak"; "A lot of careless spelling mistakes in this". Personal Response comments included remarks that indicate the teacher has enjoyed reading the student's work: "I enjoyed reading this"; "I like the idea"; or "A tragic story-J feel quite depressed". Comments in the Instruction for Child Action or Reflection category, Coupe found, usually pointed out a mistake, but rarely offered help to solve the problem: for example, "Count the number of times you use may on this page". Remarks in the Grammar category usually lacked precision: "There's something wrong here, but I can't quite put my finger on it". Presentation comments often were about neatness: "Try and keep your work tidy". Those comments in the Length category seemed vague: "I would like to have read more"; or "A very long account of an eventful weeken ". Many teacher comments did not specify the error. "A lot of careless errors" is typical of the remarks in this category. Coupe is critical of much teacher comment, suggesting that "You'd never have guessed what I was looking for" would be an appropriate heading for a very large sub-category of the comments relating to content. It is, therefore, no surprise to Coupe that teachers find students ignoring or misinterpreting the comments written on their papers. 8 Yet student writers may ignore teacher comments for other reasons. British educator John Harris, author of W W (1986), found that if a child is still at the stage of being a reactive writer, of just getting something down on paper and lacking the ability to cast back as well as to project forward in a text, then he or she is going to find it very difficult to make revisions (178). In a comment which reflects Emig's notion about teaching/learning, Harris concludes that ". . . it is likely that the most powerful and effective means of teaching writing are those that are, to a greater or lesser extent, incidental" (191). In "Teacher Commentary on Student Writing: The State of the Art" W 1981), CH. Knoblauch and Lil Brannon do not use the term "incidental" but refer instead to the "attitudes, postures, and motives" that teachers communicate both through and apart from their comments and reactions to particular texts. Although their conclusions do not emerge from a research study, Knoblauch and Brannon suggest that commenting on drafts will not by itself assure good revision. They believe that additional support must be offered by the teacher, and they look to an early study by Earl Buxton (1958) which describes a full teacher-student dialogue. Buxton's model emphasizes these features: 1) an emphasis on writers' performance rather than exclusively on their finished products; 2) a facilitative rather than judgmental view of our commenting practices; 3) a preference for multiple-draft assignments so that teachers can intervene directly in their students' composing and so that students can respond directly through revision; 4) a concern for actively educating students about what rewriting involves and how it is different from editing, what it can accomplish, and how it can be done; 5) a concern for desert: h . £13? I b l kale I hu- ? PP q. 1 Vi; a.“ .0- a .5 .c. .. ..i .... s... 9 supporting revision by insuring that students understand what comments mean, by discussing possible changes and additions before rewriting begins, and by reviewing completed revisions to see what they have achieved. (cited in Knoblauch and Brannon, "Teacher Commentary" 290-91) According to Buxton's model, responding to student writing should be subject to the same principles that guide our communication in other circumstances. Dialogue, say Knoblauch and Brannon, should be a democratic act. Yet often, as Coupe suggests in her study, the writing process becomes an elaborate guessing game in which the student tries to figure out what the teacher wants (126). A further problem with teacher comments is pointed out by Scardemalia and Bereiter's 1983 study of revision which asks, "Does the complexity of the composing process make it impossible to bear all criteria in mind during initial composing?" For many teachers operating within a typical ten-week term or fifteen-week semester, it remains difficult to address the various elements of the revision process because of obvious time constraints. Telescoping of revision strategies often causes mixed messages in the teacher's comments: "Fix the grammar, but change the whole essay." Such comments may be disheartening to student writers. T.P. Hogan (1980) found that student interest in writing begins to fall off rapidly in upper elementary grades. This may be the time when detailed criticism of writing (teacher comment) appears. Strategies such as those suggested by Buxton, which approximate a dialogue with the student, may be important in maintaining student interest in writing. Mung} $me t. teac}. la: 10 In "Responses to Written Work: The Possibilities of Utilizing Pupils' Perceptions" (1978), Barrie Wade of the University of Birmingham, England explains how teachers can open up such a dialogue: When the teacher merely marks he reinforces his own frame of reference and his own expectations about the task; when he assesses and comments he is likely through advising, modifying, suggesting, etc., to come closer to the student's position. In order to help pupils to clarify their thinking, to refine their judgements, to cope with learning problems generally, the teacher needs as much information as possible about their frame of reference. (153) Although Wade lacks evidence for this approach, he believes that opportunities should be given for students to write messages (comments) about their own writing. Wade maintains that apart from providing useful feedback to the teacher, this kind of dialogue through written messages can be a source of learning in itself (157). Generally students benefit from and appreciate the language link written dialogues can provide. But written dialogues between students and teacher are not without problems. In a study done at Hull, Robert Protherough WM, London 1983) found that what pupils said they liked and found helpful were the teacher's comments and any sense of individual contact and guidance. Yet Protherough also acknowledges that teacher comments often impede an open dialogue: We may destroy their confidence by ill-judged criticism. Worst of all, we may mock the experimentation by which they are reaching towards another voice. The cliches they use, the apparent sentimentality or sensationalism, are often their first shy attempts to try something new by borrowing attitudes in which they feel safer. (156-157) leather co; punishmen my and 11 Teacher comments about revision often carry overtones of failure or even punishment. A further disadvantage of setting up the teacher as sole arbiter and editor of student writing is that it discourages students from looking critically at their own writing and as Wade says "rehandling it" (186). Does this rather inconclusive evidence mean teachers should refrain from all comment? Moffett and Graves say no. Drawing on the research of others, James Moffett W W 1968) suggests, however, that teacher comments be real and pertinent to the action, not standard "professional" reactions. Moffett further sees the teacher's role as "dispelling the negativism of comments and creating a climate of informed collaboration in which feedback is welcomed" (196). While encouraging students' comment and feedback, Moffett believes the amount of teacher comment should be kept small: "A teacher should react as an audience, supplementing the peer audience" (198). Although failing to provide evidence to support his argument, Mofl‘ett maintains that comment needs to come during the writing instead of only afterwards. As writers manipulate symbols in this process, they act or fail to act on the minds of others. Thus, he believes, learning to write follows the same general process as learning a language, with human response the only kind of feedback available. Donald Graves agrees that students do need help with their writing, but believes that help should be given in such a way that their dignity and independence are maintained (AW 1984). After more than a decade of writing research, which includes a 12 dissertation, a Ford Foundation study and a three-year study funded by the National Institute of Education, Graves talks about the teacher's role: A large proportion of teaching writing in process does follow the child. Following means keeping in touch with the writer's intentions and helping writers to see how they are living up to what they intended to do in the first place. Following means listening to writers talk about what they know, then asking questions that reveal more about information and process to both writer and teacher. (191) When teachers and students engage in written or oral dialogues, writers are able to discover the strengths and weaknesses of their writing and are able to discover ways of making it stronger. Graves maintains, "The important fact in the writing studio is that neither teacher nor child is afraid of the other. Still, there is no mistaking the situation: the teacher is the person in charge, the professional responsible for the direction and the success of the classroom" (191). W What happens when teachers make comments? Several studies have been done on types of comments and their results. In a study involving teacher comment on the final written product, Gee (1972) tested the effects of praise, negative criticism, and no comment: one—third of the students received praise, one-third received criticism, and one-third received no comment. Gee found that all students wrote fewer T-units at the end of the study, but the praised group lost less (16-14), criticized group 18- 13, and no feedback group 18- 13. Praised students, however, had significantly more F3 e I»? .‘7 . 73 be; e, ‘1 13 positive attitudes about their writing. Gee concludes that the negative attitudes may be a result of the teacher's lack of comment or negative comment and that such feedback results in less enthusiasm for writing and, therefore, in less writing. Gee's research appears to put an inappropriate emphasis on T-units as a measure of good writing. However, his findings about praise may have implications for written teacher comments designed to encourage and reinforce work underway. Comments which serve to act as a coach for successful completion of the writing project may alter attitude which, in turn, may determine if students will write after they leave the composition class. Good writing comes from practice--more, certainly, than one fifteen-week course can provide--but if students feel less enthusiastic about writing, they may never get the practice. Instead, they may write only when forced to do so. In a related study, Stevens (1973) examined effects of positive and negative comments on low performing tenth and eleventh grade males. Concerned that "measurement of quality" of student writing might be called into question, Stevens focused the research instead on a measurement of student attitude. Because of the group under investigation, the results are not surprising: negative teacher comments produced negative student attitudes. While their research methods were by no means rigorous or scientific, Gee and Stevens seem to have arrived at similar conclusions: Teacher comment affects student attitude. Yet there may be many human issues ignored in studies such as these. Teachers know that there are (I. ml 11' I! .‘if )I If 14 many processes operating in the classroom, many opportunities to alter student attitude. Researchers, however, often spend little time on the sites where data have been gathered. Teachers who are also researchers observe students in their own territory, noting students' actions in relation to other students, to the assignments, and to the teacher herself. The context of learning and the context of writing are important factors to be considered. Researchers in England have also studied the effects of teacher comments on student writers. In "Giving and Getting Feedback on Composition" ( Exeter 1987), Andrew D. Cohen and Marilda C. Cavalcanti suggest that there may be a misfit between teacher feedback on compositions and the writers' interests, between what the teachers give and what the students would like to get (63). Part of the problem lies in unclear, inaccurate feedback, as Coupe also noted, and on overemphasis of negative points. Another problem, say Cohen and Cavalcanti, is that student writers vary greatly in their response to feedback. The Cohen and Cavalcanti study investigated teacher comments on final products, although on occasion students were asked to rewrite. Instead of being written, teacher comments were tape recorded. One student in the study was concerned because "the comments pile up in my mind, making the act of writing somewhat complex and tiring, and they produce unfavorable results in subsequent compositions" (66). This remark about comments "piling up" may indicate a problem of the teacher sending mixed messages: "Fix the grammar but change the entire essay." . UP, I .‘t 0 V". ...“:t t J]. , {I - 15 While the teacher in the Cohen and Cavalcanti study reported that her comments focused on accuracy of vocabulary and on organization, according to her students (N =19), most of her comments were concerned with content, somewhat fewer with organization, fewer with grammar and mechanics, and fewer still with vocabulary. Students saw their teacher usually or always as judge and only sometimes as an adult reader interested in their ideas (66). Teacher comment produces various responses, and sometimes no response, in student writing. What the teacher intends to achieve with comments and what student writers perceive or gain may be very different things. Yet, in this limited study of one teacher, Cohen and Cavalcanti see a relatively good fit between the feedback the teacher reported giving and what she actually gave. However, they say, "with regard to positive reinforcement, the teacher may be missing an opportunity to motivate writing by increasing the extent of praise contained in the ongoing comments within the composition" (72). Perhaps, they suggest, a balance between criticism and praise may be the best means of encouraging quality writing. Comments teachers make on student writing may be directly related to their own experiences with writing. In a 1976 study Janet Emig and Robert Parker examined teachers' awareness of personal attitudes and values that might influence their response. They see a correlation between teachers' own writing experiences and the way they respond to student 16 writing. Yet, the casual nature of such research on composition leaves this in doubt. B" MEI] II I Q | Even without teacher comment , students often make revisions in their writing. It has been challenging for researchers to deal with this sub- process of composing because revision can go on at any time in the composing process and may occur only in the mind of the writer. Yet researchers of revision often or usually deal with only the written text. Flower and Hayes have collected data from thinking-aloud protocols to measure and explain how writers plan, write and revise. They see revision as part of the reviewing process which also includes reading and evaluating. The act of evaluation sometimes involves a brief pause in the planning process of writing in which the writer may note, "That's no good, I'll try something else." This often leads the writer back into the chaos. At other times the evaluation may be simply a matter of reflecting that, "receive is 'ei' not 'ie'." Thus, the act of revision may be the creation of new text or the alteration of exisiting text. Flower and Hayes in their protocol analysis pay particular attention to elapsed time, or pauses, for these are the occasions that involve thinking on the part of the writer. Writing, they say, involves problem-solving: Good writers respond to all aspects of the rhetorical problem; poor writers try to solve sentence level problems that do not help them communicate as effectively ("Cognition of Discovery" 29-30). 2:1- 51 17 Some researchers like Graves (1979) see "dissonance" as the motivating factor in revision. When writers are dissatisfied they reconstruct and recast their writing, making the form reflect the meaning. In a 1980 study of twenty student writers and twenty experienced writers, Nancy Sommers adopted a case study approach to examine the revision process. Student writers were college freshmen, and experienced adult writers were journalists, editors, and academics. The work of each writer was analyzed by counting and categorizing changes made in several drafts. Sommers identified four types of changes: word, phrase, sentence, and theme (the extended statement of one idea). Additionally she noted four revision operations: deletion, substitution, addition, and reordering. Sommers found that when experienced writers recognize differences between intention and execution, the resulting dissonance provokes revision. Studies have been done on the types of revisions students choose to make. Lillian Bridwell (1980) found that 100 randomly selected seniors given the opportunity made fairly extensive revisions. Students made on the average about 61 revisions per student, almost half of which were made on the first draft. Although the design of the study suggests revision (day one, fact sheet; day two, blue draft; day three, black draft), it demands nothing more than re-copying. The large number of revisions in Bridwell's study stands in marked contrast to Emig's study (1971) which concluded that students do not voluntarily revise school sponsored writing. In E niece or 1e percent wen includes add sentences. 1 because Stu: meme. 1 names of s ”Ping or 2B5 for n10] ll: 01. dew: 3’ Sefltenoe 18 In Bridwell's study most of the revisions (56 percent) were at the surface or lexical levels. Another 18 percent were at the phrase level; 19 percent were at the sentence level or the multi-sentence level, which includes additions, deletions, and re-ordering of two or more consecutive sentences. No revisions, however, appeared at the text level, probably because students were merely following directions, which suggested recopying. Bridwell's study may appear to contradict Emig's, but only in matters of surface structure. To Emig, revision includes more than simply recopying or making surface level changes. Indeed, revision frequently calls for more than the correction of word or sentence errors. But virtually all of Bridwell's statistics on revision fall into the category of word, phrase or sentence level changes. Sommers found that the greatest number of revisions by college students were at the word and phrase level, with lexical deletions and substitutions being the most frequent operations. For experienced adult writers, however, she found the concentration of revisions at the sentence level, with addition the major operation. This may suggest that experienced writers perceive more alternatives than do younger writers. To borrow Graves' term, they may sense more dissonance, may see a wider variety of problems to solve. Perhaps experienced writers discriminate, as do Flower and Hayes, between editing and reviewing: Editing, say Flower and Hayes (1981), is a subprocess triggered automatically which may occur in brief episodes interrupting other processes; reviewing, however, is a decision to devote a period of ti: has already processes 01 generally it manly mec Crowley's 5 Students re' Beach did a bait diffen heme 1 ”3le ant finer, 5m "Tons 01 mm. the liking D01 Mg ab( Putnam] y I In 'is (1- 19 period of time to systematic examination and improvement of the text which has already been produced. Crowley (1977) observed the composing processes of college freshmen for three years and found that students generally wrote first drafts straight through and later made revisions of mainly mechanical errors. However, an unusual contradiction to Crowley's findings is Bridwell's 1980 study which reported that some students rewrote papers from scratch, rather than revising the original text. Beach did a study of revision in 197 6 which found that experienced writers have different strategies for revision than do inexperienced writers. Extensive revisers consider revising as making "substantive changes in content and form," while inexperienced writers see revision as making minor, surface changes. Faigley and Witte (1981) agree. In a study of the revisions of college freshmen, advanced college students, and expert adult writers, they found that the advanced college students revised most often, making nonmeaning changes about twice as often as the expert adults, but making about the same proportion of meaning changes. Freshmen made primarily nonmeaning changes. In "Discovery and Change: How Children Redraft Their Narrative Writing" (1984), Heather Booley of Brimsham Green School in Exeter, England, investigated what may be learned by analyzing how 14-year olds revise their writing. Using reader response groups as part of the revision process, Booley postulated that students would be able at the redrafting stage to make major changes in the structure and stylistic features of their writing. The drafts were analyzed using a model modified from Wilkinson {1930} and 1 meme, a‘ test 18 out changes har steed, five ituged the Quilt-ding Picturing made by th 1"=35 consi. 1’54“. as litt The? ”ddlEt made limit ll: crituric aWWII CC z‘i'ie‘land it Sign {58] ll 3. 20 (1980) and for evidence that writers were actively engaged in working on the cognitive, affective and stylistic aspects of their narratives. Booley reported that 18 out of 32 students submitted drafts showing extensive or significant changes had been made, as defined by the study (263). Of these pupils who revised, five were classified as making extensive revisions. These writers changed their drafts in three or all four of the areas considered: 1) structuring of plot; 2) structuring of narrative role and commentary; 3) structuring for audience; 4) stylistic choices. Significant revisions were made by thirteen writers who changed their narratives in one or two of the areas considered. Limited revisers, numbering ten students, used a second draft as little more than an opportunity to make a second copy of their text. They "tidied up the appearance of the pages, sometimes altered spellings, made limited additions of information or minor stylistic adjustments" (274). The criterion for identifying limited revisions was that there had been no apparent consistently changed intention for the text. Booley noted that in England it is generally agreed that students do not, of their own volition, often feel the need to revise their writing. The writer must be given cause to feel some dissatisfaction with the first efforts, "whilst still retaining the commitment to the task which will enable him to continue working on it" (265). To enhance this process, after writing the first draft and prior to starting the second, students read one another's work and talked together in response groups. Booley found that after students worked with peers, motivation to revise was generally good. Mat perceived n4 hawnnng chmcterist sedents m2 fight.- neet students wl meters un Tingle? am But We their 3* Within; 21 Marion Mohr (1984) echoes Booley's comment about the students' perceived need to revise: "The confidence to recognize what stands up well in a writing, what works, and what needs to be changed is not often a characteristic of student writers" (46). In fact, Alpren (197 3) found that students may interpret no teacher comment as meaning the paper is "right," needing no additional changes or revisions. It is clear then why students who do revise on their own frequently begin with less important matters, undertaking first that which is noticeable and manageable (Faigley and Witte, 1981; Bridwell, 1980; Sommers, 1980; Crowley, 1977). But as students continue to revise their drafts, they continue to revise their thinking. This back and forth motion between the writing and the thinking about the writing Mohr calls "reactive revision": The combination of thinking and feeling that the writer experiences when reflecting on a writing and rereading create reactions which then become the basis for action, actual changes in the writing (191). In analyzing the changes, Mohr found the separation between revision and editing (Flower and Hayes) misleading because correcting (editing) she says is clearly a move toward clarifying meaning. Although Mohr maintains that writers do not revise less as they become more experienced, Selzer (1983), Gere (1982) and Berkenkotter and Murray (1983) disagree. Selzer, who studied the composing process of an engineer, found that although the writer spent up to 80 percent of his time planning his writing, revision took less than five percent of the composing time and was limited to minor changes. Gere studied a blind writer who did not make 1 similar study, For the three thee percent. Berkenkotter unnecessary, Murray have 22 did not make revisions at all, yet was a competent and skilled writer. In a similar study, Berkenkotter (1983) studied the writing of Donald Murray. For the three essays under examination, Murray spent only three percent, three percent, and zero percent of his composing time in revision. Berkenkotter explained that Murray's experience made extensive revising unnecessary. Martin Nystrand (1982) maintains that writers such as Murray have a good sense of textual space. In England the most recent and most comprehensive writing survey at the secondary level is the project conducted by the Scottish Council for Research in Education (1983). The SCRE Report notes that despite the apparent expectation of many of the teachers that some writing should be redrafted, the researchers found very little evidence of pupils making advance notes for or tentative drafts of writing and none at all for any major redrafting of an extended piece of writing (involving, for example, significant changes in content, structure or style). Writing, then, in which the first formulation is also regarded as the finished product appears still to be the norm at the secondary level. (cited in Harris and Wilkinson 8) Parallel to the research in England, there is evidence in the US. that many secondary and college students do little substantive revision (Bridwell, 1980; Perl, 1980; Sommers, 1978). Why don't student writers revise more? Graves (1975) described two general types of writers who emerged in a study of seven year olds: reactive writers and reflective writers. These two types had very different responses to revision. Reactive writers did not want to reexamine their writing once it had been completed. Reflective writers, however, did enjoy going back to the work. College composition classes, it seems, contain both reactive and reflective writers. Regardless of their age, stu their work once anomt of eage categories do a; drink to do 1 Thus, to a rear tan reformulz M sense. 0‘ ii‘ierences in M writers, 23 of their age, students appear to have varying attitudes about returning to their work once it has been completed. Some seem to do so with a fair amount of eagerness. Others say frankly, "I hate to revise." If Graves' categories do apply to college writers, then reactive writers may find it diflicult to do anything more than focus on simple wording problems. Thus, to a reactive writer, rewriting papers from the beginning, rather than reformulating the original text (Bridwell 1980), may make absolutely good sense. Other researchers (Bracewell et al., 1978; Beach, 1979) attribute differences in revising skills or strategies to developmental differences. Good writers, they say, "decenter": acquire the ability to compare old and new potential material which allows them to improve the original text rather than simply create a new one. An additional factor influencing writing revision or lack of it may be writing anxiety. Daly and Miller (1975b) found that highly apprehensive writers who gain little satisfaction from writing may be unwilling to devote much time or effort to revision. Writing anxiety may stem from prior experiences with teachers' extensive correction of errors. Focusing on word choices and surface correctness instead of on more substantive revisions may also be an outcome of earlier experiences. Even non-anxious writers who can detect or identify problems or dissonances, however, may have difficulty revising on their own. Although these writers may achieve a detachment f'rom their work, they may lack skill in creating a plan or a goal for revision. In some cases, revision alternatives m: available to the Bartle students' atten were fairly goo considerable d lief percentage necessary to g "ts point in 1 ml 3 teache Mun Béflenkouerl “new genr arena: “1th mind ten newHung fan mince the r. 24 alternatives may be automatic and appropriate. Yet, often the knowledge available to the student is inadequate for carrying out an effective revision. Bartlett (1982) examined upper elementary and junior high students' attempts to revise paragraphs and found that generally writers were fairly good at detecting double referent ambiguities, but had considerable difficulty correcting them. Even among above-average writers, the percentage of solutions was not high (357). The skills and knowledge necessary to generate a text may not work within the constraints of revision. This point in the revision process, therefore, may be an appropriate time to open a teacher-student dialogue. Murray changed his views on revising after the Berkenkotter/Murray study (1983): "I suspect that when we begin to write in a new genre we have to do a great deal of revision, but that as we become familiar with a genre we can solve more writing problems in advance of a completed text. . . " (170-171). If students are frequently at the point of becoming familiar with a new kind of writing, teacher intervention may enhance the students' acceptance into the writing community associated with a new genre. Yet, teacher comment may also impede student revision. Although teachers hope that comments will dramatize the presence of a reader to help students eventually become a questioning reader themselves, Sommers notes a drawback in this intervention strategy: The teacher appropriates the text from the student by confusing the student's purpose in writing the text with her own purpose in commenting. Students make the changes the To help studer recommends t they have wri into the chaos their meanini Oil“ POSsibl) deaflhal,as 1631 of rexisi If te mi"KS sho reflecu'on of “heme; help Rude“. 25 teacher wants rather than those that the student perceives are necessary, since the teacher's concerns imposed on the text create the reasons for the subsequent changes. ("Responding to Student Writing" 150) To help students become better revisers on their own, Sommers recommends that teachers "sabotage the students' conviction that the drafts they have written are complete and coherent. . . by forcing students back into the chaos, back to the point where they are shaping and restructuring their meaning" (154). I question the approach Sommers suggests because of its possibly negative impact on the confidence of student writers, yet it is clear that, as Donald Murray also suggests, students may have to do a great deal of revision. Ifteachers do use comments to lead students back into the chaos, remarks should not be viewed as an end in themselves, but rather as a reflection of the teacher's real voice and, more important, as a reinforcement for what they do in the classroom. But what teachers do to help students, they can encourage students to do for each other as well. E Q | I ll MI .I. 2 Student writers sometimes write better when they write for each other. Why? Moffett (leachingjheflnimufimmm 1968) suggests that students may find the teacher too significant. A teacher is "parental substitute, civic authority, and the wielder of marks" (193). Any one of these roles would be enough to distort the writer-audience relationship; all together they cause the student to "misuse the feedback in ways that severely limit authority to a feedback can important pa WSPOHSG, a C teacher respe kam teacher. Pee L'ilish teat 333mm 0', lb? “Titer. 26 severely limit his learning to write" (193). Curiously, if the teacher shifts authority to a peer group and takes a more indirect role, then his or her feedback carries more weight (194). Peer feedback, therefore, is an important part of the student writer's process. Peers can create a group response, a consensus of opinion which helps get away from the singular teacher response often viewed by the student as personal criticism. Peers may be more candid and, at the same time, less threatening than the teacher. Peer comments are often more easily understood because they lack English teachers' jargon. Martin Nystrand (1982) talks about the writing community, a social environment containing structures to fuel and support the writer. Peer groups can become such support structures. Critics of peer comment fear that students aren't experienced enough to make appropriate comments. Mofl'ett refutes that argument by stating that many of the comments teachers make can be made by practically any person other than the author W Dim 193). Problems such as irrelevance, repetition, or confusing organization can be pointed out easily by peers. The role of the teacher, according to Moffett, is to teach the students to teach each other. A study of peer feedback by George Jacobs, professor at Chiang Mai University in Thailand, published in England (1987), looked at student reaction to participating in peer groups. Students, third year English majors, worked in groups of three with each member having the specific role of Reader, Writer, or Observer. Groups also used a list of questions, finished by tl questions abou Jacob about others, I They felt that did. in fact, en the functions about (llsagre tilOFment of MS Jacobs lid not agree Jam noted amilitias tl ifills To 1 Wisdom . Wine 1 Festive in“ mmposltion No Linksline, 27 furnished by the teacher, about the writing; this response list included questions about clarity, content, interest and form. Jacobs found that while many students showed interest in reading about others, they felt inadequate to make comments on peers' writing. They felt that their feedback might cause problems instead of helping. It did, in fact, cause some friction, especially when students did not perform the functions they were supposed to in the triads. Jacobs was concerned about disagreements that at times "had a negative effect on students' enjoyment of and interest in the task" (327). In comparing first with final drafts Jacobs noted that sometimes students ignored those comments they did not agree with, thus retaining authority over their text. Furthermore Jacobs noted that in general students preferred to work in groups with classmates they chose rather than teacher selected groups or random groups. To make peer editing function more smoothly, Jacobs offers two suggestions for teachers: 1) Provide structure for the groups-~roles, responding lists; 2) Use cooperative goal structures to increase the feeling of positive inter-dependence among students-~things such as group compositions and grade averaging (332). Norman F. Davies and Margaret Omberg of the University of Linkoping, Sweden, in "Peer Group Teaching and the Composition Class" (System 1987), studied how peer editing contributed to student writing. Members of the class under investigation ran off copies of their essay, one for each member of the group and then read it aloud. Davis and Omberg noted that changes made to the first draft that affected content, ideas and organization w ire students 3 changes in cor rewriting. ln topeer comme Emu-W tidy at before they re more attentio Stud aiml‘terges 0 MP: 2i one ] “idem; 4) 320) tier indents' cor "WW aw 0313le St in 53,. 28 organization were generally not arrived at through the peer feedback. Only five students attributed these changes to the group comment, while 19 saw changes in content, ideas and organization growing out of the process of rewriting. In contrast, 38 attributed changes in the surface features mainly to peer comment (319). Davies and Omberg foun . . no doubt that the groups tidy away many of the more common and basic language errors before they reach the final version, which enables the teacher to concentrate more attention on style and coherence" (319). Students in the Davies and Omberg study mentioned several advantages of peer editing: 1) it is difficult to see one's own errors without help; 2) one learns from others' mistakes; 3) one learns both to give and take criticism; 4) new ideas and help in formulating one's own ideas is welcome (320). When taken as a whole, the system "markedly increased the students' confidence when it comes to essay writing. . . this was largely due to a new awareness of the skills necessary to produce good writing" (320). Only four students felt they "had not learnt anything from peer correction" (319). The range of disadvantages noted was small. The main disadvantages were either the lack of expertise in the group when faced with errors or the fact that occasionally the group made faulty corrections. When asked to suggest improvements in the peer editing method, a sizeable minority (16 of 38 students) suggested more teacher participation. They wanted a teacher available for consultation while the first-draft editing was in progress and wanted more comments from the teacher on the final ctrrected versic majority (26 of ornshons,veu tram teacher a rmmamm 'Comments re andl>0lltteEdor tinlltltttce of tdmrhylbre conclude, Dav 29 corrected version. Despite the support and aid given in the peer groups, the majority (26 of 41 students) still felt they learned more from teacher corrections, with 12 of the remaining 15 claiming to learn about the same from teacher and peer comment. Twenty-eight students agreed that they learned different things from the teacher than they did from the group. "Comments reveal by and large that the group supplied ideas and words and pointed out performance errors that were in fact usually within the competence of the student involved, while the teacher was a more reliable authority for difficult points of grammar, lexis and phraseology" (321). To conclude, Davies and Omberg acknowledge, The value of response groups in the composition class lies less in the amount of editing they save the teacher, than in the added emphasis they place on composition as a process, as an activity of intrinsic value, where what is said and the my it is argued or presented is seen as quite as important as the grammatical accuracy of the final product. (322) Other studies published in England have measured results of peer feedback. In "The Effects of Feedback on Students' Composition Revisions" (1984), Craig Chaudron compares differences in ESL leamers' improvement in revision of their compositions depending on the method of evaluation, whether teacher comments or peer evaluations. In Chaudron's study one half of the class received peer evaluations as a basis for revision of their drafts, while the other half received teacher feedback. Despite the positive effects of peer feedback, Chaudron acknowledged no significant difference between the amount of improvement resulting from the two feedback methods. All t dassroom inst: It is ir mmmamt nake marks c and then to w Willem seer letter grade f Mall accur. all cases the i ltacher, ever trident. Th, a“ flour) of Cl esteem,” hacebem 5‘ 30 methods. All the essays were read and given scores independently by two classroom instructors, according to a 100 point ESL composition profile. It is important to note that in Chaudron's study, peer treatment involved a set of guiding questions used to lead the peer evaluator first to make marks on the drafts for perceived linguistic and mechanical problems and then to write a short summary essay discussing the merits and problems seen in the essay. The instructor read each peer critique, gave it a letter grade for completeness, usually a high mark, and commented on its overall accuracy, before handing the draft back to the writer for revision. In all cases the remarks of the peer editor were positively supported by the teacher, even though in some cases shortcomings and inaccuracies were evident. Thus, in an indirect way, teacher intervention was present even in the group of writers who did not receive direct teacher comment. Chaudron expresses some doubt about the measure used to assess improvement. The ESL Composition Profile (Jacobs et a1. 1981) may not have been sensitive to the sort of changes that come about in revision. He suggests that some other scoring method that compares the changes in revision with the original might reveal more substantial differences between revisions following different treatments. Although Chaudron found foreign students cautious about the value of peer feedback as a source of aid in revising their writing, he noted that in their written comments students showed a great deal of appreciation of the peer feedback procedure. He considers peer feedback to have several positive effects: 31 1) Teachers' time may be saved by eliminating certain editing tasks, thus freeing them for more helpful instruction and guidance; 2) Peers' feedback is more at the learner's level of development or interest, thus perceived as more informative than the superior or older teacher's feedback, despite the assumption that the teacher 'knows more'; 3) Since multiple peers may be used, learners gain a sense of a wider audience than simply the one teacher; 4) Learners' attitudes toward writing can be enhanced by the more socially supportive peers; 5) Learners also learn more about writing and revision by having to read each others' drafts critically. (2-3) While teacher feedback may provide a better "map' for students' immediate revision, in the long run peer evaluation can contribute more to the writer's confidence and ability to make decisions. Kantor's study examining the functions of writing in a twelfth-grade classroom in the US. noted how peer feedback helps students establish and maintain cultural membership: writing to a peer audience enables writers to create connections between personal and social worlds and to develop shared meanings. Kantor ("Classroom Context and the Development of Writing Intuitions" 1984) found one important value of peer feedback to be "experiential talk": talk about associations and experiences aside from direct discussion of writing techniques. Students said that these discussions decreased the tension they felt about their writing by "taking the spotlight off the writing" and placing it temporarily elsewhere. In general they came to regard their peers as a "safe" group with which to share, and as the semester progressed they gave criticism and "received the criticisms in a positive, nondefensive way" (87 ). Kantor, though reluctant to recommend teaching strategies based on his study, described some hypotheses that emerged: 1) Students can (’1 ‘La ['7’ .I 3 3 2 experience growth, both cognitive and affective, from participating in a common social and intellectual enterprise--a writing community; 2) Audience awareness is enhanced as students use their peer group as a transition from writing for themselves or teachers to writing for wider audiences; 3) Peer groups allow and encourage students to discuss both writing itself and the "qualities of experience that inform and give substance to writing" (91). 