216
PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME GRADE SIX STUDENTS USING A STANDARD TEXT Florida Ann Town B.A. Simon Fraser University, 1980 THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS (EDUCATION) in the Faculty of Education OFlorida Town 1988 SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY July 1988 All rights reserved. This work may not be reproduced in whole or in part, by photocopy or other means, without permission of the author

PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

  • Upload
    others

  • View
    13

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME

GRADE SIX STUDENTS

USING A STANDARD TEXT

Florida Ann Town

B.A. Simon Fraser University, 1980

THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF

THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF

MASTER OF ARTS (EDUCATION)

in the Faculty

of

Education

OFlorida Town 1988

SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

July 1988

All rights reserved. This work may not be

reproduced in whole or in part, by photocopy

or other means, without permission of the author

Page 2: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

APPROVAL

Name: Florida M. Town

Degree : Master of Arts (Education)

Title of Project: Peer-Editing Processes of some Grade Six Students using a Standard Text

Examining Committee:

Chairman: Gloria P . Sampson

S. de Castell Senior Supervisor

Prof B. Vng ssor

C. Mamchur Assistant Professor Faculty of Education External Examiner

Date Approved a?, /9R8

Page 3: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

PARTIAL COPYRIGHT LICENSE

I hereby grant t o Simon Fraser U n i v e r s i t y the r l g h t t o lend

my thes is , proJect o r extended essay ( t h e t i t l e o f which i s shown below)

t o users o f t he Simon Fraser Un ive rs i t y L ibrary, and t o make p a r t i a l o r

s i n g l e copies on ly f o r such users o r i n response t o a request from the

l i b r a r y o f any o ther un ive rs i t y , o r o the r educational I n s t i t u t i o n , on

i t s own behalf o r f o r one o f I t s users. I f u r t h e r agree t h a t permission

f o r m u l t i p l e copying o f t h i s work f o r scho la r l y purposes may be granted

by me o r the Dean o f Graduate Studies. I t i s understood t h a t copying

o r p u b l l c a t l o n o f t h i s work f o r f i n a n c i a l gain sha l l not be al lowed

wi thout my w r i t t e n permission.

T i t l e o f Thesis/Project/Extended Essay

P e e r - E d i t i n g P r o c e s s e s o f some G r a d e S i x S t u d e n t s u s i n g a

- S t a n d a r d T e x t .

Author:

(s ignature)

F l o r i d a M. Town

( name

22% Jf (da te)

Page 4: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

ABSTRACT

Peer editing is one of a number of editing techniques

used by experienced writers. In recent years, it has been

introduced into some elementary classrooms as part of the

writlng process, but has not always resulted in either improved

editing on the part of the editor nor improved writing on the

part of the writer. This study deals with the peer editing

behaviours of one class of Grade six public school students, as

they edited and rewrote a standard text. Analysis of the results

indicates the students in this group were much more concerned

with the mechanics of writing than with the contents, and their

peer-editing dealt almost entirely with error-correction. Some

students attempted to give positive feedback to the writer, but

their comments were vague and non-specific. Obvious deficiencies

in the story were not pointed out to the wrlter. Further, when - the student editors themselves rewrote the material, only one

made use of any editorial suggestions given to the writer in the

course of editing. The others ignored their own suggestions and

simply wrote a corrected copy of the story. This study suggests

that students need more direction in editing process to help

them become more effective in both peer-editing and

self-editing.

iii

Page 5: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT :

This work is not the result of a project done in isolation

but rather, the result of many years of studying, writing, and

teaching. My thanks go to a number of people who encouraged,

assisted and instructed me during that time, in particular my

teachers -- professors, editors and mentors, both academic and professional. I am profoundly grateful for their guidance.

Richard Malinski and Brian Phillips of the Simon Fraser

University W.A.C. Bennett Library provided invaluable assistance in

helping me track down sometimes-elusive material.

Dr. Ulle Lewes, Wesleyan College, freely shared information,

and encouragement. Dr. Anne Ruggles Gere and members of the Puget

Sound Writing Project group at the University of Washington,

Seattle, generously allowed me to take part in many of their

discussion groups and meetings, and to attend workshops and

conferences. Their input was invaluable. - The administrators, staff and students at Lincoln Park

Elementary School, Coronation Park Elementary School and Porter

Street Elementary School, in Coquitlam; Stoney Creek Community

School, in Burnaby; and Lynda Loyie Philippson, resource person for

the Delta School District writing resource centre, deserve special

thanks for their cooperation.

Last, but not least, my thanks go to Hugh, who has been both

patient and supportive, and gave me more than my share of computer

time.

Page 6: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ................................................. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................... iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................... v CHAPTER ONE

Introduction ........................................ 1 Definition of terms ................................. 2 Role of editing in the writing process .............. 4 Public perceptions of literacy and writing pedagogy . 5 Attitudes toward editing ............................ 7

CHAPTER TWO Research in writing process ......................... 11 Need for standards .................................. 12 ..................... Differing perceptions of editing 14 Variations in editing ............................... 16 What constitutes good writing? ...................... 18 Writing as a self-taught skill ...................... 18 Traditional teaching methods ....................... 20 Similarities between experienced and novice writers . 22 Differences between experienced and novice writers . . 23 Factors affecting performance ....................... 24 Studies of the writing process ...................... 27 Donald Graves in the classroom ...................... 28 Analysis and observation ............................ 31 Changes in pedagogical methodology .................. 32 Discovery and prewriting ............................ 33

. Internal and external editing ....................... 38 How much is 'enough' editing? ....................... 41 Impact of teacher editing on student writing ........ 46 Editing expository writing and editing poetry : ...... 49 New model for editing and revising .................. 50 . Modelling editing in writing ........................ 52 Learn by writing. teach by correcting ............... 55 Summary ............................................ 58

CHAPTER THREE Description of the study ............................ 59 Editing behaviours .................................. 59 Rationale .......................................... 59 Participants ........................................ 60 Setting ............................................. 61 Instructions ........................................ 62 Procedure ........................................... 64 Scoring ............................................. 66 Results ............................................. 67 Summary ............................................. 75

CHAPTER FOUR Discussion .......................................... 78 Preferred editing strategies ........................ 78 Time factor in writing .............................. 80 Feedback in writing ................................. 84 Teacher evaluation provides direction ............... 85 Influence of writing models ......................... 86

v

Page 7: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

CHAPTER FOUR (con.) Student attitudes toward editing .................... 92 Pre-editing activities .............................. 94 Suggestions for further study ....................... 95

APPENDIX I Standard text ....................................... 97 Student reponses ........................................... 98 APPENDIX I1 Editorial checklists (college level) ....................... 118 Editorial checklists (elementary level) .................... 132

BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................. 139

Page 8: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

INTRODUCTION

There is a p o p u l a r mythology c o n n e c t e d w i t h w r i t i n g . The

myth s u g g e s t s t h a t some p e o p l e have a n a t u r a l 'way w i t h words '

o r a 'knack f o r w r i t i n g ' which a l l o w s w r i t i n g t o happen

e f f o r t l e s s l y . Another p a r t of t h e myth s u g g e s t s t h a t t h o s e who

have t h i s i n b o r n a b i l i t y need do l i t t l e more t h a n w a i t f o r

i n s p i r a t i o n and t h e p a r a g r a p h s w i l l f l o w (F lower , 1986; Young,

1 9 8 0 ) . Some of t h e h a l l m a r k s of good w r i t i n g a r e a n a t u r a l f low

and s e a m l e s s n e s s , b u t writers who p roduce t h i s s o r t of w r i t i n g

g e n e r a l l y do n o t p roduce i t e f f o r t l e s s l y , spend ing a g r e a t d e a l

more t i m e e d i t i n g and r e v i s i n g t h a n do less e x p e r i e n c g d w r i t e r s C

who produce less p o l i s h e d w r i t i n g ( T a t e , 1 9 8 1 ) .

Good w r i t i n g o f t e n g i v e s t h e i m p r e s s i o n of speech w r i t t e n

down, and i n t h e 1 9 5 0 s , Harvard s t u d e n t s , among o t h e r s , were

t a u g h t t h a t w r i t i n g was s imply an e x t e n s i o n of s p e e c h ( M a i l e r ,

1 9 8 1 ) . Even t o d a y a n o t i o n p e r s i s t s t h a t t h e a c i d test of good

w r i t i n g is whether i t sounds good when r e a d a l o u d . Good w r i t i n g

may w e l l have t h e r i n g of s p e e c h , b u t t h a t r i n g b e l i e s t h e

p r e c i s i o n of form and c o n s t r u c t i o n which u n d e r l i e i t .

T h e p r o d u c t i o n of w r i t i n g d i f f e r s from t h e p r o d u c t i o n of

speech i n many more ways t h a n t h e o b v i o u s d i f f e r e n c e i n medium:

Page 9: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

speech is, of course, a linear process while writing offers

recursive opportunities, but one seldom considered difference is

the speed of production (I), which may influence the ability of

a writer to capture thought. Further, variables of speech such

as inflection, emphasis, tone, pace, volume, the addition of

facial expression or body language which are commonly used to

clarify or underscore a spoken message, are not available to

writers. Writing can and does have subtleties of its own, such

as graphics, format, and style of presentation, but these

factors are rarely encountered in the literature on teaching

written composition.

Definition of terms

One problem in discussing writing composition is the lack

of unanimity in the use of writing terminology. For purposes of r

this discussion the following definitions are used:

'Editing' refers to reading text in search of those areas

which can be improved by re-arranging or modifying the contents

of the text. Editing may include making suggestions as to how

those modifications may be made, may refer to strong points or

well-written passages in the text, or may point out deficient or

weak areas. Editing will not be used to refer to corrections in

(1) Hand writing averages 25 wpm, keyboarding between 60 - 120 wpm. Speech averages 160 - 180 wpm. The fastest recorded human speaker listed in the Guinness book of records achieved 560 wpm.

Page 10: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

the mechanics or conventions of the writing, such as paragraph

indentation, spelling, etc.

'Proofreading' refers to examining text for errors and

accuracy: spelling mistakes, uniformity in numerical and other

references, following a format correctly, and so on.

'Revising' refers to alterating existing text content by

either expanding on the material, clarifying the meaning of the

existing text, deleting inappropriate material, adding new

material or otherwise re-working text which already exists.

'Rewriting' refers to creating a new piece of writing

which may either paraphrase the original or begin again, but

does not involve reworking the existing text.

Three major categories of editing will be discussed: self

editing, other editing, and peer editing.

self editing is an evaluative process undertaken by the

writer which may take place at any point in the writfng process

and involves examining the writing with a critical eye,

attempting to read it as others will read it. With experience,

writers usually become more demanding self editors. Other

editing is normally done by someone with more experience. In

classroom editing, this person is usually the teacher.

Peer editing is evaluation of text by a writer at the

same writing level as the author. Peer editing now gaining

wider acceptance in elementary schools differs from traditional

writers' workshops in that it is usually done by inexperienced

writers.

Page 11: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

In future, computer programmes may be able to edit

writing but at present they perform only crude text corrections.

Spell-checking programs only measure input against programmed

lexicons and words not listed are rejected as incorrect. They

are unable to recognize incorrect usage of correctly spelled

words and the skills of human editors are required to recognize

the aptness of particular words in particular contexts.

Some writing programs record the numbers of words in

sentences, alerting writers when sentences are either longer or

shorter than average, but the computer can neither evaluate what

it is scanning nor 'understand' that short or long sentences may

intentionally be used for specific effects. While the use of

computers in writing classrooms is increasing, the major focus

of writing teachers remains with process, not technology.

Role of Editing in Writinq Process - References to classroom editing often place it at the end

of the writing process, as a sort of 'final step' in preparing

writing for the reader. The notion of editing as the last step

in writing may have stemmed from a widely quoted analysis of

writing, the 'watershed' report of Rohman and Wlecke (1964) , which used the descriptors "pre-writing, writing, and rewriting"

to separate the writing process into three components. Rohman

and Wlecke's recognition of these phases in the writing process

was probably not unique, and possibly only crystallized what

many writers, teachers and researchers had already recognized.

4

Page 12: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

But the 'pre-write, write and rewrite' description they used to

refer to steps in the process, may also have been misinterpreted

as an implication that rewriting was done only as the last

stage, or the 'final step' in producing finished text.

If writing is regarded as a linear process, which a

pre-write, write and rewrite 'formula' might seem to imply,

there could be a logical case made for teaching writing by

formula: A produces B, which results in C and leads to an end

product, D. But if writing is seen as a recursive process, in

which there is no A, B or C, a linear formula would not work

and, indeed, a formula approach does not produce good writing.

Public perceptions of literacy and writing pedagogy

During the past thirty years, (,I) much media attention

has been given and continues to be given, to the problems of

functional illiteracy, in both the United States and-Canada. C

One response to this attention has been a search for ways

to improve classroom writing, and this has involved a great deal

of input from a great many sources. But teachers have at

times found themselves caught in a tug-of-war of opinions.

Attempts to make use of new pedagogy and new methodology and to

(1) In 1955, Newsweek magazine published Why Johnny Can't Read.

At intervals, tlie popular media has returned to the topic: the

latest account is a 1988 survey sponsored and published by the

Southam publishing chain, in six consecutive full-page features.

Page 13: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

apply new techniques and technology sometimes met resistance

from parents, teachers, administrators and the general public.

An early attempt at making writing more accessible to

very young writers involved the Initial Teaching Alphabet (ITA),

using simplified orthography rather than the traditional

alphabet (Pitman, 1966). ITA appeared to offer a way of

permitting students to concentrate on the message without being

overly distracted by the medium. As students gained confidence

and proficiency in writing and reading skills, a 'natural

transition' was believed to take place, carrying students from

ITA to traditional spelling. However, it was sometimes difficult

to convince parents that these non- traditional products were

effective in teaching students to write.

One major objection to ITA was that students and

teachers -had to learn two methods of spelling: first with ITA

then with the traditional alphabet. What some educato~s saw as

innovative was seen by others as the doubling of work loads.

Discussions of writing and writing traditions appear to

be one of the topics in education which carry more emotional

baggage than almost any other. Adults discussing writing often

appear to be inextricably caught up in childhood memories and

schoolroom memories, along with writing memories. Nor is writing

a discrete subject, but rather a very complex activity,

involving as it does, spelling, grammar, handwriting, content,

ownership, style, and at times, personal risk taking.

One factor which appears to have received little

6

Page 14: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

attention is that while proven ability as a writer is a

requisite for most teachers of writing at post-secondary levels,

teachers of writing in public schools have had "relatively

little training in writing or in how to teach it" (Daniels,

1985, p 15). In some cases writing appears to engender almost as

much stress for public school teachers as it does for public

school students (Gere, 1984; Gere and Smith, 1979). The lack of

writing experience may not only affect the ways in which writing

and editing are taught in elementary schools, but also account

for some of the differences between the ways in which writing is

taught at public school level and at post-secondary level.

Attitudes toward editing

Among experienced writers the process of editing and

revising -is regarded as the point where the 'real' writing takes

place (Donald Murray, 1968; Waldrep, 1985). Among inexperienced

writers there appears to be, if not a reluctance to do any

editing or revising, certainly a lack of understanding as to why

editing or revising should be done and what it can accomplish.

The problem is compounded by the fact that in many classrooms

(and in many textbooks) editing and revising have been equated

with error-correction.

Error correction is, unfortunately, all-too-familiar

ground to many parents, teachers and administrators and has

become almost an entrenched part of writing instruction in the

Page 15: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

schools. It produces a measurable result which may appear in

some instances to be regarded as 'proof' that something has been

taught.

The result appears to be that in some classrooms, while

lip service is paid to the notion of editing, rewriting, and

revision, students in fact may be doing none of these things,

but rather, be involved in a didactic relationship in which the

teacher tells, instructs or gives rules, and the student

listens, absorbs and complies (Daniels, 1985, p 14). Given these

circumstances, the possibility of effective modelling of the

editing process or the formation of effective peer-editing

groups appears to be slim, and indeed, the peer-editing process

does sometimes appear to retain elements of the didactic

relationship with the difference that the 'correcter' is now

another student rather than the teacher. This type of writing

relationship, be it with a teacher or another student,-may make C

it difficult for students to escape what Stewig (1983) referred

to as the 'writing two-step' of writing a draft, then correcting

it.

If student peers are correcting errors rather than

editing writing, the anticipated improvements in writing quality

and in editing skills will likely not materialize, and this may

be what has happened in some classrooms where peer editing has

been introduced but peer correcting has taken place. The result

is often predictable: the enthusiasm of the teacher dims as one

8

Page 16: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

more 'new' technique fails to produce the desired result, and

the task of searching for and implementing yet another method of

motivating and facilitating improvements in student writing

begins again.

Editing, whether self-editing, other editing, or peer

editing, is recognized by experienced writers as the heart of

the writing process. Ernest Hemingway was noted for his harsh

editing and diligent rewriting. His daily output of between 800

and 1,000 words was revised, edited and cut until it totalled

just about 200 words (Murray, 1968). Hemingway is quoted as

saying he rewrote the last page of Farewell to Arms 39 times,

and when he was asked what the difficulty was, he replied:

"Getting the words right.'' (Plimpton, 1963, p 222).

Hemingway was looking for the right words, but students

seem to-be looking for the correct words (Stewig, 1983). There

is an essential difference between the two. - The possibility that peer editing often seemed to be

concerned with correctness, rather than rightness, was the

starting point for this study.

Relatively few studies exist which deal with the subject

of peer editing. Those which do usually describe the results of

peer groups editing their own work (Benson, 1979; Carter, 1982;

Christensen, 1982; Crowhurst, 1979a; Graves and Murray, 1980;

Karengianes, 1981; Lamberg, 1980; B. Newman, 1980). As students

were not editing the same material, it was difficult to compare

9

Page 17: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

t h e i r work o r t o i d e n t i f y common d e n o m i n a t o r s i n t h e i r e d i t i n g

p r o c e s s e s . For t h a t r e a s o n , t h i s s t u d y examined t h e p e e r e d i t i n g

p r o c e s s e s of a g roup of s t u d e n t s e d i t i n g a s t a n d a r d t e x t w r i t t e n

by a s t u d e n t who, a l t h o u g h n o t a member of t h e c l a s s b e i n g

s t u d i e d , was of a p p r o x i m a t e l y t h e same a g e and l i v e d i n t h e same

g e n e r a l a r e a . I t was hoped t h e use of a s t a n d a r d t e x t would make

i t p o s s i b l e t o make more d i r e c t compar i sons of t h e e d i t i n g done

by members of t h e s t u d y group.

The s t u d y was d e s i g n e d t o f o c u s on o n l y a s m a l l p a r t of

t h e p e e r e d i t i n g p r o c e s s . I t under took t o d i s c o v e r whether

s t u d e n t s appeared t o b e more concerned- w i t h o f f e r i n g s u g g e s t i o n s

which would a f f e c t t h e c o n t e n t of t h e t e x t , o r w i t h c o r r e c t i n g

e r r o r s i n t h e t e x t . To t h i s end , t h e k i n d s of s u g g e s t i o n s made

by s t u d e n t s were s t u d i e d , and t h e way i n which t h e y e d i t e d t h e

s t a n d a r d t e x t was examined i n an a t t e m p t t o d i s c o v e r whether

t h e r e were any common d e n o m i n a t o r s i n t h e p r o c e s s and-, i f s o , t o

i d e n t i f y them a s c l e a r l y a s p o s s i b l e .