01' lll'l'fiTl'Sll Although recent studies in England and the United States have used a variety of research methods, in general composition researchers on both sides of the Atlantic seem to blend science and subjectivity, not very rigorously. Despite the differences and shortcomings of the methodology, much of the research has produced similar conclusions. Whereas the more traditional model of teaching writing has assumed that learners will develop their writing skill by receiving final evaluations and corrections from the teacher, the process model counts revision and teacher and/or peer intervention in the drafting procedures as critical. Nicola Coupe (England 1985) sees teacher comment as often being of little or no help to the student writers, however, because teachers fail to communicate their messages clearly. John Harris, another British researcher, acknowledges Graves' general descriptions of two types of writers: reactive and reflective. Harris believes that if a student is a reactive writer, then he or she will find it very difficult to revise with or without comments from teachers. Others (Buxton, pro on: Hf rl 33 Liddell, Wade, Protherough, Moffett) encourage a climate of "informed collaboration," a dialogue between student and teacher during the drafting process. While several composition researchers have questions about when and how teachers should intervene in the drafting procedure, they all appear to support the process because they find many positive outcomes: students who receive positive comment write more; they develop more positive attitudes; and they see the teacher as more than a judge of the final product. Several studies that have focused on peer comments in the drafting process found that this too is an important part of the student writer's process, although not without fault. George Jacobs (England 1987) offers two suggestions for teachers using the peer response model: provide structure, and create a positive inter-dependence among students. Peer editing has advantages, according to Davies and Omberg, Moffett, and Chaudron. Its chief value is in the added emphasis it places on composition as a process. WWW Studies done on how and why students make revisions in their writing attempt to show that inexperienced writers and experienced writers revise in different ways and in different amounts. Heather Booley (England 1984) in her study notes that "significant revisers" showed extensive changes in the cognitive, affective and stylistic aspects of their writing, while "limited revisers" used a second draft as little more than an Opportunity to make a second copy of their text. In her study, Sommers (1980) concludes that the greatest number of revisions by college students are at the word and phrase level; for experienced writers, however, she anew 34 found the most revisions at the sentence level. Clearly, much research has been done on the interactions among teachers, students and peers in the revision process of college writers. Yet there is little research devoted to the f'ull study of single individuals. In the forthcoming chapters, I will examine three aspects of the revision process for six case study writers: 1) the role written teacher comments play in revision of their drafts in progress; 2) the extent to which they use peer feedback in revision; 3) the degree to which they rely on self-generated ideas and strategies for revising their drafts. The first three case studies have been drawn from an Advanced Expository writing class which did not receive written teacher comment. The class did, however, make use of written peer comments. The other three case studies have been selected from a Freshman Composition class which received written comments from both teacher and peers. My purpose in this dissertation is to explore how teacher and peer comment operates for these six writers through a close investigation of first and final drafts of their writing. CHAPTER II CASE STUDY RESEARCH AND METHODOLOGY Case study research in composition is the close investigation of processes and relationships that occur within a particular context. Case study researchers, then, become both participants and observers (insiders and outsiders) in the classes they investigate, choosing not to detach themselves from the objects of study but rather to examine their own perceptions as well. These perceptions are confirmed or challenged by use of case study interviews and by examination and analysis of student writing. Case study researchers more often generate rather than test theories. This type of research is much like the discovery process in writing, in which writers discover meaning as they write and revise. Researchers may need to re-shape, alter or refine the investigations as they proceed, resisting the temptation to reach hasty conclusions and viewing emerging patterns with a healthy skepticism. I am especially interested in how student writers revise, what value revision has for them, and how the social and cultural group (the writing community including the teacher) strengthens or alters this process. In the six case studies reported here, I attempted to use several methods of 35 36 inquiry. Acting as both participant and observer (teacher and researcher), I gathered much data regarding the events occurring within my classroom. I used questionnaires to elicit students' points of view, and although I entered the study with an awareness of composition theory regarding revision, I tried to let the student writing and response guide my impressions. Accumulating and analyzing first and final drafts of student writing as well as copies of all peer comments and questions helped me to note particular patterns, some more relevant than others. B l E |° . I Since the peer editing and teacher response method is an important part of many composition classes, the investigation of how these two types of responses interact with each other for the writing student is the basis for this research. The analysis concerns the changes that occurred between the drafts that the research participants turned in to me and their final drafts. To select participants for the writing study who would represent a cross section of students found in a typical class, I used the Daly-Miller Scale of Writing Apprehension which ranks individuals "high," "average," or "low" in apprehension. Much of the research on writing anxiety in the past decade (Beach and Eaton,1984; Gere, Schuessler and Abbott, 1984) has made use of the Daly-Miller scale because of its record of reliability and validity. It seems to me that college students come to composition class in one of three stages as writers. Stage one for a writer often means becoming 37 comfortable with putting ideas on paper. Many students are writing for the first time in several years, particularly if they are older students who have returned to school after pursuing a career or raising a family. Other college students have had little writing experience in high school. They sometimes suffer writer's block, and many lack the confidence to express themselves effectively. Daly and Miller, originators of the writing apprehension test, theorize that apprehensive writers avoid writing tasks and writing instruction. As a result they do not get enough practice to develop as writers. Their negative attitudes about writing may become self- fulfilling. Daly and Shamo (1978) found that those students who are not apprehensive about writing are attracted to college majors that they perceive involve writing. Those who suffer from high writing anxiety or apprehension avoid such majors. Since most students cannot avoid college composition, writing teachers may be faced with many anxious writers. Daly and Miller's studies have noted the following characteristics of high anxiety writers: they use less intensive language, fewer words, fewer statements, and less punctuation. Anxious writers reported less writing success in the past and expected less in the future. Two of the six case studies reported here are students who, according to the Daly-Miller scale, show more anxiety than most, but not all, students in their class. Administered on the first day of class, the same test was given at the end of the semester to determine if the amount of writing apprehension had increased or diminished. 38 Sometimes writers gain a certain measure of confidence in their ability to express themselves. As this happens, they move into a second stage. Many students begin a composition course with confidence. One of the most frequent criticisms I hear about college writers is that they want to be told exactly what to write and how to write. This may be particularly true for writers in the second stage. I see this, however, as a positive reflection because it means as writers they sense the need to make a transition from writer-based to reader-based prose. What role does the writing community of peers and teacher play in this transition process? I hoped that by selecting two case studies from the middle range of writing apprehension, I could examine the effects of teacher and peer comment on the writing of those who are making this transition. Would their response to teacher and/or peer comment differ from that of more apprehensive writers? Finally, what about a student who has a good deal of confidence in his or her writing ability, someone who is comfortable with writing? Would student writers with little anxiety about writing need or use peer and teacher response to the same degree as other writers? To answer this question I selected two "confident" writers. These two case studies scored high on the Daly-Miller scale, indicating that they were more self-reliant writers at the beginning of the course. As with the other participants, a follow-up test was administered at the end of the semester to determine if writing anxiety had increased, diminished or remained the same. 39 Glassmmnfinntext I had two classroom settings for my investigation: the first was a college Advanced Expository Writing class; the second, a college Freshman Composition class. The classes consisted of students of varied ages from 18 to 56, almost all residents of the Midwest, some holding full or part-time jobs while attending college. 5 l I E 'I M! . I' Q] The course was given once a week for three hours. Lasting one semester (15 weeks), it was titled Expository Writing 300 and was offered to undergraduates who had some experience in writing, having fulfilled the freshman composition requirements. The course objectives as stated in the syllabus were these: This course is designed to give you the opportunity to write for a variety of purposes and to write in a variety of modes, just as professional writers or on-the-job writers do. Using the writing skills you already possess, you will write informally and then revise that writing for an audience. I hoped to build a sense of community among the student writers, and felt I needed to provide certain kinds of structures and encouragement to do so. To convey this idea to the students, the syllabus stated the following procedures: Class time will be devoted to developing a community of writers through small and large group discussion, peer editing sessions, and many prewriting, writing, and rewriting activities. You will be contributing to a group publication as well as writing a number of other papers. It is important and expected that you attend all classes. Your role as editor and 4 0 audience is needed to make the community function well. Conferences about your writing will be held near mid-term, but I will be happy to talk with you at any time during the semester. The structure and requirements of the Advanced Expository Writing class (N =23) were the following: seven papers were required in a 15 week semester; a first draft was written and brought to class for peer and self- evaluation according to teacher-prepared editing guides addressing established criteria. (See Appendix A for assignment sheets and editing guides of all papers under investigation.) Time was set aside both during and after class for optional student/teacher conferences about the draft, and muliiple drafts were encouraged with oral conferences available for all drafis. All topics were selected by the students, although various types of writing were explored (process analysis, informative/persuasive, editorial, magazine article, investigative report, proposal, and case study). I did not make written comments on the drafts in progress. The twenty-three students who took the course were generally highly mOfivated individuals who were in the last year or two of their undergraduate education. Several had fulltime jobs in business, industry and social services. They tended to be fairly outspoken from the beginning of the semester and became more interactive as the course progressed. I‘VOllowing are thumbnail sketches of the three individuals selected as re search participants. * Alma--a confident writer; has a responsible mid-management job with a chemical company; generally reserved in class meetings; absent occasionally because of career demands; articulate and professional 41 * Dawn--average amount of confidence in writing; fulltime college student, attending directly out of high school; personable and attentive in class; finds it "hard to sit down and just start writing" * Mark--an anxious writer; responsible and conscientious fulltime student, traditional college age; works part-time; interested in finding a good career; revises writing frequently Because I was primarily concerned with the writers' interactions and reactions to the writing community and its comments, not with their personality traits, I tried to avoid any unnecessary psychological analysis. E l (I . | . C] The second class under investigation, Freshman Composition (N = 22), met three times a week for a total of three hours. It was a 15 week course, titled College Rhetoric, and was required for all undergraduates. There were no prerequisites for the course which had as its objectives the following: The class is designed to develop your writing skills through formal and informal writing assignments for a variety of audiences. It is hoped that you will become increasingly comfortable with the process of writing and that you will become increasingly proficient in generating, developing, analyzing, and revising your writing. Five papers and one research project were required in the 15 week 8elllester. For the purposes of this study, only four of the five papers were aInfillyzed. The fifth paper did not involve revision. In the four revised papers, students wrote a first draft and brought it to class for peer and self- eval nation according to teacher-prepared editing guides. The rough draft and all peer and self-evaluations were then submitted to me for written 42 teacher comment. After I read and commented on the drafts, I returned papers to the students. Multiple drafts were encouraged, with written teacher comment available for all drafts. Students selected their topics, although various types of writing were done (personal narrative, description, assertion-with-proof, and critical analysis). I made written comments on all drafts in progress. College Rhetoric was a class of high achieving freshmen. Most students were recent high school graduates, although one student was returning to college after raising a family and working for many years as a teacher's aide. Students were rather reserved, particularly at the beginning of the semester, but as they worked together in peer editing groups they became more outgoing. The following three students were selected as case studies according to their swres on the Daly-Miller test. The thumbnail sketches are based on my perceptions. * Kara--a confident writer; outspoken and friendly; very responsible in class attendance; has aspirations to become a lawyer * Cami—-average level of confidence in writing; bright, sunny personality; hard worker and responsible in class; says "I shouldn't let the thought of writing a paper bother me." * Mary--an anxious writer; bright and alert in class; mother of seven children, many attending or graduated from college; returned to college herself after years of mothering and working in education; says "Once I get started I just seem to write and write and get carried away." 43 MW I used three major research techniques in this study. The first involved acting as participant/observer in the classes, recording my observations of the writing communities as they took shape and provided support and comment for their members. In the Advanced Expository class, I participated in the writing process by oral conferencing with students about their drafts in progress. In the Freshman Composition class, I participated by writing comments on drafts in progress. In each class my participation extended to the construction of peer and self-editing guides. Thus, even the class lacking written teacher comment was not, in fact, without written teacher suggestion, because the questions addressed by the peer groups were written by me. . The second research method involved collecting information from the students through the use of questionnaires and written comment. (See Appendix C for copies of all questionnaires.) One open-ended questionnaire included the following questions: 1. What do you have to do to be a good writer? 2. What is the hardest part of writing for you? 3. What is the easiest? 4. Which is your best piece of writing this semester? Why? 5. Which is your worst? Why? 6. What kinds of changes do you make when you revise? 7. What is your definition of revision? 4 4 8. What problems are you having with your writing? 9. What would you like to work on next? Questionnaire data was collected from all students, not just the six case studies. This enabled me to acquire a great deal of data about the students' attitudes toward writing and toward the help provided by peer and teacher comments. Students also shared their methods of generating topics, preferred ways of revising, feelings about different types of writing, and expectations for writing courses. Third, I analyzed the first and final drafts of the six case study writers to identify changes made through the writer's revisions. The classifications of revisions (Sager 1973) fell into the following nine categories: Cosmetic, including changes in appearance, presentation, or fOrrnat; Mechanical, encompassing revisions in capitalization, Punctuation, and spelling; Grammatical, relating to changes in usage and 8ylltax; Continuational, denoting revisions affecting coherence; Informational, recognizing changes in content and substance, either additions or deletions; Stylistic, identifying lexical substitutions or rearrangement; Transitional, recognizing revisions connecting the SeDarate elements of the text; Organizational, noting changes in the order of discourse; Holistic, suggesting major action or reflection on the text. I made no effort to make a statement about the quality of writing. What did I learn about revision from this research? The next chapter is an account of my expectations, impressions, confirmations, and r . eVelatrons. CHAPTER III PEER COMMENT AND THE REVISION PROCESS IN THREE ADVANCED EXPOSITORY CASE STUDIES The first class under investigation, Advanced Expository Writing, was comprised of 23 writers, ranging in age from traditional college-age students to men and women in their 50's. Many students were older than 25 and were employed full or part-time. All had taken at least two composition courses prior to enrolling in Advanced Expository; for this reason, I considered the students to be experienced college writers. The three case studies from this class were selected on the basis of their scores on the Daly-Miller Writing Apprehension Test administered on the first day of the semester. I chose one student with a high score which indicates a high degree of' confidence about writing: Alma had a score of 1 18. The next student, Dawn, scored in the middle range--84--indicating an aVerage amount of writing apprehension. Finally, I selected Mark, an aliltious writer, whose score was 63. These three students are noted herein with an asterisk. 45 46 In addition to examining data from Mark, Dawn and Alma, I collected some information about attitudes and practices from the entire class. The group studies, which were done by questionnaire about six weeks into the semester, posed four questions: 1) What is your definition of revision? 2) What kinds of changes do you make when you revise? 3) Out of 100 percent for the total writing process, what percent of time do you spend on revision? 4) How do you rate peer editing comments and oral comments by the teacher? The results of the group studies reflected, and at times contradicted, what I knew about younger and older writers and their perceptions of the revision process. For this study, students 24 years old or younger were included in the "young" group. a: 10]] Ell'l DE 3.. In answer to the question "What is your definition of revision?", the yourrg writers in the Advanced Expository class responded with the following answers. Steve - "perfecting or polishing" Tammy - "to check on writing, rephrase sentences or paragraphs, and so fort " Dan - "to redo the paper; out and shape it into its best form possible" Kevin - "fine tuning" Rick - "taking a first draft (a very rough draft) and writing and rewriting until it sounds right" Heather - "proofreading" Ben - "making sure that everything fits OK in a pattern" 47 *Dawn - "taking the rough draft and making changes on it to make the paper better" *Mark - "changing your writing to make it better" As I looked over the responses, it seemed immediately apparent that the young writers made little mention of adding information as part of the definition, which was one of the characteristics Sommers (1980) found in the revision processes of experienced writers. (According to Faigley, Cherry, Joliffe, and Skinner (1985), a limitation of Sommers' study, as well as other revision studies, is that the experienced writers are either upper- division college students, journalists, fiction writers, or English teachers. Few studies have examined the revisions of other adult writers.) From my "Young" students' comments, it seems that the focus is on the sentence level, although it is fair to assume that these comments do not preclude the Possibility of addition nor do they necessarily represent the students' actual Practices. In terms of the distinction between editing and reviewing (Flower and Hayes), with reviewing seen as a decision to devote a period of time to systematic examination and improvement of the text that has allt‘eady been produced, and editing as a subprocess triggered automatically which may occur in brief episodes interrupting other processes, both Steve and Heather seem to consider revision as editing: "perfecting and l5’01ishing" and "proofreading." The other comments appear to reflect F1 Ower and Hayes' idea of a systematic examination and improvement of the text. Dan's comment "to redo the paper" seems to hint at Bridwell's finding that some students rewrite papers from scratch rather than 48 revising the original text. But Dan's elaboration, "cut and shape it into its best form possible" implies an original text from which to work. With respect to the age of writers, several researchers (Bracewell, Scardamalia and Bereiter, 1978; Bridwell, 1980) point out that it is not until senior high school that students consistently make substantive revisions, varying their writing to their audience, standing apart from their texts as critics. The responses by the young writers in Advanced Expository class seem to lack any reference to a reader who might influence the revision process. I was interested in the way the older writers in class responded to the same question: "What is your definition of revision?" Katharine - "anything I do that changes my paper prior to turning it in. For example: adjustments in wording, position on page (margins, etc.) and flow." Lyle - "fine tuning" Kris - "anything done to your paper that will make it clearer and more concise" Pam - "to change for the better" Carmen - "editing, changing structure, change it from writer based to reader based" (my note: this comment may reflect the textbook, Wm. Maxine Hairston) Karla - "Revision is changing a work to be more easily read and understood by the reader." Cathy - "to make the paper flow easily with words and everything" Don - "Any type of change I make on my wor " (emphasis his) Monica - "changing parts of writing--how sentences soun " Roy - "to reorganize with new ideas to enhance reader interest" 49 *Alma - "Revision can be a total re-write if the paper doesn't 'work' and flow on completion." These comments by older students seem to indicate some concern with a reader, with evaluation, with communicating a message clearly. There seems to be an emphasis on the variety of changes revision calls for. Three students use the word "any" or "anything" to emphasize the many types of allanges revision entails. Again, however, I must remember that the comments may not fairly represent students' practices. Rather, they describe what older, more advanced college writers believe revision to be. A second question addressed more specifically the kinds of changes 8‘SIILdents make as they revise. The Advanced Expository "young" writers I“BSImnded to the question "What kinds of changes do you make when you re‘Vi se?" Steve - "mainly adding more facts about the topic" Tammy - "grammatical, reconstruction of paragraphs" Dan - "update and include bits or details" Kevin - ”spelling, correct run on's, comma splices, etc., thoughts" Rick - "many changes and many revisions. I juggle words, sentences, and paragraphs until I think it 'sounds' or 'reads' right." Heather - "I mostly proofread." Ben - "grammatical mostly" 50 *Dawn - "I consider what others write about and then I make these changes." *Mark - "change sentence structure" Several of their comments relate to Sager's revision study (197 3) which found that when students have criteria for revising prose, they activate more extensive memory searches: Steve adds more facts about the topic; Dan includes bits or details; Dawn considers what others write (on peer editing guides perhaps) and makes the changes they suggest. Her comment indicates that peer comment is valuable in her revision process. Yet, Dawn was the only student in the group of younger writers to mention others' suggestions. In light of Sommers' revision study that found the greatest number of revisions by inexperienced writers (college freshmen) at the word and phrase level, with lexical deletions and substitutions being the most frequent operations, younger students in Advanced Expository were about equally divided in their emphasis. Those who said they proofread or fix grammatical constructions (spelling, run on's, comma splices) seem to bear this out. However, Rick said he "juggles words, sentences, and paragraphs until it sounds or reads right." Clearly, he believes he makes I‘evisions at the sentence/paragraph level, as does Tammy who refers to "reconstruction of paragraphs." Sommers' study (197 9) suggests that for experienced writers, addition is the major operation. Comments by older, advanced college Writers in the Advanced Expository class, however, did not seem to indicate 51 a clear emphasis on addition. Here are their answers to the question "What kinds of changes do you make when you revise?" Katharine - "re-arrangement of words for emphasis and strength" Lyle - "usually taking out words to make the piece more compact and readable" Kris - "I make all typographical errors, revision of my paragraphs, and all my 'I's' statements" Pam - "I get rid of the 'I's' and I try to start sentences with action verbs or very descriptive adjectives and I check spelling and cut out a lot." Carmen - "I revise as I write (I'm a prodder). I change sentence structure, meaning, and edit as I write." (my note: she may mean she is a 'plodder') Karla - "Restructuring and adding examples are the two basic ways that I revise my papers." Cathy - "whole sentences, repetition, punctuation" Don - "It depends on the individual piece, sometimes just spelling and punctuation; sometimes sentence and paragraph structure; I've even completely re—written a paper fi-om one style to another." Monica - "wording--sentence structure" Roy - "sentence structure" *Alma - 'Everything--verbs, adjectives, sentence length (use of ; , conjunctions), reworking conclusion to summarize paper." only one student, Karla, mentioned adding material in the revision process. 0thers' comments seem to indicate a concern with sentence structure and arrangement, which corresponds to Sommers' finding about the concentration of revisions for adult writers being at the sentence level. In terIns of addition/deletion, however, more older writers in the class 52 mentioned deletion: taking out words, cutting out a lot, getting rid of the "1's". This would indicate that they believe their first draft is more nearly finished and not in need of significant additions, but perhaps in need of polishing. To summarize briefly, in the Advanced Expository class of experienced college writers, young students (those 24 or younger) appear less aware, in their comments, of their readers than do older students. We both groups of writers tend to focus their revisions on sentence level concerns, the younger writers mention adding details more, and the older writers refer to "cutting" or condensing. Younger writers more often mention grammatical concerns, while older writers refer to making their writing clearer or more "flowing." A later examination of the writing and revisions of six case studies will determine if their practices confirm their perceptions. In addition to one question about the definition of revision and allother about changes made in revision, I asked a third question: "Considering the last three papers you have written, how much time have you Spent on creating (coming up with ideas), shaping (writing and Organizing), and completing (revising and editing), in that order, in percentages adding to 100. This question was poorly designed because reVision is a recursive process; even the process of writing cannot be neatly divided into three categories as the question implies. However, I was 5 3 curious to see approximately how much time students think they spend revising. Selzer (1983) and Berkenkotter and Murray (1983) agreed that experienced writers revise less. Murray acknowledged after the study that writers who are familiar with a genre solve more problems in advance of a completed text. Furthermore, I had always assumed wrongly or rightly that written teacher comments encouraged student writers to spend more time on revision. Since the Advanced Expository class did not have written comments, would students spend less time revising? The younger writers in the class estimated the time spent on creating, shaping, completing (revising) in the percentages shown in Table 1 on the following page. The average amount of time these writers spend on revision is 26.1 percent of their total writing time. Mark, a particularly anxious writer (according to the Daly-Miller Writing Apprehension scale), spent more time on revision than any other student in the Advanced Expository class. For older students, percentages of time spent on creating, shaping, and completing (revising) are shown in Table 2, which follows Table 1. Older writers spent less estimated time on revision, an average of 17.4 P8rcent of their total writing time. An interesting fact emerged: Alma, a confident writer, spent more time than other older writers in revision of her Papers. Thus, one student who lacks confidence and one student who doesn't both allot a fairly substantial amount of time to the revision process. 54 Table 1 Advanced Expository Student Estimates of Writing Time (Age 24 Years and Younger) Creating Shaping Completing Steve absent for questionnaire Tammy 35 35 3) Dan '70 Z) 10 Kevin absent for questionnaire Rick 50 a) Z) Heather 33 33 33 Ben Z) 60 2) *Dawn 3) 50 2) *Mark % 5 50 55 Table 2 Advanced Expository Student Estimates of Writing Time (Age 25 Years and Older) Creating Shaping Completing Katharine absent for questionnaire Lyle Z) (I) 2) Kris 5O 30 Z) Pam 10 so 10 Carmen 25 55 Z) Karla 70 10 2) Cathy 40 A 50 10 Don 40 45 15 Monica absent for questionnaire Roy 50 (I) 2) *Alma Z) 50 8 5 6 H 10]] IM'I 'E] |° [E Q I With the student writers' responses to the three questions about revision, I began to understand better how students in Advanced Expository Writing felt about the process of writing in general, how it works for them, and what amount of time they give to revision in particular. However, I still lacked a clear sense of where teacher comments or peer comments fit into the process. In the fifth week of class after the writing process had been underway for some time, I asked students to do a freewrite on their opinions of the class structure. I asked them to write about the peer editing groups, my own availability for oral conferencing, and any other issues they wished to address. Of the 18 students who responded with a freewrite, four felt that peer editing was not beneficial or not as beneficial as it should be. Eleven students commented on the success and helpfulness of peer groups, and . three mentioned oral conferences with the teacher as helpful. I took a closer look at the responses of the three case studies to see how those compared with the group answers. Alma, a confident writer, said, "I really enjoy reading the papers of my Peers during workshop. . . I‘ve been impressed with the quality and Creativity of some of the papers, and they've given me ideas on how to enhance my writing style." Her comments seem to reflect her confidence, and She finds reading others' papers beneficial for her own writing style. She does not say, however, that peers' comments about her writing help W ith the revision process. 5 7 Dawn, a student writer with an average amount of apprehension, said, I feel that it is helping me a lot when we evaluate each others papers. It makes me able to make my paper better by getting an idea on how others see my paper. It also helps me to see others mistakes and I am able to help these people. Getting feedback on my writing makes my writing improve a lot. I also like being able to ask you (the teacher) questions at the end of class. Dawn was one of three students who felt oral conferences with me helped, but she was also enthusiastic about the help from her peers. She mentions getting satisfaction from helping others, and from being part of a writing community. Clearly, revision and peer group response go hand-in-hand for he r. Mark, an anxious writer, said, "I think the way we are doing this is great. I feel we get a lot more out of it this way than by just handing it in. The people in your group can give you some good ideas for your paper before it is too late." Several things emerge from Mark's comments. It appears that it has been "too late" for Mark on occasion, which may account in part f 01' his present writing anxiety. Thus, he may feel relieved with peer group e"liking which makes him a part of a writers' group, not alone in the process of Writing. His comment about "just handing it in" implies that he may have taken classes in which there was no opportunity for revision, but where students turned in only a final product which was graded. All three students-Alma, Dawn, and Mark--asked me to look at I‘O‘lgh drafts of their papers, although not for each assignment. In our Qt)tlferences I gave oral feedback on the drafts in progress, trying to note 58 positive aspects of the writing as well as things that could use support or change. I never felt I could address as many positive areas or as many weak areas of the papers as I do when I make written comments. But, as suggested by Buxton, this technique came closer to an open dialogue because I was able to get more information from the students about their frame of reference and expectations for the writing. I seemed to give fewer mixed messages-«fix the grammar but re-work the whole essay--than I had done often with written comments. It did seem to me that students were more "on their own" than usual in this class. Some of the essays I did not see in progress because the conferences were an option, not required. Most writers showed me some but not all drafts. I did not keep a tally on who attended conferences or how often, but I believe all students conferenced on at least one paper, and many students conferenced on all papers. In this study, however, I was more interested in peer comment than in teacher comment. How would it affect the revision process of student Writers? I hoped a careful look at three case studies would show. W Alma was the first student I studied. The most obvious fact about her experience in Advanced Expository Writing became apparent in the last week of class. Alma's pre-instructional score on the Daly-Miller Apprehension Test was 118, indicating that she was a confident writer. Her I><>8t—instructional score was 112, which suggested that she was slightly less eghfident exiting class than entering. In the six years I have been keeping 59 pre- and post-instructional scores, far fewer students leave class more anxious than when they enter. I thought perhaps an examination of her writing would provide possible reasons for this increase in anxiety. Early in the semester I had asked for Alma's response to two questions: 1) Overall, what do you like best about writing; 2) What are your two or three greatest problems with writing? Alma said she liked her writing because "it flows well from paragraph to paragraph; varied vocabulary; definite intro (thesis) and conclusion." From this response it seems she sees herself as an organized, smooth writer with a good vocabulary. In response to the question about writing problems, she listed only one: "Coming up with the 'idea'." As I looked at Alma's writing I considered several kinds of revisions (Sager 1973): cosmetic, mechanical, grammatical, continuational, informational, stylistic, transitional, organizational, holistic. I read her first drafts and compared them with the final drafts to see what changes, if any, occurred. Then I noted the type of change as closely as I could according to Sager's nine criteria. No determination on quality of writing Was made. Alma's first paper was revised in a rather unusual way. Because she missed the first week of class, Alma did not have the opportunity to I‘Q‘Vise as the other students did. She seemed confident about handing in only the final draft, so I agreed. However, when she received her grade she 60 felt she could do better and asked if she could revise. Since her absence from class had been for a good reason, I let her revise. The revised draft contained seven additional sentences as well as six transitions that were not in the first draft. Only one usage error was changed. Most of her revisions involved substitutions of one phrase or sentence for another (relating to Sommers' observations (1979) about adult writers). Many phrases were added for clarification, and the final sentence was re-worded. Alma made no organizational changes. In her second essay she made very few changes. In response to a Peer editor's comment, Alma did add the name of a flight attendant to give the paper more detail. She ignored two other suggestions for revisions by Peer editors, and she left blank the question on her own editing guide about arear of the paper needing more development. Her final comment on the Personal editing sheet was this: "I spent a lot of time on this paper and don't expect to do a lot of revisions. I need to smooth over a few rough spots, but I think that's all." Alma did, in fact, make only seven minor revisions, all word substitutions or additions. '- "H'" in .oiz...';c.orc .' .' Ainowzo 13.:,i‘l..t Her third essay was short and pithy in the first draft. One peer editor wrote, "Polish it up and send it off." Another suggested that she add 6 1 more details about the barking dogs mentioned in the paper and perhaps compare the dogs with their owners. In her own editing comments before the revision, Alma writes, "I may survey neighbors without dogs for their reactions and opinion. My voice is very tolerant and makes the point in a humorous way. It is appropriate for publication. Sentences are not necessarily complete, but they are readable. I think I'll make it more manuscript style and formal in my re-work." Her final draft showed a significant cosmetic change, in that the blocks of type surrounded by several inches of white space had been put into regular paragraphs instead of separate "boxes." This may be what she meant when she said she would make it more "manuscript style." She rewarded in approximately ten Places, eliminated three complete sentences, substituted one sentence for two, added several phrases for clarification, and generally modified the language: subsituted "irritate" for "pissed off", for example. For the fourth paper Alma was absent and did not receive peer f‘eedback or ideas for revision. She mailed me a copy of her rough draft, and when she returned to class we talked about the paper. The resulting revised draft had few corrections other than five additional words, one grammatical cohection, and one sentence and one paragraph omitted. The paragraph de] etion, however, was the largest deletion Alma had made to date in her i U I‘iting. The fifth assignment also lacked peer group response. Her changes were numerous, but small, on the abstract for the report. They involved re- wording and two added phrases for clarification. The report itself, which was four typed pages, contained only two minor revisions, one deletion of two words, and one word substitution. Only four revisions were made in the sixth paper: Alma moved two numbers in a column of figures, added a sentence to lead more clearly into a set of statistics, substituted one word for another, and added a phrase for clarity. Peer editors had no suggestions, although one asked about the cost 0f the proposal. Alma answered the question on the editing guide but made no reference to it in the revision of the paper. The final assignment entitled "Case Study: Diane Carter" was changed radically from first to second draft. The first draft appeared to be a B St of times rather than a narrative, and in the revision Alma wrote the Same information in paragraph form, adding details. Organizationally the I)aIMr remained the same, but cosmetically it changed greatly, and the 8‘33'listic changes were readily apparent. No peer editing was involved in the I‘e\"isions. Alma did show the rough draft to me, and I made the comment 63 that it seemed more like a time study than a case study. Her revisions seemed to reflect my comment. (landmine At the end of the term I asked all students to discuss their writing. Two questions related specifically to revision: 1) In thinking about revision, how do you use it in your writing, and which piece of writing best illustrates your success with revision? 2) Which essay did you have the most trouble revising and why? I was surprised at Alma's answer to the first question. 'I‘he essay that I thought contained the least revision was the one she felt best illustrated her success: "R. Foster Winans: Unethical or Illegal". Apparently she had an earlier version of the paper which she did not bring to class. Nor did she show it to me or to her peers. Alma writes: When I wrote my first draft of my investigative report on R. Foster Winans, it was three times its current length. By leaving it for a few days prior to the second editing, I cut down tremendously by eliminating unnecessary words and information. . . .Although I cited six sources of information, I read twice that to establish the background of the case. Then, when I wrote the paper based on my readings, it was very long and descriptive. My editing reduced the volume to 1/3 of its original. Fortunately for me, this class allowed me to use my preferred editing style-write, leave for a few days, re-read and edit, leave, re-read and edit, leave, final reading and edit. I need a break f'rom the paper to see its problems--no 'flow', too wordy, typo's, superfluous adjectives. To the question about difficulty with revision she remarked, "I had the most difBeulty revising my proposal because it was all facts. Since I'm so t‘altliliar with the subject, my original paper was close to the way I wanted it. other than minor 'cosmetic' changes, I didn't do much editing on this 64 paper." Alma's comments reflect Murray's idea that writers who are familiar with a genre solve problems in advance of a completed text. By difficulty in revising, Alma apparently means lack of revising. She did not agonize over changes to be made. She, in fact, saw very few changes necessary, thus perhaps the "problem" with revising. Alma seems to be a self-reliant writer, trusting herself first in matters of revision. For a variety of reasons she did not avail herself of peer editing help as much as the other students in the class. Often she was absent for peer workshops, yet even when she obtained peer comments she tended to ignore them and follow her own inclinations for revision. Her estimate of spending 30 percent of her time on revision seems high; however, if she proceeds as she indicates in her final comment about her Writing (write, leave, re-read, edit, leave, etc.), the 30 percent may be reasonable. My own observations of Alma's drafts lead me to believe that she revises most heavily at the sentence and phrase level, with addition and 8lllhstitution as the primary methods. Her first paper contained seven additional sentences and six additional transitions, as well as many phrase 81JI-bstitutions. The second paper had few revisions, but the seven made were all word substitutions or additions. In her third paper Alma added several F“irases for clarification as she did in the fifth assignment. The sixth paper a'g'ain had few revisions: one added sentence, an added phrase, and a word 8“~1>sitution. From what I saw, there seems to be some, but very little theetructuring or re-organization of her writing. But because Alma says she 65 makes many changes before bringing a draft to class, the larger structural changes may be made at that time. Occasionally Alma asked me for feedback and then acted on things we discussed in the oral conference. The case study is an example. It was originally set up to look more like a time study, but after our conference she modified the structure. It seems to me that written comments would have had little effect on her final drafts because clearly the first drafts (or at least the first ones she brings to class) are quite thorough. Since I often encourage development by written comments, perhaps the final drafts would have shown more detailed information than they do now, but that is speculation. I do think, however, the most important thing lacking in my response to Alma's drafts is the Opportunity to reinforce her positive attitudes about writing and about herself as a writer. While I made positive written comments on the final Products, having two opportunities to give praise, I feel, is better than one. Wm Dawn began the class with a writing apprehension score of 84, vVllich for this class was average. Her post-instructional score was 88, indicating she was slightly more confident exiting than entering Advanced Expository Writing. Both scores are well within the average range for the class. Overall what Dawn likes best about writing is that "when I'm titlished I usually feel that I've accomplished something." Her two or three g1"eatest problems with writing are these: "have hard time deciding what to 66 write on": "not sure how to express some ideas"; "not sure I'll have enough to say. " In her first essay Dawn made a few revisions. Peer editors suggested she add analogies and details to make it clearer for the reader, which she did. Another student suggested Dawn make a better transition into the process, perhaps by adding a personal experience. She did this also. A third peer suggestion was to put the entire paper into first person, which Dawn ignored. Overall she made four punctuation (grammatical) revisions, three word substitutions, a mechanical correction, one addition of a sentence, one deletion of a sentence and one word addition. Her second essay received many helpful revision suggestions from peers, and she followed many of their ideas. One peer editor said, "You allude to the sense of smell, but no supporting argument follows. Including the sense of smell would help." Dawn added an entire paragraph about the sense of smell in the final draft. When another editor suggested she change the last line of the first paragraph, she did. Still another remarked that the transition between the first and second sentence could be better; Dawn fixed it. To the suggestion that she add more to her conclusion, she did not respond; yet, to a call for more statistics she added a sentence. In other self- generated revisions she made six spelling corrections and added and 67 deleted a few words (stylistic revisions). Her organization from first to final draft remained the same. .01 00 u The third essay did undergo some substantive revisions based on peer group response and suggestion. One editor said, "needs some more sources other than personal experience. Need some statistics. How many teens and adults are killed each year by drunks? How many are just left disabled for life?" In response to this, Dawn consulted outside sources and included three additional sentences of statistics in her revised introduction. Another peer suggested that she "sound more crucial--like it's a life and death situation." Dawn strengthened a word from "might" to "will," and added three more sentences of forceful personal opinion near the end. In her personal editing guide filled out after the first draft was written but before the revisions were made, Dawn said she might add more detail. Student editors weren't as helpful or as critical on this paper. Most liked the article the way it was written. One noted that spelling and spacing needed fixing. The most notable change in the revised essay was a cosmetic change: the addition of a cartoon illustration of two people riding a snowmobile. Since the paper is about a snowmobile accident, this seemed Particularly appropriate since we can see from the cartoon that the ice is breaking beneath the vehicle. In the article itself, Dawn addressed spelling, 68 correcting two errors. She added a transition phrase and eliminated one sentence. The most substantive change was the deletion of a whole paragraph that did not relate to the accident directly. Thus, even without substantial peer comment, Dawn made a major change in the paper. For this paper Dawn did not have any peer response because she was absent. She made one and only one change from the rough draft to the final product, and that was the addition of the word "it." This paper had suggestions from peer editors. One reminded Dawn that the rough draft lacked sections, and another suggested that she include a written schedule for the proposed tests to occur. The final paper is clearly organized by sections and nicely formatted. She gave careful attention to the cosmetic details of the proposal. A transition sentence was added to the end of the introduction to lead into the next section. No changes were made on the discussion section; the rough draft reads exactly the same as the final draft. Two new sections were added, however: Conclusions and Recommendations, both clearly worded and complete. The final assignment was a case study, and Dawn entitled her paper just, that: "Case Study." Apparently she read over the rough draft before 69 typing the final paper (actually her essays were word processed, as were Alma's), but when she made the one and only correction she misplaced the word she intended to insert. Other than that faulty revision, no other changes were made, and no peer comments were given for any class member on that assignment. Conclusions At the end of the term, responding to the two questions about revision, Dawn had these comments: I use revision in my writing a lot to change things around. Helping to revise others papers in class helped me to see different ways to word some of my sentences. My best revised paper was "Changing a Tire"; a lot of the wording was changed around. I had the most trouble revising my proposal paper. This was a hard paper to revise. The example given to us in class helped quite a bit. I was not surprised that Dawn said her first paper was the most successful. For that essay she received several peer comments and acted on all but one. She also made ten self-determined revisions (grammatical, mechanical and informational). To summarize Dawn's experience with revision and peer comment, I would say that peer editing helped her more than it did Alma. Dawn seemed especially receptive to critical comment and took advantage of what others had to offer, especially perhaps in the second essay about desserts. The papers for which she had peer comments were revised much more eXtensively than those done "alone." The fifth paper, "Concentration", Which was done without peer comment, had only one minor revision made 70 to the final draft. On the whole from my observations, it seems that most of her revisions were what I would call substantive, or what Sager would call informational: for example, in the paper on drunk driving she responded to a peer's idea that she consult outside sources, adding three sentences of statistics to her final draft. Dawn made very few stylistic changes, unlike Alma who worked with the arrangement of her sentences to a greater degree. Dawn made more grammatical revisions (spelling, punctuation) but did little with the organization of her papers. My hunch is that with written teacher comments Dawn's papers would have been more developed, although peers were helpful in suggesting places to add information. It was also good to see that Dawn's confidence in her writing improved slightly throughout the course of the semester. W The third case study from the Advanced Expository Writing class is Mark, who scored 63 on the Daly-Miller Test of Writing Apprehension. His score indicates that he has far less confidence in his writing than either Dawn or Alma. However, his post-instructional score dropped to 45, one of the largest declines I have seen in recent years. If Mark was an anxious writer coming into this course, he was even more anxious going out. As I did with the entire class, early in the semester I asked for Mark's response to two questions: 1) Overall, what do you like best about Writing; 2) What are your two or three greatest problems with writing? 71 Mark wrote that what he liked best about writing is "you get to write what you feel and want to write about." His three greatest problems with writing are "ending my paper, shaping my paragraphs," and "scattering my ideas." While most students did only two drafts of each paper, Mark often did three. His first paper, "Weight Lifting" was done in only two drafts, however. One of his peer editors suggested that he might want to polish up the ending. Another mentioned the paragraph about "spotters" and said this didn't make the point Mark wanted it to make. In his own written comments on the personal editing guide before making any revisions, Mark said, "I just have to change a couple of sentences." His final draft contained one word substitution, one correction of a spelling error (mechanics), an added phrase, and an additional sentence of explanation about "spotters" (informational). Mark also added a phrase about spotters to further clarify a point he made later. Except for the suggestion about polishing up the ending, Mark seemed to respond carefirlly to the suggestions of his peers. The second assignment was done in three drafts. Mark's peers suggested that his first two paragraphs could be combined into one and mentioned that he needed further support for his arguments, specific incidents that supported his ideas. One editor said, "You may need some 72 facts or stats." Another said, "Try to get more info about the lady who recovered. How long in hosp., etc.? How about info on severely disabled infants at birth? Some are allowed to die. . . ." In his own revision statement Mark said he would give "more examples." The second draft saw these changes: rephrased a sentence, added two sentences of explanation, corrected a spelling error, and made a word substitution. In the third and final draft he added a final paragraph of conclusion and facts about the legality of mercy killing in the US. and Canada. Mark's editorial was also done in three drafts. One peer editor said, "Where is the conclusion?" Another remarked that the second and third paragraphs could be combined and that the ending leaves the reader "up in the air." Mark said in his own editing comments prior to revising that he planned to write a better conclusion. The second draft included one added word, the correction of a spelling error, a grammatical correction, as well as several substantive changes: an added paragraph of information, elimination of another sentence, and movement of the example of his aunt's accident to a place near the end of the paper. In the third draft be eliminated one sentence from the last paragraph and added an entirely new two-sentence conclusion. Although he ignored the suggestion to combine the two paragraphs into one, he did take the suggestion about fixing the conclusion. [91‘ CO [527' 7 3 . .. - 9n The fourth paper was done in two drafts. Student editors made comments about the general nature of the subject. One said, "Be more descriptive about what you are speaking about." Another remarked, "Perhaps give more examples instead of generalizations--i.e., solving complex problems--what type?" In his own comments for revision Mark mentioned "better paragraphs," but he didn't say exactly how he planned to work on paragraphs in the final draft. His actual revisions included seven grammatical corrections, three mechanical corrections, a transition, the elimination of two words, the addition of five words and one phrase. Mark also rephrased one sentence completely and added a final sentence to the conclusion. Mark's report received few suggestions for changes on the peer editing guides, although one student mentioned that he might want to elaborate on the "situations." Mark forgot to submit the rough draft: with the final draft, so I was unable to compare the two. , n - n The sixth paper received little in the way of constructive comments for revision. But Mark made several changes on his own: primarily word and sentence changes, including three word substitutions, several word eliminations, corrections of two comma errors and one spelling error. In 74 cosmetic changes he added the use of all capital letters to the proposal headings. He reworded on one occasion, added a word on another, and finally added one complete phrase of explanation. . u _ 0 n The last assignment, a case study, did not receive peer editing, so again Mark made the changes on his own, with an oral conference with me prior to the revision. Actually the final draft was the third draft, but since Mark did not turn in the first draft with the final copy, I was unable to compare those revisions which, as I recall, added details to the second draft. To the third draft he added a transition, made a word substitution, combined two sentences, and corrected three grammatical errors and two spelling errors. Conclusions At semester's end Mark answered the two questions about revision this way: When it comes to revising I tend to do it more in my conclusions. Sometimes, however, there is a need to do it in entire paragraphs and single sentences. I think my best revision was done on two papers. The paper on seatbelts and the paper on mercy killing. My writing on weight lifting was the hardest to revise. I think this was partially due to the fact that it was my first paper and that we never really went over how to revise yet. In summarizing my observations about Mark and the revision process, it seems he learned some things about how to revise during the semester. He 75 thought his paper needed only a couple of changes early in the term (the first essay "Weight Lifting"), but later seemed to take more time and make more changes at the suggestion of his peer editors. Mark was the most regular student to conference with me. In spite of our oral conferences, however, most of the revisions we discussed did not appear in the final drafts, with the exception of one organizational change and a few smaller changes. As he mentioned in his final comments, Mark prefers to make revisions in his conclusion, and, in fact, did revise or add to the conclusions of many papers. Early in the semester a comment was made by a peer editor about Mark's conclusion, and I wonder if he then continued to look carefully at his conclusions to see if they were effective. I think Mark's confidence might have benefitted from written positive comments. It seems that in general he responds more to written suggestions than to verbal ones. Mark probably would have addressed written teacher comments just as he did written peer comments. Thus, in his case, more than in Dawn's or Alma's, written comments might have been helpful. I l' I' Ell El 1E '| Eli To summarize my observations about the Advanced Expository Writing class which operated without written teacher comments, I would say that the three case studies--Alma, Dawn, Mark--did not make as many substantive revisions (informational, holistic) as I usually like to see. Yet, on several occasions peers did make comments that encouraged larger changes, so the revisions were not totally lacking in that area. Alma, a 76 confident, self-reliant writer, seemed less likely to take peers' suggestions even if the suggestions were good ones. On the other hand, Dawn, a less confident writer, often responded to the comments of her peers. Although all three of the case study writers used oral conferences with me to varying degrees, basically they revised without direct teacher intervention. Because of this it seems that they learned about revision from a writer's perspective rather than from a teacher's. In short, they maintained more control of the revision process. I see this as a positive outcome. It seems to me, however, that written teacher comments do provide more opportunity for students to think about possible revisions than do oral conferences. I wonder if students forget changes that are discussed in conferences. On several occasions Mark and I talked about possible revisions which never appeared in his final drafts. This may be for two reasons: 1) he considered making the changes but relied on his own judgment as author and rejected my ideas; 2) he forgot that the changes had been discussed. It is important for students to maintain ownership of their writing, making changes they see important. But they shouldn't be prevented from making changes simply because they have forgotten some or all of what was discussed. In the advanced expository study the increase in writing anxiety in two of the three case studies--Alma and Mark--causes me some concern. Gee's study (1972) found that negative attitudes about writing may be a result of the teacher's lack of comment. I felt that I gave far fewer comments to students in oral conferences than I normally do in written 77 comments. Perhaps this had an effect on these two writers. A comparison of this Advanced Expository study with the Freshman Composition study which follows may be helpful in evaluating the "confidence" issue. CHAPTER IV WRITI‘EN TEACHER AND PEER COMMENT AND THE REVISION PROCESS IN THREE FRESHMAN COMPOSITION CASE STUDIES Freshman Composition, the second class under investigation, did involve written teacher comment. The class had 22 students, primarily traditional college-age men and women in their late teens or early twenties. One student in her fifties was returning to college after raising a family. She was the only older student in the class and one of the few employed part- time. For most students, this class, titled College Rhetoric, was their first college writing course; thus, I regarded them as less experienced college writers than the students in Advanced Expository Writing. As with the other study, the three case studies from Freshman Composition were selected on the basis of Daly-Miller Writing Apprehension Test scores taken on the first day of the semester. Again I chose one student with a high score, indicating a significant degree of confidence about writing: Kara scored 110. The second student, Cami, had a middle-range score of 84, suggesting an average amount of writing 78 apprehens scored 69, Ge semester s EXpOSitor) changes dc suiting pr: YOU rate p1 ’ shm n 0 Class and t with the e underthe; forpurpose the"young would this What is y: Composing 79 apprehension. The third case study was Mary, the older student, who scored 69, indicating a considerable degree of anxiety about writing. General whole-class data gathered six weeks after the start of the semester was generated by the same four questions I posed to the Advanced Expository group: 1) What is your definition of revision? 2) What kinds of changes do you make when you revise? 3) Out of 100 percent for the total writing process, what percent of time do you spend on revision? 4) How do you rate peer editing comments and written comments by the teacher? E l 11 E B . . One of the significant differences between the Expository Writing class and the Freshman Composition class was the age of the students. With the exception of Mary, all students in Freshman Composition were under the age of 25. Although they will all be classified as "young" writers for purposes of this study, they did not have as much writing experience as the "young" (under age 25) writers in the Advanced Expository class. Would this lack of experience be reflected in their answers to the question "What is your definition of revision?" The novice writers in Freshman Composition had these comments: Fred - "reviewing with an eye toward concentrating the thought content and smoothing the sentences. Spelling and gramer [sic] check." Mandy - "correcting mistakes, not only grammarical [sic] but structural too" Cathy - "correcting your mistakes--a rewriting process" F01» t WOTC}: ‘et S: 80 Annie - "prior to this class it was correcting spelling and punctuation. But now it is rethinking the entire paper and re- constructing it in a better way." Tracie - "changing a paper to make it better" Bob - "typing my paper up from what I have written, whatever doesn't sound good, I fix" Jim - "the act of correcting one's mistakes" Bonnie - "Doing everything that must be done to your drafts to create a smooth reading finished piece." Tonya - "To revise is to alter or change the content of your paper to specifically state what you would like it to say." Lori - "Revision is going over your paper a few times and fixing things to make it better." Kris - "Revision is perfection. It‘s like science. Everything has to work with each other, the project has to go in a certain direction to achieve success and small things are very important." Ed - "Making corrections in a paper until you feel comfortable with it." Daniel - "It is remaking the 'vision' that one has (improving)." *Kara - "Rewriting and correcting until you have a perfect or near- perfect piece of writing." *Cami - "to re-do any errors or phrasing problems" *Mary (the older writer) - "To go over the writing--rearrange-- add or leave out words or sentences." For the most part, the freshmen writers and the more experienced young writers in the expository study had similar responses to the question. The words 'perfect' and 'correct' appeared often in the comments of both groups. Yet several less experienced freshmen writers mentioned 'mistakes' or 'errors,‘ while none of the advanced writers did. Writers who mentioned 81 mistakes were writers from the class which had received my written comments on their first drafts. It may be that the presence of a reader who marks on the draft leads some student writers into thinking about mistakes or, as Sommers says, making the changes the teacher wants rather than those the student perceives are necessary, "since the teacher's concerns imposed on the text create the reasons for the subsequent changes" ("Responding to Student Writing" 150). One student, Annie, seemed to alter her perceptions of the revision process as a result of the Freshman Composition course. The questionnaire to which she responds was distributed about six weeks into the semester. At that time she says she considers revision "rethinking the entire paper and re-constructing it in a better way." Prior to taking the class she says she thought it was "correcting spelling and punctuation." Other freshmen writers like Fred appear to combine both elements (correcting and re- seeing) in the definition of revision. He says it is "reviewing with an eye toward concentrating the thought content" as well as a "spelling and gramer [sic] check." Kris says that revision is like science: "Everything has to work with each other, the project has to go in a certain direction to achieve success and small things are very important." Her reflections remind me of those of an experienced young writer, Ben, from the Advanced Expository class who said that revision is "making sure that everything fits OK in a pattern." The only student in Freshman Composition who mentioned adding information in the revision process was Mary, the older writer; this seems to corresp addition a possibility hwmu believes "t Specificalll Suggest a] has been i V egocentric cmics, the Writing f0] their Own and fixing 'Vision‘ th “item in Compositi 82 to correspond with Sommers' finding that older writers make more use of addition as a revision strategy. Yet, other young writers do allow for the possibility of addition: Bonnie says revision is "doing everything that must be done to your drafts to create a smooth reading finished piece." Tonya behaves "to revise is to alter or change the content of your paper to specifically state what you would like it to say." Tonya's comment seems to suggest also that she assumes ownership of the writing even though she has been receiving written teacher comment on drafts in progress. With respect to what Scardemalia and Bereiter call writers' egocentricity which does not allow them to stand apart from their texts as critics, the writers in this Freshman Composition class make no mention of writing for a reader, but they do put themselves in a position to criticize their own work. Lori considers revision "going over your paper a few times and fixing things to make it better." And Daniel says it is "remaking the 'vision' that one has (improving)." None of these young, less experienced writers imply that revision is redoing the paper from scratch, and none of their papers indicated that they had done so. The difference in writing experience between the Freshman Composition class and the Advanced Expository class did not seem to be reflected in their beliefs about revision. Although both the Advanced Expository class and the freshman class participated in peer editing and written peer comments, none of the students referred to a reader of their writing. Revision appears to exist for most of them as a personal activity with the text, a reassessment of the grammatical correctness, an alteration 83 of the content and shape, a perfecting part of the writing process. The one significant difference I noted as I looked over the responses of the expository class (no written teacher comment) and the Freshman Composition class (written teacher comment) was the mention of "mistakes" or "errors" by four of the students who had been accustomed to seeing my written comments on their drafts. Yet, as Annie mentioned on her questionnaire, some students in high school think of revision as "correcting spelling and punctuation." So the comments of these four students may be a carryover from, earlier writing experiences. The second question in the open-ended questionnaire distributed to all members of the freshman writing class asked students to discuss more specifically the kinds of changes they make in revision. To "What kinds of changes do you make when you revise?" the novice writers said this: Fred - "spelling. Choice of words." Mandy - "Mostly diction. When I re-read I see where other words would be better." Cathy - "mostly grammar or re-arrange sentences" Annie - "I change sentence structures. Add words or replace them with better words. I take out un-needed words or phrases." Tracie - "I try to make transitions, ideas flow, and make sure grammar and punctuation are correct." Bob - "Not many if any." Jim - "I try and make the sentences sound good, like I would revise that sentence to 'I try to make better sounding sentences.” 84 Bonnie - "Sentence structure. Make better transitions. Add more detail and proof along with deleting unnecessary things." Tonya - "wording" Lori - "Grammar changes are very important. If I'm writing fast, I change alot of spelling. I always have a million typos too." Kris - "Every kind of change imaginable. Sometimes the focus is different, paragraphs are deleted, certain ideas are enlarged and clearer, the organization is reorganized, diction is changed. . . so much!" Ed - "I change some punctuation and try to combine some sentences." Daniel - "Small sentence or word changes; sometimes paragraph changes." *Kara - "Spelling, grammatical, sentence structure, diction, overall I look at the paper--or have someone else do it and I ask if it all applies to the thesis." ' *Cami - "grammar, typos, wording, phrasing" *Mary (the older writer) - "Whole sentences or I follow your recommendations by changing words, moving sentences here and there." Many of their comments reflect Sommers' findings that the greatest number of revisions by college students occur at the word and phrase level, with lezncal deletions and substitutions the most frequent operations. In this respect the more experienced and the less experienced young writers did not differ. Fred talks about "choice of words." Mandy says she changes "mostly diction," and Daniel refers to "small sentence or word changes." Other comments concern sentence operations: Annie says she changes sentence structures, while Jim tries to make the sentences sound good. 85 Bonnie too talks about sentence structure, and Ed says he tries to combine some sentences. Since both classes used editing guides which established some criteria for revision of their papers, I wondered if students would use these criteria to activate memory searches, as Sager (1973) suggests. Some young experienced writers in Advanced Expository talked about including "bits and details," or making changes that others suggested on the guides. Bonnie, a student in Freshman Composition, says she adds "more detail and proof along with deleting unnecessary things." Kris notes that "sometimes the focus is different, paragraphs are deleted, certain ideas are enlarged and clearer." Only two writers refer directly to others' suggestions, however. Kara, the student who by her score on the Daly- Miller scale seems to be a confident writer, says she looks at the paper or has someone else look at the paper. Mary, the writer who appears apprehensive about writing, says she follows my recommendations "by changing words, moving sentences here and there." In the Advanced Expository group of experienced young writers, the only student to mention others' comments was Dawn, a student with an average amount of writing apprehension. Here then are three students with varying degrees of writing anxiety who all consider feedback from peers or from me when they make revisions. But according to their comments and the comments of the others from both classes, they appear to be in the minority. It is fair to assume, however, that comments may not always reflect actual practices. 86 In terms of addition or deletion strategies, the young, less experienced writers mentioned both just three times. Each student who mentioned adding something also spoke of deleting material as well: Annie takes out "un-needed words or phrases," but she also adds words or replaces them with better words. Mandy also talks of substitution: "When I re-read I see where other words would be better." Overall, however, the comments of freshmen writers seem to reflect the notion that their changes or revisions occur on the surface level more than the substantive level, with re-arrangement a common operation. These are students who have received suggestions for substantive revisions in my written marginal comments. Yet they refer more often to syntactical and grammatical concerns, as did the young advanced writers in the Advanced Expository class who did not receive written marginal comments. E l E I' | [B . . I. I asked the novice writers a third question relating to the amount of time they think they spend revising: "Considering the last three papers you have written, how much time have you spent on creating (coming up with ideas), shaping (writing and organizing), and completing (revising and editing), in that order, in percentages adding to 100?" I wondered how their revision times would compare with those of the younger and older students in the expository study. Freshman Composition students estimated the time spent on creating, shaping, and completing (revising) in the percentages shown in Table 3 on the following page. The average amount of 87 time these writers spend on revision is 23.3 percent of their total writing time. Kara, a confident writer, and Cami, a writer of average confidence, estimate that they spend 20 percent of their writing time revising. This is slightly less than the average for the class. An analysis of the number and kind of revisions indicated that this was a reasonable estimate. But Mary, the older student who has some writing apprehension, spends only five percent of her time revising, as nearly as she can determine. Her estimate seems very low because an analysis of her papers shows extensive revisions. Older writers in the Advanced Expository study believe that they average 17.4 percent of their time on revision. These figures compare with those of the younger writers in the same study who estimate 26.1 percent and those of the Freshman Composition class writers who say 24.8 percent of their time is spent on revision. From these student estimates, it seems that older writers do spend less time revising, or at least think they do. Because I had believed that written teacher comments encouraged student writers to spend more time on revision, it was surprising to find that actually the class receiving written comments believed they spent less time revising than the class without written comments. It seems that comments may, in fact, speed up the revision process by suggesting how and when to revise. 88 Table 3 Freshman Composition Student Estimates of Writing Time Creating Shaping Completing Fred % so 15 Mandy 75 10 15 Cathy 40 40 2) Annie 1(X) Tracie 45 4O 15 Bob 3) so 10 Jim 15 70 15 Bonnie 2) 35 45 Tonya 11) 40 30 Lori 50 so 2) Kris 15 % 60 Ed 30 10 6) Daniel absent for questionnaire *Kara Z) 60 Z) *Cami 4O 40 2) *Mary 75 Z) 5 89 As I had done with the Expository Writing class, I asked the fi'eshmen to do a freewrite about five weeks into the semester to get a sense of their perceptions of peer and teacher comment. I encouraged them to reflect on peer editing groups and comments, written teacher comments, and any other issues they wished to consider. Twenty students responded with a freewrite. Of those 20, thirteen students mentioned the positive benefits of peer editing. Their remarks ranged from "good somewhat," to "helped me feel better about others reading my writing." One student saw peer editing as a way to provide motivation. Another said, "As peers sometimes we are able to give good suggestions or ideas that maybe the professor isn't always able to give." Only two students felt peer editing to be of little or questionable benefit. One mentioned that he wanted peers to be more critical and faulted their "lack of looking for bad things." Others who liked peer editing also said they wished peers would not try to be "nice." Comparing these responses with the Expository Writing class, I found that approximately the same number of students in both classes like peer editing: eleven out of eighteen in the Expository Writing class compared with thirteen of twenty students in the Freshman Composition class. Slightly more of the advanced writers faulted peer editing: four of eighteen, compared with only two of twenty in the less experienced fieshmen group. With respect to written teacher comment, seven of the twenty students in Freshman Composition said they felt it was a good method. One 9O remarked that he liked teacher comments but felt they "should be more on the grammar aspects." Another student who liked written comments referred to the teacher "correcting and reading" the paper and said, "I enjoy both positive comments and suggestions." Since, as a teacher, I always feel I am "correcting" when I mark grammatical issues on a student paper, I was not surprised to see that at least one student feels the same. But the student who wanted "more on the grammar aspects" reassured me somewhat about a possible overemphasis on those concerns. One student, however, disliked written teacher comments, saying they were "sometimes unclear and vague." Reading this I was reminded of Coupe's study (1985) which found that teacher comment often is of little help to the student because teachers fail to communicate their message clearly. A rather surprising development for me was to see the number of students (N =6) who mentioned that teacher/student conferences were helpful. I did not require conferences, but made it known that if students wanted to talk about their papers, I was available. By the fifth week when the freewrite was done, there had not been an unusally large number of students in to see me for conferences, but the six students who commented had positive things to say: "keeps communication open and helps a lot with writing"; "if we have a problem we know there is a time for us to discuss it with you openly"; "good and much needed at least for me." Based on the freewrite it would seem that peer editing made a more positive impact on students or at least prompted them to comment on its positive aspects. There may be a couple of reasons for this: 1) students are 91 exposed to this method for the first time in college, thus eliciting a strong initial reaction; 2) students are reluctant to fault other students for this group activity, just as they seem to be reluctant to fault each other as they edit. Getting students to make constructive, critical comments on papers is something many writing teachers who use peer groups wrestle with on a continual basis. I do feel, however, that the sense of writing community which had developed may have contributed to the written support shown for peer group activities. One of the two students who questioned peer editing was Kara, a confident writer, who said, "The only factor in this class structure that I question is the peer editing groups. It seems to me that many of my peers feel that the day we hand in papers, and edit them, they don't come to class. I'm just wondering if there is a different approach to take to make the students more enthusiastic about peer editing." She would, it seems, like to see it work, but she feels the way I have structured the class, I have allowed some students to avoid peer work. Kara also sees a lack of enthusiasm by others in the class, although from most of their comments this does not seem evident. Ironically, she does not mention if peers are helpful in her own writing process, which was what I was most interested to learn. Alma, the confident writer from the Expository Writing class, had not mentioned using peers' suggestions either, although she said that reading others' work had given her ideas for enhancing her writing style, an indirect help. Kara, however, does not relate her work to peer comments in any way. 92 Cami, the student with an average amount of writing apprehension, said, "I think the revision process is great. I like the idea that you see my paper and give advice before I hand in my final draft." She doesn't mention peers or their comments, nor does she mention teacher/student conferences. Her remarks seem directed primarily to the written teacher comments made on drafts in progress. Mary, the older more anxious writer, said, "I liked this [editing groups] because it gave me a chance to read many other different stories. I found it hard to comment on the writings of others, because deep in my heart I don't really like to critize [sic] such things. I am always in awe of what others think and write. They teach me much." Mary had more to say about peer groups than she did about written teacher comment or teacher/student conferences. She remarked, "Written teacher comments were very important and helpful." About conferences she said, "To me these conferences were very important and helpful and you guided me in a personal way." Of the three case studies--Kara, Cami, and Mary--only Mary had been in for conferencing at the five-week point in the semester. Although she seemed to find written teacher comment and conferences helpful, Mary made more remarks about peer editing. Her hesitation to criticize others' work is a common finding in studies of peer groups. George Jacobs in a writing study in Thailand found that students showed interest in reading about others, but they felt inadequate to make comments. Jacobs suggested responding lists as a way 93 around this problem. Mary did use a peer editing guide which provided some structure and direction for her comments, but at least for her this did not seem enough to overcome the reluctance. According to other researchers (Moffett, Davies and Omberg, and Chaudron), peer editing has its chief value in the added emphasis it places on composition as a process, as an activity of instrinsic value. Mary's comment about being in awe of other student writers indicates that she respects the work they do in the class, in the writing community. Perhaps the number of students (thirteen of twenty) who made positive comments also is an indication of the value students place on peer editing as a part of the overall writing process. Of the three case studies from Freshman Composition, one student, Kara, had some question about the peer editing process as it was practiced in class. She did not say whether or not it was beneficial to her, nor did she remark on my written comments or conferences. Clearly, her confidence as a writer shows in her freewrite response. Cami, a student with average anxiety, liked written teacher comments yet made no mention of peers. But Mary, the most anxious writer, commented favorably on peer groups, written teacher comments and teacher/student conferences. I wondered if the revisions of these three writers would reflect the feelings expressed in their comments. Qanclnsicns The group studies were beneficial because they allowed me to see how the ideas of the three case study writers compared with the whole class. 94 Generally, Kara, Cami and Mary made comments that did not stand apart from the others. The only surprising response came when they were asked to estimate revision times. Mary's low estimate of 5 percent seemed unusual, as an analysis of her extensively revised papers will show. However, in fairness to all students, I must admit that it is dificult to estimate revision times. Perhaps, however, for more experienced writers, revision becomes an easier part of writing, at least in perception if not in practice. Some fi'eshmen writers in the study appear to hold onto the idea that revision means correcting mistakes. Others have a larger vision, viewing it as a recursive process, or as Daniel says, "remaking the vision that one has." Cami, in particular, stressed the importance of taking more time to revise throughout the writing process, not just in the final stages. Whatever their differences in perceptions, practices, and percentages of time spent revising, most of the novice writers believe that revision is an integral part of the writing process. I wondered how closely the actual revisions of the three case study writers would reflect the beliefs expressed in their comments. Wm A confident writer at the beginning of the class (110), Kara scored three points higher (113) on the Daly-Miller post test, meaning that she had gained a very small measure of confidence in the course of the semester. When I asked early in the term for her comments about what she liked best 95 about writing, she wrote, "a chance to revise your writing-«you can really see the overall improvements!" In response to the question "What are your two or three greatest problems with writing?" Kara wrote: 1) "not enough time revising"; 2) "spelling and grammar--locating mistakes"; 3) "I get too involved in my paper and can't get a broad picture of my completed wor She mentioned revision twice, first as something positive, a way to improve her writing, and second as one of her problems: she believes she does not spend enough time on this part of the writing process. As I examined Kara's writing and its revisions, I looked at the same nine criteria I had applied to the expository class papers: cosmetic, mechanical, grammatical, continuational, informational, stylistic, transitional, organizational, holistic (Sager 1973). As I read her first draft and compared it with the final draft, I noted the changes that occurred and the apparent impetus for the changes: i.e., written teacher comment, peer comment, self-determination. Then I noted the type of change as closely as possible to Sager's criteria, making no effort to comment on the quality of writing or to evaluate good versus poor revisions. Kara's first paper contained a number of changes from first to final draft, almost all inspired either by my comments or those of her peers. Many involved the process of addition. The most obvious change was a cosmetic one; she modified the triple spacing to double spacing, probably in response to my written comment: "This looks like triple space. . . In 96 response to my 27 marginal comments, Kara made 23 revisions, primarily word substitutions, deletions, or additions. She added one transition word, corrected three spelling errors, and made seven grammatical or mechanical revisions. To my comments about informational changes ("What do you mean?" and "I'm not sure I understand") she chose not to respond. I was reminded here of Coupe's study (1985) which found students ignoring comments that seemed vague. However, Kara also ignored my suggestion to omit a phrase and add a comma, although neither of these suggestions was unclear. In my final holistic comment I suggested she get more quickly to the key moment in the experience (losing a check from her checkbook) and expand with description. In revising she added six sentences about the loss and condensed almost an entire paragraph to get quickly to the action. Peers also had some revision suggestions which she generally followed. One said, "How could you have lost it? Speculation would be good." Kara added three questions in response to this remark. Another said, "Sentence clarity in general needs a little work." I made written agreement on the peer editing guide, and Kara seemed to pay attention to clarification in her revision, adding a phrase and completely re-wording five sentences. One editor said, "I got a little bit confused about which of your friends came over. . . ", so she added the name "Kevin" twice to clear up any confusion. Only one peer comment was not addressed. After her peers had offered their comments, Kara made her own suggestions about revising. She wrote, "Maybe the time period is too long 97 and I need to specify 'fiiend/fiiends'--more descriptions of how I lost it [the check]." She eventually did make all these changes. In fact, she made five additional revisions that were not the result of teacher or peer comments, all small mechanical corrections such as changing "3:00 a.m." to "three o'clock." In her second paper, a description of approximately the same length as the first assignment, Kara made slightly fewer changes. I wrote 25 comments, and Kara responded to 22 of those. Clearly she was following the same conscientious pattern established in the first paper. Nine changes were grammatical, primarily spelling or comma errors; however, she left two words misspelled in the final draft, just as they had been in the first. To my comment about a transition she added four words. The most substantive change, the addition of a sentence, was in response to my final comment for more detail in the paragraph about spring at the beach. Although she seemed very intent upon making my suggested revisions, Kara also made five self-determined changes: spelling corrections; word and phrase substitutions; and the addition of five words of description. Peers liked her paper very much and made many positive comments, but they had no suggestions for improvement. In her own comments prior to revision she wrote, "maybe I need more details in the third body paragraph--the fall up north is gorgeous!" She then remarked that she would check spelling errors, but overall expected to make "no 98 major changes." In a comment directed to me on her editing guide, she asked if I "clearly understand how the summer people absolutely destroy all the beauty of the beach in the summertime." When I read this I responded, "Yes, very clear." The third assignment included two parts: an assertion with proof paper and a query letter. The final draft of Kara's paper was entitled "Is Organization What You Need?" On the letter which prefaced the paper, I made 12 revision suggestions; Kara made all but one of the changes. Additionally, she made five revisions of her own. This seemed like a relatively high number of self-determined revisions for the short letter assignment, so I took this as a movement away from a dependence on my comments. Yet on the paper itself, Kara made no changes on her own. She did make significant additions in response to my 21 comments and to the suggestions of peers who thought she needed more support. She agreed that "tons more support" was needed. To achieve this she added three long sentences of example on the first page and two lengthy quotes from professionals who attribute their success to being organized in college. These represented the most substantive revisions Kara had made to date. Again Kara was following almost all of my suggestions (17 of 21) and all but one from her peers. 