A n a l y s i s of t h e work of t h e s e s t u d e n t s s u g g e s t s s e v e r a l

avenues f o r f u r t h e r e x p l o r a t i o n i n t o t h e ways i n which p e e r

e d i t i n g is u n d e r t a k e n and f o r t e c h n i q u e s which migh t h e l p p e e r

e d i t o r s become more e f f e c t i v e i n h e l p i n g writers t o I g e t t h e

words r i g h t . '

Page 18: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

CHAPTER TWO

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

"...I don't think it's possible to describe the creation of fiction. It's a very odd process, and if you begin to describe it, you begin to sound as though it were a mechanical process with the author as a transmitter and, of course, that's utter nonsense because it's not metaphysical."

Mavis Gallant (1988). p. 36

Research in Writina Process

A 1960-61 publication of the (American) National Council

of Teachers of English contained this comment on the instruction

of writing skills at the elementary level:

Study of the skills in writing has gone on since before the Civil War in this country and considerably longer in Europe. Composition has been studied as a whole; likewise the interdependent parts thereof have been subjected to analysis, experiment, and to evaluation. Indeed, it appears that somewhat more attention has been given to the mechanical aspects of writing than to the essential ones of invention or to children's basic motivation for writing.' (Burrows, 1961, p.5)

Examination of writing composition texts and handbooks

almost thirty years later shows that despite development of many

new pedagogic techniques to help students improve their writing

composition skills, the basic premise remains almost equally

true: less emphasis appears to be placed on what students

have to say, than on how they say it. (1) .

(1) The compositional focus outlined in the B.C. Ministry of Education Curriculum Guide (1987) and the 1987 provincial examinations in English composition deals almost entirely with form and format.

11

Page 19: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

Need for Standards

While Burrows (1981) was expressing concern with the

emphasis placed on the mechanics of writing, others were

expressing concern with the ways in which some research had been

undertaken in the field of writing composition. Edmund (1961)

found much of the then-current research conflicting and

inconclusive, with a good portion limited in terms of the major

generalizations which one might derive from it.

An analysis of the methodology used in some research in

writing composition, undertaken by Braddock, Lloyd-Jones

and Schoer (1963) found that many studies lacked either

controls, a detached point of observation, a rigid definition of

terminology, or a specific objective. It would be naive to

suggest that all research done since that time has been

impeccable, and equally careless to suggest that no research c

undertaken prior to that date was sound. But it does suggest

that regardless of whether research was done prior to or

following Braddock, Lloyd-Jones and Schoer's study, the

methodology of the research should be considered equally with

the findings of the research.

This is particularly true in the field of writing

research, where at times, studies of similar topics appear to

present wide variations in findings. This may in part be

accounted for by inconsistent methodologies.

Page 20: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

An example of inconsistencies in findings may be noted by

comparing studies dealing with correlation among the language

arts skills of reading and writing. There appears to be a sense

that high achievement in one language skill may be taken as an

indicator of high ability ln all language skills. Good readers

(an undefined term) could be expected to be good writers (also

undefined), and vice versa, (Artey, Hildreth, Townsend, Beery

and Bawson, 1954). This finding has been challenged on a number

of occasions (Loban, 1976; Martin, 1955; Winter, 1957).

Researchers today recognize that reading, writing and speaking

behaviours demonstrated by students may be differentially

influenced by a number of factors, such as socioeconomic

background, peer group, school emphases and many others

(Burrows, 1961; Clay, 1975; Hall, Moretz and Statom, 1976;

Heath, 1980; King and Rentel, 1981; Stubbs, 1980). Further, one

must weigh carefully any attempts to derive causations from c

statistical correlations between the various language skills.

While Birnbaum (1982) did indeed discover correlations between

the reading habits and writing products of students, such

correlations do not always indicate causes.

The assumption persists that children who read a lot of

good books are better writers than those who do not, and, as

children who read many books often do appear to be better

writers than children who read few books, it is tempting to seek

connections between the two. Writing, however, can not be shown

Page 21: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

to be a product of reading. The relationship may relate instead

to a home atmosphere where good books are readily available,

reading and writing are modelled, and literacy and literature

play important roles in everyday life.

Differing perceptions of editinq

The lack of definition in writing terminology creates

major difficulties in comparing, contrasting and discussing

various studies. Editing, for example, has been referred to as

the outcome of exercises in correction (Braddock, 1963; Burrows,

1961). This notion is representative of much of the earlier

literature about composition process: editing is regarded as

something to be done after all other aspects of writing have

been tended to.

Among experienced writers, however, simple correction of

this sort is regarded as proof-reading. - The job of the editor is to ensure that a piece of

writing is clear, complete and, if possible, interesting and

that the writing is as free from error as possible (Canadian

Press handbook, 1983). Professional editors usually leave major

rewrites to the writer, but give very specific directions on how

the writing might be improved. Professional editors regard

over-editing as just as harmful to a story as under-editing, and

a prime directive for editors is that major rewrites should not

be attempted only because a story is not written the way the

14

Page 22: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

editor would have written it (CP, 1983, p105).

Clearly, editing is not regarded by professional editors

in the same light as some researchers and many classroom

teachers view it: as the outcome of an exercise in correction.

The goal of the experienced editor is to help the writer achieve

the best possible presentation of the material, in the writer's

own style. The editor is usually looking behind the work in an

attempt to see what the writer really wants to say, and finding

ways to help the writer achieve that goal. In other words,

looking below the surface of the page (Rohman, 1964). Regarding

editing only as a process of error-correction lowers and limits

the potential of editing, and diminishes imagination, curiosity,

discovery, and speculation, by replacing a sense of 'wondering'

with mundane adherence to sets of rules.

A British Columbia Ministry of Education publication - The

Young Writers Project (1983) notes that editing is often the - "most challenging stage of the writing process" for both the

student writer and for the teacher, but convincing students of

this is not easy. Traditional classroom interaction (the student

writes, the teacher points out errors and the student corrects)

does little to add challenge or excitement to writing.

Complaining and proofreading, probably the two most widely

practiced modes of teacher response to student writing, have

turned out to be surpringly unhelplful and sometimes even

damaging (Daniels, 1985, p 31)

15

Page 23: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

~diting may be more important to the writing process than

some educators might realize, and far from coming into play at

the end of the writing process, editing skills may even be

prerequisite to skills in writing (Lewes, 19881), and the

teaching of pre-editing skills is only beginning to be explored

(Beyer, 1979; Johannesson, 1982; Loyie-Philippsen, 1988).

Variations in Editing

There are many different kinds of writing, but whether

the writing is edited for a commercial publication, an academic

or other specialized journal, or a volume of poetry, the

processes have much in common. Two major stages in editing

undertaken by the writer are the internal editing done by the

writer for the writer during the processes of exploration and

discovery, and external editing, done by the writer for the

reader, after the topic has been clarified in the writer's own - mind (Flower, Hayes et al, 1985). These steps may or may not be

followed by peer-editing and/or other-editing.

Revising, editing and rewriting are terms which have been

used almost interchangeably throughout the literature, and

between Braddock (1963) and Flower (1986), a generation of

researchers used some 30 different terms to refer to text

alterations. Flower and Hayes (1985, 1986) deal with text

(1) In a personal letter to the writer, Lewes commented,'' in

d short, good editing often precedes good writing.

16

Page 24: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

alteration with a precision not previously demonstrated, using

definitions which leave no room for confusion. Whether one

agrees or disagrees with what they say, there is no doubt at all

about what they are discussing.

Editing, rewriting and revising appear to be regarded as

much the same thing in many accounts in the literature, but

Flower and Hayes (1984) see each of these as very precise,

identifiably different functions. By providing those very

precise definitions, they preclude the dilemmas created in

earlier studies, articles and reports, when the reader was often

left to guess at what exactly was meant by any particular

reference. It is unfortunate that not all researchers have

followed Flower and Hayest lead in providing such precise

definitions for terminology used in their texts, as this move

enables the reader to understand clearly the point under

discussion. - The range of 'writing process' terminology may be

demonstrated by examining some of the various usages of the word

'revision'. Experienced writers do not always impute the same

meaning to 'revision' as do teachers and students (Spear, 1982) , but use it in the sense of looking over the material again and

questioning what they read: What is right with this? Is this

logical? Is this connected? Is this exactly what I want to say?

Will this be clear to the reader? Can I make it more effective?

More easily understood? What can I build upon?

Page 25: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

Teachers and students, in contrast, often use revision

in the sense of looking over the material again and asking: What

is wrong with this? Is the spelling correct? Is punctuation

correct? Is the grammar correct? Do short sentences need

combining? (Spear, 1982) .

What constitutes Good Writing?

If there is a demonstrable lack of agreement regarding

descriptors for the various stages in producing writing, there

is a concomitant lack of definition concerning the 'goodness' or

worth of the end product, and this may contribute to one of the

major problems encountered in teaching writing: text evaluation.

Mechanical aspects (spelling, grammar, and writing

conventions) are measurable in the sense that there is usually

an objective aspect allowing them to be categorized as being

either correct or incorrect. But these are not the essential - factors in producing effective compositions. Good writing C

demands much more than simply arrang ing properly spelled words

in grammatically correct sentences and evaluation of the writing

necessarily becomes more subjective. Perfectly correct writing

can make perfectly dreadful reading.

Writing as a Self-taught Skill

Clarity of expression, density of material, flow, style,

image-provoking strategies, and organization of material are all

18

Page 26: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

important aspects of writing, but are neither easy to teach nor

to evaluate. Murray (1968) referred to writing as a self-taught

skill produced mainly by rewriting, and more often learned than

taught. (1) If, as Elbow (l973), Murray (1968) and others insist,

revising and rewriting are keys to good writing, the challenge

must lie in finding ways to reveal those keys to students

(Gundlach, 1982) . And while teachers seem to agree that

revision and rewriting are worthwhile, there are no agreed-upon

systems of evaluating either revision or rewriting (Bracewell,

1978; Beach, 1986; Scardemalia and Bereiter, 1978; Ziv, 1984).

No common agreement exists about what rewriting is (Braddock,

1963; DellaPiana, 1978; Flower and Hayes, 1985, 1986; Murray,

1968) much less on how to teach it.

If, as Donald Murray (1978a) suggests, revising is one of

the "least researched, least examined, least understood and

(usually) least taughtt' areas in writing process, it also - appears to be viewed as one of the least creative, least

enjoyable, and least worthwhile parts of the process (Calkins,

1980a; Graves, 1975, 1979). A key to this attitude may lie in

composition texts: a study of these manuals might lead one to

(1) Sloan Wilson (1976) whose father founded the School of

Journalism at New York University, claimed his father was

always embarassed by students who thanked him, as he believed

writing could not be taught, only learned (p. 39).

19

Page 27: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

believe that good writing is little more than a process of

elimination: remove/correct enough 'wrong' things from the text,

and what remains must be 'right.'

As has already been noted, the production of good writing

is far more involved and proactive than a simple process of

error correction, but in many cases, the writing of compositions

appears to be taught and evaluated, at levels ranging from

kindergarten through college, on the basis of error correction.

Studies cited in an NCTE position statement (1984), and by Bonds

(1980), Searle and Dillon (1980), and Ziv (1984) show that

emphasis on error detection/correction is one of the factors

which makes evaluation of writing so difficult.

The problem is double edged: emphasis on correction,

along with a lack of criteria poses a problem for teachers

faced with evaluating the writing, and for students who, because

they lack clearly defined standards against which to measure - their work, may be distracted by the temptation to undertake C

surface corrections rather than consider text content.

Traditional Teaching Methods

One traditional method of instructing novice writers in

the nuances of their craft is exposing them to classics in

writing (Daugherty, 1984). But Rohman and Wlecke (1964) did not

believe exposure to good prose was particularly effective as a

teaching method.

20

Page 28: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

If we train students how to recognize an example of good prose (the rhetoric of the finished word), we have not given them a basis on which to build their own writing abilities. All we have done, in fact, is to give them standards to judge the goodness of their finished effort. We have not really taught them how to make that effort. (Rohman and Wlecke, 1964, p. 17)

Students soon learn what is important to the teachers who

mark their work, and students who achieve the better marks often

greatly valued (Butler, 1980; Bereiter and Scardamalia (1981).

But while this may have a positive effect on student marks, it

does not always improve their writing abilities or the quality

of their writing. Teachers' marking at times appears to follow

hidden agendas or make use of undisclosed criteria (S. Freedman,

1984). The existance of these undisclosed criteria was suggested

in a blind study involving experienced writers and regular

students who completed the same classroom writing assignment. - Teachers marking the assignment were not made aware that

non-student writers were participating in the project, ana the

marking neither singled out the work of the experienced writers,

nor rated it significantly higher than the student work (S.

Freedman, 1984).

This was an indication to the researchers that teachers

may not necessarily have been marking only for the quality of

the writing but rather, may have been measuring it against

another set of stanuards of which the experienced writers were

unaware. The researchers did not suggest what the identity of 21

Page 29: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

those standards may have been and the teachers' criteria for

marking were not explained.

Two questions arise: how well would the professional

writers have performed had they been aware of those criteria?

How well would students have performed had they been able to

write under conditions normally enjoyed by professional writers:

free to choose subject matter, voice, genre, writing time and

place? And, if the professional writers were able to write well

without responding to the criteria used by the teachers, how

important to the end result were they? What, then, were the

teachers trying to teach? Did the marks they awarded truly

reflect levels of achievement? If not, what were they marking?

Similarities between Experienced and Novice Writers.

The writing process of some very young writers appears to

be strikingly similar to the process followed by many - experienced writers (Graves and Murray, 1980). In a joint C

project which compared and analysed Murray's own work along with

the work of students between the ages of six and nine years,

Graves and Murray (1980) were able to demonstrate that both used

writing for discovery, and that both worked in a sequence in

which addition was the initial response, deletion was the second

response, and reordering was the third response. Graves referred

to this as the developmental order in which children learn

revision.

Page 30: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

Another point of similarity between the two groups was

the on-going nature of the editing, and the recursiveness of the

work. Neither divided the material into discrete segments, but

re-entered the work repeatedly, reviewing and/or rewriting it a

number of times.

Differences between experienced and novice writers

There are many points of difference between experienced

and novice writers: experienced writers take a global view of

their work, novice writers take a word, phrase, or line-level

view (Flower and Hayes, 1985, 1986; raves and Murray, 1980; Hull, 1984; Sommers and McQuade, 1984) . Experienced writers use a number of problem-solving strategies, but novice writers often

appear to have no idea how to solve problems or even in some

cases that a problem exists (Flower and Hayes, 1985, 1986). The

writing of experienced writers generally matches the mental

image they have of it, but novices sometimes appear to believe - they have written something different to what appears on the C

paper (Olson, 1977b). Perl (1978, 1979) demonstrated this belief

in a study of miscue analysis, showing some inexperienced

college writers who read their work aloud, read complete

sentences where only partial sentences had been written.

Incorrectly written word endings, plurals, past tenses, etc.,

were read correctly. Perl (1979, 1978) suggested student

writer/readers may have been blinded to discrepancies between

written and verbalized words by preoccupation with meaning.

Experienced writers may be more accustomed to actually looking

23

Page 31: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

at what they have written than inexperienced writers, who often

appear to express their thoughts in a reduced form of writing.

Per1 suggested these sorts of 'errors' may not have been made

through ignorance, but rather through eagerness. This eagerness

may continue to blind inexperienced writers during revision and

editing, so they literally do not see digressions or gaps.

Factors affecting performance

Other factors which may lead to performance differences

between experienced and inexperienced writers deal with the

application of rules. Inexperienced writers at times apply rules

incorrectly: they may apply the right rule wrongly, the wrong

rule rightly, or may even apply non-existant or erroneous rules

(Shaughnessy, 1977). Experienced writers, on the other hand, at

times appear to ignore rules or create their' own rules

(Daugherty, 1984; Taylor, 1984; Tchudi, 1983; Waldrep, 1985).

Numerous interviews and anecdotal accounts focus on experienced - writers, revealing behaviours ranging from practical to C

eccentric. The Paris Review, for instance, interviewed more than

200 established writers on their writing. These wide-ranging

interviews formed the basis for six volumes edited by George

Plimpton (1963, 1967, 1976 and three others), revealing writers'

literary habits, personal philosophies, discussions of peers,

commentaries on world or local situations, and a number of other

topics, and recounting a variety of idiosyncratic behaviours in

Page 32: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

various writing processes. Other accounts have dealt with the

writing habits of post-secondary level teachers of writing

(Tchudi, 1983; Waldrep, 1985) . These experienced writer/teachers noted quite seriously

that they 'needed' such things as lined, yellow, legal-sized

writing pads, pencils of a certain hardness, fountain or

ball-point pens in particular colours of ink, specific makes or

models of typewriters, certain kinds of word processors and

programs, paticular light levels, sound levels, surface

materials on desk or table tops, and so on (Waldrep, 1985). Yet

while these idiosyncratic behaviours were viewed by individual

writers as being of undeniable importance to their comfort

level, there was no way of measuring what impact any of these

factors may have on their actual writing processes.

Defining this impact becomes a matter of concern if the

behaviour of experienced writers is to be taken as a model by - inexperienced writers. Flower and Hayes (1981) warn that

searching in the behaviours of experts for patterns can run the

risk of following those patterns without understanding the

motivation. Thus students who mimic the action of a writing

model without understanding it may confuse the need for green

ink and lined, yellow, legal-sized pages and the strains of

Verdi's Four Seasons on the stereo with more important but less

Page 33: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

visible parts of the process, such as the connectedness,

density, or organization of the writing and thus unwittingly

create a parody of writing process (Flower and Hayes, 1981).

Researchers note that there may exist as yet unsuspected

problems dealing with student perceptions of the writing

process. Petty (1984) drew attention to one area which he felt

had been overlooked in research: the behaviour of literate

non-writers. Petty believed attempts to establish reasons for

non-writing behaviour might help provide insights into some of

the problems experienced by novice writers, and a better

understanding of the behaviour of literate non-writers might

suggest strategies for improving the performance of minimal or

reluctant writers. Another area of limited research which has

received only scant attention from reviewers deals with literate

blind or deaf students (Ewoldt, 1984; Gormley and Sarachan-

Deily, 1982). Understanding how the writing processes of these - students differ from or conform to the writing processes of

other students may provide additional insights into writing

problems.

Technology may also be affecting the ways in which

writers write: word processors and computer terminals appear to

offer many advantages to writers, but we do not yet know

precisely how, or if, they influence either the writer or the

writing (Papert, 1980).

Page 34: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

Studies of the Writing Process

A classic approach in teaching students to generate

writing is the three-stage process known as 'pre-write, write,

and rewrite'. As noted, one of the early references in the

literature to this particular process appears to have been made

by Rohman and Wlecke (1964). Upon the paradigm of a plant, they

imposed the concept of line (writing as a linear act) as a

useful way of 'freezing' the growth pattern of the plant

metaphor into a static yet structured whole which could then

be analyzed point by point. Having in effect immobilized their

specimen for study, they were then able to divide it into two

main parts: that which occurs before words appear on the page,

and that which takes place after words are written on a page.