99 But even before I read her paper and made comments, Kara seemed to have a clear sense of what she would do to revise it . She said she would "add more proof that it can and will help you keep and attain a job"; "go through with tons more support"; "get some specific instances from students who have had this work for them." When I read her own comments, I reflected on her increased ability to evaluate her own writing. Kara's fourth paper, which again was of the same length as the previous papers, had the most written teacher comments (39), although my comments were primarily minor stylistic or grammatical suggestions, with only four questions or comments calling for substantive informational revisions. Kara paid particular attention to all four of those informational revisions, adding a number of sentences and clarifying others. She also added a page of works cited and carefully went through the paper to cite sources whenever she used direct quotes from her research materials. Kara made a number of self-determined revisions (14), although up to this point she had been making only a few on each assignment. This increase seemed to reinforce my belief that she was becoming a more confident reviser. In "A Critical Decision" Kara added words, found several spelling errors I had missed, and added citations on eight occasions. She also added a sentence of clarification on her own and substituted one word for another. Peers were not as helpful, however, on the fourth paper. Only one comment for revision was made: "the paragraphs seem to say the same thing." This 100 remark was, as far as I could determine, ignored. Another peer complimented her on the use of quotes saying, "You use quotes well to explain where you got your ideas." In terms of revision strategies, Kara had some thoughts: "My analysis, I think, is the weakest part of my paper. I want to go back and clean it up a little bit-«make it more organized." I agreed in the margin with her comment, but when I read the final draft, I could see no change in organization. My biggest surprise, however, with this assignment came when I analyzed my written comments. I noted that almost half (17 of 39) related to grammatical issues; an additional 15 of the 39 were stylistic comments, suggesting word or phrase additions, deletions, substitutions, or rearrangement. My suggestions for substantive revisions had been few. anclnsinns Kara's feelings about revision may in part be summed up by her response to the question "What is the easiest part of writing for you. " To this she replied, "Writing the mine] paper." (Emphasis hers .) I have a hunch that re-writing or revising is less easy for Kara. She goes on to say, "Strict guidelines make writing easier for me." For most of the semester Kara followed closely peer and teacher comments. But as she wrote more, she became less dependent on those guidelines, venturing off to make more self-determined revisions. She seems very aware that writing experience leads to growth, because when I asked what she felt she had to do to be a good writer she said, "Practice and practice!" 101 W Cami's score on the Daly-Miller test at the beginning of the semester was 84, but on the post-test her score dropped by four points to 80, indicating that she was a slightly less confident writer after Freshman Composition than before. She had an unusually candid response to the question about what she likes best about writing. Cami says, "I get my papers done so that I can get good grades." She believes her two or three greatest problems with writing are "I procrastinate"; "I need to spend more time revising as I go along"; "Shouldn't let the thought of writing a paper bother me." Her first essay was the story of an earlier experience with country dancing. She brought the rough draft to class for peer editing and then turned it in for my comments. But when it was time to submit the final draft, Cami remarked that she had thrown away all the preliminary papers, including the early draft and peer comments. So, although I was unable to compare both drafts, I did notice one distinctive aspect of her paper that remained unchanged from first to final draft: two neatly drawn illustrations of dancers' positions on the dance floor. In her second essay, a description, Cami made a total of 23 revisions. My suggestions numbered 26, and of those she made 21, adding 102 two other changes she felt were needed. Five of my comments were related to mechanical revisions, three addressed grammatical issues, and eight asked for more information. The others involved stylistics: addition, deletion, or substitution of words or phrases. Looking at the final draft, I could see that Cami had responded to the informational revision suggestions with a good deal of addition. To my comment about "what kind of flowers?" she added a list of six: tulips, dafodiles [sic], roses, petunas [sic], violets, and geraniums. To my suggestion that she include details about a few of the exhilerating [sic] sights she mentioned in the first sentence, she added three long sentences of detail: There are the multicolorful flowers that surround the Gardens all over, which enhance the beauty. Tulips, red, yellow, and pink roses, purple violets and many more flowers embedded together look absolutely stunning. There are many trees such as oak, pine, ash, elm, maple, crab apple, and many more that shade the atmosphere and give a fresh scent throughout the walk. In other places Cami added several sentences for clarification and detail, and inserted eighteen additional words of description. She made two self- determined revisions, including the deletion of the final sentence. All mechanical revisions I suggested were made, with the exception of two commas and one apostrophe. Her peer group liked her paper. One student said, "She gives a clear impression of beauty. The essay left me with the urge to go see these gorgeous gardens." No one offered suggestions for revision. In her own comments prior to turning in the paper for my written comments, Cami 1 0 3 said, "At this point I'm not really planning on doing any revising aside from grammatical errors or typos. But I may change the paragraph on the smell. . . maybe put more detail about the scents throughout the Gardens." One of the major additions, in fact, to the final draft was the mention of the scent of roses, lilies, mums, tulips, violets, daisies, and petunas [sic], as well as the smell from the apple blossoms and crab apple trees. Cami's third essay received a number of revision suggestions from me (39) and from her peer editors (8). Many of my written comments related to stylistics, some of which she made and some of which she ignored. In fact, revision comments about stylistics appeared to be situations for which Cami most frequently made up her own mind, choosing to ignore my suggestions fairly often. I had six comments or questions relating to informational or organizational issues, and virtually all of the peer questions/comments were about the same concerns. She responded to many of their suggestions, as well as to most of mine by adding phrases and sentences. Addition was becoming a major revision strategy. One peer editor said, "Watch your organization and help the reader through the story." I made a similar written comment, but as I looked at Cami's final draft, I could not see any changes in organization. Another of my comments asked: "What do the competition guidelines say about [cheerleading] mounts?" In response to this she added three long sentences of explanation about the schools in the US. which do place restrictions on 104 mounts. Later in the paper, in response to my written comment, "Can you give an example or two?", Cami made a lengthy addition: Pony mounts are used quite often and are very safe, one girl bends over and makes a pocket with the arch of her back while another girl sits saddleback on top of her. Shoulder sits are safe too, one girl simply sits on the other girls shoulders. Neither of these mounts don't [sic] require a great deal of balance therefore making them very safe. These mount examples also addressed a peer comment: . . try to focus on safety, not opinion about the value of risk taking. . . use examples of safe mounts." Another peer editor said, "Maybe you should get some facts rather than talk to cheerleaders who said there haven't been injuries." Cami added a sentence to address the safety issue. When one peer suggested that she "open with the story about the cheerleader," she ignored the remark and stayed with her original introduction. Yet, even with all the feedback from the class and from me, Cami still made nine self-determined revisions, five involving addition of words, phrases or sentences. Before turning in her paper for my comments, she mentioned two plans for revision: "I'm going to look for more concrete information in magazine articles. Also I'm going to try and organize my paper a little better." Both of these ideas were related to suggestions she had received from her peers. The assertion-with-proof assignment also involved a query letter, for which the students had no revision comments. I made six suggestions, one involving the organization of the paragraphs, the others relating to 105 word substitutions or additions. Cami made all the revisions I suggested . Clearly, this third assignment involved many outside suggestions for revision, but it was also interesting to see that for the first time Cami made many revisions based on her own thoughts about what might be needed and appropriate as well. . n o n The fourth paper did not have a title, but Cami's topic was teen suicides. As I analyzed the drafts I couldn't help but reflect on my own written comments. One of the comments indicated (I thought) the absence of a title. I simply wrote "Title" at the top of Cami's rough draft, thinking that on the final draft she would, in fact, add a title. But she didn't. Obviously my comment had been misunderstood, forgotten, or ignored. As I looked at the number of other suggestions, I became aware of the high count (48). Of that number, 27 related to stylistics: word substitutions, additions, or deletions. I remembered Chaudron's study (1984) which found the benefit of peer comment to be the time it saved the teacher by eliminating some editing tasks. Judging by the number of small editing changes I suggested for the revision of Cami's paper, I had not saved myself any time. Most of my other written comments related to mechanical (5) or grammatical (5) revisions. Cami addressed all but three suggestions. Revisions based on her self-evaluation numbered eight, almost all involving addition of words, sentences, or sources of quotations. Some of these revisions may have been suggested by peers who said, ". . . maybe add 106 more comparing and contrasting between the two [articles]"; "try to add more information." Cami had this to say about her paper: "I need to form a question and put in a good hook to catch the readers attention in the intro. . . not enough compare/contrast material. . . put in more info and better compare/contrast." Her final draft did not reflect any changes in the introduction, nor in the method or quantity of comparison between the two articles she was analyzing in her paper. True to her revising style, she did, however, add more information. Qanclusinns Summing up Cami's experience with teacher and peer comment is easy. She found her greatest help in my written comments which seemed in almost every instance to be a springboard for the addition of her own ideas. She considered peers' suggestions too, but rejected many of those ideas when it came time to write the final draft. I think her views of writing and revision were altered somewhat by the peer editing and teacher comment structure of the class. Early in the semester she said her preferred writing style was to "write one draft and then correct its spelling and grammar." But by the end of the semester her revisions clearly had gone far beyond that routine, with addition being the primary revision strategy. 1 0 7 W The third case study from the Freshman Composition class is Mary, who scored 69 on the writing apprehension test at the beginning of the semester. By her score it would appear that she has less confidence in her writing than either Cami or Kara. Her post-instructional score rose to 75, however, which indicates she was a bit more confident by the end of the course. Fairly early in the semester I asked for Mary's response to two questions: 1) Overall, what do you like best about writing, 2) What are your two or three greatest problems with writing? In answer to the first, Mary wrote: "Writing really begins to make you think what others will think about your writing. You write cautiously, and constantly are asking yourself all kinds of questions." Her two or three greatest problems with writing are "organization, sentence structure," and "paragraphing." . .. 9» While most students in the course conferenced with me only once around mid-semester, Mary often stopped at my office to talk about her papers. She seemed very interested in the class and in improving her own writing. Her first paper, "Is the Lady of the House There?" told of the after- school adventures of her two boys. The most startling thing about a comparison of her first and final draft was the number of self-determined revisions. Her self-directed revisions out-numbered my own suggestions 57 to 50. Twenty-three of these involved the addition of words, phrases or 108 sentences. Mary's early self-reliance and obvious use of addition as a revision strategy immediately reminded me of Nancy Sommers' 1980 study which found that experienced adult writers concentrate their revision at the sentence level, with addition as the major operation. It seemed that Mary fit the classification of adult experienced writer better than other students in her class because she had raised a family and worked in the local school system for many years as a teacher's aide and tutor. Her duties as an aide involved writing reports about students. She tackled her first paper with a "teacher's eye" for revision, adding eleven marks of punctuation, some I had not noted, and others required by her new sentence structures. In stylistics, Mary made 15 word or phrase substitutions, but not much was deleted, as Mary's revisions included the omission of only four words or phrases. Responding to my 50 suggestions, Mary made revisions in all but three cases. I was curious about what had prompted all this addition. My final holistic suggestion said, "Clarify the story a bit and eliminate any unnecessary repetition. . . where you can, add details." Perhaps some of her additions were in response to that comment or to the comment of a peer who wrote, "The emotions expressed through the writer, (who was the 'worrier' in the story), are expressed in great detail. As for the incident. . . wasn't expressed with as much detail as it could have been." Another peer had this suggestion, which proved to be a rather poor model: "The opening isn't to [sic] bad, the only problem I see is there are to [sic] many short sentences, it would have a much better flow if she was to 109 combine her sentences into some nice long easy flowing sentences. Mary did, in fact, say on her own personal editing guide that she would "try and write long sentences." She also said that she would try in her revision to "remove some of the beginning statements. . . I would omit the statements about me not liking to cook." Then she remarked, "It [the paper] was very descriptive, too much detail." My marginal comment to this was, "No, not too much. " Several of her self—directed revisions involved sentence combining, and she did re-word one paragraph about cooking. Mary revised a good deal on this first paper, giving close attention to my comments as well as those of her peers. But even more striking was the number of self-generated revisions, which out-numbered mine and her peers' put together. The second paper was a description of Mary's mother. I made 50 primarily stylistic suggestions for revision on the first draft, although I also noted two transitional revision possibilities, two organizational matters, and two informational ideas. Mary made all of the suggested revisions. Because she had made so many self-directed revisions on the first assignment, I looked for even more this time. But she made only nine. I wondered why, until I read her own comments about the paper: "It was so hard for me to get started. There were too many thoughts or incidents I want to include, but I had to keep in mind the length of the completed work." She apparently felt that she was forced to leave out much information in 110 order to keep the length of the paper down. With the first paper, addition had been a primary revision strategy, but she felt she could not allow herself the luxury this time. Two peer editors, however, suggested more detail: "If the writer could go into more depth about the struggles faced by the father, it would capture the readers attention more"; "some [sentences] are not detailed enough." Mary did not respond to either comment in her final draft, preferring to focus on her mother and adding only one word of detail on her own. I asked for more information in two places, for which she added three sentences, but in general the changes from first to final draft were grammatical rather than informational. Two of my suggestions called for sentence combining, which she did. One peer also mentioned sentences: "The writer needs to work on sentence structure to keep the readers attention from straying." Mary talked about sentences in her own revision statement when she said she needed to work on sentence structure: "Is there a chapter in my handbook that would be of help?" I did not notice any changes in the sentence structure in the final draft, perhaps because of my marginal comments: . . . in general it [the paper] has a very nice lyrical quality to it. . . your sentences are O.K.--just be careful not to connect too many separate ideas with 'and."' Mary's third paper received fewer revision suggestions. I made a total of 33 comments, and peers had five ideas. Not surprisingly, in 111 response to my two comments which asked for more information and to four peer comments which suggested more examples, Mary added four full paragraphs containing 28 new sentences. As with the first essay, addition was her major revision strategy. She also made one cosmetic revision: a carefully drawn illustration of one part of a reading game she used with a boy named Juan. Even before I had seen and commented on the first draft, Mary had decided to make several additions based on her peers' suggestions. She said, "I'll have to give more details in the improvement of children's attitudes, by dialogue or/and illustrations of the projects I created. There have been many in the areas of reading and math." When I read this I wrote in the margin, "Good plan!" The four resulting paragraphs which totalled more than a page of typed text were Mary's largest revisions to date. My final holistic comment also probably encouraged her to include more information: . . . in one or two cases describe a little more about what you do with helping the children so we can see the effective program in action." On her own Mary determined that she should make six other revisions: two involved adding words, and a third was a word substitution. The remaining three were small mechanical revisions. The fourth paper was done just as the others had been with a rough draft brought to class for peer and teacher comment. When it came time to 112 submit the final draft for a grade, however, Mary found that she had misplaced the earlier draft, so I was not able to compare the two. Conclusions At the end of the semester Mary responded to the two questions about revision. This is what she said: It has been more than thirty-five years since I've done much in the art of writing. I have learned so much this semester about the whole process of writing: from planning to draft and revision. The subject matter wasn't hard to come up with, but how to begin that first sentence was very challenging that took much planning and several revisions of drafts. My best piece was about my mother, "Hacienda to Migrant." The minute the professor began to explain the type of paper (a "descriptive" one) my mind was all made up. I knew what I was going to write. I wanted to let the reading audience see that my mother was strong, courageous, determined, charitable, proud and had Faith in God, throughout the good and bad experiences in her life. I listened to all my thoughts and I began to write. As I wrote, it brought to mind the many struggles she went through and I cried and cried as I wrote. The revision was difficult because I had to cut so much off, yet I wanted to say so much about my mom as a person. I finally came up with the final draft after so many revisions. I wasn't surprised to see that "Hacienda to Migrant" was the most difficult to revise. As she mentioned, Mary had much to share about her mother's life, so the idea of selecting only a few incidents caused her some concern. It seemed as if Mary felt constrained by the assignment length. All of the assignments were of the same general length--two to three pages. This paper was four and a half pages in its rough draft stage. Both of her other papers had made extensive use of addition as a revision strategy, yet in this paper she felt she had to delete much of what she knew about her mother. I suspet very l deleti com: follo sem well of 5 par he] 113 suspect much of that restraint came before the first draft, because there was very little deleted fiom the final draft, and I did not suggest any major deletions. To summarize Mary's experience with written teacher and peer comment, I would say that she gave equal attention to both. She did, in fact, follow my recommendations as she said in an earlier comment in the semester, and it appeared that she gave some thought to peer comment as well. The most significant aspect of Mary's revision was the large number of self-determined revisions and the extent to which she added long paragraphs of example and detail. Her estimate of spending five percent of her writing time in revision seems small, considering the extensive revisions made. Even though she made all the stylistic, mechanical, and grammatical revisions noted by my comments, the bulk of her revisions were what I would call substantive, involving the addition of more information, with the exception of the paper about her mother. In a comment earlier in the semester Mary said that revision meant "to go over the writing--rearrange--add or leave out words or sentences." While she performed all three of those processes, addition was the most frequent. Her final comment seems to reflect her awareness of a reader and to account for her increased confidence: "So this semester has taught me well to write to different kinds of audiences. . . I will not get as nervous in the future about writing as I've gotten in the past." Ir about the . at the our Particular semester her lack c revise he began wi reliant, especial her you: Sooner. on her 1 (Inside 00me 114 I l' I' [I] E l C °|° Sll In summarizing my perceptions about this class and particularly about the case study writers, several things come to mind. I was surprised at the number of self-determined revisions Mary made on her papers, particularly because she is a rather anxious writer. Throughout the semester I saw her maturity and experience as a teacher's aide overcome her lack of confidence as a writer. I believe these two factors helped her to revise her papers in a more thorough, self-reliant way, a process that began with the first paper and continued through the last. Kara, the confident writer, also became more comfortable and self- reliant, but this did not seem to emerge until later in the semester. I especially noticed the self-directed revisions in her fourth paper. Perhaps her youth and lack of writing experience kept her from arriving at this point sooner. Cami, too, by the third paper seemed to be making some revisions on her own, yet as I analyzed them I felt they were generated to a considerable degree by my comments and to a lesser degree by the comments of her peers. Of the three writers, Mary seemed, by her comments and revisions, to place the most faith in peer editing. This was particularly interesting; she is older than all of her classmates, yet willing to allow them that responsibility. On the other hand, Cami,a younger writer, looked more to my suggestions for revision, preferring to follow the traditional teacher/student roles. All three writers followed my written suggestions as closely as they could. They rarely ignored a comment, which led me to 115 question their audience awareness. Were they as conscious of audience as they could be, or were they still writing primarily for the teacher? As I looked at their writing, it seemed that there was certainly some of that going on, but all three writers seemed eventually to go beyond what I asked for to develop and revise their papers according to their own feelings and intuitions. Written comments did not seem to hinder this sort of personal writing development. In fact, the comments seemed at times to speed up the process and encourage more self-determined changes and additions. CHAPTER V EFFECTS OF TEACHER AND PEER COMMENT ON THE REVISION PROCESS IN SIX CASE STUDY WRITERS Because my study of these six case study writers was limited to a four-month period, my findings regarding the effects of teacher and peer comment must be tentative. Yet I observed both within the student writing and within the classroom context significant areas of growth and development. In this chapter I will examine how teacher and peer comment affect writing in the following ways: 1) stimulating ideas; 2) building confidence of student writers; 3) fostering intellectual exchange; 4) enhancing ability to give and receive criticism; 5) developing a critical sense; 6) giving student writing added dignity. First I was interested in looking at how students were stimulated to make revisions. Did their ideas come from themselves, self-directed, or did they come from other readers, their peers or the teacher? Since I had, prior to the study, observed a dependence by many students on the corrective pen, I assumed that most if not all of their ideas for revision came from the teacher. By reading the personal comments of the six case study writers 116 117 and through a careful examination of their writing and revisions, I was able to get a more complete and accurate picture. I l 12 C I ll] SI’ ll' [Ii One of the questions asked of each case study writer was this: "After I write a paper, I read it or show it to one or more friends to get their response: Yes_ No_ Sometimes__" (check one). This question, which was asked about six weeks into the semester, was designed to discover if students used the peer editing process we had established in class on their own outside of class. By setting up peer editing groups, I hoped to model a process for revision that could be duplicated at other times and in other circumstances. Therefore, I expected most students to say they did show writing to friends. I was surprised at the response. The two confident writers (Alma and Kara) differed in their answer. Alma, the older more experienced writer who is married and lives in the suburbs said no, she did not show her paper to fiiends. Kara, on the other hand, who is single and living in a dorm, checked "sometimes." I thought about the writers. Had their age and lifestyle determined the answer to this question? I was tempted to say yes. But then I remembered the way each had interacted with peer groups. Alma in Advanced Expository and Kara in Freshman Composition had reacted in somewhat different ways to peer workshops and the comments they received in class. 118 Both of these confident writers had ignored peer comments on occasion, which was not unusual for any of the students to do. But Alma's attendance on peer workshop days may have been a stronger indication of her feelings about peer comment. For a number of reasons her attendance was considerably less regular than Kara's. Thus, not only did she ignore some peer comments that were made, but she also failed to receive many. In a related written remark about peer editing Alma says, "I really enjoy reading the papers of my peers during workshop. . . I've been impressed with the quality and creativity of some of the papers, and they've given me ideas on how to enhance my writing style." It would appear that she believes she gains more from reading others than from their direct comment on her own writing. Her use of the word "style" may reflect a different sort of gain from this activity as well, indicating a benefit in the area of stylistics more than in content or, information. I took a closer look at Alma's experience with peer comment. Her first paper received no comments from peers. Revisions were based solely on her ideas. In the second paper she followed one of three peer suggestions. The third paper had one peer comment about adding more detail; the revisions did include several phrases for clarification, which may have been her response to the comment. The fourth and fifth essays received no peer comment because Alma was absent. She did receive one comment on the sixth paper, which she answered on the editing sheet but ignored in the revised draft. Thus, it seems that Alma did not seek out peer 00111111th either in or out of class, preferring to find her ideas elsewhere, 119 primarily within herself or occasionally in a conference with me. Yet, she did say that reading others' papers was stimulating for her as a writer and, in fact, gave her ideas for her own writing style. Was teacher comment a source of ideas for Alma as well? Since Advanced Expository Writing, Alma's class, did not receive written teacher comment, our interaction consisted of oral conferences about her papers. On her first paper she made a substantial number of revisions, primarily phrase and sentence additions and substitutions. But none of these changes was directly stimulated by my comments; Alma asked if she could revise, and it appears that she had some ideas for changes. While the second and third papers received peer comment, again she did not solicit ideas from me. On the fourth paper, however, we conferenced after she had mailed me a copy of "Soft Aerobics: Gain Without Pain." The resulting revisions, numbering eight, were minor with the exception of one paragraph omission which was the largest deletion Alma had made to date. The most significant revisions based on my feedback came on the final paper, a case study radically changed in appearance and structure. But this was an unusual situation. Overall, I would have to say that Alma seemed to be a self-sufficient writer, following her own ideas for revision more often than mine and certainly more often than those of her peers. As she remarked, she is not likely to solicit response from friends on her writing. By contrast, Kara, who is also a confident writer, received peer comment on all her papers. While she says she "sometimes" asks for response from friends on her writing, she generally feels the peer groups in 120 class are ineffective, and she would like to see a better structure which would make students more enthusiastic about peer editing. A close look at her revisions seemed to indicate that she used peers' ideas. On the first paper she made all but one of the several revisions suggested by those in her group. Peers liked her second paper, "The Beach," and could give no ideas for how she might improve it, although they gave her lots of praise. The third assignment was a different situation: she received several suggestions about adding support and clearly tried to address the support issue in the final draft, saying she needed "tons more support." Her peer group was not as helpful on the fourth paper, though, and they had only one concrete idea for revision which she ignored. It seemed to me, from an analysis of her writing and from reading her personal remarks, that Kara was actually looking for peer comments to stimulate ideas. Kara was also interested in addressing teacher comments. I made a total of 112 written suggestions, large and small for revision of her papers, and she made all but 14. Her earlier comment about the changes she makes when she revises, "Spelling, grammatical, sentence structure, diction, overall I look at the paper or have someone else do it and I ask if it all applies to the thesis," seemed to reflect her method of revising. She welcomed and followed the advice of others, whether peers or the teacher. It was interesting to compare the amount of time she felt she spent on revision (20 percent) with what Alma spent (30 percent). Kara had many more "outsiders ideas to consider and address, yet it took her, she estimated, less time to read, reflect and revise. This may not be unusal considerir editing st edit, leav would be which we be a posit requires 1 121 considering Alma's revision strategy, or what she called her "preferred editing style--write, leave for a few days, re-read and edit, leave, re-read and edit, leave, final reading and edit." I could see that by using others' ideas it would be possible for Kara to revise in a faster and more systematic fashion, which would account for her lower estimated revision time. While this may be a positive benefit, one potential drawback may be that such a process requires less reflection on the part of the writer. To summarize the students' response to peer and teacher comment, Kara, a young less experienced but confident writer, sought and used both in stimulating ideas for revision. Alma, on the other hand, a confident, older, advanced writer did not receive or act upon as much feedback fiom peers or from me. Since all the students in Kara's class received written marginal comments, she had no choice about soliciting my ideas, but Alma did, and for, the most part she preferred to find her own ideas. In both classes students were required to do peer editing, which could be sidestepped only by being absent, a frequent occurrence in Alma's case. In looking at these two writers, it seems that being confident has little to do with seeking others' ideas for revision. One confident writer looks for and follows others' suggestions, and another confident writer does not. Writing experience may be a better indicator of how well students will accept audience comment, with less experienced writers such as Kara being more open to suggestion. Alma, who is both confident and experienced, tends to find and solve her own writing problems. This lack of acceptance of outside comment may have implications for teachers of upper level wri their clas Dawn an about shl papers tr eXperien been sha experien 122 level writing courses who want to include peer and/or teacher comment in their classes of experienced and possibly confident writers. The students with an average amount of confidence in writing, Dawn and Cami, also responded with opposite answers to the question about showing writing to friends. Dawn says yes, she does read or show her papers to others to get their response, but Cami does not. I examined their experiences with peer and teacher comment to see if their attitudes had been shaped by what went on in the class. First I looked at Dawn, a young experienced writer who commutes to campus. In all but one of her papers Dawn received suggestions from students in her peer group. She responded to them diligently, adding details, analogies, and entire paragraphs to make her writing clearer. Their remarks seemed to encourage her to revise, and in the fourth paper for which peers weren't as helpful or as critical, Dawn took on even more responsibility for revision. The fifth paper was unusual in that it contained only one revision, which was not Dawn's usual practice. It had not received any peer comment, however, because she was absent on peer editing day. On the sixth paper, things returned to the way they had been earlier in the semester, with Dawn receiving a number of ideas from group members. She had numerous self-determined revisions on this paper, unlike paper number five for which she had no peer response and no ideas of her own. Since I did not make written comments on Dawn's papers, my remarks occurred in our conferences. We did not conference on each paper, yet I am sure that for those we discussed, the changes she made in 123 response did not come close to the number engendered by the written peer comments. In fact, as I analyzed her revisions it seemed that peer comments caused her to make changes and then to go one step beyond, adding even more related ideas of her own. She admits as much in a written comment about peer groups and revision: "I feel that it is helping me a lot when we evaluate each others papers. It makes me able to make my paper better by getting an idea on how others see my paper." Dawn estimates that 20 percent of her writing time is spent in revision. This is the same approximation as Kara who also appears to closely follow peer (and teacher) suggestions. Cami, the other case study with an average amount of writing apprehension, (a young, less experienced writer who lives on campus), said she did not show or read her papers to fiiends for their response. In fact, in talking about the problems she has with writing, she noted the need to "spend more time revising as I go along." This comment may indicate that for her, revising is a personal, recursive activity. Did peer comments and/or teacher comments prove to be stimulating for revisions? The first paper offered no clues. Although Cami had brought the first draft to class for peer editing, when the time came to submit the final draft she realized that she had already thrown away the original. So I was not able to see and compare the two versions. The second paper received no peer suggestions for improvement because everyone liked her description of a garden. In fact, editors made several positive comments about her writing. The other papers received an average number of peer comments, 124 but Cami responded to less than half of the suggestions. Perhaps she did not find the revision ideas of her peers particularly helpful even when they were offered. Her early experience with receiving all positive comments may have made it more difficult to accept later criticism. Many of Cami's revisions, however, seemed to be generated by written teacher comments. Of my 113 suggestions, she responded to all but eleven, appearing to use teacher comments in much the same way that Dawn had used the comments of her peer editors: as a springboard for her own ideas, elaborating beyond what was suggested. At the end of the semester, Cami remarked about teacher comments: "I think the revision process is great. I like the idea that you see my paper and give advice before I hand in my final draft." Her papers certainly seemed to reflect her comment in terms of the number of suggestions followed. She didn't mention peer comments specifically, but said, "I think this class is structured really well." I wasn't sure if she meant the workshop/peer group structure or perhaps another more general idea about the class. Dawn, who unlike Cami was very enthusiastic about peer feedback, also had some thoughts about teacher feedback in the oral conferences: I also like being able to ask you questions at the end of class. In other english [sic] courses that I have had my teachers have referred me to a book (grammar, dictionary or some other english book) when a question was asked. This doesn't help, because I never know if what I find in the book is correct in my case. Her comments seemed to imply that my help had been primarily in the area of grammar and syntax, which was surprising, since I believe oral 125 conferences produce more informational and holistic revision ideas. Yet apparently Dawn remembers the ideas about "correctness." Her end-of- semester remarks about peers show that she does value their ideas: "Helping to revise others papers in class helped me to see different ways to word some of my sentences. My best revised paper was "Changing a Tire"; a lot of the wording was changed around. I got some help doing this from the other students in the class." Cami, a young, less experienced writer with an average amount of writing apprehension, did not make much use of peer comments in her revisions. Instead she seemed to find more stimulation for ideas from my written marginal comments. Although she did not actively solicit my comments, as did Dawn, Cami followed each revision suggestion carefully, sometimes adding even more than the remark called for. Dawn, the young experienced writer with average writing anxiety, made good use of peer comments from the editing guides. She followed peers' suggestions and seemed stimulated to write more as a result. Dawn did ask for my verbal comments occasionally and said she found them helpful, particularly in terms of grammar, mechanics and spelling. I was reminded of the Cohen and Cavalcanti study (1987) which found that what the teacher intends to achieve with comments and what student writers perceive or gain may be very different things. In analyzing the work and comments of these two writers, it appears that writers of average confidence make good use of teacher and/or peer comment. Cami, however, was inclined to accept teacher comment over that of her peers. It may have been challenging for 126 her as a freshman to juggle the advice of several editors. Dawn, who was an upperclassman and more experienced writer, also worked primarily with one editing source, her peers, finding our oral conferences helpful for the mechanics issues. If students are unsure of their writing, they may find it confusing to entertain a number of editing suggestions at once. Both of these writers tended to prioritize the comments, using either the teacher or peers as primary source, which helped them sort out the contradictions. The same question--"After I write a paper, I read it or show it to one or more friends to get their response: Yes_ No_ Sometimes_"--was asked of Mark and Mary, the two student writers with a fairly high degree of writing anxiety. Mary, who estimates that only 5 percent of her writing time is spent on revision, said "sometimes." Mark, who spends 50 percent of his time with revision, said "yes." In our casual conversations, Mary told me she had done some writing for her job as bilingual teacher's aide over the years, so I tended to regard her as a slightly more experienced writer than the other writers in Freshman Composition. Mark, a traditional college age student, had taken at least two college writing courses as prerequisites to Advanced Expository Writing, so I considered him an advanced college writer. He was considerably younger than Mary and had done no on-the-job writing as far as I could determine. I was eager to compare their experiences with peer group comments. In the first paper Mark responded to all but one of the ideas of his editors. Peers mentioned that the concept of "spotters" was unclear, so Mark added a phrase and a sentence of explanation in his final draft. He 127 did ignore one editor's comment to "polish up" the ending. The second paper saw the same type of response to group comments, with Mark making revisions based on all ideas he was given. None was overlooked or ignored. In fact, he may have remembered the comment on his first paper about endings because he added a long final paragraph of conclusion that had not been specifically called for by any peer comments. On the third paper, two editors again mentioned improving the conclusion, which Mark did on the final draft. Another suggested he combine two paragraphs, but this remark was ignored in the revision. In the fourth paper, "Does Education Count," peers made rather general comments about the subject he had chosen. One said his paper needed examples instead of generalizations, and another told Mark to be more descriptive. On the education paper Mark made a total of 15 revisions, but only two of those appeared to be stimulated by peer ideas: the addition of five words and one phrase of example. The fifth paper received little in the way of peer help, although one student remarked that he might want to elaborate on the "situations" he mentioned. For this paper I was unable to see if he followed through on that suggestion because he forgot to turn in the first draft with the final. The sixth paper also received few peer comments, but by this time Mark was actively making many changes (grammatical, mechanical, stylistic, cosmetic, and informational) on his own. As Mark's writing showed, peers became less and less helpful with suggestions as the semester progressed, but because he had internalized the idea of revision, he continued to make self-generated revisions. Peer response encourages 128 students like Mark to think critically about their writing and to become more interested in the learning process underlying the communication. Because Mark's class did not receive written teacher comments, he often sought my comments in conferences after class. In fact, Mark conferenced more than any of the six case studies, sometimes bringing in three drafts for one assignment. I often made suggestions for places to add information, or various ways to organize, but I rarely saw evidence in the final draft that my comments had stimulated these revisions, with the exception of one major organizational change when he moved an example nearer the ending of paper number three and a few smaller changes. In his written remarks six weeks into the semester, Mark didn't mention teacher conferences. He did, however, have praise for peer feedback: "I think the way we are doing this is great. I feel we get a lot more out of it this way than by just handing it in. The people in your group can give you some good ideas for your paper before it is too late." It seemed that he received more stimulating ideas from peers, but perhaps wanted the conferences as a form of reassurance. If so, I'm afraid they failed because Mark's confidence in writing was, according to the Daly-Miller scale, considerably lower at the end of the semester. Mary, who feels she spends very little time revising (5 percent), said she sometimes shows her papers to fiiends. Very early in the semester she made a comment which indicated an awareness of readers: "Writing really begins to make you think what others will think about your writing." In fact, in all her papers she paid close attention to what her peer readers 129 suggested, only occasionally choosing to overlook their ideas. Some of her revisions were major additions, as in the case of the fourth paper which saw four full paragraphs (28 sentences) added in response to peer comments. Overall Mary seemed very aware of her peers as audience; for instance about her "Hacienda to Migrant" paper she commented, "I wanted to let the reading audience see that my mother was strong, courageous, determined, charitable, proud and had Faith in God, throughout the good and bad experiences in her life." When peers had suggestions, she generally followed them, often adding more than the remark called for. Regarding her peers Mary said, ". . . they teach me much. " Because of her positive attitudes about peer editing, Mary seemed to write for an audience. She was just as careful about responding to written teacher comment. For instance, I had many suggestions (50) on the first paper, and she made revisions in all but three instances. This was to become her usual practice throughout the semester. In addition to the written comments, we often had oral conferences about the papers. As with Mark these conferences seemed to serve as support sessions rather than as a time to talk about very specific changes or revisions of the paper. I did not notice any major revisions on the papers that came about from our talks. It was interesting to note, however, that once when peers made a suggestion about adding some examples and I wrote "Good idea!" in the margin next to their comments, Mary responded with an additional full page of example. This may be an occasion where peer comment provides the idea and teacher 130 comment the support. For apprehensive writers, the additional reinforcement of a revision suggestion may be reassuring. From an analysis of Mary's early and late drafts, one thing stands out in contrast to the other five case studies: the number of self-determined revisions. Clearly, when she takes a look at the first draft and its comments from me and from peers, she isn't limited by only those suggestions. On the first paper she made 57 of her own revisions, not directly elicited by my comments or peers' comments. Not all of those revisions were major, by any means. Many were small grammatical or mechanical changes, but 23 of the revisions did involve the addition of words, phrases or sentences. The number of self-stimulated ideas was smaller on the succeeding papers, but it was still a greater number than shown by the other five case studies. There may be a number of reasons for her extensive revisions. As a teacher's aide she often helped students re-work or re-think their papers, so it may have seemed a natural step for her own writing. As an older student it may have been easier for her to step outside her work and evaluate it as a critic would. Perhaps Mary made more self-directed revisions precisely because this type of writing was new for her. I remembered Donald Murray's comment about writing for a new genre. It struck me that although school writing was new for her, she wasn't afraid of "going beyond" the ideas of peers or the teacher to include additional revisions of her own. In summary, both Mary and Mark, students with writing apprehension, seemed to seek out oral conferences with me for support. 131 This led me to question whether written teacher comments alone provide the support for a writer I previously thought they did. I was not surprised that Mark scheduled conferences because I did not make written comments on his papers. But I did write on Mary's drafts, so our discussions while they generally related to the papers served another, perhaps more personal function. Mark and Mary followed peers' suggestions for revision, the older writer Mary doing so more often than Mark, a young writer. This is interesting because all of Mary's suggestions came from student writers younger than herself. Mark's peers were about evenly divided between those his age and older students. Looking back over all six case studies, it seems that a number of ideas are stimulated by peer comment. In every case but one (Alma), the student writers seemed to respond over 50 percent of the time to audience comments, sometimes adding more than what I sensed the peers were asking for. Their response to written teacher comment (for the three case studies who received written remarks) was even more diligent and conscientious. Rarely did a student ignore my ideas for revision, addressing them more as "corrections" than as "revisions." This caused me to take a look at the remarks themselves, and when I did I found many of them to be remarks about surface correctness. Peer comments, on the other hand, rarely addressed sentence level issues, getting instead to the larger problems in the paper, probably because the editing sheets they used Pointed them in that direction. Thus I found myself often making written comments about grammar and mechanics, and in many cases merely 132 supporting peers' ideas for more substantial revisions. Two writers--Alma and Mary, both older writers--relied heavily on self-directed ideas for revision. For Mary this was in addition to the ideas from me and from peers. For Alma this was in place of others' suggestions. She wrote a comment at the end of the semester which seemed to reflect her preference about idea generation: ". . . I work and think better in front of my PC, and I can rework my paper in an atmosphere where I am more comfortable." It is interesting to note that Alma has much confidence in her writing, whereas Mary is an anxious writer. Yet both seem quite self-sufficient when it comes to generating their own revisions. I have a hunch that while both are capable writers who do some on-the-job writing, part of Alma's confidence in composition class comes from the successful completion of at least two earlier writing courses. Another unusal situation to emerge fi'om an analysis of the stimulation of ideas was this one: In paper number five for which she received no peer feedback, Dawn also had no ideas for revision of her own. Yet in every other paper for which she had comment from the audience, she made their changes plus her own. Peer comment seemed to stimulate her own ideas for further revision. Written teacher comment appeared to stimulate Cami to revise too, yet she did not seem to come up with as many self-generated revisions as Dawn. While Cami did not make particular and direct use of peer ideas, she was careful to address mine, elaborating quite extensively, perhaps indicating her awareness of the classroom power structure. Both Cami and Dawn, students with an average amount of 133 writing anxiety, appear to make use of outside ideas more than self-directed ideas. From an analysis of these six case studies, it is clear that my written teacher comments stimulate a greater number of revisions in student writing than do peer comments for two reasons: 1) I make more suggestions than peers do; 2) students are more reluctant to ignore written teacher comment than written peer comment. Yet a greater percentage of my comments relate to surface level revisions (mechanics, stylistics). In terms of generating substantive revisions, I would have to say that peer comments on teacher-prepared editing sheets were just as stimulating as teacher comments written in the margin. In fact, I often found myself agreeing with the earlier made peer suggestions. Sometimes this reinforcement can be a benefit to the student writer, particularly if he or she lacks confidence. But on most occasions teachers can avoid this duplication of effort by careful planning and structuring of editing steps. For example, had I read the peer cements before making my own I would have saved some time. .: .. :‘.. ... ...“.. 3._!0:,.H0.!' 0!"'¢." 70‘! Al.‘ Since this study does not attempt to judge the quality of the revised case study papers, I wanted to look at other possible effects of written teacher and peer comment in the redrafting process of student writers. As a teacher I had always been interested in building students' confidence so that later they could handle writing tasks outside the writing classroom 134 without the help of teachers or peers. I was anxious to see if written teacher comments and peer comments seemed to have any effect on writers' confidence. All six case studies took pre- and post-tests to measure writing apprehension (Daly-Miller Writing Apprehension Test). These tests were administered on the first day of class before any writing instruction and then again at the end of the semester. As indicators of writing performance these test scores do not prove to be reliable; students may be very apprehensive and yet be competent writers. But the scores do give a general indication of attitudes about writing. In over six years of giving the Daly- Miller test, I have found that students' scores generally fall somewhere between 60 and 120. Higher scores indicate more confidence; lower scores reflect more apprehension or anxiety about writing. Table 4 on the following page shows the pre- and post-instructional scores for the six case study writers. As shown in Table 4 the students were equally divided: three writers--Alma, Cami, and Mark--had lower scores at the end of the course, which indicates that they felt more anxious about writing than they had at the beginning of the semester; three-Kara, Dawn, and Mary--felt more confident. The three case studies in the Advanced Expository class were examined first. Had the lack of written teacher comments caused two of the three case studies from that class to become more apprehensive about writing? To help answer that question I looked at the whole-class Daly Miller scores. Of those students who took both the pre- and post-test, nine saw higher scores 135 Table 4 Case Study Test Scores on the Daly-Miller Test of Writing Apprehension* Pre-instructional Score Post-instructional Score WTC Alma AB 118 112 No Kara FC 110 113 Yes Dawn AE 84 88 N o Cami FC 84 80 Yes Mary FC 69 75 Yes Mark AE 63 45 No *A high score indicates less apprehension AB = Advanced Expository Class FC = Freshman Composition Class WTC = Written Teacher Comments at semester's end, and six had lower scores. Two of the six were Alma, whose score went from 118 to 112, and Mark whose score went from 63 to 45. Alma had the least writing anxiety of all class members when the course began, and she had the least when it ended, even though her score declined 136 six points. At the end of the semester the next highest score was 108. Thus, it appears that class and its structure had little influence on Alma's confidence or anxiety in general. Likewise, Mark had the most writing anxiety when the class began (63) and the most when it ended (45), but his score saw a considerable decline of 18 points. Thinking that my written teacher comments encouraged student writers, I expected to see more of the Advanced Expository students with lower scores at semester's end. Surprisingly, more students had gained confidence, although Alma and Mark weren't among them. Overall, with the exception of Mark, however, confidence gains or losses were slight, differing by only a few points. From these scores it would be impossible to conclude that written teacher comment or lack of it affects writers' confidence to a significant degree. To get a more individualized look at their confidence level in writing, I asked some questions of all students during the semester. One that related to writing anxiety was phrased this way: If you had to characterize how you feel about writing when you've just been assigned something to write, you would say: _I look forward to and enjoy the writing assignment. __I dread thinking of the project, but actually enjoy writing _I dread thinking of the project, and dislike writing it. _I don't think much about it beforehand, and don't worry while writing it. Alma responded to this question by checking the second response: she dreads thinking of the project but enjoys writing it. Mark, on the other hand, checked the third: he dreads thinking of the project and dislikes writing it. Judging by his score from the end of the course, it seems that not 137 much has changed except perhaps an increase in dread due to an increase in writing. I wondered what exactly caused Mark this much anxiety when he sat down to write. His answer to another question provided some clues to his feelings. The question consisted of the following statement with a variety of possible endings. When I distributed the questionnaire I told students they could check one or more than one response. Most checked one or two. When I sit down to write I encounter the following situations: _I have trouble figuring out where to begin. _I can't believe I have so much to do. I worry that I won't have enough to say. I have trouble being creative. I wait for a good idea to come to me before I begin. I write the first sentence over and over again until I get it right _I don't begin writing until I've figured out just about all I have to say for the whole paper. _I worry whether what I write will be good enough to use in the paper. _I wish there were an easier way to write papers. Mark checked all but two of the responses. The only ones he says he doesn't encounter are number two (so much to do) and number six (writing the first sentence over and over). All the rest are issues that face him when he gets ready to write. It is not surprising that Mark finds writing an anxiety producing task. Given the number of pre-writing fears Mark has, it is not unusual to see such a low score. What effect, if any, did peer comment have on Mark's confidence and/or anxiety? Each of the peer editing guides asked students to make a positive response to each paper, either by noting the best sentence of the paper or something that the reader liked especially well. The people in 138 Mark's peer groups were very good about doing this. He had many positive comments ranging from the usual "Good job!" to more detailed praise: "I like the part about training in an overcrowded gym. I could just picture you running around trying to stay warmed-up." But apparently the positive remarks by peers on these sheets were not enough to turn Mark's feelings around; nor were our oral conferences which Mark regularly scheduled. Yet, surprisingly, in one of his last written comments about writing and his future he says, "In five years I imagine myself writing job proposals. I sincerely feel that when the time comes I will be ready." This does not sound to me like an anxious writer, although he does allow himself five years to gain more confidence. The other case study from Advanced Expository, Dawn, had a slight increase in her score. It was not enough to move her out of the average range of scores for the class, but it did reflect a small change. Dawn conferenced with me on occasion, but certainly not as regularly as Mark did, and like Mark she received some sincere praise from her peer groups. One said, "I like the second paragraph because it sounds like you." Another remarked, "Seems fine. . . I'm very interested because I had a similar experience." Dawn seemed to have a positive attitude about peer groups throughout the semester, finding them helpful in revision: "It makes me able to make my paper better by getting some idea on how others see my paper. It also helps me to see others mistakes and I am able to help these people." Her remarks seem to reflect the rewards of a writing community, which may be why her confidence rose, albeit slightly. 139 In the Freshman Composition class I was surprised to find that ten students had lower scores (less confidence) at the end of the semester and only eight students' scores had risen. Two of those eight were case studies--Mary and Kara. The third case study, Cami, had a slightly lower post-score, down from 84 to 80. Kara's score increased very little, from 110 to 113, hardly a significant gain. Mary's increase also was slight, going from 69 to 75. I had expected to see many higher scores at the end of the course because I had made written marginal comments on papers, being conscious, or so I thought, of including positive comments on drafts in progress. To check my perceptions on this, I decided to count the number of positive marginal comments I made on the early and late drafts of the three case study writers. First I looked at the two students whose anxiety had decreased, Mary and Kara. On Mary's first assignment, I made nine comments of praise (out of a total of 50) on the rough draft and seventeen (out of 17) on the final draft. They ranged from the standard "Good" to more detailed remarks like, "Good intro, should lead the reader right in!" On the second assignment, "Hacienda to Migrant," I made 11 positive comments (out of 50) on the first draft and 26 (out of 26) on the final. Comments here included such things as "I like your opening-«it reads like a story"; "it [the paper] has a very nice lyrical quality to it"; "excellent." I had few good comments on the rough draft of the third paper--only four of 33. But on the final draft I had 21, all positive remarks. For the fourth paper I was unable to compare first and final drafts. 140 Kara's first paper, "To My Fear," received four kudos (of 27 total comments) on the draft and ten (of 10) on the final product. Most were short praises such as "Yes" or "Good." Others were longer: "I especially like the way you conclude this with a return to the 'independence' idea. I could relate to this because sometimes I forget to record checks!" Her second paper, "The Beach," had a very large number of positive comments (16 of 22) on the first draft and almost as many (14 of 14) on the final. The third paper had 15 comments on the final draft, including "I like the humorous twist to the conclusion"; and "I also like the way you use yourself and a fiend to illustrate." The rough draft had four "good" remarks out of 21. The fourth paper had only one positive comment (out of 39) on the early draft, but a grand total of28 on the final draft. Cami, whose confidence lowered slightly, also received positive comments. On the first paper I was not able to review the first draft, but on the final draft I made 18 notes, all positive. On the remaining rough drafts, out of 113 total comments I made only 15 positive remarks. On the final papers, however, I did have more praise: 51 comments, all positive. In reviewing my comments it seemed clear to me that I had not done enough encouraging in the early stages of Cami's writing. Her drafts in progress received fewer encouraging remarks than had Kara's or Mary's drafts. This may be in part why her confidence declined somewhat. I suspect that all three students from Freshman Composition might have benefitted from longer comments of a positive nature in the early drafts. As I examined the number and nature of my written remarks, I noted that in general they 141 were shorter and more critical than I had thought them to be. However, the two students who did see a slight increase in confidence both received more positive written comments on first drafts. All three of the case studies from Freshman Composition had a number of good comments from peers in their editing groups. On occasion there were more positive than negative remarks, which made students a little frustrated because they felt they weren't getting the serious help peer groups could provide. Kara expressed this feeling in one of her written remarks to me near the end of the semester. As I analyzed the peer comments on her drafts I did notice a fairly large amount of praise, but almost without exception the peers also included some suggestions for revision. One interesting thing I observed about peer group interaction in both the expository class and the freshman class was the absence of negative comments in the general conversation of peer groups. Yet fairly often I heard casual remarks such as "I really liked your paper" as it was being passed around for silent reading. The negative critical comments were almost always saved for the written editing guides. The one writer of the six case studies who did not avail herself of the usual amount of peer comment was Alma, from Advanced Expository. Her confidence diminished slightly, and I can't help but wonder what would have happened if she had been present to receive more good remarks from those in her group. Since many factors may affect students' confidence levels during the course of a semester, and since the gains and losses of five of the six 142 case study writers were slight, it would be unwise to place too much emphasis on the power of written comments, either by teachers or peers. Yet, it would be inappropriate to ignore the fact that for many writing students, the primary interaction with the teacher is through written comments. If those comments are primarily negative, the teacher may be conveying the idea that revision is a problem rather than a problem-solving process. .: .. :'.. ... ...".. :10 .:‘.".. 1‘. . J. ;‘:.... One of the areas that seems to deserve further examination in this study is the role the writing community plays in the intellectual growth of its members. Writers have in the past been stereotyped as "loners," isolated from others as they pursue their solitary activity. Recently there has been a shift from this perspective. College writing classes are more frequently seen as places where students can share some of their intuitions and skills to aid each other in their development as writers. Students can experience both cognitive and affective growth as they work within peer groups and with the teacher. As they read and comment on each others' papers they take up the language of writing; they participate more fully and more professionally as writers themselves. This process does not come about quickly, nor is it easy to chart in a four-month period. But there is evidence 0f it among the case study writers. One of the most obvious clues to intellectual growth is the move from Writer-based to reader-based prose or an awareness of a wider audience. 143 Mark, from the Advanced Expository class, is a good example of a student beginning to make this transition, who was helped by members of his peer group. Very early in the semester one peer editor suggested he might want to think about developing a better conclusion to his paper. Mark never forgot that remark and continued throughout the course to consider conclusions and work on them carefully. The final comment he makes at the very end of the semester reflects this growth as a writer: In this semester I have learned to put in a better conclusion. In the first three assignments I had a tough time, but as the class went on the conclusions became better and better. I had a very poor ending on my "Seatbelts" paper. As the class went on my conclusions were starting to get better. I then redid the paper and the conclusion is a lot more clear. The same goes for my paper on "Mercy Killing." Clearly he considers himself a thinking writer when it comes to conclusions. The acquisition of one revision strateg has furthered Mark's development. Mary, from the Freshman Composition class, also had a comment about what she gained in terms of intellectual development as a writer. Her growth involves an awareness of a wide range of writers' choices regarding audience and purpose: I know in the future as a teacher I will have to keep in mind the rules of writing when I write out reports on students' progress. They will also be necessary if I am to be in some sort of position in a teachers' association whether it be local building or area representation. I would also have to report the minutes of meetings, and/or express myself in some grievance matter, or maybe write up an evaluation of another person, such as a student teacher, and I'd have to describe her character and her performance. So this first semester has taught me well to write to different kinds of audiences, parents, and a specialized audience of professionals. 144 She has apparently thought about how she can apply what she has learned to situations beyond the college classroom. Like Mark who has learned to consider one principle in a number of circumstances, Mary has reflected on several general writing principles to assist her in future writing situations. The give and take that occurs from sharing papers and filling out editing guides seems to be a way for most students to reaffirm their place in the classroom as well as in the larger writing community. They can learn from what the others write. Mary says, "I am always in awe of what others think and write, they teach me much." Having a personal editing guide for students to fill out after they read what their peers have to say creates a written dialogue among students. I can comment too in the margins when the editing guides are turned in with the first draft. In such dialogues the topic under discussion is always writing--either content or style, but quite often students are prompted to make remarks about personal connections with what the writer has written. For instance, in Kara's paper about losing a check from her checkbook, one peer had several comments about the text, how it could be improved or changed, but then she said, . . I can personally relate to being able to prove to my parents that I'm a responsible person." A writer has a responsibility to actively engage the audience. This exchange from peer to peer reaffirms that this engagement has taken place, that Kara's personal voice and concrete detail have reached the mark. The editing guides also give writers the opportunity to engage in small intellectual debates about issues or about ways of presenting issues with others, then responding on their own editing guides and finally 145 making a change or ignoring the comment in the revised draft. In one of Cami's papers entitled "Cheerleading Restrictions?", a peer took issue with her statement that cheerleading is a relatively safe sport. He said, "It is difficult to weigh the comments of cheerleaders here and at cheerleading camps with the cold, hard fact that somewhere out there is a cheerleader with a broken neck." After reading this Cami decided she needed to look for more statistics about cheerleading safety. She said, "I'm going to look for more concrete information in magazine articles." Written exchanges such as this one within the peer group can also save the teacher time. When I read what her peer editor had suggested and then what she said in response, I merely agreed by making a short comment in the margin. Thus, all three of us were able to participate in the discussion. For students attempting to judge the effectiveness of their writing, this sort of collaboration can be very beneficial. In general, the process of reading and commenting on papers increases students' intellectual growth within the field of writing. It is beneficial for them not only to think about the content of papers, but also to consider how ideas might best be conveyed. A look at the editing sheet from one of Dawn's peer editors about her essay "Drunk Driving" gives a sense of the conversation between the editor and the writer. Since I constructed the questions on the editing sheet, the conversation is actually a three-way dialogue. The first question addresses the issue of audience. The peer editor was asked to comment on the language used and its appropriateness. She had this to say, "I think this is directed to those of 146 junior high age simply because it is so general. There is not much documented evidence in the article. The language is very appropriate. Yes, the paper tells me why I shouldn't drink and drive." This peer editor was a woman somewhat older than Dawn, and as evident by her comment she felt that the paper was written for a younger audience than herself. The second question asked about the basic premise of the argument (the paper was an editorial). Was the argument clear and did Dawn stick to her main point without getting sidetracked? The peer editor paraphrased Dawn's main point as she saw it: "The innocent suffer because of the guilty. The insurance companies may cover the car, but not the cost of inconvenience to the victim. No meandering." She in effect supported Dawn in her clear expression of the main idea. However, her next comment offers some suggestion for the development of that premise. In response to a question about support of Dawn's opinion, the editor remarked, "Needs some more sources other than personal experience. Need some statistics. How many teens and adults are killed each yr. by drunks? How many are just left disabled for life?" In response to this comment Dawn went to a W article entitled "What Should We Do With Drunk Drivers" for some facts about drivers and victims, which she inserted in her introduction when she revised. The fourth question on the editing sheet related to style and tone. Dawn's peer editor had this to say, "Style and tone is nice. Needs to be more detailed for high school and up readers. The tone should sound more critical or crucial--like it's a life and death situation." In her revision Dawn considered how she might phrase her ideas more convincingly and made 147 some changes. Dialogues of this kind can be intellectually stimulating for reader and writer alike, because they not only make the students aware of the different ways there are of sharing ideas, but they also draw attention to the effect the language has on the audience. To summarize, teacher and peer comment enhances the writer's intellectual development in the following ways: 1) it allows students to see their writing as truly communicative; 2) it encourages the movement from writer-based to reader-based prose; 3) it leads students to make writers' choices and reconcile contradictory advice; 4) it offers an arena for small intellectual debates; 5) it fosters an exchange of the language of criticism. As long as students are trying to write for a grade, they will be concerned with "getting it right," and they will rely on peers and the teacher to help them write the "perfect paper." But in the process of doing so, this three- way dialogue among writer, teacher, and peers can lead them to learn more about reading and writing than they thought possible. I O . I 0 ‘3‘0‘ :1. “ IIIIH’. {.0 .' 0“!“110 _‘I,° :10 \“U" 1" Having peer comment in the drafts of student writers encourages students to understand how different types of papers might, ultimately, be written. Not all of the comments are acted upon naturally, but what is important to this approach is that by such conscious evaluation of the writing, student writers might see their writing as genuinely communicative. By using peer editing sheets, students are given 148 something concrete to talk about, specific issues to address, and a common language with which to work. The questions on the editing guides can serve as points for discussion, as shown in some of the preceding analysis of case study papers. But by having writers also fill out a personal editing guide, they are permitted to respond to the peer editors comments and criticisms, thus allowing them a voice in the process and ultimate ownership of the writing. The fear of criticizing and being criticized is also lessened by this approach. By using written editing sheets, students feel no pressure to speak in front of the entire class, so even the shy writers can have their opinions heard. Those students like Mary who say they find it very difficult to criticize others may find it less so in writing than in a face-to- face situation. Editing sheets which ask for description as well as prescription make the process of critiquing a paper easier for peers. Asking them to list the best sentence in the paper has the effect of showing the writer what language worked well. Sometimes it is valuable to have the writer herself describe sentences or paragraphs that sound good. For instance, one of the questions on the personal editing guide in the Freshman Composition class asked, "In your opinion, what is the very best sentence of your entire paper?" For her descriptive paper Kara answered, "The houses that tower over the beach are all locked up. Tall and gray, with perfect square windows, they look like modern pieces of art in a museum." In the margin I responded with "I love this!" Students can see that the process of criticizing or 149 analyzing their writing and the writing of others does involve the recognition of its beauty and strength as well. Many college writers recognize problems with their writing but often do not know how to solve them. Teacher and peer criticism gives them a variety of options and some collaborators in the decision process. Instead of seeing themselves as solo performers who have to "get it right," student writers see themselves as part of a group engaged in a planning session, taking their cues from the advice and feedback of others who are in the same position. This collective situation reduces the fear of criticism and instead creates a positive community acceptance. Dawn said, "It [peer group editing] makes me able to make my paper better by getting an idea on how others see my paper. It also helps me to see others mistakes and I am able to help these people." The critical process goes on at two levels for Dawn and for other writers in the peer editing workshops. First she is the recipient, gathering ideas, reading and considering them, and modifying her own writing based on her analysis of the suggestions. But she is also a critic for several others, reading, evaluating, and making suggestions for their work. In both roles Dawn, in a sense, detaches herself fi'om the work to become a reflective reader. Having an equal voice as a critic enhances her own self-esteem as a writer and makes her more willing to listen to others' ideas as well. Dawn's extensive revisions showed evidence that she was open to criticism and, in fact, made use of others suggestions when she felt they were appropriate. 150 Kara felt that peer critics needed to take their work more seriously. Her comment was that on the day of peer editing some students do not come to class, thus showing their lack of enthusiasm for the editing process. N 0 analysis was done of the students who were absent and their positive or negative feelings about peer critiques, but it would make an interesting further study. Kara herself was present for all peer editing sessions and her writing too showed her attention to peer comment, though perhaps not to the extent that Dawn's did. One of the benefits of giving and receiving criticism in peer groups such as those studied in Advanced Expository and Freshman Composition is that students learn to talk about reading and writing. They learn the language to use in discussing their writing both within and beyond the college classroom. Mary's comment about writing for her career as a teacher illustrates to some degree this awareness of the codes of discourse communities outside the composition class. The critical interaction among peers, teacher and writers develops this competence. A look at one of Mary's editor's comments on her "Hacienda to Migrant" paper shows how this language about writing is expressed: "The introduction was quite descriptive, but could have been better structured. The conclusion was very good in my opinion, because it leaves you with the feeling that there is more to come, or leaves you to wonder what will the next obstacle be?" The peer shows that, first of all, she is an interested reader attempting to receive the communication that Mary intends; but in addition she has some critical comments about the way Mary's ideas are put forth, particularly in the 151 introduction. To her comment I added my own, "Yes, I agree, put it all into one paragraph." When criticism is delivered in a relatively non- threatening way accompanied with some positive remarks, it allows the writer to receive it in an open fashion. I often found myself agreeing with peer editors in the course of this study, particularly in substantive matters. This three-way dialogue seems to be a better critical approach than the usual teacher/student communication in matters of revision. Furthermore, as noted earlier, had I read the peer comment before making my own comments on Mary's paper, I would have saved some time. Here is an example of another peer comment, this time on one of Alma's papers--"My Turn to Bark"--which shows how the peer editor has become somewhat comfortable with the language of criticism: ". . . a serious topic with a comical tone. 'Across the street from me lives a leather- lunged Doberman I've begun calling Old Yeller.’ Yes, the tone does fit the topic and audience. Maybe you could add some more names for the dogs and their habits or times they bark the most. Also, maybe a comparison of the dogs and their owners." This peer's remark shows a good combination of positive and negative response with ideas for improvement. It addresses content, tone, organization and development. Alma, however, perhaps because she is a confident writer, did not follow the suggestions of peer group members as much as the other five case study writers; moreover, she did not seek teacher comment and suggestion. Some students in the study enjoyed giving and receiving criticism. Others did not. Some were more skilled than others at commenting on 1 5 2 rough drafts. But all students routinely became analytical readers, adopting a critical voice as they helped writers to 1) solve language problems; 2) get a message across; 3) weigh options and possibilities; 4) become more comfortable sharing their writing. By developing this reading skill, students may eventually grow even more as writers. From an analysis of the six case study writers, I have found that students develop a critical sense more from their participation as peer editors than from their work as writers. I would hope that in time this critical ability will help them with their own writing. I found that when they are writing, students often rely on teacher comment which makes the process of revision easier and quicker. But when they are reading and commenting on a peer's paper, they cannot rely on any critic other than themselves. Kara is a good illustration. While she is a confident writer, she is quick to admit that she likes "strict guidelines"; further, she says one of the hardest things about writing is "catching my own mistakes." She is very good at making the corrections others suggest, as an analysis of her papers shows; but in spite of a high degree of confidence, she was a bit slower to critique her work and make changes based on her own evaluation. Eventually she did become a more self-reliant reviser. but I wonder if that process was slowed not only by her inexperience as a writer but by an over- reliance on my written comments as well. When Mark's peers stopped making extensive comments, he continued to revise on his own. Yet I 153 continued making the same number of written comments throughout all of Kara's assignments. Had I assumed less responsibility, Kara might have taken on more. Reading papers and then commenting on them seems to be the way most teachers develop their own critical sense about writing, yet students often have little opportunity to do this. In fact, they rarely see another student paper. Dawn was candid about the benefit she gained from reading others' work, and even Alma mentioned that reading other papers helped her with her writing style. In this study the personal editing guides provided me with some clues to the development of each writer's critical eye. These sheets were filled out by each writer after he or she had read the peer comments. The student writer was then free to agree or disagree with the peer remarks, plan for the final draft, or simply comment on the rough draft that had been passed around the group. Sometimes students were "right-on" with their self-critiques. At other times they were too easy on themselves. Teacher and peer comment helps students to be more self-critical. I was surprised to see that in general Alma was not very critical of her rough drafts. But often peers did not have the chance to read her first drafts, which may have affected her own evaluations. Her first paper, however, did bring out some personal criticism. On the editing guide which I gave her, she said, "I wanted readers to be slightly enlightened to the rail car shipping industry and some of the challenges faced. Yes, I think I was successful because I gave enough supporting facts to explain." Her optimistic remark was pure 154 swculation because her peers had not read the paper. But another comment on the same sheet which addressed the interest level of the paper seemed to be a bit more critical: "This wouldn't be an interesting subject for a 1/2 hr. anything! [instructional broadcast] I'd have to select a different topic if that were the case." At the end of the semester Alma said that this paper about the rail car industry was her worst paper because she "couldn't get interested in the topic" even though it relates to her profession. This is one occasion where I believe written teacher or peer comments might have prompted a critical reading. Alma may have been too close to the subject to get a sense of the reader's response. Alma's informative/persuasive paper entitled "Smoking Ban on Domestic Flights" did receive peer comment, but again she was not very critical of the paper. She said, "I spent a lot of time on this paper and don't expect to do a lot of revising. I need to smooth over a few rough spots, but I think that's all." I think Alma's chief personal criticism of her work came primarily before she brought a paper to class. It appears that she puts her critical eye to work long before she becomes a part of the classroom writing community. I'm not sure if this is good or bad. I do think her sense of audience would have been enhanced by more peer and teacher comment. And perhaps her ability to criticize her own work would have been extended through the duration of the work rather than just prior to public display. An interesting contrast to Alma is Dawn, also an experienced writer, who developed a fair degree of critical ability regarding her own work, thanks to some help from her peers. In her editing guide for the 155 process analysis she said, "I might decide to explain how to put the jack on the car a little better. [I'll] use more detail." None of her peers mentioned adding details, but one did have a question about the jack. In the next paper, "Persuasion with Desserts," she was encouraged by her peers to think about the aroma of the desserts. She wrote, "[I'll] put the sense of smell into the paper. . . 