The former they called pre-writing, the latter would be further

divided into writing and re-writing.

Writing was more than a simple linear process, but it was - so complex and involved it could not be studied in a functioning C

state, so Rohman and Wlecke's (1964) technique of immobilizing

it allowed them to study the internal patterns in the writing.

References to the linearity of their 'frozen' specimen, however,

appear to have led to a belief that Rohman and Wlecke saw

writing itself as a simple linear process, but by their own

account they recognized that much in writing took place 'under

the surface of the page'.

D. Murray (1968) adopted a similar three part description

27

Page 35: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

of the writing process, but used in his description the terms

prevision, vision, and revision. Oddly, Murray's division of the

writing process aid not appear to be regarded by researchers as

linear, while Rohman and Wlecke's did.

A number of researchers each evolved his or her own

particular way of dividing the writing process (Bartlett, 1982;

Belanger and Rodgers, 1983; Berkenkotter, 1984, Murray, 1968;

Sherwood, 1980; Sommers and McQuade, 1984; Sudal, 1982) but in

general, each of these descriptions acknowledged some form of

activity prior to the physical writing process, the recursive

nature of the writing process itself, and the provision of some

method of altering what had been written. These views of the

writing processes contrasted with earlier methods of teaching

writing, which placed emphasis on the product of the writing,

rather than on the process of the writing. writing-as-product

teaching methodology customarily involved such techniques as - directed writing, rote writing, memorization and recopying,

writing from dictation, and substitution writing, none of which

is generally found in the writing-as-process teaching

methodology.

Donald Graves In the Classroom.

Donald Graves (1975, 1979) has completed a number of

studies which show that even very young children have something

to say and can produce quite competent writing, given the

opportunity to write on topics which are personally meaningful.

28

Page 36: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

Graves is not only a noted researcher in the field of writing

process, but is also a teacher of writing. Working with young

children (and later, with teachers of young children) he

demonstrated, as well as taught, writing. Whether done on large

flip-sheets or on regular letter-slzed paper, his work was

readily visible to the students he taught. His questions about

the children's writing encouraged them to ask questions about

his writing. Graves freely shared his writing with students in

an attempt to de-mystify the writing process, and readily

allowed children to see that he had changed his mind, had added

to the writing, substituted, amplified, deleted and otherwise

edited text (Walshe, 1983) . He did not refer to his work as 'wrong' nor to what he

was doing as error correction, but rather as finding a different

way of looking at a subject, a different way of expressing a

thought, or a different way of connecting ideas. His - nonpejorative attitude was enabling for students, who were made

free to edit and revise their work in an exploratory manner,

making use of the potential for discovery provided by revision.

Donald Graves at all times stressed the value of content

and intention of the writing over conventions of composition.

Donald Graves' writing process could have been the model

for a description by another prolific writer and highly regarded

teacher, Donald Murray (1978), whose comments about the writing

process underscored the fluid nature of writing-in-progress.

29

Page 37: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

The w r i t i n g p r o c e s s i s t o o e x p e r i m e n t a l and e x p l o r a t o r y t o b e c o n t a i n e d i n a r i g i d d e f i n i t i o n ; wri ters move back and f o r t h th rough a l l s t a g e s of t h e w r i t i n g p r o c e s e s a s t h e y s e a r c h f o r meaning and t h e n a t t e m p t t o I t is a l s o t r u e t h a t most writers d o n o t d e f i n e , d e s c r i b e , o r p o s s i b l y even u n d e r s t a n d t h e w r i t i n g p r o c e s s . T h e r e ' s no r e a s o n f o r them t o know what t h e y a r e do ing i f t h e y d o i t w e l l , any more t h a n w e need t o know grammat ica l terms i f w e speak and wri te c l e a r l y . ( p 86)

Graves ' young wri ters d i d n o t , of c o u r s e , u n d e r s t a n d what

t h e y were d o i n g i n t h e s e n s e t h a t t h e y were a b l e t o l a b e l t h e i r

a c t i o n s o r p r o v i d e p r o c e s s f l o w c h a r t s , b u t w i t h c o n s t r u c t i v e

encouragement , t h e s t u d e n t s were a b l e t o wri te i n a f r e s h ,

v i g o r o u s and e n t h u s i a s t i c manner, More t o t h e p o i n t , t h e y a l s o

e d i t e d and r e v i s e d t h e i r own work, and i n d e p e n d e n t l y under took

t h e r e w r i t i n g o f m a t e r i a l a s t h e y f e l t i t was r e q u i r e d . These

young writers c o n t r a s t e d s t r o n g l y w i t h t h e s t u d e n t s obse rved by

Rohman and Wlecke (1964) who appeared t o ' t u c k away' t h e i r own - s e n s e o f r e a l i t y a s p e r s o n s and "echo a l l t h e p a t p h r a s e s of

t h e i r c u l t u r e i n e s s e n t i a l l y m e a n i n g l e s s combinat ion ." Rohman

and Wlecke (1964) b e l i e v e d t h a t

... b o t h o u r c u l t u r e and our p e d a g o g i c a l methods have encouraged o t h e r - d i r e c t e d s e l f - images which h i n d e r ( s e l f - a f f i r m a t i v e ) w r i t i n g and which, i n f a c t , h i n d e r any k i n d of w r i t i n g . A s a r e s u l t , w e have a l m o s t a n a t i o n a l n e u r o s i s a b o u t w r i t i n g w i t h no o b j e c t f o r our a n x i e t y e x c e p t a vague and i n c r e a s i n g l y d i s c r e d i t e d code o f ' c o r r e c t n e s s ' . A s one i s e x p e c t e d t o write a c c e p t a b l e grammar, and a s one i s e x p e c t e d t o choose a c c e p t a b l e d i c t i o n , s o one is e x p e c t e d t o t h i n k a c c e p t a b l e t h o u g h t s and f e e l a c c e p t a b l e f e e l i n g s . ( p . 2 2 )

Page 38: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

~ n a l y s i s and o b s e r v a t i o n

The p r a c t i c e of a n a l y z i n g t h e p r o d u c t o f w r i t i n g h a s been

q u e s t i o n e d by some r e s e a r c h e r s , who b e l i e v e t h e f o c u s of

r e s e a r c h s h o u l d be on w r i t i n g b e h a v i o u r s r a t h e r t h a n p r o d u c t s

(Melas , 1974; P e t t y , 1984; Sawkins, 1970; S t a l l a r d , 1 9 7 4 ) . To

d a t e , no method h a s been found which w i l l p e r m i t r e s e a r c h e r s t o

r e c o r d t h e m u l t i v a r i a t e i n f l u e n c e s , b o t h o v e r t and c o v e r t , which

a f f e c t w r i t e r s a s t h e y work. 'Th ink-a loud ' p r o t o c o l s t u d i e s c a n

r e c o r d what t h e writer s a y s , b u t n o t t h e a c t u a l t h o u g h t s which

a r e t a k i n g p l a c e a s h e o r s h e writes. S i m i l a r l y , t h e r e s e a r c h e r

c a n o b s e r v e t h e w r i t i n g p r o c e s s , n o t e v a r i o u s b e h a v i o u r s a s t h e y

happen, and a n a l y s e t h e r e s u l t s of t h o s e b e h a v i o u r s , b u t c a n n o t

be p r i v y t o t h e i m p u l s e s which g e n e r a t e d them.

Given t h e wide r a n g e of f a c t o r s i n f l u e n c i n g t h e writer a t

any g i v e n - p o i n t i n t h e w r i t i n g p r o c e s s , one must q u e s t i o n

whether t h e a d d i t i o n o f one more i n f l u e n c e , t h e p r e s e n c e o f a - r e s e a r c h e r , may n o t a f f e c t t h e r e s u l t s o b t a i n e d by t h a t

r e s e a r c h e r . The writer who c h e r i s h e s s o l i t u d e may f i n d t h e

s i m p l e p r e s e n c e of a n o t h e r p e r s o n t o b e d i s r u p t i v e , and t h a t

d i s r u p t i o n may a f f e c t t h e w r i t i n g p r o c e s s of t h a t writer . Flower

(1985) is one o f t h e few r e s e a r c h e r s t o even a l l u d e t o t h e

p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t s u b t l e a l t e r a t i o n s i n t h e w r i t i n g may t a k e

p l a c e b e c a u s e of t h e r e s e a r c h p r o c e s s . Flower (1985) b e l i v e s

t h a t writers who a r e a sked t o comment on work d u r i n g t h e a c t u a l

p r o c e s s of w r i t i n g a r e n o t d i s t u r b e d by t h i s p rocedure .

Page 39: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

No r e f e r e n c e h a s been made t o t h e p o s s i b l e e f f e c t on t h e

work of an a u t h o r who p r e f e r s w r i t i n g w i t h a 2B p e n c i l on l i n e d

s h e e t s of l e g a l - s i z e d y e l l o w p a p e r , b u t , f o r r e s e a r c h p u r p o s e s ,

h a s a g r e e d i n s t e a d t o u s e a n e lec t r ic s t y l u s on a s e n s i t i z e d

e l e c t r o n i c pad. Does awareness of t h e t a p e r e c o r d e r f a i t h f u l l y

c a p t u r i n g t h e words o f a writer a s h e o r s h e writes a f f e c t t h e

pe r fo rmance of t h a t w r i t e r ? Does t h e p r e s e n c e of a v i d e o camera

a c t u a l l y a b l e t o c o n c e n t r a t e f u l l y on t h e t a s k a t hand i f he o r

s h e is a l s o v e r b a l i z i n g t h e p r o c e s s -- o r i s t h e w r i t e r pay ing

a t l e a s t some a t t e n t i o n t o t h e t a s k of o b s e r v i n g t h e p r o c e s s ,

and t h e r e b y i n some undef ined way, a l t e r i n g i t ? These a r e

i m p o r t a n t c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , b e c a u s e t e c h n o l o g y i s more and more

o f t e n b e i n g i n t r o d u c e d i n t o t h e r e s e a r c h p r o c e s s ( B e c h t e l , 1979;

Crowley, 1981; and o t h e r s ) and w h i l e t h e s e t e c h n o l o g i c a l t o o l s

have t h e r e a s s u r i n g q u a l i t y o f ( somet imes) p roduc ing m e a s u r a b l e - r e s u l t s , one must a l s o c o n s i d e r t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t r e s u l t s may

be i n f l u e n c e d , s u b t l y and/or s i g n i f i c a n t l y by t h e v e r y

mechanisms set i n p l a c e t o measure them.

Changes i n P e d a g o g i c a l Methodology

I n r e c e n t y e a r s , numbers of t e a c h e r s have acknowledged

t h a t t e a c h i n g w r i t i n g p r o c e s s i s more e f f e c t i v e t h a n t e a c h i n g

p r o d u c t ( B u t l e r , 1983) and t h a t freedom is e s s e n t i a l t o

development o f a c h i l d ' s w r i t i n g (D. Graves , 1979, 1975, 1 9 7 3 ) .

32

Page 40: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

. ..the idea that students should be able to . . . generate an exuberance of ideas accords well with our understanding of children's creativity and the building of a child's self-concept through the expression of personal experiences, feelings and values (Butler, 1983) .

While some teachers may have accepted these ideas, there

appears, at times, to be a guerilla movement going on in writing

pedagogy, with 'underground' writing produced in the classroom

eyes of administrators and parents" (Butler, 1983) who may be

dismayed by the messiness and untidiness of students' ideas

"discovered in a rush of excitement"

Discovery and Prewriting

Along with previously noted studies revealing differences

between the ways in which experienced and novice writers handle

writing is the finding that inexperienced writers do not seem to

share a sense of writing as discovery (N. Sommers, l98O), and in the

revision process often fail to see incongruities which exist between C

their intention and their execution (Sommers, 1980).

Pre-writing appears to be more intense and more meaningful

for experienced writers than for the inexperienced writer: editing

and revising, according to anecdotal accounts by experienced writers ,

begin long before the writing stage begins. Except for classroom

situations, there appears to be no great rush to capture ideas on

paper. Instead, experienced writers appear to have a need for time

to 'mull over' ideas and let them simmer on a back burner while

they proceed with other tasks. The classroom writer, on the other

33

Page 41: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

hand, often appears to regard the pre-writing period as a time

concerned only with the gathering of ideas in an effort to find

something to write about, and once an idea has been identified,

immediately begins to write about it.

Experienced writers, however, appear to require time for

letting ideas 'bounce around' in the back of their heads

(Bartolomae, 1985) or simply stopping to sit and think (Bloom,

1985) before beginning to write. Some steep themselves in their

subject, letting the material stew in their subconscious before

writing (Corbett, 1985) before seeing how it looks on a page or

testlng it against the original thought (R. Graves, 1984) . Experienced writers appear to be aware of the importance of

prewriting for beginning writers, but feel they, themselves,

perform prewriting chores intuitively as part of their daily

lives (D.- Murray, 1968, Phelps, 1985), composing without

conscious effort and banking this pre-composed material to be

drawn upon when needed (Brent, 1985). They sometimes refer to

writing as being first of all an internal act, in which solitude

and reflection are as important as word processors (R. Graves,

1984).

Writers describing their own writing processes use

interesting analogies: along with process terminology, they

borrow terms from the kitchen, the crafts, and the arts, thus

writing has been variously described as a process in which ideas

are sketched out, roughed out, fitted together, then fermented,

stewed or simmered before they become ready for use (Guth 1985).

34

Page 42: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

Exper ienced wri ters a r e n o t a lways a n a l y t i c a l a b o u t t h e i r

w r i t i n g , w i t h some a v e r r i n g t h e y d o n ' t know where t h e words come

from, much less where t h e i d e a s come from (Knoblach, 1 9 8 5 ) . Some

may a t t e m p t t o d e l i b e r a t e l y s t a r t t h e i n t e r n a l e d i t i n g p r o c e s s

o r ' g e t t h e j u i c e s f l o w i n g ' ( a f r e q u e n t l y used t e r m ) by f i r s t

d o i n g mundane, r o u t i n e work s u c h a s i n t e r n a l e d i t i n g o r m e n t a l

r e h e a r s a l ( L u n s f o r d , 1 9 8 5 ) , l i k e n i n g t h i s p a r t of t h e p r o c e s s t o

"menta l jogging" (Lloyd-Jones , 1985) . The p r e - w r i t i n g phase

a p p e a r s t o b e commonly acknowledged among e x p e r i e n c e d w r i t e r s

(Milic, 1 9 8 5 ) .

B e f o r e I wr i te , I w r i t e i n my mind. The more d i f f i c u l t and complex t h e w r i t i n g , t h e more t i m e I need t o t h i n k b e f o r e I write. ... While I walk , d r i v e , s w i m and e x e r c i s e , I am t h i n k i n g , p l a n n i n g , w r i t i n g . I wri te , r e v i s e , rewrite, a g o n i z e , d e s p a i r , g i v e up, o n l y t o s t a r t a l l over a g a i n , and a l l t h i s b e f o r e I even b e g i n t o p u t words on p a p e r ( L u t z , 1 9 8 5 ) .

While some w r i t e r s " c o l l e c t and mul l " b e f o r e w r i t i n g

(Donald Murray, 1985) o t h e r s l i t e r a l l y v i s u a l i z e t h e w r i t i n g

( P a t r i c i a Murray, 1 9 8 5 ) , s e e i n g words, p h r a s e s , s e n t e n c e s , and

p a r a g r a p h s t a k e shape on s c r e e n s i n s i d e t h e i r heads .

Tchudi (1985) r e f e r s t o a "Write I d e a " which sounds

v e r y much l i k e t h e s t e r e o t y p i c a l l i g h t b u l b i n t h e b r a i n o f t e n

used by c a r t o o n i s t s t o d e n o t e i n s p i r a t i o n . However, Tchudi

n o t e s t h a t c o n s i d e r a b l e i n c u b a t i o n g o e s on b e f o r e t h e l i g h t b u l b

a p p e a r s .

Page 43: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

Some mental writing consists not in figuring out what the

writer wants to write before clothing thoughts in words but in

letting ideas happen, letting them 'spark' each other, and

listening to voices speaking dialogue (Warnock, 1985). Warnock

says her head is "always working on a current project" and this

inner writing seems to enrich her life (Warnock, 1985). Others

literally visualize work in their mind, tacking up a theme or

topic on a mental wall and "walking around it, pondering,

thinking" (Weathers, 1985).

while a number of writers freely discussed what was

involved in their own writing: prewriting, internal editing,

writing, self-editing, revising, re-editing, rewriting -- few expressed even minimal concern with the conventions of writing

and grammar during the generative phases of their work. They

were concerned firstly with the wider idea -- with the possibilities inherent in the original notion -- and ggve only passing attention to 'correcting' work while it was in progress.

One may argue that the grammar and spelling of

experienced writers is likely on a higher level of correctness

than that of novice writers, and this is probably true, but the

point must be made that even when experienced writers did make

errors in spelling or grammar during the early stages of

writing, there was no reflection of a sense of concern with the

correctness of the mechanical aspects of writing. Exploration,

internal editing or discovery was of paramount importance. The

descriptions provided by experienced writers dealing with

36

Page 44: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

their own working processes and text revisions clearly reveal

that the global aspects of their work were of primary

importance, and conventions of writing at this stage were given

only passing attention (Waldrep, 1985; Daugherty, 1984). This

prioritization is exactly opposite to that demonstrated by the

inexperienced writer. (Flower and Hayes, 1981a, 1985, 1986).

One other point of difference is that experienced writers

often seem able to solve problems by drawing on stored problem

representations containing not only a conventional definition of

the situation, audience, and the writer's purpose, but also

including quite detailed information about solutions, even down

to appropriate tone and phrases (Flower and Hayes, 1980). This

type of reference bank may account for the ability of "in-house"

writers to deal quickly and easily with formula writing, while

sometimes- experiencing difficulty in dealing with new material:

they have stored such a wide range of strategies it may

sometimes be difficult for them to decide which of these

strategies will be the most appropriate (Applebee, 1984).

Another of the more evident differences between

experienced and inexperienced writers is that experienced

writers, who appear to have internalized a series of markers, or

a sixth sense which indicates when 'something' needs revising,

seem to more easily recognize a need for editing than do

inexperienced writers, who do not appear to have developed that

awareness or sensitivity.

Page 45: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

I n t e r n a l and e x t e r n a l e d i t i n g

A s h a s been n o t e d , e x p e r i e n c e d w r i t e r s make u s e of

s e v e r a l d i f f e r e n t t y p e s of e d i t i n g : i n t e r n a l e d i t i n g , which

h e l p s t o p r o v i d e b o t h f o c u s and framework (Flower and Hayes,

1986. See F i g . 1) and which may t a k e p l a c e b e f o r e o r a f t e r words

a r e p l a c e d on p a p e r ; s e l f - e d i t i n g , which a l l o w s t h e writer t o

t a k e t h e s t a n c e of t h e r e a d e r ; and e x t e r n a l e d i t i n g , done by a

p r o f e s s i o n a l e d i t o r , a c o l l e a g u e , o r some o t h e r p e r s o n ( D .

Murray, 1978a, 1 9 7 8 b ) .