'smell the freshly baked pie."' Here she was trying out a possible new line to add when she revised the rough draft. The final draft did include a considerable addition, including that phrase. But Dawn may have come to rely on peer comment more than necessary. In the fifth paper she did not have any peer criticism and did not make any self-directed changes either. Thus, even experienced college writers may need to be reminded of how to apply a critical eye to papers. In fact, as I review Alma's situation, it may be that experienced writers need more nudging at times than less experienced writers because they may be more satisfied with the first draft. As Alma learned, the first draft may not be the most appropriate for a general audience. I do not believe that students can acquire a fully developed critical sense about writing in a typical fifteen week semester, but they can get a good start. I was often surprised and happy to see that student writers expressed the same concerns and sensed the same problems with their writing that I or their peers perceived. For example, in Cami's paper about cheerleading I made this comment, "organization needs work--too much shifting in time and place." This remark was made before I read her editing guide. When I got to it, I found Cami's comment which had been 1 5 6 written before I made my suggestion: "I'm going to try and organize my paper a little bit better." As I looked through the peer comments, I found one about organization, which may be how Cami got the idea. Nevertheless, with a three-way dialogue such as this, certain principles of criticism emerge time and again. This reinforcement alerts student writers to particular aspects in their writing to watch for; additionally, when they read others' work they have a growing set of criteria with which to critique. I do not believe that this development occurs when teachers are the only readers, responders, and markers of student texts. Nor does it occur when students are the only editors of their papers. The best community for developing a critical sense is made up of writer, teacher and peer readers, using their reading, thinking, and writing skills to create and use the language of criticism. Many writing classrooms use the oral critique method with students seated in a circle reading their work aloud. While this technique has some definite advantages, it also has some drawbacks by not allowing all students to develop their critical abilities. Less confident students may let others do most of the talking. Even confident students may hesitate to be candid. This study used written peer critiques in both the Advanced Expository class and the Freshman Composition class. When students make written comments on others' work, they all have equal access to the writer's attention, use the language of criticism and evaluation, and make their ideas available to the writer long after the workshop session has ended. Furthermore, I found that when I read the peer comments, I have the opportunity to agree or 157 disagree with them myself. Students in this study appear to look at teacher remarks in conjunction with the peer comments. In several case studies when I agreed with peers, the revisions were more detailed. For example, one of Mary's editors suggested she add more examples of "helping children" in her paper "My Reward of Helping Children." I agreed. The final draft included four additional paragraphs of example totalling one page of typed text. I believe that written critiques allow student writers to evaluate criticism in a careful, thoughtful way. Reflecting on possible changes with their paper and the peer and teacher comments before them, they have time to make considered judgments about the various criticisms of their work. This ultimately, I believe, will make them better judges of their own and others' writing. .: .. :.. ... ...".. :J. 7'... '1". ‘."a..‘.... .Hu.‘ Before students can take their writing and revision seriously, they need to gain a sense of respect for the writing community of which they are a part. As they talk, write, read and listen, their experiences are shared by the teacher and their peers. There is a gradual building up of respect and communication, so that in general, as James Britton says, the conventions chosen by the writer to express a message are in fact the conventions by which the readers choose to interpret it ("Spectator Role" 160). This doesn't, of course, mean that readers cease to become critical or helpful. On the contrary, they become even more participatory because they have a framework within which to operate. Some students move into and accept 1 5 8 the writing community more quickly and participate more fully. In this study, those students who did so found they received more help and were able to give more help to other writers. Dawn was a willing participant. She remarked, "I feel that it is helping me alot when we evaluate each others papers. Doing this helps me in my own writing. It makes me able to make my paper better by getting an idea on how others see my paper. It also helps me to see others mistakes and I am able to help these people." Her papers consistently showed the effects of community participation. In fact, the only time she was not a part of the writing community workshop (because of absence), her final paper did not show any revision. Mary is another student in the study who indicated a respect for the writing community and its members: "I liked this [editing groups] because it gave me a chance to read many other different stories. . . I am always in awe of what others think and write, they teach me much." Mary taught the other students in the class a great deal too. Several mentioned that they enjoyed having an older student in class who was willing to share her rich experiences. Mary admitted that at first she was hesitant about writing because her interests and topics were not the same as the younger students. But without exception the others respected her subjects and responded well on the editing guides. Since Mary was anxious writer to begin the semester, I'm sure these positive comments helped to motivate her writing. Sometimes it takes a student audience to appreciate student writing. I am 1 5 9 reminded of Mark's paper about weight lifting. In the Advanced Expository class there were several other men and women who had an interest in his subject. In fact, some were weight lifters themselves. Their understanding and acceptance of the subject gave some sense of importance to the paper that might have been missing with my reading alone. Furthermore, these peers could suggest revisions that made sense. One who had done some weight lifting mentioned that Mark might want to move the paragraph about proper breathing techniques closer to the beginning because that was so crucial to the overall process. Another questioned the phrasing of two sentences about spotters. This editor knew the point Mark was trying to make, but felt the sentence did not say what he intended. Other peer editors were valuable because they knew nothing about the sport, but were interested. One said, "I always wondered about weight lifting. The rules were well organized and I learned a lot." Even though teachers usually try to comment in a positive and empathic way, students know when interest in a topic is feigned. Peer comment often adds a measure of respect to the writing situation that keeps the writer interested and working hard on a text. Kara did not find students as respectful of the peer editing process as she hoped they would be, although she was a conscientious and serious editor herself. I do think, however, that she appreciated the help peers gave her and welcomed the feedback. One of her early comments in the semester indicated why she might like an outside reader: "I get too involved in my 160 paper and can't get a broad picture of my completed work." Kara was not the only student who felt that way. Mark also commented that he was not sure how to check if everything he had written belonged in the paper. He further said he has trouble deciding how to organize his ideas. Peers helped with the organization of Mark's papers on several occasions. As writers begin to see their fellow students and their teacher as trusted and valuable readers, they come to respect their own texts and find them worth the time and effort it takes to revise. This trust comes out of a positive classroom experience wherein successful response depends upon a respect for each member of the writing community, a willingness to offer support as well as criticism, and a clearly articulated respect for writing. CHAPTER VI PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS OF WRITTEN COMMENTS BY TEACHERS AND PEERS In this chapter I will examine pedagogical implications of written teacher and peer comments in light of the research discussed in Chapter I and the writing study described in Chapters II through V. Through a close examination of the six case study writers and their texts, I have learned more about what goes on between the first draft and a fully revised and edited piece of writing. I have also learned more about the relative merit of teacher comments and peer feedback. As is true, however, with much research, this study raises more questions than it answers, questions which deserve further research. For example, the differences in text revisions between the class which received written teacher comment and the one which did not suggest the importance of teacher comment in generating a high number of textual changes or modifications. At the same time, this information poses unanswered questions about what weight should be given to the various types of revisions (cosmetic, mechanical, grammatical, continuational, informational, stylistic, transitional, 161 162 organizational, holistic); which student revision strategies and styles can or should be altered; and how responsibility for revision should be shared in the writing community. Yet, there is no doubt that revision plays an important role in the writing process and that students profit most when others engage in this complex activity with them. {fiaaflitiil .03 343100“ .10 ‘0 ‘1! i0 30 'vi' .0x01JI Alfi!’ I began my study with several questions: What would happen if I did not make marginal comments on student papers? Would college writers organize and revise; would they consider audience and purpose without my written support and suggestion; would they rely heavily on peer comment in the absence of my comments; would their confidence as writers be enhanced or diminished without written teacher comments? The answers to some of these questions surprised me. I found that students did indeed organize and revise, considering their audience and purpose; they used peer comments, some students more regularly than others; and on the whole the writers' confidence increased more than it diminished. Does this mean that teacher comments are a waste of time? N 0, not necessarily. First of all, even though I did not write comments directly on student papers, I had two ways of getting feedback to student writers: optional oral conferences and teacher designed editing guides for peer response. All students used editing guides, and almost all students conferenced occasionally. 1 6 3 Qntinnalfimlfinnfmmces Although I had conferenced at least once or twice a semester with all my students over the years, oral conferences had not been my primary method of interacting with drafts in progress. So, after my experience of reading papers slowly and making methodical, empathic marginal comments, I found the oral conferences very different. Ironically, I couldn't seem to get to know the students as well, even though we talked face to face. I found it difficult to connect a paper with a writer, perhaps because I spent less time with the paper itself. It took me longer to get to know the students because I could not seem to relate the writers with their papers and, more important, with their ideas and interests. As a writing teacher I found this somewhat disconcerting. I felt distanced from the writers, the writing, the entire social process. Often I would see a paper for the first time in its final draft stage which, I must admit, bothered me somewhat. But even if I had read a paper and conferenced with the student about it, sometimes I hardly remembered it because either my reading had been rapid or my memory focused on the conversation rather than the text itself. I felt as if I never could get a grip on the class, and at one time in the semester I considered making the conferences mandatory rather than optional. Yet I had the distinct feeling that even if I did that, I would not find the teacher/writer connection I sensed was missing. As I read final drafts I searched my memory for pieces of conversations with students, then looked for revisions that might have come out of our discussions. Even when I found a change, 164 often I was not sure if it was something we had talked about. Only major revisions attracted my attention. Until I actually analyzed the papers of the three case study writers from the class, I was doubtful that much revision had taken place. I was wrong. A close examination showed that all three case study writers revised considerably throughout the semester. Apparently it did not take my written marginal comments to encourage them to do so. Peers provided the conflict and collaboration needed to help them revise. Ed! '| B .1.“ IE 51 At the same time that I was feeling detached fi-om the writing, and in a sense, detached from the students, I observed a certain self-reliance on the part of some writers. They seemed more in charge of their composing behaviors. I can see now that this ability might have come from their earlier writing experience, for all students in Advanced Expository had taken at least two writing classes prior to this one. But at the time I believed it was because I was not assuming as much responsibility for them, which in part may be true. At the end of the semester when I looked at their comments, I was surprised to find that only one student mentioned wanting more "professional" help, meaning my time or feedback. This finding paralleled two earlier British studies, Chaudron (1984) and Davies and Omberg (1987), which noted that only a minority of students wanted more teacher feedback. So, while I was feeling somewhat out of the picture, students were content, it seems, with my level of participation. 165 At the beginning of the study I thought, on the whole, that the confidence levels of the students would decrease without my written comments. But again I was wrong. Two of the three case study writers, Mark and Alma, did show less confidence by the end of the semester, but they were in the minority class-wide, and Alma still had the highest confidence level of any student in class. I regret not having the opportunity to give more positive feedback through written comments, but realistically I ask myself if the remarks would have made a significant difference. Perhaps, however, for students like Mark who have a high degree of writing anxiety, more teacher comment, particularly positive written comments that the students can read over several times, may be worthwhile. . . C O C C C a g. . s. 3 ~ I I o - ‘ "out; o _o o u“. a ...o u ,.n,oo. a... .a o ,OJJJg Gradually I came to realize that many of my reasons for making written comments had been challenged by what I learned from these writers. I could see that several of my goals for the students' development could be accomplished in ways other than written teacher comment. Peers helped the Advanced Expository writers in several areas: 1) they stimulated ideas for revision; 2) they motivated students to revise; 3) they challenged student writers to clarify and organize their ideas; 4) they encouraged respect for the writing; 5) they provided a community of support. Peers took on a significant amount of responsibility in this class. There was clearly less dependence on the teacher. Even Mark, the least confident writer who sought my help more often than any other student, relied more fi-equently Oil 88t ml 166 on peers' or his own ideas for revision than on mine. The other students seemed to use peers' suggestions regularly to stimulate and accompany their own ideas. As current research shows, peer comment has clear benefits, but it is not without fault. Occasionally students give inaccurate or inappropriate advice which can confuse or mislead the student writer. In looking at the _ ' '. 9‘1"}. . h"t 3‘ -." vn editing guides from the Advanced Expository class, however, I found very few examples of what I would call poor suggestion. Furthermore, if students are periodically reminded that they own their writing, they will be better equipped to evaluate the advice they receive. El'l' (3'! ill 2 B' B At the same time, if peer editors are given a clear sense of direction for their evaluation, they may be better able to help the writer. George Jacobs (1987) suggested a list of questions for peer editors to follow similar to the editing guides I provided to students in Advanced Expository. (For sample capies of the editing guides see Appendix A.) These guides contained a series of open-ended questions which focused on key issues related to each assignment, along with space for general comments and suggestions not elicited by any of the questions. Students kept the editing guides and read them at their leisure as they revised their texts, one advantage the written comments have over oral feedback. Critics of editing guides maintain that they restrict students from spontaneous expression about the writing and too narrowly channel their response. Yet, students 167 need not be limited by the editing guides. I encouraged and observed a casual verbal exchange among students in the peer groups as well. This talk appeared to relieve the tension, and as Kantor found in his study (1984), momentarily took the spotlight ofl‘ the writing and put it elsewhere. Another benefit of editing sheets is that students have a clear sense of what they need to accomplish in the workshop sessions. One drawback of oral feedback was noted by Jacobs (1987) who found that fiiction occurred when students did not perform the functions they were supposed to in the triads (reader, writer, observer). With editing guides, the teacher has an opportunity to read and respond to peer comments. If students know that their remarks will be examined by the teacher, they may be more careful and conscientious. In reading the editing guides from the Advanced Expository class, I could see that most students gave thoughtful, detailed advice, although on a few occasions the suggestions were brief and not very helpful. Occasionally time was a factor as in the case of one of Dawn's editors who wrote, "I read it ["A Tragic Accident'] but I am a little short on time. It was very good." This comment is one that would not help Dawn much in the process of revision. 113 IE El°|°G°l To encourage students to be better editors and to get away from comments such as this, some teachers give grades or credit for editing sheets. Yet, I believe it is a better idea for peers to respond out of a sense of responsibility for each other and the writing process, than for a grade. it 168 Grading takes the focus away from the paper under discussion and places it on the editor's needs. It also may encourage peers to respond in a less honest way, to pad an answer to get more points, for instance. Some students are consistently better editors than others, yet I have observed that each student's expertise varies somewhat depending on the paper under discussion. Mark's paper about weight lifting is a good example. Peers who were weight lifters seemed to offer the best advice. Yet, others who were complete novices were able to show Mark where he needed more details for clarifying his points. It does not seem profitable to try to make all editors comparable critics for all papers. The value of peer response often comes from its diversity. While I did not make written response to peer comments in the Advanced Expository class as I did in Freshman Composition, teachers who reinforce or question the remarks of student editors provide the writer with two opinions on revision cues. Generally students will look to the teacher for the final word on such occasions, but once in awhile students disregard both peers and the teacher. This is not necessarily a negative response. Often it means the student is assuming ultimate responsibility for the work. Confident writers like Alma may feel that they have a clear vision for the paper and put less value on outside help. When teachers respond positively to peer comments, however, it can encourage the writer to respect the peer editors and the process. Two of the three case studies from Advanced Expository, Mark and Dawn, say they show their writing to friends before handing it in, thus creating their own editing groups for 169 advice and support. Being open to readers' opinions is perhaps the most valuable benefit gained from dialogues such as these. Before peers can do a good job of editing, however, they need to have some preparation and experience. At the beginning of the semester I spent some time talking about revision, and as the editing sheets were distributed, we discussed them fully. As the semester progressed we needed to spend less and less time on preparation. Nevertheless, a thorough understanding of the writer's assignment, audience and purpose are essential for every editor. It might be a good idea for the writer to preface the text with a brief paragraph which explains these three elements. Keeping these larger issues in mind helps peers to get beyond the grammatical accuracy of the paper and helps the writer stay on course. In my study of the Advanced Expository class, I found that peers were most helpful with informational, organizational and holistic revisions. They were specifically requested not to make marks on the writer's paper, instead using the editing sheets for all comments. Thus, for the most part they did not get into the business of correcting punctuation or spelling. I did urge them to bring any such issues or problems to the attention of the writer verbally, however. Some students like Dawn preferred to ask me questions about grammatical revisions during conference periods. Perhaps because of this editing format my findings contradict those of Davies and Omberg (1987) who found that changes made to the first draft that affected content, ideas and organization were generally not arrived at through peer comment. All three of these areas were 170 addressed by peer editors in the Advanced Expository class. On the other hand, While Davies and Omberg found that peer groups "tidy away many of the more common and basic language errors," I was not aware of as many grammatical suggestions by peer editors. If such suggestions were made, (and remarks at the end of the semester indicate that to a certain extent they were), these grammatical and mechanical issues were not written down on the editing sheets. Teachers who want peers to address such issues may ask them to put a check mark at the end of any line containing a grammatical or mechanical error, or they may ask students to run off copies of the text for each editor to mark on. Teachers employ various strategies to assign editing groups. Usually class size does not permit the entire group to edit each paper. Jacobs (1987) saw disagreements arise from the groups in his study and found that students preferred to select their own peer editors rather than work with those the teacher arranged. I did not see any friction in the Advanced Expository groups, which were rotated occasionally so that students would eventually have a chance to work with everyone in the class, but students did express some dissatisfaction with a few of the editing jobs. To eliminate possible dissension within groups, Jacobs suggested creating cooperative goal structures to create a feeling of positive interdependence, things such as group compositions and grade averaging. I did on occasion group students for collaborative work aside from peer editing. Such cooperative ventures may have helped students form closer bonds so that when they met for peer editing there was a greater sense of responsibility 171 for those in the group. Yet peer groups in the Advanced Expository class did not operate without some problems. Students in the study were candid in their evaluations. El 119 'I lil'l E 1 IE [3 At the end of the semester I asked students to write about the peer editing process. Following is a summary list of their comments pro and 00111 The peer editing sessions are probably not as helpful as they could be. It seems as though no one wants to hurt any feelings, so honest Opinions of a paper are not expressed. I am guilty of this as well. The peer groups help give a wide variety of angles toward editing a paper, also gives me a chance to see what other people write about, and the techniques they use. Limiting the groups to only peers gives strictly unprofessional opinions and ideas, if I'm unsure or ignorant of a fact, I may easily be steered in the wrong direction. The workshops are helpful and needed because they allow mistakes I miss to be caught. The premise of small groups for exchange of ideas and criticisms is great. However, I don't feel as though a lot of new input was given. A lot of times people have hurriedly answered the questions on the sheets just "to get it over" and have not given it a lot of thought. A few good ideas for expressing my papers more clearly have come through, but I don't really feel that it works as well as it ought to. The group discussions help me to get my thoughts more fully developed and on the right track. Group feedback is a very good way to help the papers stay on the right path and help with the basic structure of sentences. FTP" 1.- 172 I guess I like the group thing where we critique each other. Sometimes I do--sometimes I don't. It depends on the group. I do like a chance to see what everyone is capable of, not just certain people. In my opinion, the evaluations that come after we first exchange our rough drafts are a good method of seeing what you should elaborate on. That is a key concept for me to improve. The workshops I feel have been very helpful in editing my papers. The readers are able to talk to me and help with suggestions. I think it is a very good approach. I am pleased with the structure of the course. The only problem I can see with group editing is some people just want to get it "over with" or aren't really concerned with your work. This happens seldom. I like the editing groups. You get instant "feedback" from your peers. I was hoping to have more class time in groups to point out in what direction my paper should go. I have receive [sic] some valuable tips from my fellow classmates. I like the way the editing groups are set up. Classwide, positive comments outnumbered negative. But the criticism listed most often corresponds with a drawback found by Davies and Omberg: lack of seriousness and expertise. Given the number of comments about the editors' seriousness of purpose, I would conclude that teachers need to be aware of students who may not be evaluating responsibly or seriously. This can be accomplished easily by taking a look at their written response and by observing peer group interaction. Writing community feedback is not always predictable. Often it is supportive, encouraging and helpful. But occasionally for student writers it can be rather unsettling. 173 Students in the Advanced Expository class who expressed satisfaction with group editing cited several benefits: peers provide a variety of perspectives or angles; peers help writers stay on track; peers find errors that writers miss. These three responses indicate that group editing contributes to the writer's sense of audience, purpose, and style. For most students, peer response makes revision easier and helps them to move beyond their previous identities as writers. As they converse about revision and challenge each others' thinking, they emerge from the workshops more thoughtful planners and revisers. The goal of peer groups is not to create writers who are all alike or who ascribe to the same writing or revision strategies. Instead the workshop becomes a place for students to work out their own language within a community which will provide information and feedback. IsaahsnExalnatinnnflEsanflsmmsnt Writing is learned in the same way other activities are learned: by doing and heeding what happens. Ideally, a writer's work will be read and discussed by a candid audience who will also serve as the writer's coaches. Adjustments to the writing come in response to the audience response. My experience of using peer groups in college composition courses for the past seven years and my analysis of six case study writers, all of whom participated in peer editing, support this notion. Yet, I am aware of Sarah Warshauer Freedman's current research which suggests that teachers regard peer groups more highly than do students (Response 158). Further, 174 I am not unmindful of my own students' reservations about peer editing. Some dislike the role of writing coach and prefer to have the teacher assume all coaching duties. This attitude may be the reason students sometimes do a hasty editing job, thus leading writers to say that peers don't care about other students' work. Teachers may find too that in transferring some of their power to editing groups, conflicts occur between their ideas and those of the peer P Ivar-waxing».- I! editors. I observed in this study few occasions in which peer and teacher comments came into direct conflict. Yet, when they did, student writers were more likely to follow the teacher's suggestion, indicating that the basic structure of the classroom changes little even with the incorporation of peer editing groups. Based on the results of my study of peer comments and the student writer, I have concluded: 1. Students who are confident, experienced writers will incorporate explicit peer cues about how to revise their papers if the cues are compatible with their own assumptions about the direction and needs of the writing. 2. Peer dialogues supplement and occasionally supplant teacher dialogues when that is in line with the teacher's goal and when class workshops are structured accordingly. 3. Experienced and inexperienced student writers who lack confidence need teacher support for their writing mdditionje the support and suggestion which can be provided by peer groups. 4. Peer comments generate fewer stylistic and mechanics revisions than do teacher comments. 5. Students in general find peer comments stimulating, motivational, challenging and supportive. 175 ici‘aaoozoo a: :_:: mu '10:: -:u wont. cannon I began my study of this freshman class with a general curiosity about the value of written teacher comments. As composition researchers have noted, it is often easy for writing teachers to assume authority of a student's text by marginal comments, thereby encouraging the writer to create the teacher's text. Although this fact is generally known, it is very difficult for many writing teachers to refrain from making written comments. It is hard to remain silent. My pen was busy in this freshman composition class, and, as I expected, my written comments were met with a rash of revisions. There is no doubt that students produced more revisions when I wrote in the margins than when I did not. If getting students to make a large number of revisions was my goal, then surely I succeeded with the written comment method. However, through a close examination of early and late drafts, I soon discovered that a number of my comments and the resulting revisions were minor stylistic or mechanics adjustments. Perhaps I had been deceiving myself by behaving that the twenty minutes per paper it normally took me to comment produced fairly substantive changes on the later drafts. On several occasions with the case studies, I did find major changes. Yet even there peers played an important part in initiating the substantive revisions. Certainly a large amount of my time had been spent addressing how things were said as opposed to what was said. 176 I also had assumed that written teacher comments on drafts in progress would help improve student writers' confidence by providing positive support. Yet a comparison of the the Daly-Miller writing apprehension scores showed that at the end of the semester only eight students felt more confident about their writing than they had at the beginning of the class, while ten students were slightly more apprehensive than at the start. Not surprisingly, an analysis of the positive marginal comments showed that more praise had been given on the final drafts than on drafts in progress. The one out of three case studies who was more apprehensive at semester's end received fewer positive remarks on drafts in progress than did the other two students, although she received about the same number of positive comments on final papers. It struck me again, as it had with Mark in the Advanced Expository class, that positive comments are important throughout the writing process, not merely on the final product. Written teacher comment is one tangible way to provide support. UJ'iI. :....‘: {.90 Hm.’:. ll. .‘1 ‘3. .. .......:" E l C 'I' Although many of my assumptions about written teacher comment were called into question by the results of the study, there remained a number of positive benefits I could not overlook. Written teacher comments influence student writers in a number of ways: 1) they encourage students to re-see their ideas, organization and style; 2) they enhance the students' understanding of the connection between readers and the process of 177 revision; 3) they assist the students' assimilation of the idea that revision is discovery, not merely a tidying up of their first efforts; 4) they make the process of revision easier for the student; 5) they provide support for the writer. Comparing the marginal teacher comments and changes between first and final drafts revealed that revision in the three case studies fi'om Freshman Composition had been guided heavily by teacher recommendation. Most of these changes came as a result of marginal or interlinear comments. However, a number of additional recommendations came in the form of teacher prepared editing guides which established criteria for both teacher and peer evaluation of the papers. Taken together these comments formed the foundation of the revision process encouraging modifications in the areas of content, organization and style. The writers had no trouble accepting the source of the suggestions as a reliable authority. There was an obvious dependence on the teacher in matters of style. While students looked frequently to peers for revision help, they deferred to the teacher when conflicts arose. Teacher comments, at least in two of the three case studies, seemed to provide the launch pad for a number of additional writer-based ideas: both Cami and Mary used my cues to develop extensive additions to their original text. But it is important to note that the editing guide questions and cues from peers helped as well on many of those occasions. In this way the teacher's voice supplemented peer voices. ".i ’15.”; (.._x)-a l 1 7 8 Eli IB Ilhl'll M '10 | I did not find in my study, as Coupe did in her 1985 Oxford study, that students misinterpreted or ignored my comments very frequently. Generally they were quite diligent about addressing every issue I raised, including even the minor stylistic and/or grammatical changes. At the end of the semester only one student wrote in his evaluation that he found my comments sometimes unclear and vague, a problem Coupe found on numerous occasions. Occasionally students would ignore one or two suggestions, but out of the total number of students the percent was small. Nor did I find what I would consider a reactive writer, one who lacked the ability to look back or project forward in a text. All three fieshmen case study writers were quite capable of rehandling the original material. None resorted to rewriting the entire text out of a sense of frustration with revision. My written teacher comments were met with written comments by the writers themselves on personal editing sheets. (For a sample of Freshman Composition personal editing sheets see Appendix B.) This technique suggested by Barrie Wade (1978) allows for the teacher to better understand the student's frame of reference, and thus to better facilitate the revision process. I appreciated hearing what plans students had for the revision of their papers, and sometimes when they had particular problems or issues they wanted me to address, they drew my attention to those things by their own written comments. I found that usually students followed through with what they said they would do in revising their paper. I tried to rn (I) 179 comment on these plans myself, noting those ideas that seemed particularly good and questioning others. I feel that these written dialogues helped me understand my students much better as writers, revisers, and thinkers. Furthermore, the written revision plans allowed students to discover problems in their own writing before I did, which seems a less threatening way to address the process of revision. Very often I found myself agreeing with their revision strategies. I liked having this language link with the students. I hoped my written comments throughout the semester modeled a way for them to make better written comments of their own. Mill I l C | Hill B 'lTI Robert Protherough (1983) found that secondary students like the sense of individual contact and guidance that written teacher comments provide. I observed the same feeling in my class of freshmen writers. One student remarked about how pleased she was that I took the time to read her work and respond thoughtfully. Written comments do certainly let students know that their writing has been read and responded to in a detailed way. In oral conferencing the reading is somewhat quicker and the response more general, hence my earlier comment about the Advanced Expository class in which I had some difficulty getting to know the writing and the writer. On the other hand, a number of written teacher comments also give the impression that the re-seeing job has already been done by the teacher. I did sense a dependence on the corrective pen, particularly in matters of style and grammar. Yet, as I analyzed revised drafts, I noted F—Té’i 180 students giving their papers a close reading, catching errors I had missed. Therefore, I would not go so far as to say that written comments relieve students of the responsibility of rehandling their work. In fact, comments may model careful reading behavior, at least for some students. Unfortunately as I reviewed my comments and the students' subsequent revisions, I did not find myself following James Moffett's advice about keeping the number of teacher comments small. Moreover, the number of critical comments on drafts-in-progress far outweighed the amount of praise, which may have been one of the causes for the slight decrease in confidence of a majority of writers by the end of the semester. This is of particular concern to me because I believed I was making caring, constructive comments in line with current writing pedagogy. Clearly, my aims and my outcomes were at odds. This is something for teachers to be aware of if they use written comments at all. Researchers Cohen and Cavalcanti (1987) suggest that there is a misfit between teacher feedback and the writers' interests. I would agree. Generally, I believe, teachers have their students' best interests at heart; yet even though I assumed I was on the right track, my comments did not appear to reflect my facilitator's philosophy. I was not aware of this, however, until I counted and analyzed my own written comments at the end of the semester. lfll'll I l C I llfl'l C 51 In terms of student attitude and confidence, teacher comments do, I believe, carry a fair amount of weight. But in this study they did not, it 181 seems, have enough power to make an anxious writer into a confident one. Nor did they turn a confident writer into an apprehensive one. Using the technique of a combination of praise and critical comment on drafts-in- progress and praise only on the final draft, I observed more students' confidence diminish by semester's end. However, the group under study was a class of high achieving college freshmen, who very likely had received much praise and high marks for their high school writing. It is likely that some had never experienced critical comment on papers, so the l e experience of suddenly fielding revision cues from peers and teacher may have decreased their writing confidence. The most important finding to me was that no student who received written teacher comments moved from high or average confidence to low. Nor did a student with little confidence move into the confident range of scores. The range of changes was less dramatic. Yet, I must admit that I expected and would have liked to see students' confidence improve more than it did. I believe closer attention to positive teacher comment on drafts-in-progress, rather than primarily on final drafts, might work to accomplish this. One advantage of teacher comments is that they can help less experienced student writers use revision techniques generally used by more experienced writers. Students who once thought of revision as tidying up their papers can be encouraged to devote a measurable portion of their writing time to reviewing, systematic examination and improvement of the text. One of the freshmen talked about her change in attitude from high school to college, and I perceived this general shift in perspective 182 throughout the class. I do feel that this same shift can be accomplished with peer comment. However, for some students the impetus and perhaps the resulting revisions will not be as great. I say this because students in the study who did not receive written teacher comment (the Advanced Expository class) made fewer revisions of every kind than students who did have comment (the Freshman Composition class). I. .I I. [lit °|| I I Q l On the negative side of the issue, I see written teacher comment as having several potential limitations: 1) it is sometimes unclear and fails to produce the changes implied; 2) it is often too limited in terms of praise; 3) it occasionally confuses the student writer with its contradictions; 4) it creates an emphasis on "corrections" and the final product rather than on the writer and her progress with discovery; 5) it sometimes permits a questionable dependence. The one student in Freshman Composition who remarked that my comments were at times unclear and vague also said that he knew this was the time to talk with me. But realistically, many students will fail to do so, preferring to do the best they can with unclear teacher suggestions or ignoring them entirely. Although few of the case study writers ignored my comments, I did not assess the quality of the revisions made from my cues. I have a hunch that the changes were minimal when my comments were the least bit unclear. 183 Telescoping of revision cues was another concern I had about written comments. This occurs when the teacher makes sentence level suggestions on the one hand, and on the other suggests that the student might develop or alter the very same section of the text. Does the student fix the sentence and then add detail? Or should he eliminate the entire sentence in the process of adding more? Whatever the decision, there is wasted time for either the teacher or the writer or both. Ideally teachers l will allow for several drafts-in-progress, addressing holistic issues in the L = early drafts and fine tuning later. Realistically this does not always occur because of the time constraints of the usual fourteen- or fifteen-week semester, or in some cases an even shorter ten-week term. Aside from the wasted time, which I agree is an important issue, I do not feel that college students are seriously thwarted by such apparent contradictions in advice. Again, as owners of their writing they need to make the ultimate decision about which revisions to address, and it seems to me they are able to differentiate between major and minor changes with little apparent confusion. Kara's paper "To My Fear" is a good illustration. I made marginal comments about usage, punctuation and spelling and on the same page noted that she might want to condense the entire section because it did not add to the movement of her story. She decided to condense, ignoring my minor revision suggestions in the process. Perhaps the only danger is that it may be all too tempting for students to accept the minor cues instead of the major ones. 184 One of the reasons students generally like written teacher comment is that it makes revision easier or it at least gets them started in the process. Once they get comfortable with this editor-writer relationship, they hate to give it up. It is addicting--not only for students but for teachers as well. With each new class, teachers fall into another response-revision cycle. Yet when student writers realize that their next writing experience may not involve this model, they will be more encouraged to break the habit, which can be done with the teacher's guidance. What exactly do students find so good about written teacher comments? .HHH ”UH-0°” I - .fi , h. I ~ H .; ,. ,,,_,,., A. At the end of the course I asked all students to do a fieewrite on several aspects of the class structure including peer groups, written teacher comments, and assignments. Not all students, however, addressed written teacher comment, which surprised me somewhat. But those who did had mixed reactions. Following are the comments of those who responded: The written teacher comments have been m helpful in the rewriting of papers and encouraging and critical also. The teacher comments and teacher conferences I find very helpful. Both help push me into the correct direction. The best thing about this class was that you gave us the opportunity to rewrite our papers before a final grade was given. The comments, assignments and deadlines were all quite good, although a lot of work was required for this course. 185 Comments - Often I find myself wondering what is wrong with a particular statement. I understand that you need to comment on our papers, but sometimes what you are saying is unclear and vague. Of course, then is the time to come and talk with you. I like the fact that every paper you turn in is a rough draft because I learn a lot more after I can go back and examine the mistakes I've made and re-due [sic] the paper. Again, it takes away from the discouragement and adds to the self motivation and desire to do better and learn more about "what makes a _ good paper." ' Probably the most helpful of all aspects incorporated into this class is the initial ruff [sic] draft requirement before every paper. This allows a student to understand then correct his or her individual writing problems. ”man. 'A1 L The comments written by the teacher on my paper enabled me to improve my paper. But I feel there should be more comments on the grammar aspects. I like the way we are allowed to turn in a rough draft and your comments help tremendously. I enjoy the effort you put forth in correcting and reading my paper. Last year in my senior English class, my teacher would take three weeks to pass back our papers and then she wouldn't put any comments on them. I am very conscious of my writing and I enjoy both positive comments and suggestions. For the most part the students' comments reflected what I had observed in the class. With few exceptions students like marginal comments on drafts in progress because these remarks help with revision. However, some of the words students use to describe the method seem to suggest that the teacher may be trying to elicit the kind of paper she would write: one spoke of the teacher pushing him into the right direction; another mentioned getting the paper right by "correcting" it. Unfortunately this puts the 186 emphasis on the editor and the final product rather than on the writer and the process. Yet, not surprisingly, students overall did not seem to mind giving this power to the teacher. In fact, wrongly or rightly, they seem relieved to do so. Insofar as the revision process is a shared responsibility, written teacher comments have positive potential. Freshmen writers may benefit more than advanced college writers from a dialogue such as this. From their evaluations it is apparent that some freshmen have never experienced the revision process, much less the facilitating marginal comments. However, if students become dependent on such a practice, they may flounder in later writing situations where editorial comments are not available. Worse, they may see revision as a process of proofreading and correcting, never as an act of discovery. In the best of circumstances teachers might begin a writing course with a fairly structured combination of editing guides, peer response, and written teacher comments, ostensibly making it possible for the writer to understand the benefits of readers and revisions. When students begin to experience familiarity and success with this social process, the teacher might begin to shift the focus away from marginal comments, while retaining teacher feedback through the editing guides and encouraging audience response through peer groups. Eventually as students gain confidence and authority, they can address the complexities of the revision process on their own, as Kara did in the Freshman Composition class. But if they do not move through that cycle, they may be deceived into believing, as does Alma, that few readers have valuable advice for the process of I! 187 revision. Or they may believe, as Cami, that only the teacher knows what the paper needs. Teacher comment does support and validate the writing experience, but each student is unique in the amount and type of response she needs. A teacher who grows with the student's growth will be sensitive to the demands of each writer and each writing situation. James Moffett believes the structure of the subject must be meshed with the structure of the student (Dime 13). This advice is appropriate, I believe, for teacher comments. Much of the process of teaching revision follows the student. Thus, students will be most benefitted not by "getting it correct" or giving in to the stylistic demands of the teacher, but by making wise choices and personal discoveries. If they can learn to participate in various dialogues within the writing workshop, they will become more fluent members of the writing community. IlEl|° ElM'IIIlC I William Stafford says, "I don't see writing as a communication of something already discovered, as 'truths' already known. Rather, I see writing as a job of experiment. It's like any discovery job; you don't know what's going to happen until you try it" WW1). This process which Donald Murray calls "internal revision," includes everything writers do to discover and develop their message. Murray believes that writers spend far more of their time with internal revision than with external revision, which is what writers do to communicate what they know to an audience. By the time teachers comment on a draft, even a 188 first draft, the writer has gone through this process of internal revision dealing with matters of content, form, structure, language and voice. I was especially aware of the process of internal revision in Alma's writing. Her comments about the way she writes and the steps she takes to produce a paper led me to understand that at certain stages of the process she writes for an audience of one: herself. Until she was fairly certain about what she wanted to say, she could not expose her writing to outsiders for their suggestions for external revision. Even later as she did so, she followed only the revision suggestions that were somehow consistent with her own internal revision plans. It is significant to remember that teachers will most often be a part of the external revision process, helping students communicate to a wider audience. Teachers can be helpful in guiding writers back to some of the early issues related to form, content, language, structure or voice, but they always operate from a reader's distance, and rightly so. Even within a writing community, revision ultimately is the writer's job. In an interview the philosopher Sartre, who was losing his sight, spoke about the writer's need to "re-see" his work: I can no longer correct my work even once, because I cannot read what I have written. Thus, what I write or what I say necessarily remains in the first version. Someone can read back to me what I have written or said, and, if worst come to worst, I can change a few details, but that would have nothing to do with the work of rewriting which I would do myself. (Contat 10) Sartre was speaking about the necessity of vision in reworking a piece of writing. This personal skill can never be taken over by another, and it is this eye/mind connection that the teacher can never penetrate, even though 189 she may become a skilled editor, able to come close to the student writer's frame of reference and position. I am not suggesting that teachers sit back and do nothing while students work out their own vision for a piece of writing. Composition teachers have made use of intervention in the writing and revision process for the past two decades, with written comments being the most frequently used method. My examination of the six case study writers and my own experience with written comments over a number of years leads me to h = believe that their greatest benefit is the breadth of revision strategies that they generate in student writers. This larger repertoire of revision strategies is one that more experienced writers already possess and perhaps consciously or unconsciously put into play in the internal revision process. Less experienced writers often lack an awareness of the possibilities for change, so their revisions typically involve "corrections" of surface level errors. Peer editors cannot always supply this breadth of information either, although they too are adept at helping with external revision. Written teacher comments help student writers achieve three important goals: 1) personal growth as they stretch and discover what they didn't know they knew; 2) linguistic growth as they communicate more effectively with others; 3) social growth as they function in a discourse community. Students not only acquire skills with writing, they also acquire perceptions and attitudes. Those who see writing in a broader scope, 190 encompassing the above goals, will be better able to handle a variety of writing challenges later. Summanmfllunclnsinns I have attempted to show in this discussion of six case studies that the benefits of teacher and peer comments vary with the confidence and experience of the college writer. The results of this study do, I believe, validate a claim that teacher and/or peer comment should be based on a thoughtful analysis of three factors: 1) the student writer's experience with writing; 2) the student writer's anxiety about writing; 3) the difficulty of the writing task. Teachers must, of course, decide if and when to use written teacher comments, peer comments or a combination of both. As for the comparison between effects of peer feedback and teacher feedback, research in general has turned up mixed findings. However, this study has found a number of related benefits. Peer comment is valuable for the following reasons: 1) it stimulates ideas for revision; 2) it motivates students to revise; 3) it challenges students to clarify and organize their ideas; 4) it encourages respect for writing; 5) it provides support for the writer. Written teacher comment has numerous benefits as well: 1) it encourages students to re-see their ideas, organization and style; 2) it enhances the students' understanding of the connection between readers and the process of revision; 3) it assists the students' assimilation of the idea that revision is discovery; 4) it makes the process of revision easier for the student; 5) it provides support for the writer. 191 Because both approaches have benefits, students who are exposed to a carefully considered program of teacher and peer feedback can develop good writing habits and see positive outcomes by working with others in this complex part of the writing process. While teacher comments may provide a broader and more detailed roadmap for revision, in the long run peer comment may contribute more to the writer's confidence in decision making and audience awareness. Teachers must be mindful of the ‘-'.. .-.-Runw- ‘ . :. confidence and ability levels of their students. Not all students have the same needs. Writers require different kinds of intervention at different levels of writing difficulty and complexity. Less experienced, apprehensive writers may learn more about revision from help initially given by the teacher during the drafting process. Students like this can not only improve the quality of their communication, but they can also learn that in revision they can discover new ideas. Further, for novice writers comments on drafts in progress may be a welcome and supportive means of communication between teacher and writer. Helping students need not mean doing the paper for them. Teachers assume responsibility for structuring feedback to provide support and at the same time allowing ownership of the paper to remain in the hands of the writer. Ultimately student writers will develop strategies and skills to draw on to apply to their own writing in future situations. Teachers of advanced college writers should not overlook the benefits of peer comments, a valuable part of the revision process. Because peers are quite capable of offering good advice, they can save the writing teacher val tin cos sty the dif prc T9\ alt pr: an wk Te“ 192 valuable time; moreover, as peers edit the papers, they are, at the same time, developing their own reading and writing skills. I l' I. E E I B 1 Future research needs to examine the various types of revisions-- cosmetic, mechanical, grammatical, continuational, informational, stylistic, transitional, organizational, and holistic--in a more thorough way than this study has done. First of all, how do teacher and peer comments differ in emphasis? Further, how can peers and teachers work together to provide comprehensive help in all areas without taking over the paper and without overlapping responsibilities? Second, how much should teachers intervene in already developed revision strategies of student writers? Can preferred methods of revision be altered or, in fact, should they be altered to fit commonly accepted classroom practices of re-writing papers? Writers typically have very personal habits and patterns for writing. At what stage in the writer's development or at what stage in the preparation of a piece of writing should teachers back off? Third, how should responsibility for revision be shared in the writing community? Do these shared experiences result in greater gains for students in what they take away from college writing courses? More long range studies might yield information about successful writing beyond the composition classroom. Although this study has examined the complexities and the rewards of a fully functioning writing community in the process of revision 193 in six case studies, successful writing teachers need to study their own teaching conditions and methods, as well as their own students to best determine how response can benefit the writers they serve. To be most effective, teachers need to be willing to revise their thinking for each class, tailoring instruction and response to fit the social and cognitive inconsistencies of their readers and writers. APPENDICES APPENDIX A EXPOSITORY WRITING ASSIGNMENTS AND EDITING GUIDES APPENDIX A Expository Writing Paper Assignment: Process Analysis As you begin be aware that it is possible to explain a process and still write a creative, interesting paper. Ernest Hemingway's selection from "Big Two Hearted River" is good evidence of that fact. We will take a look at that piece of writing in class. To make your own writing job easier and more enjoyable, make sure you choose to write about a process with which you are familiar and comfortable. Remember, you should be an insider. Don't select a topic that your readers are likely to know as much about as you do. The process may relate to a work situation, a course you are taking, a hobby or special interest, or perhaps a personal, community, or social problem. The primary thing to keep in mind as you plan and write is your audience. If you have chosen your topic carefully, you can assume that your readers know very little or nothing about the process you are explaining. Be careful, however, not to insult the intelligence of your readers by using simplistic wording. But lead them step by step through a careful explanation. Whenever possible use example and detail to illustrate. The process essay may be a good opportunity to experiment with the use of humor. It is also a very good way to "teac " without being pedantic or boring. If you write in the first person, especially if you illustrate with a specific incident, your paper will sound more personal and probably be more lively and interesting. The essay should be approximately 2-3 typed pages and is due on for group editing. 194 o-I‘ ”Winning” 4». 195 Expository Writing Editing Guide: Process Analysis Writer's Name Your Name Directions: Read the following questions over carefully and keep them in mind as you read each paper. Answer each question as thoughtfully and completely as you can, making any additional comments you think might help the writer improve the paper. Don't forget to enjoy what you are reading. 1. The writer of a good process analysis will anticipate the question "What do you mean by that?" and answer it before it becomes a question in the reader's mind. Write down the places this question popped into your mind as you read the paper. How would you change it to make the ideas clearer? 2. Using analogies (or similarities) is a good way to help the reader understand a process. Where does the writer use analogy to explain? Where do you think an analogy could be used to make the paper more interesting? Be as specific as you can. 3. What is the best part of this paper? Why do you like that part? 4. Were you satisfied with the way the paper began and ended? How would you improve the introduction or conclusion? 5. Do you see effective transitions? Give examples. Where does the writer need to use more or better transitions? 6. Other than to simply explain a process, what was the author's purpose? Was there a message? 4 4"} P i 196 Expository Writing Personal Editing Guide: Process Analysis Name 1. What was the mood you wanted your readers to come away with? Do you think you were successful? Why or why not? 2. Did you have enough detailed information in your process? Where do you need more? 3. What was the message conveyed in your process? For example, an analysis of how to select the proper ski boot might have an underlying safety message which is the purpose for the paper. What is your purpose? 4. If your essay were made into a half-hour TV show or an instructional broadcast, what would we remember about it? How would you improve it? Be very specific. 197 Expository Writing Paper Assignment: Informative/Persuasive Essay One of the most challenging forms of expository writing is the persuasion paper. Every writing skill you have learned up to this point must be employed in producing an effective essay. You must think logically; you must know your audience and appeal forcefully to their better judgment; and you must express yourself clearly and in an organized fashion. Don't forget that in addition to all those things, you must also attract and hold your reader's interest. Even though this sounds like a difficult job, you may be surprised to learn that persuasion is something you are already quite familiar with. Have you ever persuaded your parents to lend you the car, or have you convinced a friend to type a paper for you? Most of us use persuasive skills every day. With your paper proceed as follows: decide on a point you want to make, some belief you want your reader to consider, or an action you want your reader to perform; find as many good arguments as you can; try to predict what the counterarguments will be and provide a rebuttal for them. You might want to illustrate a point with a humorous story or a tragic one, whatever the case may be. Try to make your reader remember your argument long after he or she has read the paper. Your essay should have a thesis statement, and all succeeding paragraphs should support that idea fully. Stating your arguments and addressing the counterarguments can be done most effectively in the following two ways. The first method will be called the divided pattern. In this format you should first bring up most of your strong points to present a positive argument in a single block (not necessarily in a single paragraph). Then you counter the opposing points and end your paper with one or two additional strong points. The second method is called the alternating pattern. Here you should present the arguments and address the counterarguments together, perhaps even within each individual paragraph. Either method can be altered somewhat to fit your needs. The paper should be 500-600 words and is due on for group editing. 198 Expository Writing Editing Guide: Informative/Persuasive Essay Writer's Name Your Name 1. This paper, like your own, should have a clear thesis. Write down word for word what you think the thesis statement is. If you aren't sure, write down what strikes you as the most important sentence in the first section of the paper. _ Quite sure_ Not sure 2. What do you like best about this paper? Why? 3. Reread the introductory paragraph and briefly evaluate it in terms of whether or not it grabbed your interest and clearly gave you a sense of the persuasive argument to come. Try to help the writer out here by offering any suggestions which occur to you. 4. The author should have developed the thesis (the argument) by giving supporting data and information. These should be specific support systems (experiences, other valued opinion, data, facts, etc.). Note which supporting argument was most strongly made and which one could use more development. Provide two suggestions for improving the paper. 5. If you were the instructor for the course, what final commentary would you make, keeping in mind that the writer will not only be revising it, but also will be relying on your comment to do so successfully? Ii§'E‘.T~..“i1T..‘.. Inf 5 It i! 199 Expository Writing Personal Editing Guide: Informative/Persuasive Essay Name 1. What is the best argument in your paper? Why is this the strongest bit of proof? Where is it located (beginning, middle, end)? 2. Which of the other persuasive points needs more development? Why? How can it be strengthened? 3. In your opinion, what is the best sentence of your entire paper? Why? 4. After considering the comments of your peer editors and taking into account any weaknesses of the paper, write a revision strategy statement in which you specifically and fully describe how you will make this a better paper. 200 Expository Writing Paper Assignment: The Editorial For this paper, select a tapic you are familiar with and one that you feel strongly about. As with any paper, begin by defining and analyzing your audience and your purpose. Specify clearly the position you have assumed and the points you want your readers to get from reading your editorial. State clearly and in some detail the reasons for your position and be careful not to get off the track. Although this piece of writing will come out of a strongly held personal belief, it is important to exhibit support for your opinion. This support can come from many places, so select it wisely. You may want to use personal experience or experiences of friends, relatives, or acquaintances to illustrate and convince. Or perhaps you will need to do some outside research to collect facts and statistics to be truly convincing. Readers who want to know facts will be impatient with general statements and may decide that you are lax in doing your homework before stating this opinion. Once you have marshalled enough support, move logically through your reasons, being conscious of using transitions to work your way through the points. Have a design for your paper that will help the reader follow your point of view. Tone is very important in this type of writing. Remember your readers. Be firm and unwavering but avoid a badgering or nagging voice. Make a clear commitment to your position early on and then follow through without backing down. Be courteous and confident. Use an appropriate tone for your subject and your audience. Some editorials can be handled well in a humorous way. Others need a more serious voice. Select your words carefully. Beware of what your textbook calls "fuzzy intensifiers," words that don't really describe anything; they just reflect the writer's attitudes: terrible, wonderful, great, etc. Use objective language. Objectionable, biased words such as "disgracefirl" may create anger in your readers who do not agree with you. Their first response may be to fight rather than to listen.d Respect your readers and treat them the way you would like to be treate . Please have a rough draft ready for group editing on 201 Expository Writing Editing Guide: The Editorial Writer's Name Your Name 1. Comment on the audience for this editorial. Who does it seem to be directed to? Is the language appropriate for such an audience? Why or why not? Does the paper speak directly to you as a reader? Why or why not? 2. What is the basic premise (the "main road") of the writer's argument? Is it clear? Are there any meandering "side roads"? 3. Evaluate the writer's sources of support for his or her opinion. Are they personal experiences? Statistics? Experiences and/or opinions of experts? 4. Comment on the writer's style and tone. How would you describe it? Select one sentence to illustrate this dominant impression. Does this tone seem to fit the topic and intended audience? 5. What final advice do you have for the writer as he or she prepares to revise and polish this editorial? 202 Expository Writing Personal Editing Guide: The Editorial Name 1. Did you imagine an individual, a reader, as you wrote this editorial? Who was it? Why did you write for this particular reader? 2. State your position in its simplest form. Look at it carefully. Have you overgeneralized? Explain. 3. How varied and strong are your sources? What do you see as your best source? What could you do in terms of sources to make this a better essay? 4. Evaluate your tone and voice. Is it tolerant? Reasoned? Take a look at word choice and sentence style. Is it appropriate for publication? Why or why not? How will you change it? 203 Expository Writing Paper Assignment: Magazine or Journal Article Magazines and journals contain a variety of essays on a variety of topics that interest a variety of readers. Your textbook, Wm, offers many possible suggestions for topics, including the following: * an article for parents on the effects of TV watching on pre-school children * a report on a new brand of microwave (or any other appliance, car or tool) for a consumer magazine * an article on how to buy ski gear * a review of a movie, restaurant, play or book for the entertainment section of a magazine * a short article for young people explaining a new discovery in science or technology, what it takes to be a dancer, lawyer, journalist, or other professional ,r'mt..l.:;'r‘_ar r ll. 1 I Your best resource is yourself, your interests, your job, your hobbies, your life. Think for a moment about the journals you read that are related to your field of study or to your career. What sorts of articles do those publications contain? You may be surprised to realize that you know a great deal about some aspect of your business or profession that needs to be explained in a journal article. As you prepare for this assignment, make it a point to do some professional reading in your field. If you are still studying for a particular career, read the journals your professors recommend. They may give you some ideas. Think also about what kinds of articles you read at home for pleasure. What hobbies do you have that would make interesting reading for a general audience? What travels have you taken? Carefully focused and detailed, these would make interesting articles. Airlines and trains often have small magazines for their passengers, containing a variety of short articles. See if you can locate some of these publications and read the articles. Generally magazine articles are longer than we might think. Readers need to feel that the subject, whatever it is, has been covered in a satisfactory way. Thus, often the subjects are usually quite narrow and discussed in about 1000 words. The use of concrete detail, example, facts, and often even pictures enhances our enjoyment of the material. Since you probably will not have illustrations, make your language work for you. Please have the rough draft ready for group editing by 204 Expository Writing Editing Guide: Magazine or Journal Article Writer's Name Your Name 1. Analyze the audience for which this article was intended. Are you among those who would be interested in reading an article such as this? Why or why not? 2. Consider the purpose of the article. Can you see a clear reason for the writing? What was the author trying to convey in a nutshell? 3. One of the problems a writer might experience is tackling a subject that is too broad. How could this topic be narrowed to give a more focused view? 4. Lively details, vivid images and good description make for successful writing in any area. Write down two or more sentences that seem to fit this description. Where could the essay use more improvement? 5. Getting the article ready for publication requires that all surface errors, things such as spelling, punctuation, usage be carefully addressed. Where do you see problems or areas that could use re-writing or proofreading? 6. In your opinion, what area of this paper could be expanded to give it greater depth and interest? 205 Expository Writing Personal Editing Guide: Magazine or Journal Article Name 1. Aside from the usual answer (as a requirement for the class), why did you write this article? 2. Where do you think this article could actually be published? Do you think it is good enough? Why or why not? 3. Have you ever read an article similar to this? Where? 4. In terms of development, how does this paper rate? Where will you develop it to make it more interesting and complete? 5. Is the article focused on one part of the topic or does it wander over too many roads? Where could it be narrowed? 'y‘ m rut-g; truth-1' 206 Expository Writing Paper Assignment: Investigative Report The first step in writing a good investigative report is to sense problems and challenges. Be alert to situations at home, on the job and in society needing improvement. Then dig in and get at the cause of things. Ask questions, learn new information to aid understanding, find out the facts. As Maxine Hairston points out in the text, "Reports are facts." The reader does not want to know what you feel, think, believe or fear, but he or she does expect to find out what you have investigated. As a writer your job will be to I * focus on the problem or situation under investigation $11 * refrain from expressing emotions or personal opinion * avoid arguing * refrain from a conscious effort to persuade * write in a clear objective style that does not call attention to itself Your report should be comprehensive, documented, and written in a language nonspecialists can understand. This does not mean stuffy, dull, inflated prose. Rather, you should be aware of who will read the report and what actions might be taken on the basis of its contents. For documentation of the facts, refer to pp. 203- 209 in your textbook, Wm. In terms of structure your report should follow this plan: Abstract (a concise summary of the reportusee pp. 224-227) Introduction a. Statement of the problem or situation b. Purpose of the report c. Description of the investigative method Body of the Report a. Detailed description of procedures carried out b. Explanation of findings Conclusion (detailed summary of results) The organization of the body of the report will vary depending on your subject and method. If you are writing a report about withdrawal symptoms of a drug abuser, you might want to use a narrative form to tell the patient's story, give the results of your interviews with him or her, and document the symptoms. Then you would want to review the literature of what is known about withdrawal symptoms, apply that information to the patient you are investigating, and give your findings. In the conclusion you should summarize what you have learned. Please have the rough draft ready for group editing on 207 Expository Writing Editing Guide: Investigative Report Writer's Name Your Name 1. In one sentence, write down what you think the purpose of this report is. 2. Write what you think is the best sentence in this paper and tell why you like this particular one. 3. Evaluate the abstract. Is it clear, concise? 4. What aspects, if any, of this problem or situation were ignored or treated lightly in the investigation? How would you improve on that? 5. How would you improve the introduction? 6. Evaluate the conclusion in light of what we said a good conclusion should do. Offer hints for improvement. 208 Expository Writing Personal Editing Guide: Investigative Report Name 1. Is the abstract for your report concise and clear? How can it be improved? 2. What is the strongest aspect of the body of the report? What is the weakest? Be specific in describing how you will improve it. panel-were»- slum I Q d 3. I asked that you not make this writing stuffy, dull or inflated. Can you say that you followed those instructions? Give examples of good prose (at least two). 4. What can you do to improve the first two sentences of your paper? Again, be specific. 5. Evaluate your conclusion. Does it carefully summarize the findings of . your report? What can you do to make it better? 209 Expository Writing Paper Assignment: Proposal A proposal is a plan, a description of intended action. Proposal writing has become increasingly important in recent years. Many professionals, from scientists and public officials to educators and healthcare workers, find that they must apply for grants on a regular basis. It is not difficult to write a proposal; however, you must write a clear, well-organized document to get the job done. If you are employed for a company or an organization that applies for grants, please use this writing assignment as an opportunity to get some practical experience, drawing your material from actual sources. On the other hand, if you do not have these resources, or if your occupation does not require such writing, there is a good list of suggested topics for proposals in your textbook on page 234. .l :— Fr. A“5~U'.Khu—.q The proposal should begin with a clear descriptive title, followed by an abstract which accurately and concisely summarizes your case. (You will probably want to write your abstract last.) Be sure to give each section of the proposal clear titles: Abstract, Introduction, Conclusions, Recommendation, Discussion, Proposed Solution, and, if appropriate, Appendix. (See the sample proposal attached for format structure.) The Introduction and its Conclusions are important for several reasons. They explain what the proposal is all about, what you want to do. They also will set the tone for the request; thus, you will want to present a reasoned, melliesesrehed idea. Your success may depend upon how competent you sound. Remember, reviewers read many requests, so strive to be informative yet relatively non-technical in the beginning. In the remaining sections you should outline and discuss your proposed work. Set timetables and budgets if necessary and appropriate. Describe how you will conduct your research, how you will collect data, and who will be working with you on the project. If you have charts, graphs, or other illustrations, place them in an Appendix at the end. Be sure too that you present a good discussion of the benefits that will be derived from the plan you propose. Please have the rough draft ready for group editing on (Tl 210 Expository Writing Editing Guide: Proposal Writer's Name Your Name 1. What is the purpose of this proposal. Evaluate it in terms of apparent need. Do you think it likely that such a proposal could gain approval? Why or why not? 2. Organization is very important in proposal writing. What are the individual sections titled? Which section contains the strongest writing? What is good about it? 3. Evaluate the introductory section. Is it clear and written to get the reviewer's interest and attention? Write down the best sentence in the introduction. 4. What aspects, if any, of this proposal were ignored or treated lightly? How would you improve on that? 5. What specific details in terms of costs or benefits were mentioned? Were they sufficient? Where does the proposal need more depth? 211 Expository Writing Personal Editing Guide: Proposal Name 1. Why did you write this proposal? Tell a little background about the topic as it relates to you. 2. What are the chances of your proposal succeeding? What could you do to improve your chances? 3. Evaluate each section of the pr0posal. Which is the strongest? Why? The weakest? What can you do to improve the ones that are weak? 4. Does the introduction get the reader's interest and attention? How might this be changed to be more effective? 5. Do you have enough depth and detail in the Recommendation section. Will the reviewers want more facts? Where? 212 Expository Writing Paper Assignment: Case Study Your final assignment for this class will be to construct a case study. This type of writing is used frequently by professionals in many fields including psychology, medicine, social work, education, and law enforcement. Case studies are most helpful to the fields they serve if they are written in a clear, concise, unpretentious way. There are a few guidelines to keep in mind as you write. First, as the observer/writer you should strive to construct objective, concrete descriptions of behavior without being judgmental and without expressing personal prejudices or biases. You must choose your words carefully, being aware of their connotations and always using neutral language. For example, if you are describing a student in a pre-school setting, you should write "Andy is above average weight and height and shows aggressive behavior toward smaller children," not "Andy is terribly fat and beats up on the other kids." Second, your case studies need to include all important, relevant information. Do not include unnecessary facts that will waste the reader's time just to pad the case study. As a writer you must have a clear sense of purpose to guide your selection of pertinent material. Finally, you will want to anticipate and speak to the specific questions that the case study is expected to answer. Again, this will depend upon the purpose of your case study. Why are you writing? For example, a teacher who is writing a case history in order to help a student qualify for a special program knows that the reviewers will want to know if the student can be helped and why the placement should be made. Writers of case studies need to be aware of audience and purpose because often decisions are made based on a review of the writing. The case study is due on for group editing. 213 Expository Writing Editing Guide: Case Study Writer's Name Your Name 1. Is the language of the case study clear, concise and down-to-earth? Would reviewers understand it easily in one reading? Explain. 2. Take a look at the language used. Are there any examples of phrases or words that sound biased? Where? How could these be neutralized? 3. Was there a time in the case study when you felt you were lacking important details? Where? 4. Can you determine the purpose of the case study? Why do you think the writer undertook this job of description? 5. Was there irrelevant information anywhere? Did you feel that some information really wasn't pertinent to the case? What would you omit? ‘OWWAW .. . -.I 214 Expository Writing Personal Editing Guide: Case Study Name 1. What is your purpose for this description? What do you anticipate its use will be? 2. Evaluate your use of words and phrases. Do they sound judgmental or biased? Where? How will you eliminate that problem? 3. Do you have enough detail? Where can you use more? Is there too much? What can be omitted without damaging the intent of the case study? 4. Take a look at your sentences. Are they concise, clear? Too rambling, wordy? How will you make changes? APPENDIX B FRESHMAN COMPOSITION ASSIGNMENTS AND EDITING GUIDES ? s-l-_ WM .. I APPENDIX B Freshman Composition Paper Assignment: Personal Narrative As you discovered in your first casual writing assignment, there are many voices that writers can use to "get across" their messages. They can, if the situation warrants, project a formal image, but on other occasions they can be very formal. We all tend to use whatever voice fits the occasion. For example, when I talk with my friends and family, I speak informally-- using words and sentences which might not always be exactly correct. If I am talking with the college president or to a state representative, however, I will probably use a more formal voice. When I talk with students and colleagues, my speech will tend to be somewhere between formal and informal. This principle applies just as much to writing as it does to speaking. Changing voice is common; it is generally referred to as code switching. Since we all can and do code switch regularly, the problem is not how to change voices, but when to use formal, informal, or a "middle" voice. In this first writing assignment, you will be using three different voices: formal, informal, and the "middle" voice which is often most acceptable to the general, unknown audience. To begin, try to remember a pleasant or an unpleasant incident in your life (an accident, an award, an argument, or an achievement). Write a letter to someone in a position of authority explaining what happened. Then write a second letter about the same incident to your best fiiend. Use a formal tone in the first letter and an informal voice in the second. I will collect these two letters and return them to you with comments. Then you will do a third piece of writing about the incident--a true story about the experience which will be interesting reading for a general audience. This third piece of writing will be different from the letters in two ways: 1) it should be written as a narrative (a story), not as a letter; 2) it should be neither very formal nor very informal; instead it will be directed to a general unknown audience. Keep several things in mind as you begin this assignment. Select an incident that will be of interest to you as well as to your audience. Focus on a limited time frame--don't try to cover too much in a short paper such as this. Use plenty of details so the reader can get a vivid picture of the incident. (What seems perfectly clear to you might be vague for your readers.) Decide on a specific point to make with your essay. What are you really trying to get across in your paper? In terms of length, the essay should be approximately 500-600 words long (2-3 typed pages), and it is due on . 