Exper ienced writers a c c e p t and r e c o g n i z e t h e v a l u e of

e x t e r n a l e d i t i n g , b u t t h e s t u d e n t wr i t e r ' s most u s u a l e d i t o r is

t h e t e a c h e r and most s t u d e n t s appear t o view t e a c h e r s ' comments

on p a p e r s a s a form of punishment ( L e w e s , 1 9 8 1 ) . Whatever t h e

r e a s o n f o r t h i s p e r c e p t i o n , i t d o e s n o t s u g g e s t t h a t s t u d e n t s

r e g a r d t e a c h e r s a s u s e f u l r o l e models f o r t h e w r i t i n g p r o c e s s ,

nor do s t u d e n t s a p p e a r t o r e g a r d t e a c h e r s ' c o n t r i b u t i o n s a s

h e l p f u l i n t h e w r i t i n g p r o c e s s . C

The aim of t e a c h e r e d i t i n g is u s u a l l y two-fold : f i r s t l y

t o improve t h e work i n hand, and s e c o n d l y t o h e l p t h e s t u d e n t

w r i t e r improve h i s o r h e r s e l f - e d i t i n g s k i l l s . There a r e s e r i o u s

i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r t e a c h i n g i n t h e c o n c e p t of i n t e r n a l e d i t i n g ,

n o t t h e l e a s t of which is t h e n o t i o n t h a t a r t i c u l a t e , v e r b a l ,

g l i b s t u d e n t s who a r e c u s t o m a r i l y over- rewarded f o r f i r s t - d r a f t

w r i t i n g may b e " r e l e a s e d from t h e p r i s o n of p r a i s e and h i g h

g r a d e s and encouraged t o write much better" ( D . Murray, 1 9 7 8 a ) .

Page 46: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

FIGURE I

THE WRITER'S LONG-TERM MEMORY 1

Knowledge of Topic. Audience. b

and Writing 1 '

- TASK ENVIRONMENT

THE RHETORICAL TEXT PROBLEM

Topic PRODUCED Audience Exigency SO FAR

Plans

WRITING PROCESSES

PLANNING TRANSLATING

i

t 1

-

REVIEWING

+ + I MONITOR

A model of cognitive processes in writing. From

"Detection, Diagnosis, and the Strategies of Revisionw by Linda

S. Flower, John R. Hayes, Linda Carey, Karen Schriver, and James

Stratman, published in College Composition and Communication,

February 1986, Vol. 37. copyright 1986 by the National Council

of Teachers of English. Reprinted with permission.

Page 47: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

Editing skills do not often appear to be taught to

student writers however, possibly because they seem to be

unconscious (automatic) processes which may not require teaching

(Christensen, 1982).

Internal editing plays an important and little understood

role in writing (Rohman, 1964) and this phase of the writing

process is quite different from the correcting, or proofreading

mode, which occurs much later in the process (Britton, 1975; D.

Murray, 1978a). If external editing which at least offers a

visible product, is difficult to teach, how much more difficult

must it be for the teacher to explain to students an undertaking

which is invisible in the composition process, unrecognized in

the writing process, and unrewarded in the marking process?

Internal editing, or 'shaping at the point of utterance'

was regarded by Britton (1978) as a crucial aspect of writing.

(Results of experiments) were consistent - with the belief that we focus on the end in view, shaping the utterance as we write; and when a seam is 'played out' or we are interrupted, we get started again by reading what we have written, running along the tracks we have laid down. (Britton, 1978, p. 24).

Internal editing may be related to what Flower (1986)

recognizes as writer-based prose -- a sort of interior monologue created by the writer, which may include intuited but

unarticulated connections. The writer then converts this

'saturated language' into ideas which may be communicated

to others, as reader-based prose (Flower, 1986).

Page 48: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

Internal editing is a valuable part of the discovery

process, during which the writer may investigate, try out, test,

challenge and manipulate ideas. And, as the writing process is

not divided into small, discrete compartments but interconnects

and overlaps, internal editing becomes not an activity which

happens solely in the compartment marked 'internal editing' but

one which intertwines with external editing as well. Both in

self-editing and peer editing, this discovery phase may even

help reveal opportunities for development which could lead

away from the original direction of the writing (Rossi, 1982;

D. Murray, 1978a).

There is another important area of editing: external

editing, or editing performed by some other person. This usually

falls into one of two categories: the editing performed by an

editor distanced from the writer (usually by authority or

experience, as in the cases of professional editors or

teacher-edi tors) or editing per formed by peers.

In recent years, peer editing has been given an

increasingly important role in writing process in the classroom

and is a technique which many teachers have attempted to

introduce. The subject of peer editing will be dealt with at

length in the next chapter.

How Much is 'Enough' Editing?

One area which often seems to proviae difficulty for the

inexperienced writer (and for those who teach inexperienced

41

Page 49: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

writers), is the question of how much revision is required in

any given piece of text. Inexperienced writers are often

accustomed to the 'writing two-step': write a draft, submit it

for marking, then re-wr i te to accommodate any corrections

(Stewig, 1983). This single-draft, single-revision approach is

far removed from the editing habits of experienced writers.

Inexperienced writers' involvement in editing and

revising appears often to depend upon a number of factors, most

of which are externally controlled: Is the work authentic or

inauthentic? What is the purpose of the work? How much time is

allowed for the work? Why has the teacher assigned the work?

What are the criteria to be met? What mark is required to pass?

(Flower, 1986; Fulwiler, 1982; D. Murray, 1978a). In many cases,

it appears the point for teachers is not teaching students to

recognize-when sufficient editing and revision has been done,

but encouraging students to get something down on paper in the

first place (Paulsen 1984).

There may be other reasons as well why students feel a

single revision is sufficient: writing apprehension, which can

have a measurable impact on student performance, may inhibit

performance (Daly and Miller, 1975). An overwhelming fear of

error dominates the minds of some students, to the detriment of

any creative thought (Shaughnessy, 1977). Even the student who

is not affected by writing apprehension may be inhibited by

teaching that is so meticulous in detail that little room is

Page 50: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

l e f t f o r s t u d e n t - i n i t i a t e d e x p e r i m e n t a t i o n o r c r e a t i v i t y

(Holdaway, 1979) . Lack o f e x p e r i e n c e combined w i t h l a c k o f w r i t i n g r o l e

m o d e l s may b e a n o t h e r c o n t r i b u t o r y f a c t o r . C r o w h u r s t (1983 ,

1 9 7 9 b ) , B u t l e r ( 1 9 8 0 ) and o t h e r s h a v e commented on t h e b e l i e f s

e x p r e s s e d by s t u d e n t s t h a t good writers know how t o wri te , and

t h e r e f o r e d o n o t h a v e t o e d i t and rewrite a t a l l , a l t h o u g h t h e y

may g o t h r o u g h one f i n a l r e a d i n g t o c h e c k f o r s p e l l i n g e r r o r s .

C r o w h u r s t (1983 , 1 9 7 9 ) n o t e d t h a t t h i s b e l i e f was g e n e r a l among

s t u d e n t s i n e l e m e n t a r y g r a d e s and o f t e n p e r s i s t e d up t o and

i n c l u d i n g s e n i o r s e c o n d a r y l e v e l .

TV i n t e r v i e w e r and p e r f o r m e r J o a n R i v e r s ( l 9 8 5 ) , a

B a r n a r d C o l l e g e g r a d u a t e w i t h a m a j o r i n E n g l i s h l i t e r a t u r e ,

g i v e s a n example o f t h i s b e l i e f when s h e d i s c u s s e s h e r r e a c t i o n

w h i l e w a t c h i n g pre-Broadway t r y o u t s o f T e n n e s s e e W i l l i a m s ' - The

N i g h t o f t h e I g u a n a . R i v e r s was "mesmer ized t o see a b i g ,

l u m b e r i n g p l a y b e i n g r e d o n e -- whole c h u n k s p u l l e d o u t , s p e e c h e s C

r e w r i t t e n , d i r e c t i o n s changed.. . ' ' a d d i n g t h a t s h e had no c o n c e p t

t i l l t h e n o f t h e i n c r e d i b l e d e d i c a t i o n o f ( s t a g e ) writers. " I

had a l w a y s t h o u g h t h e ( T e n n e s s e e W i l l i a m s ) s a t down i n h i s room

and w r o t e A S t r e e t c a r Named Desire and b r o u g h t i t t o somebody

who s a i d , " T h i s is v e r y good. I ' l l p r o d u c e it." But t h e r e was

t h i s P u l i t z e r P r i z e w inne r ... working l i k e a b e g i n n e r w i t h h i s

f i r s t p l a y . . d a y a f t e r d a y , . . . c u t t i n g and f i x i n g and p r u n i n g

and c h a n g i n g and s w i t c h i n g . " W i l l i a m s was n o t work ing l i k e a

Page 51: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

b e g i n n e r w i t h h i s f i r s t p l a y , b u t v e r y much l i k e t h e e x p e r i e n c e d

writer he was, and t h e chang ing and s w i t c h i n g were e v i d e n c e o f

t h e more g l o b a l a s p e c t s of h i s e d i t i n g .

J u s t a s R i v e r s was s u r p i s e d by t h e amount o f t i m e

Wi l l i ams ' s p e n t on r e v i s i n g , many i n e x p e r i e n c e d w r i t e r s p r o b a b l y

have no c l e a r i d e a of what p r o p o r t i o n o f a w r i t e r ' s t i m e is

s p e n t on less o b v i o u s a s p e c t s of w r i t i n g , such a s p r e w r i t i n g o r

i n t e r n a l e d i t i n g .

Exper ienced writers u s u a l l y spend more t i m e on

s e l f - e d i t i n g and r e v i s i n g t h a n t h e y d o on t h e i n i t i a l w r i t i n g

( G o r r e l l , 1985) and one writer e s t i m a t e d t h a t of 30 h o u r s s p e n t

on a not -yet -comple ted e s s a y , 20 h o u r s had been s p e n t i n e d i t i n g

and r e v i s i n g and a n undetermined p o r t i o n of t h e remain ing 10

h o u r s h a s . been t a k e n up i n p r e - w r i t i n g a c t i v i t i e s ( B r e n t , 1975) . There i s , - o f c o u r s e , no c l e a r - c u t r a t i o between t h e v a r i o u s

a r e a s of w r i t i n g p r o c e s s -- some writers spend more t i m e i n

p r e - w r i t i n g a c t i v i t i e s o r ' a g o n i z i n g ' o v e r e a r l y d r a f t s

( G o r r e l l , 1985) b u t f e e l by t a k i n g more c a r e i n t h e p r e l i m i n a r y

s t a g e s , less r e v i s i o n is r e q u i r e d i n f i n a l d r a f t s .

Y e t a n o t h e r d i f f e r e n c e between s t u d e n t writers and

e x p e r i e n c e d writers way b e t h e way i n which t h e y r e g a r d

i n t e r m e d i a t e d r a f t s . S t u d e n t s may n o t r e g a r d d r a f t work a s

v a l u a b l e o r wor th k e e p i n g , s o t e a c h e r s may n o t have a c c e s s t o

e a r l y d r a f t s c r e a t e d by t h e s t u d e n t , i f indeed such d r a f t s e v e r

e x i s t e d . Thus t e a c h e r s a r e n o t a lways a b l e t o t r a c k t h e work

Page 52: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

th rough a number of d r a f t s . Exper ienced writers, on t h e o t h e r

hand, a r e more a p t t o r e t a i n what t h e y have w r i t t e n u n t i l t h e

p i e c e is comple te . Some wri ters keep a l l d r a f t s of e v e r y t h i n g

t h e y write and r e s e a r c h e r s a r e a b l e t o s t u d y s e q u e n t i a l d r a f t s

t o t r a c e t h e growth of t h e work. For e v e r y wri ter l i k e Agatha

C h r i s t i e o r S a u l Bellow, who, a l t h o u g h t h e y d o a good d e a l of

i n t e r n a l e d i t i n g , commit l i t t l e t o paper p r i o r t o t h e f i n a l

copy, t h e r e a r e o t h e r s l i k e I r v i n g Layton o r Malcolm Lowrey, who

write numerous hard-copy d r a f t s . Few, however, d i s p l a y t h e

t e n a c i t y of John J a k e s ( I , B a r b a r i a n ) , o r ~ g d o r ~ o s t o e v s k y l

(The D o u b l e ) , e a c h of whom s p e n t 20 y e a r s e d i t i n g and r e v i s i n g

b e f o r e f i n a l l y r e p u b l i s h i n g t h e no ted works w i t h major changes .

Some a u t h o r s , l i k e Governor G e n e r a l ' s award winner Hugh

Garner ( l 9 7 3 ) , c l a i m t o write ' b y e a r ' .

" ( I was) awfu l i n grammar i n p u b l i c s c h o o l and s t i l l am today. Though I don ' t know what a ge rund o r a p a r t i c i p l e is , and d o n ' t want t o know, I c a n u s e them c o r r e c t l y i n a w r i t t e n s e n t e n c e . I ' m l i k e a s e l f - t a u g h t j a z z p i a n i s t who c a n ' t r e a d a word of mus ic b u t knows t h e b l a c k keys from t h e w h i t e k e y s , and which ones t o p r e s s . ... I c a n a l s o s p o t an ungrammat ica l s e n t e n c e most t i m e s ( and) know how t o change it ." (p . 3 2 8 ) .

c h r i s t i e 2 and Garner were n o t a l o n e : Conven t ions of

(1) A number o f a l t e r n a t e s p e l l i n g s e x i s t f o r t h i s a u t h o r : Feydor , Feodor , and Dostoyevsky a r e among them.

( 2 ) C h r i s t i e c l a i m s 'working i n h e r mind' is e a s i e r because s h e d o e s n ' t have t o worry a b o u t h e r s p e l l i n g , which s h e d e s c r i b e s a s ' ter r ib le ' .

Page 53: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

w r i t i n g have e l u d e d o t h e r well-known wri ters a s w e l l (1).

L i t t l e e x i s t s i n t h e l i t e r a t u r e t o i n d i c a t e how w r i t e r s

d e v e l o p an awareness of when, how, o r how much t o r e v i s e , e d i t

o r r e w r i t e , b u t T a t e (1981) s u g g e s t s i t t a k e s a "good r e a d e r t o

know whether a p i e c e of w r i t i n g is working o r n o t and i f i t

i s n ' t , w h a t ' s wrong w i t h it."

C e r t a i n l y a good r e a d e r w i l l r e c o g n i z e whether o r n o t a

s t o r y works, b u t t h e argument t h a t good r e a d e r s c a n r e c o g n i z e

why a s t o r y works o r d o e s n o t work is unsuppor ted . T a t e (1981)

d o e s n o t a d d r e s s t h i s p o i n t , and no i n d i c a t i o n is g i v e n of t h e

b a s i s f o r t h i s s u p p o s i t i o n . However, t h e r e is a p e r s i s t a n t

n o t i o n t h a t good r e a d e r s s h o u l d b e good writers: i t may b e t h a t

good r e a d e r s b u i l d i n t e r n a l models a g a i n s t which t h e y measure

w r i t t e n m a t e r i a l . I t h a s been shown t h a t e x p e r i e n c e d writers d o

b u i l d banks of r e p a i r s t r a t e g i e s (Flower and Hayes, 1985, 1986;

Applebee, 1 9 8 4 ) . I f r e p a i r s t r a t e g i e s c a n be drawn from a model

g a i n e d t h r o u g h r e a d i n g , i t migh t s u g g e s t t h a t some p a r t o f t h e

w r i t i n g p r o c e s s may b e a c q u i r e d p a s s i v e l y , and n o t s o l e l y

t h r o u g h a c t i v e p a r t i c i p a t i o n , b u t t h i s is an u n t e s t e d n o t i o n .

I m ~ a c t of Teacher E d i t i n a on S t u d e n t W r i t i n a - - ~ - - - - - - - - - ~

S e a r l e and D i l l o n ( 1 9 8 0 ) , i n a s t u d y of t h e impact of

t e a c h e r - e d i t i n g on 135 p i e c e s o f s t u d e n t w r i t i n g p rov ided by 1 2

e l e m e n t a r y s c h o o l t e a c h e r s , showed t e a c h e r emphasis t o b e

(1) J a n e t Hobhouse ( 1 9 7 5 ) , Anybody Who Was Anybody. G e r t r u d e S t e i n ' s e a r l y e s s a y s a t Harvard showed " s h e w r o t e s i m p l e E n g l i s h s e n t e n c e s w i t h g r e a t d i f f i c u l t y , f a i l i n g i n h e r command of b a s i c g rammat ica l c o n s t r u c t i o n and s i m p l e s p e l l i n g . . ..Her h a n d w r i t i n g was and remained a t r o c i o u s . "

Page 54: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

overwhelmingly on form, w i t h p r e d o m i n a n t l y e v a l u a t i v e and

i n s t r u c t i v e r e s p o n s e s . Teacher comments a p p e a r e d t o have been

i n f l u e n c e d l a r g e l y by t h e q u a n t i t y and m e c h a n i c a l c o r r e c t n e s s o f

w r i t i n g produced by a s t u d e n t .

The c r i t e r i a f o r good w r i t i n g a t t h e i n t e r m e d i a t e g r a d e s l i s t e d by p a r t i c i p a n t s were numerous, b u t r e l a t i v e l y uni form c r i t e r i a c o u l d b e c l a s s i f i e d a s t h r e e major c a t e g o r i e s : mechan ics , l a n g u a g e s t r u c t u r e , and s t y l e . A l l t h r e e c a t e g o r i e s d e a l t w i t h forms o f l anguage . Only one comment by one p a r t i c i p a n t d e a l t d i r e c t l y w i t h c o n t e n t . ( p . 238)

S e a r l e and D i l l o n ' s was a p r e l i m i n a r y s t u d y : t h e y no ted

t h e need f o r more r e s e a r c h w i t h g r e a t e r numbers of p a r t i c i p a n t s ,

t o e i t h e r c o n f i r m o r deny some s u p p o s i t i o n s which c o u l d n o t b e

s u p p o r t e d . For example, t h e y s a i d many t e a c h e r s were u n a b l e t o

p r o v i d e samples o f t h e i r r e s p o n s e s and s o i t appeared t h a t some

p u p i l s , i n f a c t , r e c e i v e d no r e s p o n s e s t o t h e i r w r i t i n g . C

A f u r t h e r a r e a of s t u d y s u g g e s t e d by S e a r l e and D i l l o n

( 1 9 8 0 ) d e a l s w i t h examining t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t much

i n s t r u c t i o n i n w r i t i n g is s t i l l p r o d u c t - c e n t e r e d because

p r o d u c t s l e n d t h e m s e l v e s more e a s i l y t o marking-for-form r a t h e r

t h a n t h e m a r k i n g - f o r - c o n t e n t r e q u i r e d i n p r o c e s s e v a l u a t i o n . The

e d i t i n g done by t h e t e a c h e r s i n S e a r l e and D i l l o n ' s s t u d y was

a l m o s t a l l of t h e e r r o r - c o r r e c t i n g v a r i e t y , and comments by

t e a c h e r s , s t r e s s i n g form r a t h e r t h a n c o n t e n t , d i d l i t t l e t o

e n c o u r a g e s t u d e n t s t o do more t h a n r e p a i r m i s t a k e s .