215 21 6 Freshman Composition Editing Guide: Personal Narrative Writer's Name Your Name Directions: Please read and enjoy the papers of those in your editing group. Keep the following questions in mind as you read, and when you are finished answer as completely and thoughtfully as you can, making any additional comments you think might help the writer improve the paper. 1. Did the writer choose an interesting incident to share? What makes it unique or worthy of reading? 2. What is the best sentence in the paper? Why do you like it? 3. Are the descriptions of the people, places, and events clear enough to visualize. What is described best? What needs work? 4. Does the introduction capture the reader's attention? Why or why not? How would you improve the beginning? 5. Look at the sentences closely. Are there short and long ones? What sentences need more work? 6. Does the author try to cover too much time in a short paper? What could be eliminated to give the paper a sharper focus? 217 Freshman Composition Personal Editing Guide: Personal Narrative Name 1. What do you think is the best sentence in your paper? Why? 2. What do you think is the best part or aspect of the paper? (Beginning, conclusion, details, organization, style, etc.) Ask yourself, "What did I do particularly well?" 3. What do you think is the weakest aspect of the paper? Ask yourself, "How or where can I improve this paper?" 4. After considering the comments of your peer editors (whether you agree with them completely or not), and taking into account any weaknesses of the paper you are aware of, write a revision strategy statement in which you specifically and fully describe how you would go about making this a better paper. Don't say you need to do a better job at this or that; instead, note exactly where and how you will make improvements. 5. After thinking about how you will revise your paper, are there any areas you would like me to specifically note or help you with in the revising process? Please write those concerns or questions here, and I will make it a point to address them when I read your paper. 218 Freshman Composition Paper Assignment: The Description Physical description is a rather basic kind of information. We often write about people, places and things. When we do, we want the reader to "see" what we're talking about; thus, the details of what the subject looks like, sounds like, smells like, tastes like, or feels like are important and should be communicated. This seems simple enough until we try it. To describe something well, we must do three things: 1) see it as a whole and give the reader a general picture; 2) attend to every possible detail; 3) take advantage of all our senses. Good observation is the first step to good description, but careful observation alone will not guarantee good writing. Remember, you can never assume your reader knows what you mean. You may know exactly what you mean when you write, "My grandfather was a tall man, rather sloppily dressed." But every reader will most likely get a different picture, or no picture at all. Keep in mind our discussions of the concrete-abstract continuum and our general audience of 500 people. Sometimes your words may raise more questions than they answer. Look at the following words: home, mother, horse, city, beautiful. Every person looking at these words will have a unique set of associations. We will have to do a lot of explaining if we want our readers to share the same meaning we have in mind for a specific word. Train yourself to notice and to write down specific physical details. Make lists before you begin the actual essay. Use all your senses as you compile the information. The next step to writing a good description is to develop a general statement giving a broad outline of what you are about to describe. What is your message? What do you hope to convey by your description? Knowing "where you are going" with the description will keep you on the track and eliminate unnecessary detail you might be tempted to add as "filler." Most important, does all the detail combine to form a dominant impression? It should. Next, decide how your subject can be divided into parts. For instance, in writing about your grandfather, you might divide the description into face, dress, and walk. This division will assist in the organization of your essay. Help your readers form the picture you want them to see. And finally, remember that you must care about your subject before you can hope to interest your reader. Do some careful thinking before you select a topic for description. The theme should be approximately 500- 600 words (2-3 typed pages), and it is due on 21 9 Freshman Composition Editing Guide: The Description Writer's Name Your Name 1. Did the writer select an interesting topic to describe? Why or why not? 2. Do you get the feeling that the writer cares about the subject of the essay? What gives you that impression? 3. Write the words that convey the very best description. 4. Does all the detail work together to create a dominant impression and a clear message? What is the writer's message? 5. Look at the introduction and conclusion. How would you evaluate them? How can they be improved? 220 Freshman Composition Personal Editing Guide: The Description Name 1. In your opinion, what is the very best sentence of your entire paper? 2. What mood, feeling, or general idea were you trying to convey with this description? Do you think you were successful? Why or why not? 3. Where do you need more concrete details? 4. Describe how you will go about revising this first draft. Be specific about exact paragraphs and changes you intend to make. 5. Are there any areas you would like me to address as I read your paper? 221 Freshman Composition Paper Assignment: Assertion with Proof Essay The first step in preparing to write an assertion with proof paper is to determine your subject. Select a topic that you know something about and care something about. Avoid subjects about which you have little personal knowledge--abortion, capital punishment, gun control. These are overworked issues. If you are at a loss for a topic, the possibility sheet we will be filling out in class may be of some help. After you have selected a topic, narrow it to a manageable size. Most topics, as they first occur to you, are too broad. The next step in the process is to state your precise controlling opinion about the topic you have selected. This statement is called the "thesis statement," and its purpose is to show what idea the paper is going to develop. Remember, it should be a debatable point--something people might disagree with. (Is there anything to be debated in a statement such as this: "My two week trip to Florida was the best experience of my life"?) After you find a comfortable (and debatable) thesis, brainstorm the topic. Write down everything that comes to mind that is in any way related to your tapic. Look at it from all angles. List the pros and cons of the subject. At this point don't be concerned with sentence structure. Accumulate as many ideas as possible. Later we will be using a fiee writing session to fill in additional details. Now that you are writing a paper called assertion with proof, don't slip into a dull, safe style. Being boring is not a desirable quality for a writer. Ifit helps, think of yourself as a regular columnist for a newspaper or magazine. Such columnists do write "well-developed" pieces, complete with thesis and support. But the writing is also alive. Distinct personalities come through. Readers experience not just ideas, but a writer as well. As for persona, you probably don't want to use the strictly informal voice, but don't try to be stiff either. Be as formal or as informal as you wish, but do it with flair and originality. One pitfall I want to mention is the use of opinion. Everyone shares a right to an opinion, but that right does not automatically bestow quality on that Opinion. Ask yourself these questions about the opinions you express: 1) How insightful am I being, or am I looking only at the surface of the issue? 2) Can I concretely support my beliefs? 3) How varied is the support of my opinion? 4) Have I expressed myself in an engaging way? 5) How well do I understand my own value system out of which this opinion has deve10ped? Giving these questions the attention they deserve is important to the success of your paper. The essay should be about 500-600 words, and it is due on 2 2 2 Freshman Composition Editing Guide: Assertion with Proof Essay Writer's Name Your Name 1. This paper, like your own, should have a clear thesis statement. Write down word for word what you think the thesis statement is. If you aren't sure, write down what strikes you as the most important sentence in the first section of the paper. 2. Reread the introductory paragraph and briefly evaluate it in terms of whether or not it grabbed your interest and clearly gave you a sense of the discussion to come. Try to help the writer out by offering any suggestions which occur to you. 3. The writer should have developed the assertion by giving supporting data. These should be specific support systems (examples of experiences, other valued opinion, data from other sources, etc.). Tell which supporting argument was most strongly made and which one could use more development. Give two suggestions for improving the support. 4. If you were the instructor for the course, what final comments would you write at the bottom of this paper, keeping in mind that the writer will be relying on your comments to help revise the paper successfully? 223 Freshman Composition Personal Editing Guide: Assertion with Proof Essay Name 1. What is the best argument in your assertion with proof essay? Why is this the strongest bit of proof? Where is it located (beginning, middle, end)? 2. Which of the supporting arguments needs more development? Why? How can it be strengthened? 3. In your opinion, what is the best sentence of your entire paper? Why? 4. After considering the comments of your student editors (whether or not you agree with them), and taking into account any weaknesses of the paper, write a revision strategy statement in which you specifically and fully describe how you will make this a better paper. 224 Freshman Composition Paper Assignment: Researched Critical Analysis The critical analysis is a more formal and also more complex essay than those you have done so far this semester. In terms of length, the paper should be a minimum of three typed pages. Choice of topic is yours. Remember to take your audience into consideration. Be creative and original in selecting a subject. I will assume that you have some interest and possibly experience with the subject, but still, I hope, an open mind about it. The purpose of research is to help your mind grow, to learn new things, and to add to your network of ideas. Don't go into this project with a "mind set." Instead of developing a thesis statement at the beginning, write a thesis question. (Example: Is abortion an acceptable alternative for unwed teenage girls?) This open approach will allow you to do research and then, based on your findings, make your own conclusion. Avoid using articles you are already familiar with; find new ones. Initially you should read at least six articles about your subject, and I would like those six listed in a bibliography and submitted in addition to your paper and its own Works Cited page. From the group of six readings, you should select only two articles which best exemplify what you think your position will be on the topic. Xerox those articles in their entirety because you will need to bring them to class. Rather than doing further research, you will be working only with these two articles. Part of your job will be writing summaries of them. Another job will be to analyze them--compare them and relate that information with what you already know, based on your experience, opinion and previous research. The final paper will be an analysis of the facts, a synthesis of what you have learned from both sources, and most important, your conclusions based on that thorough examination. You will be responsible for using correct research paper form. This will be good practice for your research paper due at semester‘ 8 end. The style of documentation notes and bibliography should follow the Harbrace Handbook (p.p 394-480). The critical analysis is due on 225 Freshman Composition Editing Guide: Researched Critical Analysis Writer's Name Your Name 1. What is the thesis question? Was it answered to your satisfaction? 2. Has the author established his or her relationship to the writing; i.e. can you understand the author's connection with the subject? Why do you think the author chose this particular question to answer? 3. Look at the summary section of the paper. Is it developed enough to help you get an understanding of the two articles? Is it brief enough to keep your attention, or does it drag on and on? 4. Now address the analysis of the two articles. Has the author compared and/or contrasted all elements of the articles: who, why, what, how? If not, what is missing? 5. After combining (synthesizing) the information fiom the two articles, has the author reached a conclusion? What is it? Can you follow the author's thought process as he or she arrived at this conclusion? 6. What other advice would you give the author for revising this essay? 226 Freshman Composition Personal Editing Guide: Researched Critical Analysis Name 1. Do you think you chose two appropriate articles to answer your question? Why or why not? 2. Evaluate your summaries. 3. What is the strongest part of your analysis of the two articles? The weakest? What will you do in the revision? 4. Have you quoted (briefly) fiom the articles to make your points clear? 5. Take a look at the introduction and the conclusion. What do they need? Have you posed a question and answered it? Have you interested the reader as well? APPENDIX C WRITING QUESTIONNAIRES APPENDIX C DALY-MILLER TEST OF WRITING APPREHENSION WRITING QUESTIONNAIRE Directions: Below are a series of statements about writing. There are no right or wrong answers to these statements. Please indicate the degree to which each statement applies to you by circling whether you 1) strongly agree, 2) agree, 3) are uncertain, 4) disagree, or 5) strongly disagree with the statement. While some of these statements may seem repetitious, take your time and try to be as honest as possible. Thank you for your cooperation. 1. I avoid writing. 1 2 3 4 5 2. I have no fear of my writing being evaluated. 1 2 3 4 5 3. I look forward to writing down my ideas. 1 2 3 4 5 4. I am afraid of writing essays when I know they will be evaluated. 1 2 3 4 5 5. Taln'ng a composition course is a very frightening experience. 1 2 3 4 5 6. Handing in a composition makes me feel good. 1 2 3 4 5 7. My mind seems to go blank when I start to work on a composition. 1 2 3 4 5 8. Expressing ideas through writing seems a waste of time. 1 2 3 4 5 9. I would enjoy submitting my writing to magazines for evaluation and publication. 1 2 3 4 5 10. I like to write my ideas down. 1 2 3 4 5 11. I feel confident in my ability to clearly express my ideas in writing. 1 2 3 4 5 227 228 Daly-Miller Test of Writing Apprehension (cont'd) 12. I like to have my friends read what I have written. 1 13. I'm nervous about writing. 1 14. People seem to enjoy what I write. 1 15. I enjoy writing. 1 16. I never seem to be able to clearly write down my ideas. 1 17. Writing is a lot of fun. 1 18. I expect to do poorly in composition classes even before I enter them. 1 19. I like seeing my thoughts on paper. 1 20. Discussing my writing with others is an enjoyable experience. 1 21. I have a terrible time organizing my ideas in a composition course. 1 22. When I hand in a composition I know I'm going to do poorly. 1 23. It's easy for me to write good composition. 1 24. I don't think I write as well as most other people. 1 25. I don't like my compositions to be evaluated. 1 26. I'm no good at writing. 1 NNNN COODOJOD ##1## 01010101 to CO as 01 229 WRITING PROCESS QUESTIONNAIRE 1. If you had to describe how you feel about writing when you have been assigned a paper to write, you would say: I look forward to and enjoy the writing assignment. I dread thinking of the project, but actually enjoy writing it. I dread thinking of the project, and dislike writing it. I don't think much about it beforehand, and don't worry while writing it. 2. I usually begin writing ahead of time, so I don't have to rush. at the last minute as the deadline approaches. : en I sit down to write, I encounter the following situations: I have trouble figuring out where to begin. I can't believe I have so much to do. I worry that I won't have enough to say. I have trouble being creative. I wait for a good idea to come to me before I begin. I write the first sentence over and over until I get it right. I don't begin writing until I've figured out just about all I have to say for the whole paper. I worry whether what I write will be good enough to use in the paper. I wish there were an easier way to write papers. 4. When I write papers, I write one draft, and that's it. write one draft, and then correct its spelling and grammar. write two or more drafts, substantially revising the early ones. 5. As I write, sometimes I get more involved in the ideas than I expected I would. find out what I want to say just as I am finishing the paper. discover new ideas about the subject that I hadn't considered before. 230 Writing Process Questionnaire (cont'd) 6. After I've begun writing, I just write until I'm done. am not certain what my point is. find it hard to keep track of what I'm saying. am not sure how much of my idea to explain, or how much detail to grve. get involved in re-writing each sentence and sometimes forget ideas I had in mind. am not sure when to start a new paragraph. have trouble deciding in what order to put down my ideas or how to organize my ideas. __ don't know how to end my paper. 7. When I look over my paper, I feel good about finishing it and type it up. am not sure how to check if everything I've written belongs in the paper. sometimes don't know where in the paper to put my thesis. probably wouldn't be able to tell anybody exactly what points I used to develop and support my thesis. am not sure how to improve my sentences. have trouble locating errors in grammar and spelling. 8. After I write a paper, I read it or show it to one or more friends to get their response. yes no sometimes 9. Considering the last three papers I have written, I would say I've spent (in percentages adding up to 100%) percent of my time Creating (coming up with ideas) for and planning the paper. percent of my time Shaping (writing and organizing) what I've written. percent of my time Completing ( revising and editing) what I've written. 231 Writing Process Questionnaire (cont'd) 10. Overall, what I like best about writing is that 11. As I look over this questionnaire, I see that my two or three greatest problems with writing are, specifically, a. b. C 232 WRITING QUESTIONNAIRE . What do you have to do to become a good writer? . What is the hardest part of writing for you? . What is the easiest? . Which is your best piece of writing this semester? Why? . Which is your worst? Why? . What kinds of changes do you make when you revise? . What is your definition of revision? . What problems are you having with your writing? . What would you like to work on next? 233 WRITING QUESTIONNAIRE Please take the next few minutes to reflect on the writing you have done this semester, the class structure, the teacher comment, peer editing, and any other issues you wish to discuss. LIST OF REFERENCES LIST OF REFERENCES Alpren, Patricia Farrell. "Can Children Be Helped to Increase the Originality of Their Story Writing?" RE 7, 1973: 372-386. Applebee, Arthur N. Hrstmy Urbana: NCTE, 1974. Bamburg, B. "Composition Instruction Does Make a Difference: A Comparison of College Freshmen in Regular and Remedial English Courses." RTE 12, 1978: 48-59. Bartholomae, David, and Anthony Petrosky. W oo.u:_:"quon='HUIHo {'ao'nvnorvwos' Upper Montclair: Boynton/Cook, 1986 Bartlett, E .J. "Learning to Revise: Some Component Processes" WhaL .Ed. M. Nystrand. New York: Academic Press, 1982: 345- 363. Beach, Richard. "The Effects of Between-Draft Teacher Evaluation Versus Student Self-Evaluation on High School Students' Revising of Rough Drafts." RIE 13, 1979: 111-119. - - - . "Self-Evaluation Strategies of Extensive Revisers and Non-Revisers." QQQ 27, 1976: 160-164. Beach, Richard, and Sara Eaton. "Factors Influencing Self-Assessing and Revising by College Freshmen" WW Research. Eds. R. Beach and L. Bridwell. New York: Guilford Press, 1984: 149-170. Bereiter, Carl, and Marlene Scardamalia. "From Conversation to Composition: The Role of Instruction In a Developmental Process." Admceunlnstmstmnalfimhnlnar Ed R Glaser V01 2 Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1981. - - - . "Levels of Inquiry 1n Writing Research." Research_on_Writing; W. Eds. P. Mosenthal, L. Tamor, and S. A. Walmsley. New York: Longman, 1983. 3- 25. 234 n J 235 - - - . WW Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,1987. Berkenkotter, Carol. "Understanding a Writer's Awareness of Audience." QQQ 32, 1981: 388—399. Berkenkotter, Carol, and Donald Murray. "Decisions and Revisions: The Planning Strategies of a Publishing Writer and the Response of Being a Rat-or Being Protocoled." QQQ 34, 1983: 156-172. Berthoff, Anne E. ' ° Imagination. Upper Montclair: Boynton/Cook, 1978. - - - - "Learning the Uses of Cha08" Beinxentinathefihetnrical Tradition. Ed. A. Freedman and I. Pringle. Ottawa: Canadian Council of Teachers of English, 1979: 68- 72. Blau, Sheridan. "Invisible Writing." QQQ 34, 1983: 297-312. Bloom, L. Z. . ~ . : ' W. A paper presented at the conference on College Composition and Communication. Washington, D. C. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 185 559), March 1980. Booley, Heather A. "Discovery and Change: How Children Redraft Their Narrative Writing." EdncationaLRezien 36, Nov. 1984: 263-275. Bracewell, R ..,J M. Scardamalia, and C. Bereiter. "The Development of Audience Awareness In Writing." Resources_in_Edncation. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 154 433), October, 1978. Braddock, Richard, Richard Lloyd-J ones, and Lowell Schoer. Researchjn_ W Urbana: NCTE 1963 Brannon, Lil, and CH. Knoblauch. "On Students' Right to Their Own Texts: A Model of Teacher Response." DEC 33, 1982: 157-166. Bridwell, Lillian S. "Revising Strategies in Twelfth Grade Students' Transactional Writing." RTE 14, 1980: 197-222. Britton, James. 'Th'e Composing Processes and the Functions of Writing." Eds. C. Cooper, and L. Odell. Urbana: NCTE, 1978: 3-28. - - - . "Spectator Role and the Beginnings of Writing" Ed. M. Nystrand. New York: Academic Press, 1982:149-169. 236 - - - . "Talking to Learn." Harmondsworth, England: Penguin, 1969. - - - . "'What 8 the Use? A Schematic Account of Language Functions." Wm 23 1971: 205219 Britton, James, T. Burgess, N. Martin, A. McLeod, and H. Rosen. The DerehnmenufflritinaAhilitiesflldfil London: Macmillan Education, 1975. Bruffee, Kenneth A. "The Brooklyn Plan: Attaining Intellectual Growth Through Peer-Group Tutoring." LiberaLEdncation 64, 1978: 447-468. - - - , "Collaborative Learning and the 'Conversation of Mankind.” CE 46, November 1984: 635-652. - - - . "Peer Tutoring and the 'Conversation of Mankind. Writing ..Ed G. Olson. Urbana: NCTE, 1984: 3-15. - - - , "Writing and Reading as Collaborative or Social Acts: The Argument from Kuhn and Vygotsky. " as_a_Mode_o£Thinhng. Ed. J. Hays, etal. Urbana: NCTE,1983. Chaudron, Craig "The Effects of Feedback on Students' Composition Revisions" ' ' z - z. _ 15 Deeernber 1984:1-14 Clark, C., S. Florio, J. Elmore, J. Martin, and R. Maxwell. "Understanding Writing Instruction: Issues of Theory and Method." Eds. P. Mosenthal, L. Tamor, and S. Walmsley. New York: Longman, 1983. Clark, Jennifer, and Peter Elbow. "Desert Island Discourse: On the Benefits of Ignoring Audience." TheionrnaLRook. Ed. Toby Fulwiler. Montclair, N.J.: Boynton/Cook,1987. Clifford, J. "Composing in Stages: The Effects of a Collaborative Pedagogy." RTE 15, 1981: 37-53. Cohen, Andrew D., and Marilda C. Cavalcanti. "Giving and Getting Feedback on Composition. A Comparison of Teacher and Student Verbal Report." W 1(2). 1987: 6373. Cole, Stephen, Jonathan R. Cole, and Gary A. Simon. "Chance and Consensus in Peer Review." Science 214, 1981: 881-886. 237 Coleman, Mary E. "Individualizing Instruction Through Written Teacher Comments." mm 57, March 1980: 294-298. Coles, Nicholas, and Susan V. Wall. "Conflict and Power in the Reader- Responses of Adult Basic Writers." CE 49, March 1987: 298-314. Contat, M. "Sartre at Seventy: An Interview." We, August 1975: 10-17. Cooper. Charles R.. and Lee Odell. WWW Departure. Urbana: NCTE, 1978. Cooper, Charles R., Robert Cherry, Barbara Copley, Stefan Fleischer, Rita Pollard, and Michael Sartesky. "Studying the Writing Abilities of a University Freshman Class: Strategies from a Case Study. " Hm ..Eds R. Beach, and L. Bridwell. New York: Guilford, 1984: 1952. Cooper, Marilyn M. "The Ecology of Writing." CE 48, 1986: 364-375. Coupe, Nicola. "Evaluating Teachers' Responses to Children's Writing." BeadinefihrldrensflnnnszAmesmjbm Eds J Harris, and J. Willn'nson. London: Allen and Unwin, 1986:122-144. Crowhurst, M. "The Writing Workshop: An Experiment in Peer Response to Writing." LanguageArts 56, 1979: 757-762. Crowley, Sharon. "Components of the Composing Process." QQQ 28, 1977: 166-169. Daiutte, Collette, and John Kruidenier. "A Self-Questioning Strategy to Increase Young Writers' Revising Processes" Applied ': Q0124 : :": poo-4 :__ o':o roar-e ' o -::':6, September 1985: 307-318. Daly, J ., and M. Miller. "The Empirical Development of an Instrument to Measure Writing Apprehension." RTE 9, 1975: 242-249. - - - . "Future Studies on Writing Apprehension: SAT Scores, Success Expectations, Willingness to Take Advanced Courses, and Sex Differences." RTE 9, 1975b: 250-256. Daly, J ., and W. Shamo. "Academic Decisions as a Function of Writing Apprehension." RTE 12, 1978: 119-126. 238 Davies, Norman F., and Margaret Omberg. "Peer Group Teaching and the Composition Cl."ass 15, 1987: 313-323. Diedrich, Paul. "How to Measure Growth in Writing Ability." Rhetoric_and_ Schmifirograms. Ed. R. Gorrell. Champaign: NCTE, 1966. Donovan, Timothy R, and Ben W. McClelland. EighLAnnroachesJo Teachinsflunnnsition Urbana: NCTE 1980 Ede, Lisa, and Andrea Lunsford. "Audience Addressed/Audience Invoked: The Role of Audience in Composition Theory and Pedagogy." QQC, 35, 1984: 155-171. Elbow, Peter. "Closing My Eyes As I Speak: An Argument for Ignoring Audience." CE 49, January 1987: 50-69. - - - . WritingflithonLTeachers. New York: Oxford University Press, 1973. Emig. Janet. WW. Urbana: NCTE, 1971. - - - . Weaning. Upper Montclair: Boynton/Cook, 1983. Faigley, Lester. "Names in Search of a Concept: Maturity, Fluency, Complexity, and Growth in Written Syntax." QQQ 31, 1980: 291-300. Faigley, Lester, Roger D. Cherry, David A. Jolliffe, and Anna M. Sln'nner. Norwood, N .J.. Ablex, 1985. Faigley, Lester, J. Daly, and S. Witte. "The Role of Writing Apprehension in Writing Performance and Competence" JonrnaleflEdncationaL Bessmh 75,1981: 16-21. Faigley, Lester, and Stephen Witte. "Analyzing Revision." (2110, 32, 1981: 400-414. - - - . "Measuring the Effect .of Revisions on Text Structure." New ..Eds R. Beach, and L. Bridwell. New York: Guilford, 1984: 95-108. Flanigan, M., and D. Menendez. "Perception and Change: Teaching Revision." CE 42, 1980: 256-266. 239 Flower. Linda S. W New York: Harcourt Brace J ovanovich, 1981. - - - . "Writer-Based Prose: A Cognitive Basis for Problems in Writing." CE 41, 1979: 19-37. Flower, Linda, and John R. Hayes. "A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing." QQQ 32,1981: 365-387. - - - . "The Cognition of Discovery: Defining a Rhetorical Problem." 9.0.0. 31, 1980: 21-32. Freedman, Aviva. "During Not After: An Untraditional Approach to the Teaching of Writing." English_in_Edncation 14, Spring 1980: 2- 9. Freedman, Aviva, and I. Pringle. "Writing in the College Years: Some Indices of Growth." C93, 31, 1980. Freedman, Sarah Warshauer. "An Analysis of Readers' Responses to Essaye" WM 71 1979: 328-333 - - - . "The Registers of Student and Professional Expository Writing: Influences on Teachers' Responses." ' Research. Ed. R. Beach, and L. Bridwell. New York: Guilford, 1984: 334-347. - - -. We Urbana: NCTE, 1987. Gee, T. "Students' Responses to Teacher Comments." RTE 6, 1972: 212-221. Gere, Anne Ruggles. "Insights From the Blind: Composing Without Revising." WWW Urbana: NCTE, 1982. Gere, Anne Ruggles, Brian F. Schuessler, Robert D. Abbott. "Measuring Teachers' Attitudes Toward Writing Instruction." WW- Eds. R. Beach, and L. Bridwell. New York: Guilford , 1984: 348-361. Goswami, Dirn'e, and Peter Stillman. ° Research. Upper Montclair: Boynton/Cook, 1987. Graves, Donald H. "An Examination of the Writing Processes of Seven Year Old Children." RTE 9, 1975: 227-241. 240 - - - . A_Researcher_Learns_to_W_rite. Exeter, N.H.: Heinemann, 1983. - - - . "What Children Show Us About Revision." LanguageArts 56, March 1979: 312-319. Graves, Donald, and Mary Ellen Giacobbe. "Questions for Teachers Who Wonder if Their Writers Change." LanguageArts 59, 1982: 495-503. Gregory, M., and S. Carroll. ' ° - ° - ' ' . London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1978. Hansen, B. "Rewriting is a Waste of Time." CE 39, 1978: 956-960. Harris, John, and Jeff Wilkinson. ' ' W. London: Allen and Unwin, 1986. Harris, Joseph. "The Idea of Community in the Study of Writing." QQQ 40, 1989: 11-22. Harris, Muriel. "Composing Behaviors of One- and Multi-Draft Writers." CE 51, 1989: 174-191. Harrison, Rose, and Sally Kaminsky. "The Non-Traditional Adult Learner in College: A Study of the Influence of Attitudes on Reading and Writing AchievementS" StudiesmtheEducatiunnflAdrflts 18 April 1986:18-23. Hayes, John R. et al. "Cognitive Processes in Revision." A. d. canggg in LanguaggLErocessing. Ed. Sheldon Rosenberg. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. Hayes, John R., and Linda Flower. "Identifying the Organization of Writing Processes. InterdiscinhnanLAunmach. Ed. L. Greg. and E. Steinberg. Hillsdale, N .J.: Erlbaum, 1980: 3-30. Hays, Janice. WWW: Urbanai NCTE, 1983. Heath, Shirley Brice. WWW CommunitieLandflassmmns New York: Cambridge University Press, 1983. Heller, Dana A. "Silencing the Soundtrack: An Alternative to Marginal Comments." QQQ 40, 1989: 210-215. 241 Hillocks, George. "The Effects of Observational Activities on Student Writing." REE 13, 1979: 23-35. - - - , "Inquiry and the Composing Process: Theory and Research." CE 44, 1982: 659-673. - - - . "The Interaction of Instruction, Teacher Comment, and Revision in Teaching the Composing Process." RTE 16, 1982: 261-278. Researchnnlhittenficmmsitinn Urbanm NCTE.1986. Hogan, T. P. "Students' Interests in Writing Activities." RTE 14, 1980: 119- 125. Hunt, K.W. "Early Blooming and Late Blooming Syntactic Structures. ..Eds C. Cooper, and L. Odell. Urbana: NCTE, 1977. - - - . SrntactinMatuntLinfithlchndrenaniAdults. (A monograph of the Society for Research rn Child Development, No. 134) Chicago. University of Chicago Press, 1970. Hymes, D. "Ethnolinguistic Study of Classroom Discourse." (ERIC N 0. ED 217 710), 1982. - - - . Wha"t rs Ethnography?" ' ' Esme. Arlington, V. A.: Center for Applied Linguistics, 1980. Jacobs, George. "First Experiences with Peer Feedback on Compositions: Student and Teacher Reaction." We 15 1987: 325-333 James, Shirley M. Haley. "Revising Writing in the Upper Grades." LanguageArts 58, May 1981: 562-566. Kantor, Kenneth J. "Classroom Contexts and the Development of Writing Intuitions: An Ethnographic Case Study." Mrectionsjn ..Eds R. Beach, and L. Bridwell. New York: Guilford, 1984: 72-94. Kantor, Kenneth J ., D.R. Kirby, and J .P. Goetz. "Research in Context: Ethnographic Studies in English Education." RTE 15. 1981: 293-309. Kelley, M. E. Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1973. 242 King, J. A. ' ' ' ' AnalysiundEmnincalfitndx Doctoral Dissertation. Cornell University, 1979. Kiniry, Malcolm, and Ellen Strenski. "Sequencing Expository Writing: A Recursive Approach." QQQ 36, 1985: 191-202. Knoblauch, C. H., and Lil Brannon. offlrih'ng. Upper Montclair: Boynton/Cook, 1984. - - - . "Teacher Commentary on Student Writing: The State of the Art." EmshmanEnglisths 10.1981: 1-4 Kress, G. Learningjeflrite. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1982. Kroll, Barry M. "Cognitive Egocentrism and the Problem of Audience Awareness in Written Discourse." RTE 12, 1978: 269-281. Larson, Richard L. "The Writer' 8 Mind: Recent Research and Unanswered Questions." WW Ed J. Hays. Urbana: NCTE, 1983: 239-251. Lauer, Janice M. "The Rhetorical Approach: Stages of Writing and Strategies for Writers." ' ' Eds. T. Donovan, and B. McClelland. Urbana: NCTE, 1980: 53-64. Liddell, Gordon. "Helping Pupils to Write Better or The Formative Assessment of Writing." ofEnglishjnflmtland 15 Spring 1982 4-10 Lowenthal, D. "Mixing Levels of Revision." W 14, 1980: 383- 387. Macrorie, Ken. WritingjoheRead. Rev. ed. Upper Montclair: Boynton/Cook, 197 6. Maranzo, R. J ., and S. Arthurs. ' . University of Colorado. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service N 0. ED 147 864), 1977. Martin. Nancy. flannLandJeaminLAcmsuhLQummflum London: Ward Lock, 1976. Matsuhashi, Ann. "Pausing and Planning: The Tempo of Written Discourse Production " ResearchjnjhaleachingnfEnglish 15 1981: 113-134. 243 Maxwell, Rhoda, and Stephen Judy. E1alnajing_a_Theme. MCTE, 1981. Mayher, John, Nancy Lester, and Gordon Pradl. ' .Upper Montclair:Boynton/Cook,1983. McDonald, W.V. "The Revising Process and the Marking of Student Papers." CCC 24, 1978: 167-170. Mischel, T. "A Case Study of a Twelfth-Grade Writer." RTE 8, 1974: 303- 314. Moffett James Teachinuheflnirsrsanfllismme New York: Houghton Mifllin, 1968. - - - . "Writing, Inner Speech, and Meditation." CE 44, 1982: 231-244. Mohr. Marian WWW Upper Montclair: Boynton/Cook,1984. Murray, Donald M. "Internal Revision: A Process of Discovery" ' ..Eds C. Cooper, and L. Odell. Urbana: NCTE, 1978: 85-103. - - - . "Response of a Laboratory Rat--on Being Protocoled." CCC 34, 1983: 169-172. - - - . "Teach the Motivating Force of Revision." Englishjonrnal, October 1978: 56-60. - - - . W. Boston: Houghton Mifilin, 1968. - - - . "Writing as Process. How Writing Finds Its Own Meaning." Eight Eds. T. Donovan, and B. McClelland. Urbana: NCTE,1980: 3- 20. Myers, Miles. Classroom. Urbana:NCTE,1985. North, Stephen M. - ' : - Emergingj'field. Upper Montdair:BoyntOn/Cook,1987. Northcroft, David. "Pupils Writing: Product, Process and Evaluation." W 13, Summer 1979: 8- 18. Nystrand, Martin. : . - .. W New York: Academic Press, 1982. 244 Odell, Lee. "Defining and Assessing Competence In Writing." TheNatnre Measuremmtnffiomnetenmmglish Ed C COOPer Urbana: NCTE, 1981. - - - . "Measuring Changes In Intellectual Processes as One Dimension of Growth In Writing." Jndging. Eds. C. Cooper, and L. Odell. Urbana: NCTE, 1977 . Ohmann, Richard. "Use Specific, Definite, Concrete Language." CE 41, 1979: 379-389. Palmer, Willam. ° ' ° ' . Doctoral Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1988. Park, DE. "The Meanings of Audience." CE 44, 1982: 247-257. Parker, Robert, and Janet Emig. "Language and Class." E51 64, 1975: 16-22. Peitzman. F C W Eocns_on_Reyision. Doctoral Dissertation, New York University, 1981. Perelman, Les. "The Context of Classroom Writing." CE 48. 1986: 471-479. Perl, Sondra. "The Composing Processes of Unskilled College Writers." RTE 13, 1979: 317-336. ---. Q. - ..,eqz '1 ...-no :_:- o-zo u' ouooo- Queen-:0 .Doctoral Dissertation, New York University, 1978. - - - . "Understanding Composing." CCC 31, 1980: 363-369. Pianko, Sharon. "A Description of the Composing Processes of College Freshmen Writers." RTE 13, 1979: 5-22. - - - . "Reflection: A Critical Compoment of the Composing Process." CCC 30, 1979: 275-278. Powers, W.G., J .A. Cook, and R. Meyer. "The Effects of Compulsory Writing on Writing Apprehension." RTE 13, 1979: 225-230. Protherough, Robert. Encouragingflriting. Methuen: London, 1983. Reigstad. Thomas. Ethnogranhundfirdlnglishfilasmom. New York: NY. State English Council, 1983. 245 Sager, Carol. "Improving the Quality of Written Composition Through Pupil Use of Rating Scale." A paper presented at NCTE. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 089 304), November 1973. Scardamalia, M., and C. Bereiter. "Research on Written Composition." W 3rd ed- Ed- M. Wittrock- New York: Macmillan Education Ltd., 1985. Scardamalia, M., and P. Paris. "The Function of Explicit Discourse Knowledge In the Development of Text Representations and Composing Strategies " Cognitionanilnstnrction 2 1985: 1- 39 Searle, D., and D. Dillon. "The Message of Marking: Teacher Written Responses to Student Writing at Intermediate Grade Levels." RTE 14, 1980: 233—242. Selfe. C L W .Doctoral Dissertation, University of Texas at Austin, 1981. Selzer, Jack. "The Composing Processes of an Engineer." CCC 34, 1983: 178-187. - - - . "Exploring Options in Composing." CCC 35, 1984: 276-284. Sommers, Nancy. "Responding to Student Writing." CCC 33, 1982: 148-156. . flnteraanisnrdentflnters Doctoral Dissertation Boston University, 1978. - - - . "Revision Strategies of Student Writers and Experienced Adult Writers." CCC 31,1980: 378-388. Sommers, Nancy, and Ronald Schleifer. "Means and Ends: Some Assumptions of Student Writers." Comoosition_and_Teaching 2, December 1980: 69-76. Sowers, Susan. "The Researcher Who Watches Children Write." Children_ Wig. Exeter, N .H.: Heinemann, 1981. Spear, Karen. : ' . ° ' , V;- Portsmouth, N. H.: Boynton/Cook, 1988. 246 Stafford William W location. Ann Arbor. University of Michigan Press, 1978. Stallard, C.K. "An Analysis of the Writing Behavior of Good Student Writers." RTE 8, 1974: 206-218. Sternglass, Marilyn. "Applications of the Wilkinson Model of Writing Maturity to College Writing." CCC 33, 1982: 167-175. - - - . "The Relationship of Task Demands to Cognitive Level." Educational. Region: 38, 1986: 161-168. Stevens,A. U:' i‘ .:0 'HH ‘wou'wn ‘ = tan” 0‘ Al to ' ° ° ' . Doctoral Dissertation, Boston University, 197 3. Sudol. Ronald A. W Urbana: NCTE,1982. Swan, John. "J otters or Redrafting Revisited." ' ' - ' ' 16, 1983: 15-17. Swarts, Heidi, Linda S. Flower, and John R. Hayes. "Designing Protocol Studies of the Writing Process: An Introduction." Wrecfionsim CommsitiomResearch. Eds. R. Beach, and L. Bridwell, 1984: 53- 71. Tatham, Andrew. "Writers and Teachers." English_in_Edncation 21, Spring 1987: 17-24. Tchudi, Stephen. Washington, D. C. National Education Association, 1986. Thompson, George J. "Revision: Nine Ways to Achieve a Disinterested Perspective." CCC 29, 1978: 200-202. Trimbur, John. "Collaborative Learning and Teaching Writing." . . ..‘Ci‘flfl ‘lOI\“Q ‘i‘:_{. I. l.‘: :6... Oll002001 Ed. B. McClelland, and '1‘. Donovan. New York: MLA, 1985. Wade, Barrie. "Responses to Written Work: The Possibilities of Utilizing Pupils' Perceptions." EducationaLRexiew 30,1978: 149-158. Wauters, Joan. "Non-Confrontational Critiquing Pair: An Alternative to Verbal Peer Response Groups" WW 7, Spring/Summer 1988: 156-166. 247 Weiner, Harvey S. "Collaborative Learning in the Classroom: A Guide to Evaluation." CE 48, 1986: 52-61. Wilkinson. Andrew. W Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980. - - - . TheJlritingflrifing. London: Open University Press, Milton Keynes, 1986. Williams, J .D., and Scott D. Alden. "Motivation in the Composition Class." RTE 17, 1983: 101-112. Witte, Stephen P. "Pre-Text and Composing." CCC 38, 1987: 397-425. - - - . "Topical Structure and Revision: An Exploratory Study." CCC 34, 1983: 313—341. Witte, Stephen, and Lester Faigley. "Coherence, Cohesion, and Writing Quality." CCC 32, 1981: 189-204. Young. Art. and Toby Fulwiler. W. Upper Montclair: Boynton/Cook, 1986. Ziv,Nina. Uo' 3‘s 0 ‘ :90"' run 9:01.9‘17151 o 0- W. Doctoral Dissertation, New York University, 1981. GENERAL REFERENCES Bazerman, Charles. Thelnformedflriter. 2nd ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1985. Bissex, Glenda. '. ' ,- : York: Harvard University Press, 1980. Britton, James. Languamndlearm’ng. London: Allen Lane, The Penguin Press, 1970. WWW. London: Methuen, 1967. Bruner. Jerome. Wm New York: Norton, 1983. Chomsky, Noam. LmignageaniMind. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1972. Christensen, Frank. HotesTomardaNethetodc. New York: Harper and Row, 1967. Cicotello, David M. "The Art of Writing: An Interview with William Stafford." CCC 34, 1983: 173-177. Coles, William E. Jr. ' - Rochelle Park, N. J. Hayden, 1974. Committee on CCCC Language Statement. "Students' Right to Their Own Language." CCC 25, 1974: 1-32. Cooper, Charles, and A. Matsuhashi. "A Theory of the Writing Process" In ': 1004 0 Al x 0'4 ‘1' 3‘ 'Hu‘o.=_. .00 0:1. London: John Wiley and Sons, 1983: 3- 39. 248 249 Cummins, James. "Empowering Minority Students: A Framework for Intervention." W 56, February 1986: 18-36. Diedrich, Paul. MeammagfimmhjaEaglish. Urbana: NCTE, 1974. Dixon, John. Gmmhj‘hmaghjaglish. Urbana: NCTE, 1967. Elbow, Peter. W. New York: Oxford University Press, 1981. Farr, Marcia, and Harvey Daniels. Iastmgtiga. Urbana:NCTE,1986. Fish, Stanley. : - ' ' z: . ' .‘ Communities. Cambridge. Harvard University Press, 1980. Fulkerson, Richard. "Four Philosophies of Composition." CCC 33, 1982: 343-348. Fulwiler, Toby. Wag. Upper Montclair: Boynton/Cook, 1987. Gere, Ann. Want. Urbana: NCTE. 1985. Gibson, Walker. "Composing the World: The Writer as Map-Maker." QQQ 21, 1970: 255-260. - - - . Banana. New York: Random House, 1969. Gumperz, J. W. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1982. Hairston, Maxine. Wag. New York: Norton, 1981. - - - . "The Winds of Change: Thomas Kuhn and the Revolution in the Teaching of Writing." QQC 33, 1982: 76-88. Halliday, M.A.K. W. Baltimore: University Park Press, 1978. - - - . Wm. Deakin, Victoria: Deakin University Press, 1985. Harris, Joseph. "The Plural Text/The Plural Self: Roland Barthes and William Coles." CE 49, February 1987: 158- 170. 250 Hillocks, George. "Criticisms of Experimental Studies." W W. Urbana: NCTE. Holzman, Michael. "The Social Context of Literacy Education." CE 48, January 1986: 27-33. Jensen, Julie. Qamaasiagjadflqmmhgadiag. Urbana: NCTE, 1984. Judy, Stephen. W. Oxford: Oxford Press, 1980. Kinneavy, James L. W. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1971. Langer, Susanne K. W. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1953. - - - . WW. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1942. Langford. Gerald. W Austin: University of Texas Press, 1972. Macrorie, Ken. Ilataaght. Upper Montclair: Boynton/Cook, 1970. Maslow, Abraham H. "A Theory of Human Motivation. " EmholggigaL m 50, 1943: 370-396. McClelland, Ben, and Timothy Donovan. ' Compasitina. New York: Modern Language Association, 1985. McCully, George A. "Writing Quality, Coherence, and Cohesion." RIPE 19, 1985: 269-282. Memering, Dean, and Frank O' Hare. ' ' Communism. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice, 1980. Miller, James E., and Stephen Judy. W. New York: Harper and Row, 1978. Moss, Andrew, and Carol Holder. ' ' ' ' . Pomona, California: California State Polytechnic University, 1988. Myers, Greg. "Reality, Consensus, and Reform in the Rhetoric of Composition Teaching." CE 48, February 1986: 154-174. 251 National Assessment of Educational Progress. W ;;:‘:u'¢ o {31:00 ._ : 5 01-0“: : an ,0: guy. MAW: U S Government Printing Office (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 141826). N ewklrk Thomas. W. Upper Montclair: Boynton/Cook,1986. Nold, L., and S. Freedman. "An Analysis of Readers' Response to Essays." HIE 11, 1977: 164-174. North. Stephen. "Helping Ed." WW 6. Fall/Winter 1982: 13-19. Ohmann, Richard. ' ' ° New York: Oxford University Press, 1976. Pattison, Robert. W. New York: Oxford University Press, 1982. Peterson, Bruce. Urbana: NCTE, 1986. Piaget. Jean. WW. Trans. M. Babain. and R. Gabain. 3rd ed. New York: Humanities, 1971. Richards, I.A. W. New York: Oxford University Press, 1936. Shaughnessy, Mina. W. New York: Oxford, 1977 . Shor. Ira. WW. Boston: Seabury. 1980. Slavin, Robert E. W. New York: Longman, 1983. Smith, Frank. W. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1982. Taylor, W., and K. Hoedt. "The Efl‘ect of Praise Upon the Quality and Quantity of Creative Writing" WWW 60. 1966: 80-83. Vygotsky, L.S. Miadjafigaiejy. Ed. Michael Cole. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1978. - - - . W. Ed. and Trans. E. Hanfmann, and G. Vakar. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1962. 252 Waldrep, Tom. Writing. New York: Random, 1985. Wells, Gordon. - : . ' =. :.° Wm. Portsmouth, N. H.: Heinemann, 1986. White. Edward M. W San Francisco: J ossey-Bass, 1988. Young, Richard, Alton Becker, and Kenneth Pike. BMW Change. New York: Harcourt, 1970. "IMilli]lll‘lllllll"S