Page 55: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

E v a l u a t i o n is a n i m p o r t a n t p a r t o f t h e p r o c e s s o f

i n s t r u c t i o n ( S t r i c k l a n d , 1961) which c a n o f f e r a p o w e r f u l t o o l

i n r e i n f o r c i n g p o s i t i v e a c h i e v e m e n t , b u t m a r k i n g o n l y m e c h a n i c a l

and g r a m m a t i c a l e r r o r s c a n c a r r y w i t h i t t h e message t h a t t h e s e

a r e t h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t p a r t s o f w r i t i n g , and d e p r e c i a t e t h e

v a l u e o f form, c o n t e n t , t o n e , v o i c e , and s t y l e . Responding t o

e r r o r s a f t e r s t u d e n t s h a v e handed i n what t h e y c o n s i d e r t o be

f i n a l d r a f t s a p p e a r s , i n a n y c a s e , t o r e s u l t i n o n l y minor

r e v i s i o n s ( D a n i e l s , 1 9 8 5 ) . T e a c h e r s may d o b e t t e r by f i r s t

p a y i n g a t t e n t i o n t o what s t u d e n t s w i s h t o s a y and t h e i r p u r p o s e

i n s a y i n g i t , and o n l y a f t e r a t t e n d i n g t o t h e s e i t e m s making a n

a p p r a i s a l o f t h e form i n which t h e i d e a s were set o u t

( S t r i c k l a n d , 1 9 6 1 ) . T h e r e a r e some i n d i c a t i o n s t h a t s t u d e n t s c a n l e a r n from

r e v i s i n g a p a p e r a f t e r t h e t e a c h e r h a s r e v i e w e d i t b u t t h i s t y p e

o f e d i t i n g f o r e r r o r i d e n t i f i c a t i o n a p p e a r s t o h a v e o n l y a m i n o r

e f f e c t , a f f e c t i n g o n l y t h e m e c h a n i c s o f w r i t i n g (Bux ton , 1 9 5 9 ) .

F u r t h e r , Lyman ( 1 9 3 1 ) found a c o r r e l a t i o n o f up t o f i f t y p e r c e n t

i n t h e c o r r e c t i o n o f g r a m m a t i c a l and m e c h a n i c a l e r r o r s when

s t u d e n t s l e a r n e d t o c o r r e c t e r r o r s t h e m s e l v e s b e f o r e s u b m i t t i n g

p a p e r s , t h u s f o r t h e t e a c h e r t h e r e a p p e a r s t o b e g r e a t e r

a d v a n t a g e t o s p e n d i n g t i m e t e a c h i n g s e l f - e d i t i n g t h a n i n

s p e n d i n g t i m e c o r r e c t i n g s t u d e n t p a p e r s f o r e r r o r s ( P a u l s e n ,

1984)

A n e c d o t a l r e p o r t s o f w r i t i n g p r o c e s s by e x p e r i e n c e d

Page 56: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

writers appear t o i n d i c a t e t h a t writers f o c u s on d i f f e r e n t

m a t t e r s i n s u c c e s s i v e d r a f t s : i n a f i r s t d r a f t (and t h e r e may b e

s e v e r a l f i r s t d r a f t s ) , writers a r e more a p t t o hammer o u t t h e

b a s i c form of t h e p i e c e and r o u g h l y f rame i n t h e s t r u c t u r e ;

second d r a f t s t end t o f o c u s on a d j u s t i n g t h e s t r u c t u r e , making

changes by e d i t i n g what was w r i t t e n ( o r n o t w r i t t e n ) i n t h e

f i r s t d r a f t (Tchud i , 1985) . Tchudi compared t h e work of

e x p e r i e n c e d and i n e x p e r i e n c e d writers t o t h e work of amateur and

p r o f e s s i o n a l c a r p e n t e r s : p r o f e s s i o n a l s see t h a t a door jamb i s

o u t o f a l i g n m e n t and know how t o shim i t i n t o p l a c e . Amateurs

l i v e w i t h a door t h a t ' s hung c r o o k e d l y .

Exper ienced writers o f t e n u s e f i r s t d r a f t s f o r s t r u c t u r e ,

n o t i n t h e s e n s e of o u t l i n i n g a framework which w i l l b e f i l l e d

i n l a t e r , b u t by d i s c o v e r i n g t h e framework somewhere i n t h e

f i r s t d r a f t and f o r m a l i z i n g , d e l i n e a t i n g and s t r e n g t h e n i n g t h a t

shape i n s u b s e q u e n t d r a f t s ( P a u l s e n , 1984; Weathers , 1985;

G o r r e l l , 1985) .

Edlting P o e t r y

Most r e s e a r c h i n t o e d i t i n g and r e v i s i n g d e a l s o n l y w i t h

e x p o s i t o r y w r i t i n g , b u t D e l l a P i a n a (1978) h a s c r e a t e d a model o f

w r i t i n g - a s - r e v i s i o n r e c o g n i z i n g f o u r p h a s e s i n p o e t i c w r i t i n g ,

which o f f e r s t r o n g p a r a l l e l s t o t h e s t a g e s i n e x p o s i t o r y

w r i t i n g :

Page 57: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

1) the preconception and set (an initial vision of what

the work will be,)

2 ) discrimination and dissonance (seeing what the work

does or not do and finding matches or mismatches between what

the text does, what it is intended to do, and what the text

itself suggests) , 3 ) tension (concern with getting the work to do what one

intends it to do) , and 4) reconception.

Although few researchers studying expository writing have

applied their findings to poetic writing, DellaPiana' s model

does appear to closely match the processes which have come to be

regard'ed as basic to the expository writing process. Further

study may reveal more similarities between the two processes.

Like researchers in expository writing, DellaPiana

suggests revision in the writing of poetry should not be seen

solely as editing and polishing after a work is largely finished

but as a process which must occur prior to and throughout the

writing of the poem until completion or abandonnent of the work.

In common with other genres, there appears to be a lack

of accord on the criteria for poetic writing: What constitutes

'good' poetry, or even what poetry is (DellaPiana, 1978).

New Model for Editing and Revisinq.

Flower, Hayes, et a l , (1986) have postulated a new model

Page 58: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

FIGURE TWO

Processes Knowledge

Goals, Cri terla I and Constraints Evaluation

Read to:

Comprehend

Eva1 uate

Defi ne Problems

for Texts and ' Plans .

Problem Representation

Diagnosis .- htwtion well-defined I

Cognitive Processes in Revision. From Detection,

diagnosis, and the strategies of revision, by Linda

Flower, John R. Hayes, Linda Carey, Karen Schriver, and

James Stratman, in College Composition and

Communication, February, 1986. Copyright 1986 by the

National Council of Teachers of English. Reprinted with

permission.

Page 59: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

f o r e d i t i n g and r e v i s i n g which t h e y b e l i e v e sets o u t

i n t e r e s t i n g , u s e f u l and t e s t a b b l e h y p o t h e s e s a b o u t t h e k i n d s of

s k i l l s e x p e r t s and n o v i c e s a r e l i k e l y t o e x h i b i t d i f f e r e n t i a l l y ,

p a r t i c u l a r l y on c o n t r o l l e d r e v i s i o n t a s k s . T h e i r h y p o t h e s i s

i n c l u d e s t h e assumpt ion t h a t " e x p e r t i s e a f f e c t s n o t o n l y what

i n f o r m a t i o n a s u b j e c t may heed i n s h o r t t e r m memory, b u t a l s o

t o some e x t e n t t h e s u b j e c t ' s a b i l i t y t o r e p o r t what i s heeded.

Thus, t h e y r e a s o n , e x p e r t s who have " o v e r l e a r n e d o r automated"

some w r i t i n g s u b p r o c e s s e s

" . . . w i l l n o t be a b l e t o v e r b a l i z e t h i s p r o c e s s , whereas n o v i c e s can . . . C o n v e r s e l y , b o t h e x p e r t s and n o v i c e s might ... u s e t h e same s u b p r o c e s s , b u t o n l y e x p e r t s -- a s a r e s u l t of b e t t e r v e r b a l s k i l l s -- might be a b l e t o r e p o r t t h a t t h e y were d o i n g sot ' (p . 9 ) .

Flower f u r t h e r assumes some h i g h l e v e l p r o c e s s e s c a n n o t

be automateu "no m a t t e r how e x p e r t t h e e x p e r t " and t h a t " t r a c e s

of t h e i n f o r m a t i o n used o r produced i n t h e p r o c e s s w i l l b e

a v a i l a b l e f o r r e p o r t i n g i n s h o r t - t e r m memory." A s a chgck on C

r e c a l l r e p o r t i n g , Flower examined t e x t u a l d a t a , which p rov ided

i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t t h e a s s u m p t i o n s c o n c e r n i n g t h e p r o c e s s e s

employed by b o t h n o v i c e s and e x p e r t s . I n n e a r l y a l l c a s e s t h e

p r o c e s s d a t a was p a r a l l e l e d by d i f f e r e n c e s i n w r i t t e n o u t p u t .

C e n t r a l s u b p r o c e s s e s i d e n t i f i e d were: t a s k d e f i n i t i o n ,

e v a l u a t i o n , problem r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , d e t e c t i o n , d i a g n o s i s and

s t r a t e g y s e l e c t i o n . ( S e e F i g u r e Two).

Model l ing E d i t i n g i n W r i t i n q

There a r e two major a p p r o a c h e s t o t h e q u e s t i o n of

Page 60: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

model l ing : one h o l d s t h a t good w r i t i n g ( e g , c l a s s i c s ) p r o v i d e s a

model f o r s t u d e n t s t o u s e when l e a r n i n g t o wr i te , implying t h a t

s t u d e n t s c a n i n t e r n a l i z e whate.ver i t i s i n t h e w r i t i n g t h a t

makes i t 'good ' and i n c o r p o r a t e t h o s e i n g r e d i e n t s i n t o t h e i r own

w r i t i n g . There is some s u g g e s t i o n t h a t w h i l e good l i t e r a t u r e c a n

b e r e a d i l y e n j o y e d , t h e smoothness of t h e f i n i s h e d p r o d u c t c a n

r e n d e r i t i n a c c e s s i b l e a s a model f o r l e a r n i n g .

The o t h e r major approach t o t h e q u e s t i o n of m o d e l l i n g

d e a l s w i t h b e h a v i o u r m o d e l l i n g : t e a c h e r - a s - w r i t e r p r o v i d i n g

s t u d e n t s w i t h a n a c t i v e model n o t o n l y of t h e w r i t i n g p r o c e s s ,

b u t a s h a r e d model of t h e w r i t i n g p r o d u c t a s w e l l . R e s e a r c h e r s

have noted t h a t " t h e power of t e a c h i n g by example c a n n o t b e

o v e r e s t i m a t e d " and i t must p l a y a r o l e i n c u r r i c u l u m ... development ( F i n k e l , 1984; D. Murray, 1968; S t r a s s e r , 1 9 8 4 ) .

While t h e r e a r e s t r o n g s u g g e s t i o n s t h a t t h e r e is a n

improved c l a s s r o o m p r o d u c t when c l a s s r o o m m o d e l l i n g is p r o v i d e d

by a w r i t i n g t e a c h e r , no s t a t i s t i c a l s u p p o r t f o r t h i s

s u p p o s i t i o n a p p e a r s t o be a v a i l a b l e . Whether t h e p e r c e i v e d

e f f e c t ex i s t s because of t h e m o d e l l i n g , b e c a u s e of a s u p p o r t i v e

and informed a t t i t u d e by an a c t i v e l y w r i t i n g t e a c h e r , whether i t

r e f l e c t s a s e l f - f u l f i l l i n g prophecy o r 'Pygmal ion ' e f f e c t ,

whether i t is a c o m b i n a t i o n of t h e s e f a c t o r s , o r whether i t

e x i s t s a t a l l , h a s y e t t o b e shown.

S t u d e n t s of w r i t i n g t e a c h e r s may have an a d v a n t a g e i n

t h a t t h e y c a n l e a r n t h r o u g h t h e "same n a t u r a l i s t i c approach

Page 61: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

by which t h e y l e a r n t o t a l k , " ( A m e s , 1985; B a r t h o l o m a e , 1985)

t h a t i s , by i m i t a t i o n and c l o s e p e r s o n a l i n t e r a c t i o n . T h e r e a r e

i n d i c a t i o n s t h a t s t u d e n t s who h a v e had t h e a d v a n t a g e o f

n a t u r a l i s t i c m e t h o d s o f a c q u i r i n g l a n g u a g e a r t s s k i l l s i n t h e i r

home e n v i r o m e n t s , b o t h b e f o r e and d u r i n g f o r m a l s c h o o l i n g , d o

be t te r i n r e a d i n g and w r i t i n g t h a n s t u d e n t s who l a c k t h i s

e x p o s u r e (Bur rows , 1961; C l a y , 1975; H a l l , More tz and S t a t o m ,

1976; Hea th , 1983; King and R e n t e l , 1981 ; Morrow, 1 9 8 1 ) .

S t u d e n t s d o a p p e a r t o l e a r n by i m i t a t i o n and m i m i c r y ,

w h e t h e r a t t h e l e v e l o f t h e u n i v e r s i t y , l e a r n i n g t h e l a n g u a g e of

d i s c o u r s e i n w r i t t e n c o m p o s i t i o n ( B a r t h o l o m a e , 1 9 8 5 ) , o r i n

p r i m a r y and p r e s c h o o l classes, l e a r n i n g s o c i a l c o n c e p t s t h r o u g h

t h e s y m b o l i c p r o c e s s e s o f d r a m a t i c p l a y ( P e l l i g r i n n i , 1 9 8 4 ) .

S t u d e n t s m u s t become c o m f o r t a b l e w i t h t h e c o n v e n t i o n s u sed i n

a n y p a r t i c u l a r community ( F i s h , 1 9 8 0 ) and u n t i l t a k e s p l a c e ,

t h e y w i l l p r o g r e s s w i t h g r e a t d i f f i c u l t y , i f a t a l l . S t u d e n t s

work ing w i t h i n na r row c o n f i n e s and c o n v e n t i o n s i n t h e c l a s s r o o m ,

may be e x p e c t e d t o p r o d u c e n a r r o w , c o n v e n t i o n a l c l a s s r o o m

w r i t i n g : s t u d e n t s mus t b e g i v e n themes t h a t m a t t e r t o them

( A m e s , 1985 ; Bereiter and S c a r d e m a l i a , 1984; C r a b l e - Sundmacher ,

1984; Mar r , 1 9 8 4 ) and r e s t r i c t e d c l a s s r o o m c o d e s w i l l l i k e l y

p r o d u c e e q u a l l y r e s t r i c t i v e w r i t i n g (Gere and S m i t h , 1979) . I f

t e a c h e r s wan t s t u d e n t s t o p r o d u c e a u t h e n t i c w r i t i n g , t h e y mus t

p r o v i d e t h e s t u d e n t s w i t h a u t h e n t i c a s s i g n m e n t s ( B u t l e r , 1 9 8 0 ) .

Page 62: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

B u t l e r (1981) h a s r e p o r t e d some s u c c e s s i n promot ing

a u t h e n t i c r e v i s i o n by o f f e r i n g s t u d e n t s t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o l e a r n

e d i t i n g and r e v i s i n g s t r a t e g i e s by a n a l y z i n g and working w i t h

g e n u i n e w r i t i n g produced by anonymous writers. T h i s t y p e o f

e m o t i o n a l l y n e u t r a l m a t e r i a l a p p e a r s t o e n a b l e t h e i n e x p e r i e n c e d

writer t o a v o i d problems which sometimes a r i s e when t h e

e g o c e n t r i c i t y of young writers meets t h e l a c k of t a c t among p e e r

e d i t o r s .

Learn by W r i t i n g , Teach by C o r r e c t i n g

Rohman and W l e c k e (1964) d i s p u t e d a n o t i o n which is s t i l l

common today : t h e r e is " s o much i n c o r r e c t n e s s and

i n e f f e c t i v e n e s s 1 ' i n c o m p o s i t i o n s w r i t t e n by s t u d e n t s b e c a u s e

s t u d e n t s a ) have n o t been t a u g h t enough a b o u t l anguage and

r h e t o r i c , o r b ) have n o t been t a u g h t e f f e c t i v e l y enough.

According t o Rohman and W l e c k e ( 1 9 6 4 ) , s t u d e n t s a r e t a u g h t a b o u t

l a n g u a g e and r h e t o r i c i n one way o r a n o t h e r t h r o u g h o u t most of

t h e i r s c h o o l i n g and t h e n o t i o n t h a t e f f e c t i v e t e a c h i n g means

n o t h i n g more t h a n r i g o r o u s t e a c h i n g i s q u e s t i o n a b l e , There a r e

two a s s u m p t i o n s which t h e y s a y a r e a l m o s t dogmas w i t h many

t e a c h e r s : " I f you want t o l e a r n t o w i t e , write! I f you want t o /

t e a c h w r i t i n g , c o r r e c t !

There is no ' s p e c i a l magic ' i n t h e s e o f t - t r i e d a p p r o a c h e s

a c c o r d i n g t o Rohman and Wlecke (1964) , who s t a t e d t h e y b e l i e v e d

Page 63: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

r e s e a r c h e r s had n o t s o much d i s c r e d i t e d f o r a l l t i m e f r e q u e n t

w r i t i n g and h a r d m a r k i n g , a s t h e y had a l t e r e d t h e i r v i e w s on t h e

s u b j e c t f rom a x i o m a t i c t o p r o b l e m a t i c .

Many wri ters e x p r e s s t h e b e l i e f t h a t t h e o n l y way t o

l e a r n w r i t i n g is by w r i t i n g ( D . Murray, 19968; Elbow, 1 9 7 3 ,

1 9 8 3 ) , b u t low vo lumes o f w r i t i n g may n o t be t h e o n l y r e a s o n why

some s t u d e n t s write p o o r l y . Some may h a v e g e n u i n e d i f f i c u l t y

r e c o g n i z i n g s t r u c t u r a l p r o b l e m s i n s e n t e n c e s ( S h a u g h n e s s y , 1 9 7 7 )

o r s t r u g g l e w i t h s h o r t - t e r m memory l i m i t s ( D a i u t e , 1 9 8 2 ) . Some

s t u d e n t s may b e s u c h p o o r r e a d e r s o f t h e i r own work t h a t t h e y d o

n o t know what r e q u i r e s e d i t i n g ( T a t e , 1 9 8 1 ) , o r may n o t

u n d e r s t a n d t h e t r u e s c o p e o f r e v i s i o n a c t i v i t i e s ( I ) , r e g a r d i n g

r e v i s i o n a s " t i d y i n g up f i r s t d r a f t copy" ( D . Murray, 1978) o r

" s h u f f l i n g a few commas a round" ( F u l w i l e r , 1 9 8 2 ) t o make papers

more a c c e p t a b l e .

T h e r e a r e many ' i n v i s i b l e ' f a c t o r s i n v o l v e d i n w r i t i n g : a

p e r f e c t l y c o r r e c t p a p e r may c o n t a i n ' n o i s e ' and ' s t a t i c ' which L

d i s t r a c t t h e a t t e n t i o n o f t h e r e a d e r (Marde r , 1984) and t h e s e

a r e c o n d i t i o n s which e d i t o r s l e a r n t o r e c o g n i z e and a l t e r i n t h e

e d i t i n g p r o c e s s e s . A t t e n t i o n o f t h e a u d i e n c e c a n b e l o s t

t h r o u g h c i r c u m l o c u t i o n s , c l i c h e s , e x c e s s i v e summary and t h e

r e n d i t i o n o f t h e o b v i o u s (Marde r , 1 9 8 4 ) . N o i s e may i n c l u d e new

i n f o r m a t i o n which i s n o t c l e a r l y e x p i a i n e d i n t h e t e x t ,

- -

(1) S e e F a i g l e y and Witte ( 1 9 8 1 ) Taxomony o f R e v i s i o n , ( F i g . 3 )

Page 64: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

FIGURE THREE

Revision Changes

Surfare Changes Text-Base Changes

Formal Meaning-Preserving C hanges Changes

Spelling Additions Tense, Number, Deletions

and Modality Substitutions ~bbreviation Permutations Punctuation Distributions Format Consolidations

Microstructure Changes

Additions Deletions Substitutions .Permutations Distributions Consolidations

Macrost ructure Changes

Additions Deletions Substitutions Permutations Distributions Conso1;dations

A taxonomy of revision changes. From Analyzing Revision,

by Lester Faigley and Stepehen Witte, in College Composition and

Communication, December 1981, Vol. 37. Copyright 1981 by the

National Council of Teachers of English. Reprinted with

permission.

Page 65: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

t h e t e x t , o r d e n s e series o f a b s t r a c t i o n s which f r u s t r a t e and

t i r e t h e r e a d e r w i t h unfa thomable i n f o r m a t i o n (Marder , 1 9 8 4 ) .

I t is much e a s i e r t o mark e r r o r s t h a n t o d e a l w i t h n o i s e

f a c t o r s of t h e s e s o r t s , b u t e r r o r c o r r e c t i o n is n o t a lways t h e

b e s t e d i t i n g s t r a t e g y t o improve a p i e c e of w r i t l n g ( S t e w i g ,

1 9 8 3 ) . Very o b j e c t i v e e r r o r c o r r e c t i o n may l e a d s t u d e n t s t o

b e l i e v e t h a t good w r i t i n g i s s imply a m a t t e r of a v o i d i n g e r r o r s

w h i l e o v e r l y s u b j e c t i v e e v a l u a t i o n may l e a d s t u d e n t s t o t h e

e q u a l l y e r r o n e o u s i m p r e s s i o n t h a t t h e a r t of w r i t i n g w e l l is

m e r e l y t h e a r t o f a p p e a l i n g t o t h e t a s t e s and whims of one

p a r t i c u l a r t e a c h e r ( S t e w i g , 1983) . Summary

To summarize t h e r e s e a r c h , i t would appear t h a t t h e

'secret ' t o good w r i t i n g h a s much more t o d o w i t h e x p e r i e n c e and

a p p l i c a t i o n t h a n w i t h ' knacks ' o r ' ways w i t h words' . Exper ienced

wri ters make u s e o f d i f f e r e n t a p p r o a c h e s t o w r i t i n g , b u t i n

g e n e r a l appear t o b e g i n w i t h some s o r t of i n t e r n a l e d i t i n g

p r o c e s s , fo l lowed by e x p e r i m e n t a t i o n and g l o b a l r e o r g a n i z a t i o n

o r r e v i s i o n , b e f o r e t h e y t u r n t h e i r a t t e n t i o n s m a l l and

p a r t i c u l a r p a r t s of t h e whole. These s t e p s may be r e p e a t e d any

number of t i m e s and i n any o r d e r , b u t o n l y a f t e r t h e s e s t e p s a r e

s a t i s f a c t o r i l y comple ted d o e x p e r i e n c e d writers a p p e a r t o pay

c o n s c i o u s a t t e n t i o n t o e r r o r c o r r e c t i o n and p r o o f r e a d i n g .

The e d i t i n g d e m o n s t r a t e d by p e e r e d i t o r s i n t h i s s t u d y

w i l l be compared, i n s o f a r a s is p o s s i b l e , w i t h t h e e d i t i n g

h a b i t s of e x p e r i e n c e d writers r e v e a l e d i n t h e l i t e r a t u r e .

58

Page 66: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

CHAPTER THREE

DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY

EDITING BEHAVIOURS

Accounts and studies of the writing and editing

behaviours of different groups of writers deal with beginning

writers (Dobson, 1983; D. Graves, 1975), experienced writers

(Hull, 1984; Sommers, 1980; Waldrep, 1985), young writers (Lamme

and Childers, 1983), intermediate writers (Benson, 1979, Odell,

1975) , senior secondary writers (Beach, 1979; Bridwell, 1980; Emig, 1971; Land, 1984; Monohan, 1984), college and university

writers (Crowley, 1981; Perl, 1978; Piankao, 1979), and

professional writers (Shuman, 1981.) Each of these deals with

editing r-evising done by writers, using their own work.

Rationale C

In order to study editing processes, it was necessary

to find some way to examine editing which would allow for

comparison and contrast between various pieces of editing. To

accomplish this, a common ground for editing was required, and

this common ground was provided by a standard text.

In order to more closely simulate peer editing, the

standard text was written by a same-age, same-grade student in

the same school district, but at a different school.

59

Page 67: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

I t was hoped t h a t p r o d u c t a n a l y s i s would p r o v i d e a way

of examining t h e e d i t i n g w i t h o u t t h a t work b e i n g i n f l u e n c e d by

t h e many v a r i a b l e s i n t r o d u c e d by w r i t i n g and e d i t i n g e i the r

o n e ' s own work, t h e work of a known w r i t i n g p a r t n e r , o r m a t e r i a l

which d i f f e r e d i n some way from t h a t w i t h which o t h e r s t u d e n t s

d e a l t . S t u d e n t s i n t h e s t u d y would be p e e r e d i t i n g , b u t w i t h one

major d i f f e r e n c e from cus tomary p e e r e d i t i n g : t h e y would s h a r e

t h e same p e e r . Each member of t h e g r o u p was g i v e n a pho to copy

of t h e same s t a n d a r d t e x t .

The e d i t i n g done by s t u d e n t s would be examined i n a n

a t t e m p t t o d i s c o v e r how t h e s t u d e n t s e d i t e d , whether t h e r e was

e v i d e n c e of p r i o r i t i z a t i o n i n t h e i r e d i t i n g p r o c e s s e s , whether

t h e e d i t i n g was e r r o r - c e n t e r e d o r c o n t e n t - c e n t e r e d , and what

s o r t s of s u g g e s t i o n s s t u d e n t s made when p e e r e d i t i n g .

T h i s s t u d y d o e s n o t i n v o l v e p r o t o c o l r e s e a r c h . I t is a

p r o d u c t s t u d y o n l y . No c o n t r o l g roup was used and t h e sample

s i z e was s m a l l . I t is f r e e l y acknowledged t h a t t h i s work i s

i n s u f f i c i e n t t o s u p p o r t any wide g e n e r a l i z a t i o n , b u t i t may

i n d i c a t e a r e a s of f u r t h e r s t u d y which migh t be p r o d u c t i v e .

P a r t i c i p a n t s

T h e s t u d e n t s t a k i n g p a r t i n t h i s e x e r c i s e were members

of a Grade s i x c l a s s . There were 40 c l a s s members, r a n g i n g i n

age from 11 t o 1 3 y e a r s , w i t h most i n t h e 12-year o l d group.

60

Page 68: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

No p r e c i s e mean a g e is a v a i l a b l e . The c l a s s c o n s i s t e d of 19

g i r l s and 2 1 boys. The work of two s t u d e n t s was n o t i n c l u d e d i n

t h e o b s e r v a t i o n s . These s t u d e n t s , b o t h boys , had a r r i v e d i n

Canada v e r y r e c e n t l y : one from As ia , one from Europe, and spoke

v e r y l i t t l e E n g l i s h . N e i t h e r e d i t e d , r e v i s e d , c o r r e c t e d o r

a l t e r e d t h e s t a n d a r d t e x t i n any way. Each w r o t e h i s name on t h e

p a p e r , t h e n r e c o p i e d t h e e x i s t i n g t e x t . Under t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s

i t was n o t f e l t t h a t t h e i r work was t r u l y r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of p e e r

e d i t i n g , and s o i t was n o t i n c l u d e d i n t h e s c o r i n g . The

remain ing c l a s s members were t h u s e v e n l y d i v i d e d , w i t h 19 boys

and 19 g i r l s p a r t i c i p a t i n g .

S e t t i n g

The s e s s i o n took p l a c e i n t h e c l a s s r o o m normal ly

occup ied by t h a t c l a s s . No s p e c i a l a r r a n g e m e n t s were made w i t h i n

t h e c l a s s r o o m . S t u d e n t s were n o t v i d e o t a p e d , f i l m e d o r r ecorded

i n any way d u r i n g t h e w r i t i n g p r o c e s s , nor were t h e y s u b j e c t e d C

t o any o b s e r v a t i o n o t h e r t h a n t h a t which normal ly t a k e s p l a c e

d u r i n g a c l a s s r o o m a c t i v i t y . The t e a c h e r moved around t h e room,

respond ing t o g e n e r a l q u e s t i o n s from s t u d e n t s b u t n o t i n i t i a t i n g

s u g g e s t i o n s on how s t u d e n t s migh t d e a l w i t h t h e s t a n d a r d t e x t

m a t e r i a l .

Q u e s t i o n s asked by s t u d e n t s g e n e r a l l y d e a l t w i t h such

m a t t e r s a s whether t h e work s h o u l d b e i n pen o r i n p e n c i l , c o u l d

r e d p e n c i l s b e used , s h o u l d i t b e d o u b l e o r s i n g l e s p a c e d , d i d

61

Page 69: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

s p e l l i n g have t o be " o u t of t h e i r heads" o r were t h e y a l lowed t o

u s e d i c t i o n a r i e s , and o t h e r m a t t e r s of t h a t n a t u r e .

I n s t r u c t i o n s

S t u d e n t s were g i v e n i n d i v i d u a l p h o t o c o p i e s of a t y p e d ,

double-spaced s t a n d a r d t e x t , a l o n g w i t h two s h e e t s of l i n e d

h a l f - p a g e f o o l s c a p p a p e r . E x t r a s u p p l i e s of p a p e r were p l a c e d a t

t h e f r o n t o f t h e room f o r s t u d e n t s t o u s e i f , and a s , r e q u i r e d .

S t u d e n t s had a c c e s s t o whatever books t h e y n o r m a l l y used d u r i n g

w r i t i n g p e r i o d s ( d i c t i o n a r y , t h e s a u r u s , e tc .) and c o u l d w r i t e i n

e i t h e r pen o r p e n c i l , w i t h t h e s o l e s t i p u l a t i o n t h a t t h e r e s u l t

must be r e a d a b l e .

The o n l y d e v i a t i o n from t h e i r normal r o u t i n e was t h a t

t h e y were r e q u e s t e d n o t t o u s e e i t h e r ' l i q u i d p a p e r ' o r e r a s e r s .

Anything t o be d e l e t e d was t o b e s t r o k e d o u t w i t h a s i n g l e l i n e .

T h i s was done i n o r d e r t h a t i t would b e p o s s i b l e t o see e x a c t l y

what words o r p h r a s e s had been a l t e r e d and , i f changes were

made, t o p e r m i t compar ison of t h e a l t e r e d t e x t w i t h t h e o r i g i n a l

t e x t . T h i s a l s o made i t p o s s i b l e t o see whether s t u d e n t s made

more t h a n one change o r e d i t e d t h e i r own comments.

These s t u d e n t s were accustomed t o u s i n g ' l i q u i d p a p e r '

t o b l a n k o u t words, p h r a s e s o r s e n t e n c e s t h e y wished t o a l t e r ,

t h e n w r i t i n g c o r r e c t i o n s o r r e v i s i o n s on t h e opaqued s u r f a c e .

I t was emphasized t h a t , a s t h e y were n o t t o u s e l i q u i d

p a p e r o r e r a s e r s , n e a t n e s s would n o t b e c o n s i d e r e d , b u t t h a t

62

Page 70: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

l e g i b i l i t y would b e v e r y i m p o r t a n t .

S t u d e n t s were t o l d t h i s was n o t a t e s t , b u t a p r a c t i s e

e x e r c i s e which would n o t b e marked i n any way. I f t h e y d i d n o t

f e e l c o m f o r t a b l e working w i t h t h e s t a n d a r d t e x t , t h e y were f r e e

t o write on a t o p i c of t h e i r own choos ing . No s t u d e n t s e l e c t e d

t h i s o p t i o n . There a r e a number of p o s s i b l e r e a s o n s f o r t h i s :

s t u d e n t s may have f e l t working w i t h a s s i g n e d t e x t was ' e a s i e r ' ,

t h e y may n o t have wished t o do something o t h e r s t u d e n t s were n o t

d o i n g , may have chosen t o u s e a d e l a y i n g s t r a t e g y u n t i l t h e y had

a b e t t e r i d e a e i t h e r of what was e x p e c t e d of them, o r what t h e y

wanted t o do , o r o t h e r i n f l u e n c e s may have been a t work. The

t i m e f rame f o r t h i s e x e r c i s e was a r e g u l a r c l a s s r o o m p e r i o d of

35 m i n u t e s , h e l d i n t h e f i r s t p e r i o d a f t e r l u n c h .

S t u d e n t s were asked t o r e a d t h e pho tocop ied s t o r y , and

t h e n t o e d i t i t , making any s u g g e s t i o n s t h a t t h e y t h o u g h t migh t

h e l p t h e writer t o improve t h e s t o r y . I • ’ t i m e p e r m i t t e d ,

s t u d e n t s were encouraged t o r e v i s e t h e s t o r y t h e m s e l v e s , making

any changes t o i t t h a t t h e y wished.

They were a l s o t o l d t h a t i f , a f t e r e d i t i n g t h e s t o r y ,

t h e r e was s t i l l t i m e a v a i l a b l e b u t t h e y d i d n o t wish t o r e v i s e

t h i s s t o r y , t h e y c o u l d u s e t h e remainder of t h e t i m e f o r f r e e

w r i t i n g . T h i s d i d n o t a p p e a r t o m o t i v a t e s t u d e n t s t o r u s h

t h r o u g h t h e p r o j e c t , and no s t u d e n t d i d , i n f a c t , u n d e r t a k e f r e e

w r i t i n g .

I t took a p p r o x i m a t e l y e i g h t m i n u t e s t o s e t t l e t h e c l a s s

6 3

Page 71: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

and comply w i t h c l a s s r o o m p r o c e d u r e s ( t a k i n g a t t e n d a n c e , e tc .)

p a s s i n g o u t p a p e r s and answer ing q u e s t i o n s , and a n o t h e r f i v e

m i n u t e s a t t h e end of t h e c l a s s w i t h g a t h e r i n g p a p e r s , answer ing

q u e s t i o n s a b o u t t h e s t o r y and s h a r i n g comments on i t . The a c t u a l

'on t a s k ' t i m e was t h e r e f o r e of a b o u t 22 m i n u t e s d u r a t i o n .

P r o c e d u r e

The work done by t h e s t u d e n t s was r e a d twice: t h e f i r s t

r e a d i n g f o c u s s e d on t h e remarks s t u d e n t s made a b o u t t h e s t o r y ,

and t h e s u g g e s t i o n s t h e y had made t o h e l p t h e writer improve t h e

s t o r y . The second r e a d i n g invo lved examining t h e e d i t i n g done on

t h e o r i g i n a l s t o r y . These r e s u l t s were t h e n d i v i d e d i n t o v a r i o u s

g r o u p i n g s f o r s c o r i n g purposes .

Some s t u d e n t s had used p r o o f r e a d i n g marks; o t h e r s had

w r i t t e n comments on the . page o r had made d i r e c t r e v i s i o n s t o ' t h e

copy. Each s u g g e s t e d o r a c t u a l t e x t a l t e r a t i o n made by t h e

s t u d e n t s was c l a s s i f i e d a s e i t h e r an a d d i t i o n ( someth ing added

which had n o t p r e v i o u s l y been p r e s e n t i n t h e t e x t ) , d e l e t i o n

( someth ing had been removed from t h e t e x t ) , o r s u b s t i t u t i o n

(something had been w r i t t e n i n p l a c e of something else i n t h e

t e x t . ) Each of t h e s e t e x t a l t e r a t i o n s was t h e n r e c l a s s i f i e d

w i t h i n i t s own group a s t o whether i t d e a l t w i t h p u n c u t a t i o n ,

w i t h grammar, o r w i t h changes t o t h e c o n t e n t of t h e t e x t .

Page 72: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

A n a l y s i s o f S t u d e n t Work

A n a l y s i s o f w r i t t e n comments o f f e r e d by t h e s t u d e n t s ,

b o t h t h e i r e v a l u a t i o n s o f t h e m a t e r i a l and t h e s u g g e s t i o n s t h e y

o f f e r e d t o t h e wr i te r , a p p e a r t o i n d i c a t e t h a t some s t u d e n t s

were f o l l o w i n g r u l e s . No p r o v i s i o n had b e e n made f o r s t u d e n t s

t o i d e n t i f y t h e r u l e s t h e y u s e d , t h u s t h e s t u d e n t who s u g g e s t e d

t h e writer s h o u l d " n o t write t h e l i t t l e words t h a t d o n ' t mean

a n y t h i n g " b u t i n s t e a d "write t h e o n e s t h a t h a v e more meaning and

u n d e r s t a n d i n g " may h a v e b e e n q u o t i n g a ' r u l e ' , making a s t y l e

s u g g e s t i o n , o r may h a v e had some th ing else i n mind. T h i s s t u d e n t

d i d n o t p r o v i d e a n example o f t h e words t h a t had "more meaning

and u n d e r s t a n d i n g " o r r e v i s e t h e s t a n d a r d t e x t t o a c h i e v e t h i s ,

s o i t is d i f f i c u l t t o know e x a c t l y what was i n t e n d e d . T h i s

s t u d e n t was, i t a p p e a r e d , d o i n g e x a c t l y t h e same a s some

t e a c h e r s -of w r i t i n g do : making a n ambiguous comment which o n l y

added c o n f u s i o n ( S e a r l e and D i l l o n , 1 9 8 0 . )

O t h e r s t u d e n t s r e f e r r e d t o " u n p r o p e r E n g l i s h " , word

o r d e r , and u n e c e s s a r y p u n c t u a t i o n . S t u d e n t s a r e n o t a l w a y s a s

p r e c i s e i n r u l e a p p l i c a t i o n a s t e a c h e r s m i g h t w i sh and may a p p l y

t h e r i g h t r u l e s wrong ly , o r t h e wrong r u l e s r i g h t l y ( B e l a n g e r

and R o g e r s , 1983; S c a r d a m a l i a a n d B e r e i t e r , 1983; Z i v , 1984) o r

may even b e c i t i n g n o n - r u l e s .

One s t u d e n t v o l u n t e e r e d a comment a f t e r t h e s e s s i o n

e n d e d , t h a t t h e r e was "a r u l e t h a t you c o u l d n ' t s a y ' I ' i n a

s t o r y . " With no p r o t o c o l s t u d y i n p l a c e , i t is d i f f i c u l t t o

Page 73: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

know whether these students were consciously applying rules or

conventions or were, as Hugh Garner (1973) expressed it,

"writing by ear" -- a process described in a more academic manner as "measuring text against a generalized set of

internalized criteria" (Flower and Hayes, 1981.)

Although some students did attempt to identify some of

the text elements they dealt with, they did not identify all

text elements. This may indicate that they had learned text

forms through other than formal methods of instruction (Bereiter

and Scardemalia, 1981): they knew something needed fixing and

had some idea of how to fix it, but likely could not have

explained either what they did, or why.

Scoring

Edited text was quantified in one of nine

subcategories:

Substitution - punctuation Substitution - grammar Substitution - content Addition - puncutation Addition - grammar Addition - content Deletion - punctuation Deletion - grammar Deletion - content

66

Page 74: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

~diting involving content alteration, substitution,

addition or deletion is macroediting: major in scope and often

involving addition of information for greater clarity. Editing

involving puncutation or grammar, either through substitutuion,

addition or deletion, is microediting -- minor in scope, often convention based, frequently involving error correction.

Results

The greatest amount of text editing by this group of

Grade six students involved grammar -- 67.5 per cent of all substitutions involved grammar, 69.9 per cent of all deletions

involved grammar.

Virtually all of the grammar editing undertaken in this

study was concerned solely with error correction. No instances

were discerned in which grammar had been edited for effect, for

emphasis, for style or for clarity.

The deletions, too, generally involved errors and were

a good example of Flower and Hayes' (1986) suggestion that one

valid strategy demonstrated by writers when they are unable to

fix a perceived error, is the removal of the problem-causing

phrase or sentence.

The only activity which was not grammar-based was

addition, and this proved to be tactic most often used to

accomplish editorial revision. Two thirds of all revisions were

undertaken during the process of adding material to the

67

Page 75: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

standard text.

Text alterations showed the following frequencies:

Punctuation Grammar Content

Addition 23% 10.2% 66.6%

Deletion 21.2% 66.9% 11.8%

Substitution 8.5% 67.5% 23.9%

Total additions: 3 9.

Total deletions: 127

Total substitions: 188

Text alterations based on additions:

Punctuation 9

Grammar 4

Content 26

Text alterations based on deletions:

Punctuation 27

Grammar 85

Content 15

Text alterations based on substitutions:

Punctuation 16

Grammar 127

Content 45

68

Page 76: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

T o t a l t e x t a l t e r a t i o n s i n v o l v i n g p u n c t u a t i o n : 52

T o t a l t e x t a l t e r a t i o n s i n v o l v i n g grammar: 216

T o t a l t e x t a l t e r a t i o n s i n v o l v i n g c o n t e n t : 86

T o t a l a d d i t i o n s t o t e x t : 39

T o t a l d e l e t i o n s f rom t e x t : 127

T o t a l s u b s t i t u t i o n s t o t e x t : 1 8 8

Most s t u d e n t s e d i t e d t h e s t o r y , b u t s l i g h t l y f e w e r t h a n

h a l f (18 /38 ) o f f e r e d s u g g e s t i o n s f o r improv ing t h e s t o r y , and of

t h e 1 8 s t u d e n t s who made e d i t o r i a l comments, o n l y f o u r d e a l t

w i t h a n y t h i n g o t h e r t h a n c o r r e c t i o n o f grammar. One s t u d e n t

s u g g e s t e d t h e writer s h o u l d t r y " c h a n g i n g word u s e a round . " I t

is n o t c l e a r e x a c t l y what w a s mean t by t h e comment.

The r e m a i n i n g e d i t o r i a l s u g g e s t i o n s i n c l u d e d c h a n g i n g

t h e t i t l e , g i v i n g a r e a s o n f o r b u i l d i n g t h e b o a t , e x p l a i n i n g

w h e t h e r i t was h a r d o r e a s y , t e l l i n g more a b o u t t h e b o a t ( f o r

example , what k i n d , how b i g , and what c o l o u r i t w a s ) , g i v i n g t h e

u n c l e ' s name, t e l l i n g how o f t e n h e came, d e s c r i b i n g what t h e

b u i l d e r s d i d f o r t h e r e m a i n d e r o f t h e w i n t e r , p u t t i n g some

e x c i t e m e n t i n t h e s t o r y , " p u t t i n g a b e t t e r s t a r t i n g , " and

c o n t i n u i n g t h e s t o r y t o i n c l u d e what happened a f t e r t h e b u i l d e r s

d i s c o v e r e d t h e b o a t wouldn ' t g o t h r o u g h t h e d o o r .

S t u d e n t s who o f f e r e d e d i t o r i a l s u g g e s t i o n s t y p i c a l l y

made more t h a n o n e s u g g e s t i o n .

69

Page 77: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

Three s t u d e n t s o f f e r e d p o s i t i v e r e i n f o r c e m e n t t o t h e

writer . One n o t e d , "The s t o r y i t s e l f was j u s t f i n e . I t was v e r y

amusing," t h e n commented t h a t t h e w r i t e r ' s word u s e was " n o t

v e r y good." A second s a i d t h e s t o r y was " n o t bad" b u t s u g g e s t e d

t h e writer d o i t o v e r and u s e b e t t e r grammar. The t h i r d s t u d e n t

s a i d " I t would b e a good i d e a t o check i t o v e r and r i g h t ( s i c )

i t a g i a n ( s i c ) and check i n t h e d i c t i o n a r y ( s ic ) f o r words your

(s ic) n o t s u r e o f . o t h e r w i s e v e r y n i c e . "

A number of s t u d e n t s made no e d i t o r i a l s u g g e s t i o n s

wha t soever , b u t began i n d e p e n d e n t r e v i s i o n s of t h e s t o r y , some

making s i g n i f i c a n t t e x t a l t e r a t i o n s , w h i l e o t h e r s d e a l t w i t h

m e c h a n i c a l and c o n v e n t i o n a l a s p e c t s . Among t h e l a t t e r g r o u p , i t

was u n c l e a r whether t h e y were making changes ' b y e a r ' o r i f t h e y

were aware o f t h e s p e c i f i c f u n c t i o n s t h e y were a l t e r i n g ; i t was,

t h e r e f o r e , a l s o u n c l e a r whether t h e y would have 'been a b l e t o

l a b e l t h e t e x t a l t e r a t i o n s t h e y had made.

A number of t h e s t u d e n t s made comments which were

d i f f i c u l t t o u n d e r s t a n d . One example of t h i s was t h e s t u d e n t

r e f e r r e d t o p r e v i o u s l y , who made t h e comment r e g a r d i n g ' l i t t l e

words t h a t d o n ' t mean a n y t h i n g ' . When t h e r e v i s i o n done by t h i s

s t u d e n t is compared t o t h e e d i t e d t e x t , however, and t h e r e v i s e d

t e x t compared w i t h t h e o r i g i n a l t e x t , i t may b e s e e n t h a t t h e

s t u d e n t h a s c o r r e c t e d t h e grammar, h a s i n t h r e e i n s t a n c e s

combined s e n t e n c e s and i n one i n s t a n c e s e p a r a t e d a s e n t e n c e i n t o

two p a r t s . Other t h a n t h e s e g rammat ica l a l t e r a t i o n s , few changes

70

Page 78: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

have been made t o t h e s t o r y , a l t h o u g h t h e word ' s t u f f v was

r e p l a c e d i n two i n s t a n c e s : once w i t h ' i n s t r u c t i o n s ' and once

w i t h ' t h e work ' . ' S t u f f ' may have been t h e ' l i t t l e word'

r e f e r r e d t o , o r t h e s t u d e n t may have had something else i n mind.

Another s t u d e n t a l s o q u e s t i o n e d t h e u s e of t h e word

' s t u f f ' and made a d i r e c t s u g g e s t i o n t h a t t h i s word s h o u l d b e

r e p l a c e d w i t h something more s p e c i f i c . However, when t h e s t u d e n t

r e w r o t e t h e copy, t h e word ' s t u f f ' was r e p e a t e d i n t h e r e w r i t t e n

t e x t . While t h e s t u d e n t - a s - e d i t o r r e c o g n i z e d t h e need f o r an

e d i t o r i a l a l t e r a t i o n , t h e s tuden t -as -wr i t e r e i t h e r f o r g o t t h e

s u g g e s t i o n o r c o u l d n o t t h i n k o f a s a t i s f a c t o r y s u b s t i t u t e f o r

' s t u f f ' .

One s t u d e n t used a marking code , b u t d i d n o t s p e c i f y

what t h e code meant. T h i s c o u l d have meant t h a t t h e s t u d e n t

d e v i s e d t h e code f o r t h i s p a r t i c u l a r p i e c e o f work and s imply

f o r g o t t o p r o v i d e a key, o r was making u s e of a code commonly

used i n t h e c l a s s r o o m which would n o t need e x p l a n a t i o n . T h i s

same s t u d e n t made e d i t o r i a l comments which s u g g e s t e d l o o k i n g

o v e r t h e a s s i g n m e n t and r e w r i t i n g i t " i n a more o r d e r l y way" and

a l s o r e f e r r e d t o s p e l l i n g . I n t h e r e v i s i o n s done t o t h e t e x t ,

t h e s t u d e n t had marked ' s p ' n e x t t o t h e word ' i n ' . ~t is n o t

c l e a r i f t h e s t u d e n t b e l i e v e d a s p e l l i n g e r r o r had o c c u r r e d a t

t h i s p o i n t o r i f some o t h e r meaning had been g i v e n t o ' s p ' .

One s t u d e n t p r o v i d e d c o n s t r u c t i v e p e e r e d i t i n g , u r g i n g

t h e writer t o "watch your s p e l l i n g " and s u g g e s t i n g d e t a i l s

7 1

Page 79: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

which c o u l d be added t o t h e t e x t . These s u g g e s t i o n s i n v o l v e d

d e s c r i b i n g and g i v i n g a r e a s o n f o r wan t ing a b o a t . I n t h e

r e w r i t t e n copy, t h e s t u d e n t d i d s o , d e s c r i b i n g i t a s a 10 f o o t

l o n g , l i m e g r e e n s a i l b o a t , r e q u i r e d t o t a k e t h e f a m i l y t o v i s i t

a s i c k g r a n d f a t h e r , b e c a u s e t h e y were u n a b l e t o a f f o r d a i r f a r e .

T h i s s t u d e n t was t h e o n l y c l a s s member t o make s p e c i f i c

recommendations and t o f o l l o w t h o s e recommendations when

r e v s i s i n g t h e s t o r y .

S e v e r a l s t u d e n t s d i d make e d i t o r i a l s u g g e s t i o n s

c o n c e r n i n g c o n t e n t , b u t t h e i r own r e v i s i o n s d e a l t s o l e l y w i t h

c o r r e c t i n g grammar and p u n c t u a t i o n . Some o f t h e e d i t o r i a l

s u g g e s t i o n s t h e y made d e a l t w i t h s u c h t h i n g s a s d e a i l s which

c o u l d b e i n c l u d e d i n t h e s t o r y : a name f o r t h e u n c l e , t h e

f r e q u e n c y w i t h which h e v i s i t e d , and what happened a f t e r t h e

b o a t c o u l d n o t b e f i t t e d t h r o u g h t h e d o o r . However, when t h e

s t u d e n t s r e w r o t e t h e t e x t , t h e u n c l e remained unnamed, no

r e f e r e n c e was made t o how o f t e n he came, nor was any a l t e r a t i o n

made t o t h e e n d i n g of t h e s t o r y and n o t h i n g was added t o

i n d i c a t e what migh t have happened a f t e r t h e b u i l d e r s d i s c o v e r e d

t h e b o a t would n o t go t h r o u g h t h e d o o r .

C u r i o u s l y enough, n o t one s t u d e n t s u g g e s t e d g i v i n g t h e

b o a t a name.

I t is p o s s i b l e t h e s t u d e n t - a s - e d i t o r t h o u g h t t h e

s u g g e s t e d i n f o r m a t i o n would add t o t h e s t o r y , b u t t h e

s t u d e n t - a s - w r i t e r e i t h e r f o r g o t o r d i d n o t know how t o

72

Page 80: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

i n c o r p o r a t e t h e recommended d e t a i l s i n t o t h e s t o r y , Comparing

t h e r e s p o n s e s of s t u d e n t s who made e d i t o r i a l s u g g e s t i o n s w i t h

t h e i r own r e v i s i o n s , one is s t r u c k w i t h t h e s u s p i c i o n t h a t

s t u d e n t s p a i d l i t t l e o r no a t t e n t i o n t o t h e e d i t e d t e x t when

t h e y were a c t u a l l y i n v o l v e d w i t h t h e r e v i s i o n s . T h i s r e f l e c t s a

c l a s s r o o m phenomenon f r e q u e n t l y no ted by t e a c h e r s : marked

c o r r e c t i o n s a r e q u i t e o f t e n n o t c o r r e c t e d i n f i n a l c o p i e s , b u t

c o n t i n u e t o b e w r i t t e n i n c o r r e c t l y even i n t h e f i n a l v e r s i o n .

I t may r e a d i l y b e s e e n t h a t t h i s g roup of Grade s i x

s t u d e n t s was much more concerned w i t h t h e mechanics of t h e

w r i t i n g t h a n w i t h t h e c o n t e n t s . A s no p r o t o c o l r e s e a r c h was

u n d e r t a k e n , i t is d i f f i c u l t t o s a y why t h i s migh t be s o , b u t

s e v e r a l f a c t o r s may have i n f l u e n c e d t h e i r a c t i o n s :

a ) s t u d e n t s may have been accustomed t o hav ing

t h e i r own work marked and/or e d i t e d w i t h t h e major

emphasis p l a c e d on s p e l l i n g , grammar, and t h e mechan ics

o f w r i t i n g . L

b ) t h e number of e r r o r s c o n t a i n e d i n t h e s t a n d a r d

t e x t may have been r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e e d i t o r i a l

emphasis on c o n v e n t i o n s o f w r i t i n g .

c) s t u d e n t s may n o t have been s u f f i c i e n t l y

m o t i v a t e d t o d o more t h a n t e n d t o s u r f a c e r e v i s i o n s .

A f o u r t h p o s s i b i l i t y must be c o n s i d e r e d : some

s t u d e n t s seemed r e l u c t a n t t o u n d e r t a k e s u b s t a n t i v e

r e v i s i o n o r t o make e d i t o r i a l s u g g e s t i o n s which

7 3

Page 81: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

c o u l d have h e l p e d t h e writer t o make s u b s t a n t i v e

r e v i s i o n s . But what a p p e a r s t o be r e l u c t a n c e may i n

f a c t have been a d e l a y i n g s t r a t e g y ( a s no ted i n Flower ,

Hayes, e t a l , 1 9 8 5 ) i n which t h e y engaged u n t i l such

t i m e a s t h e y d e c i p h e r e d more c u e s a s t o what was

e x p e c t e d of them, o r t h e m s e l v e s d e c i d e d how t h e y wanted

t o proceed w i t h t h e s t o r y .

Flower and Hayes ( 1 9 8 6 ) s u g g e s t t h e d e l a y i n g t a c t i c may

b e used a t any s t a g e i n t h e w r i t i n g p r o c e s s , and may be

accompanied by t h e complementary t a c t i c of abandoning t e x t which

is e i t h e r beyond r e p a i r , o r c o n t a i n s t o o many problems t o b e

f i x e d .

I f , a s t h e y s u g g e s t , t h i s d e l a y i n g s t r a t e g y i s a known

t a c t i c i n s e l f - e d i t i n g p r o c e d u r e s , i t may e q u a l l y w e l l be a

t e c h n i q u e - adop ted by e x t e r n a l e d i t o r s : p e e r e d i t o r s may b e

u n s u r e of what is e x p e c t e d , t h e t e x t may c o n t a i n t o o many

problems, o r problems f o r which t h e y a r e u n a b l e t o e x p l i c a t e L

s o l u t i o n s , and t h e t a c t i c o f c h o i c e becomes e i t h e r d e l a y i n g o r

abandoning a t t e m p t s a t p e e r e d i t i n g . A t t h e same t i m e , p e e r

e d i t o r s may f e e l t h a t something i s e x p e c t e d from them and ,

l a c k i n g any o t h e r o p t i o n a t t h a t moment, may r e v e r t t o e r r o r

c o r r e c t i o n a s a s a f e and f a m i l i a r p r o c e s s . T h i s may seem a more

a t t r a c t i v e a l t e r n a t i v e i f t h e s t u d e n t h a s had l i t t l e o p p o r t u n i t y

t o o b s e r v e s u b s t a n t i v e e d i t i n g and i s more f a m i l i a r w i t h e r r o r

c o r r e c t i o n . S e v e r a 1 s t u d e n t s appear t o have s e l e c t e d a d e l a y i n g

o r abandoning t a c t i c t o d e a l w i t h t h e problems t h e y e n c o u n t e r e d

7 4

Page 82: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

i n t h e p e e r e d i t i n g p r o c e s s . Ten s t u d e n t s d i d n o t e d i t t h e

s t a n d a r d t e x t a t a l l , b u t moved d i r e c t l y t o t e x t r e v i s i o n . T h i s

may i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e y were u n s u r e of how t o make e d i t o r i a l

s u g g e s t i o n s t o t h e writer, b u t were a b l e t o u n d e r t a k e

a l t e r a t i o n s when t h e y t h e m s e l v e s d i d t h e w r i t i n g . A l a c k o f

e d i t o r i a l v o c a b u l a r y may have r e s u l t e d i n s t u d e n t s b e i n g u n a b l e

t o e x p l a i n t h e problem o r how t o d e a l w i t h i t , a l t h o u g h t h e y may

have been a b l e t o r e c o g n i z e what needed r e p a i r and had some i d e a

o f how t o g o a b o u t i t .

The t e n s t u d e n t s who abandoned a t t e m p t s a t e d i t i n g t h e

s t a n d a r d t e x t may have found r e v i s i n g e a s i e r t h a n a n a l y z i n g t h e

t e x t and making e d i t o r i a l recommendations f o r d e a l i n g w i t h t h e

problems e n c o u n t e r e d i n t h e t e x t . I t must b e noted t h a t no

e v i d e n c e f o r t h i s e x i s t s i n t h e w r i t i n g and is r a i s e d o n l y a s a

p o s s i b i l i t y . I t is e q u a l l y p o s s i b l e t h a t s t u d e n t s d i d c o n s i d e r

e d i t i n g and may have s p e n t t i m e a n a l y z i n g t h e s t a n d a r d t e x t w i t h

a view t o e d i t i n g . They d i d n o t , however, make n o t a t i o n s on t h e

t e x t which would c o n f i r m t h i s p o s s i b i l i t y .

One c u r i o u s s t a t i s t i c emerges: f i v e of t h e 38 s t u d e n t s

(10.2 p e r c e n t of t h e g roup) s p e c i f i e d s p e l l i n g e r r o r s a s an

a r e a which r e q u i r e d a t t e n t i o n . I n f a c t , o n l y one s p e l l i n g e r r o r

was i n c l u d e d i n t h e t e x t : t h e word ' t o ' was used i n p l a c e of

' t o o ' , b u t t h i s p a r t i c u l a r e r r o r was no ted by o n l y two of t h e

f i v e s t u d e n t s who commented on s p e l l i n g . The o t h e r t h r e e g a v e no

s p e c i f i c examples of i n c o r r e c t s p e l l i n g i n t h e t e x t , nor d i d

75

Page 83: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

t h e y c o r r e c t t h e s p e l l i n g e r r o r i n t h e c o u r s e of e d i t i n g t h e

t e x t . T h i s migh t l e a d one t o s u s p e c t t h a t s t u d e n t comments

r e g a r d i n g s p e l l i n g were n o t s o much a r e f l e c t i o n of t h e

c o r r e c t n e s s o r i n c o r r e c t n e s s of s p e l l i n g t h e y were a c t u a l l y

s e e i n g , a s a r e f l e c t i o n of a c o n c e p t t h e y had l e a r n e d : s p e l l i n g

i s a f r e q u e n t and i m p o r t a n t problem i n w r i t i n g .

w h i l e t e n p e r c e n t of t h e s t u d e n t s named s p e l l i n g a s a

f l a w i n t h e work, none named t h e i n a p p r o p r i a t e u s e o f o r a l

E n g l i s h i n a w r i t t e n c o m p o s i t i o n . Al though t h e y d i d n o t l a b e l

t h i s p a r t i c u l a r f a u l t , a l m o s t a l l r e c o g n i z e d t h a t t h e r e was

something a m i s s a t t h a t p o i n t i n t h e t e x t . Many a t t e m p t e d t o

r e w r i t e t h e o r a l p a s s a g e s , w i t h v a r y i n g d e g r e e s o f s u c c e s s .

The a c t i o n s o f t h e s t u d y g r o u p c o r r e l a t e t o v a r i o u s

s t r a t e g i e s i d e n t i f i e d by Flower and Hayes ( 1 9 8 6 ) . For example,

two of t h e f i v e s t u d e n t s who e x p r e s s e d c o n c e r n o v e r s p e l l i n g

were s u c c e s s f u l i n i d e n t i f y i n g and c o r r e c t i n g t h e s p e l l i n g

e r r o r . The t h i r d s t u d e n t r e w r o t e t h e s e n t e n c e i n such a way t h a t

n e i t h e r ' t o ' nor ' t o o ' was r e q u i r e d i n t h e s e n t e n c e and t h e

f o u r t h d e l e t e d words d u r i n g r e v i s i o n , e x c l u d i n g problem words o r

p h r a s e s , w h i l e t h e f i f t h s o l v e d t h a t and o t h e r problems by n o t

r e v i s i n g t h e t e x t a t a l l , i g n o r i n g t h e problem by s t a r t i n g anew:

a l l s t r a t e g i e s ment ioned by Flower and Hayes (1986) a s

i d e n t i f i a b l e a v o i d a n c e s t r a t e g i e s .

76

Page 84: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

The i m p l i c a t i o n s of t h e s e a c t i o n s and s t r a t e g i e s f o r

p e e r e d i t i n g must a l s o b e c o n s i d e r e d . U n l e s s t h e p e e r e d i t o r s

a r e c o n f i d e n t i n t h e i r a n a l y s e s and problem s u g g e s t i o n s , t h e r e

must a lways e x i s t t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t t h e y may a l t e r t e x t t o

avo id p rob lems , r a t h e r t h a n s o l v i n g t h e p rob lems , o r t h e y may

i g n o r e t h e problems by s u g g e s t i n g t h e writer b e g i n anew.

Most of t h e Grade s i x s t u d e n t s i n v o l v e d i n t h i s s t u d y

a p p e a r e d t o b e v e r y f a m i l i a r w i t h p r o o f r e a d i n g and e r r o r

c o r r e c t i o n , b u t seemed n o t t o p o s s e s s , o r a t l e a s t , t o p o s s e s s

i n o n l y l i m i t e d d e g r e e s , t h e e d i t i n g s k i l l s which would have

e n a b l e d them t o p r o v i d e e f f e c t i v e p e e r e d i t i n g . I t is d i f f i c u l t

t o s a y why t h i s was so : s t u d e n t s may have b e l i e v e d e d i t i n g meant

e r r o r c o r r e c t i o n and r e c o p y i n g , t h e y may have been accustomed ' to

hav ing t h e i r own c o m p o s i t i o n s ' e d i t e d ' by hav ing e r r o r s p o i n t e d

o u t and b e i n g r e q u i r e d t o c o r r e c t t h o s e e r r o r s ( r e c o p y i n g r a t h e r

t h a n r e v i s i n g ) , o r t h e r e may have been o t h e r f a c t o r s i n v o l v e d .

S t u d e n t s appeared t o l a c k n o t o n l y p e e r e d i t i n g s k i l l s , b u t a l s o

s e l f e d i t i n g s k i l l s , and t h i s was g e n e r a l l y e v i d e n t b o t h i n t h e

e d i t o r i a l comments made and n o t made.

Page 85: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

CHAPTER FOUR

DISCUSSION

II ... young children become literate by being nurtured through developmental

stages.1" (p. 16)

Preferred editing strategies

Analysis of the editing performed by this group of

Grade six students indicates the most preferred editing strategy

was strongly involved with error correction, with most attention

given to some form of grammatical revision. Text alterations

consisting of corrections of perceived errors in grammar,

spelling and punctuation were three times as frequent as were

text revisions dealing with content, which confirmed an initial

supposition that the primary focus of attention would be with

mechanical matters of form and format, and with the conventions

of language.

(1) A program to foster literacy: Early steps in learning to

write, by Marietta Hurst, Lee Dobson, Mayling Chow, Joy Nucich,

Lynda Stickley, and Gwen Smith. LA 8094. Published by the - B.C.

Teachers' Federation Lesson Aids Service, Vancouver, B.C.

78

Page 86: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

Most s t u d e n t s i n t h i s s t u d y appeared t o a t t e m p t , w i t h

v a r y i n g d e g r e e s of s u c c e s s , t o d e a l w i t h problems a r i s i n g from

t h e use of o r a l E n g l i s h i n a w r i t t e n c o m p o s i t i o n . T h e i r a c t i o n s

c o r r o b o r a t e d f i n d i n g s t h a t e d i t i n g d i f f i c u l t i e s may a r i s e n o t

o n l y b e c a u s e s t u d e n t s f a i l t o r e c o g n i z e t h e need f o r r e v i s i o n ,

b u t a l s o b e c a u s e t h e y a r e n o t s u r e what t h e y s h o u l d d o t o s o l v e

t h e problem (Bereiter and S c a r a d a m a l i a , 1981, 1983; Emig, 1978;

Ziv , 1 9 8 4 ) .

A r e s e a r c h f i n d i n g conf i rmed by Flower and Hayes (1985,

1986) shows t h a t e x p e r i e n c e d writers g i v e g r e a t e r a t t e n t i o n t o

g l o b a l c o n c e r n s t h a n do n o v i c e writers. However, a r e c u r r i n g

comment by e x p e r i e n c e d writers d e a l s w i t h t h e f a c t t h a t , g i v e n

f r e e r e i n , e d i t i n g can c o m p l e t e l y change t h e d i r e c t i o n of t h e i r

w r i t i n g (Daugher ty , 1984; Walrep, 1 9 8 5 ) . One must a sk whether

s t u d e n t s would b e w i l l i n g t o a c c e p t changes i n t h e d i r e c t i o n of

t h e i r work i f , a s is cus tomary i n t h e c l a s s r o o m , t h e y a r e

w r i t i n g t o f u l f i l l an a s s i g n m e n t . A new d i r e c t i o n migh t t h r e a t e n

t o t a k e t h e work away from i ts a s s i g n e d a r e a and t h u s j e o p a r d i z e

t h e i r s u c c e s s . I f t h i s is s o , s u b s t a n t i v e e d i t i n g c o u l d appear

t o b e a c o u n t e r - p r o d u c t i v e move and t h u s a poor s t r a t e g y

s e l e c t i o n . I f indeed t h i s is a f a c t o r , minimal e d i t i n g might

a p p e a r t o s t u d e n t s t o b e a s a f e r c o u r s e . On t h e o t h e r hand, t h e

l a c k o f i n t e n s e e d i t i n g migh t be a t t r i b u t e d t o r e f l e c t i n g a

b e l i e f t h a t e d i t i n g means o n l y c o r r e c t i n g e r r o r s . I f t h i s is s o ,

s t u d e n t s might n o t see a need f o r t a k i n g a more g l o b a l view of

t h e work.

79

Page 87: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

Other f a c t o r s may c o n t r i b u t e t o d i m i n i s h e d e d i t i n g

s k i l l s : s t u d e n t s s e e k i n g a p a r t i c u l a r g o a l , s u c h a s s a t i s f a c t o r y

mark i n c o m p o s i t i o n , may b e u n w i l l i n g t o i n i t i a t e a c t i o n t h a t

h a s n o t d e m o n s t r a b l y improved p r e v i o u s r e s u l t s ( g r a d i n g ) . While

some r e s e a r c h e r s b e l i e v e low l e v e l s of s t u d e n t e d i t i n g i n d i c a t e

t h a t s t u d e n t s do n o t know how t o r e v i s e (Crowhurs t , 1982;

F u l w i l e r , 1982; T a t e , 1 9 8 1 ) , l a c k o f i n t e r e s t may b e a l s o b e a n

i n h i b i t o r y f a c t o r . A d e c l i n e i n i n t e r e s t i n r e v i s i o n i n upper

e l e m e n t a r y g r a d e s (Hogan, 1980) may have something t o d o w i t h

what s t u d e n t s have l e a r n e d a b o u t w r i t i n g p r o c e s s d u r i n g t h e

p r e c e d i n g y e a r s , some a s p e c t s o f t h e c u r r i c u l u m o r c l a s s r o o m ,

p e r s o n a l development of s t u d e n t s i n t h a t p a r t i c u l a r a g e g r o u p ,

c o m b i n a t i o n s of t h e s e , o r o t h e r f a c t o r s . No s t u d i e s have been

d i s c o v e r e d c o n c e r n i n g changes i n t h e l e v e l of i n t e r e s t i n e i t h e r

s e l f - e d i t - i n g o r p e e r e d i t i n g , b u t one must s u s p e c t i t would

f o l l o w a s i m i l a r p a t t e r n . For whatever r e a s o n , upper e l e m e n t a r y

s t u d e n t s a r e u s u a l l y f a r more c o m f o r t a b l e c o r r e c t i n g s u r f a c e

c o n c e r n s t h a n u n d e r t a k i n g s u b s t a n t i v e e d i t i n g (Birnbaum, 1982)

and t h e s t u d y g r o u p ' s b e h a v i o u r r e f l e c t e d t h a t a t t i t u d e .

No i n t e r a c t i o n was obse rved between s t u d e n t s i n t h e

s t u d y g r o u p which would i n d i c a t e p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n o r awareness

of p e e r e d i t i n g , w r i t i n g workshop t e c h n i q u e s , o r i n t e r a c t i v e

s m a l l g r o u p e d i t i n g . Q u e s t i o n s a d d r e s s e d t o t h e t e a c h e r d e a l t

o n l y w i t h mechan ics and c l a s s r o o m p r o c e d u r e s , n o t e d i t o r i a l

s u g g e s t i o n s o r i n p u t .

Page 88: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

There were no i n d i c a t i o n s of r e o r g a n i z a t i o n o r

rea r rangement of t h e m a t e r i a l . S t u d e n t s appeared t o proceed

d i r e c t l y t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n a t t h e s i n g l e word o r p h r a s e l e v e l ,

and f o r t h e most p a r t , t h e i r f o c u s was on e r r o r c o r r e c t i o n .

A few s t u d e n t s indulged i n what might be r e f e r r e d t o as

' t e x t - d e c o r a t i n g ' . For example, t h e s t u d e n t who sugges t ed t h e

b o a t w a s a b l u e b o a t was s imply embro ider ing i n f o r m a t i o n which

a l r e a d y e x i s t e d i n t h e t e x t . T h e r e was no p a r t i c u l a r r e a s o n f o r

t h e b o a t t o b e b l u e , nor a s e n s e t h a t t h a t p a r t i c u l a r b o a t cou ld

o n l y be b lue . One e x c e p t i o n t o t h e ' t e x t - d e c o r a t i n g ' a s p e c t was

provided by t h e s t u d e n t who sugges t ed t h e b o a t was ' d u s t y ' , and

indeed , a b o a t s i t t i n g i n a basement over t h e c o u r s e of a w i n t e r

cou ld w e l l become d u s t y . 'Dus ty ' adds an e lement of a u t h e n t i c i t y

t o t h i s p a r t i c u l a r d e s c r i p t i o n t h a t ' b l u e ' d o e s n o t .

T i m e F a c t o r i n W r i t i n p

Based upon t h e e d i t i n g done by t h i s Grade s i x s t u d y

group , i t a p p e a r s t h a t t h i n k i n g t i m e i n w r i t i n g a s s ignmen t s is

minimal. T h i s may w e l l b e a r e f l e c t i o n o f t h e l i m i t e d c l a s s t i m e

u s u a l l y p rov ided f o r s t u d e n t w r i t i n g and e d i t i n g . Some s t u d e n t s

Were observed t o beg in t h e ass ignment by p i c k i n g up a red p e n c i l

and beg inn ing t o mark e r r o r s w h i l e t h e y were read ing th rough t h e

m a t e r i a l f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e . Aside from t h e d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e

amounts o f t i m e a v a i l a b l e t o expe r i enced writers and t o nov ice

writers, t h e r e a l s o a p p e a r s t o be a d i f f e r e n c e i n t h e management

Page 89: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

of t h a t t i m e . Obviously expe r i enced w r i t e r s spend a g r e a t d e a l

more t i m e a t t h e i r w r i t i n g t h a n do inexpe r i enced w r i t e r s , b u t

t h e i r m a n i p u l a t i o n of work a l s o a p p e a r s t o d i f f e r from t h a t of

t h e s t u d e n t s . Exper ienced writers o f t e n have many p i e c e s of work

i n p r o g r e s s a t one t i m e . When work on one p i e c e t e m p o r a r i l y

h a l t s , work on a n o t h e r beg ins . Classroom o b s e r v a t i o n w i l l show

s t u d e n t s u s u a l l y appear t o work on one p i e c e of w r i t i n g a t a

t i m e , and t o c a r r y i t through t o a c o n c l u s i o n b e f o r e beg inn ing

a n o t h e r p i e c e of w r i t i n g . The way i n which w r i t i n g is a s s igned

and marked l i k e l y h a s a good d e a l t o do w i t h t h i s .

While c l a s s room t i m e c o n s t r a i n t s may be a l i m i t i n g

f a c t o r i n t h e e d i t i n g p r o c e s s , s t u d e n t s observed i n t h i s s t u d y

d i d n o t appear t o be concerned w i t h g a i n i n g e x t r a t i m e f o r t h e i r

e d i t i n g o r t o g i v e i n d i c a t i o n s of r e q u i r i n g more e d i t i n g t i m e .

s t u d e n t s -were g i v e n t h e o p t i o n of o n l y s u g g e s t i n g changes ,

r a t h e r t han a c t u a l l y making t h e changes , a s t r a t e g y which c o u l d

have prov ided them w i t h much more t i m e f o r bo th c o n s i d e r a t i o n

and e d i t i n g of t h e work. None chose t o make u s e of t h i s o p t i o n .

I t is i n t e r e s t i n g t o s p e c u l a t e why t h i s may have

happened: Flower and Hayes' (1986) model of t h e c o g n i t i v e

p r o c e s s e s i n r e v i s i o n o f f e r s a number of p o s s i b i l i t i e s . Task

d e f i n i t i o n ( e i t h e r t h e a s s i g n e d t a s k o r t h e pe rce ived t a s k ) may

have been u n c l e a r t o t h e s t u d e n t s . T h e i r comprehension of t h e

s t o r y may have been poor , t h e i r e v a l u a t i o n may have been f a u l t y ,

and/or t h e y may have been d e f i c i e n t i n d e f i n i n g t h e problems.

Page 90: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

The s t r a t e g i e s a v a i l a b l e t o s t u d e n t s i n t h i s i n s t a n c e

were q u i t e v a r i e d . One o p t i o n was t o i g n o r e t h e t a s k , and

s e v e r a l s t u d e n t s appear t o have s e l e c t e d t h i s o p t i o n when t h e y

s imply r ecop ied t h e t e x t w i t h o u t making any a l t e r a t i o n s . They

could d e l a y , and some s t u d e n t s may have been e x e r c i s i n g t h i s

o p t i o n by do ing a minimum of work. They cou ld rewrite t h e work,

and most appeared t o select t h i s o p t i o n -- c o r r e c t i n g and

making minor a l t e r a t i o n s such a s t e x t - d e c o r a t i n g .

Another o p t i o n e x i s t e d : t h e y cou ld r e v i s e by r e d r a f t i n g

o r p a r a p h r a s i n g t h e work. Only a few a t t empted t o do so.

The a c t i o n s , and l a c k of a c t i o n s , demons t r a t ed by t h e

s t u d y g roup may be a r e f l e c t i o n of t h e emphasis t e a c h e r s

g e n e r a l l y p l a c e on a s s e s s i n g o n l y f i n a l d r a f t s , and e v a l u a t i n g

s p e l l i n g , grammar and p u n c t u a t i o n d u r i n g t h e e a r l y s t a g e s of t h e

work (Beach, 1 9 7 9 ) , and t h e s e s t u d e n t s appeared t o r e f l e c t a

s u p p o s i t i o n s h a r e d by many inexpe r i enced writers t h a t e d i t i n g is

j u s t a m a t t e r of p o i n t i n g o u t e r r o r s (Crowhurst , 1979a, 1979b) .

These s t u d e n t s d i d n o t behave a s expe r i enced e d i t o r s

do , by a s k i n g f o r e i t h e r sweeping o r s p e c i f i c c o n t e n t r e v i s i o n s

(Shuman, 1 9 8 2 ) , b u t were c o n t e n t t o p roof - read : a t y p e o f

feedback which may u n i n t e n t i o n a l l y t e a c h s t u d e n t s n o t t o r e v i s e

(Nold, l 9 8 2 ) , by r e i n f o r c i n g t h e ' two-s tep ' w r i t i n g mode

(S tewig , 1983) o r t h e w r i t e / c o r r e c t fo rmat of knowledge-

- t e l l i n g ' (Scradamal ia and Bereiter, 1 9 8 3 ) . Emphasis on

Page 91: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

c o r r e c t n e s s a f f e c t s s t u d e n t s b o t h a s p e e r - e d i t o r s and a s

s e l f - e d i t o r s , by denying them o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o u s e e d i t i n g and

r e v i s i n g t o d e l v e deepe r i n t o t h e i r s u b j e c t m a t t e r ( M c P h i l l i p s ,

1985; Marder, 1984; D. Murray, 1968) .

D e s p i t e h o u r s o f i n s t r u c t i o n , s t u d e n t s o f t e n appear t o

be a t a l o s s a s t o how t h e w r i t i n g p r o c e s s shou ld be c a r r i e d

o u t , and t h e y may b e bet ter equipped t o u n d e r t a k e t h i s p r o c e s s

i f t h e y f i r s t l e a r n how t o e d i t w r i t i n g ( L e w e s , 1981) . Giving

and us ing e d i t o r i a l feedback e f f e c t i v e l y a p p e a r s t o be a s k i l l

many s t u d e n t s have never been t a u g h t ( I l a c q u a , 1980) .

Feedback i n w r i t i n g

Lamberg (1980) d e f i n e d t h r e e t y p e s of feedback:

s e l f - p r o v i d e d feedback , pee r feedback , and t e a c h e r feedback . Peer feedback may be more advantageous t h a n t e a c h e r feedback

( M o f f e t t , 1968) , b u t s e l f - p r o v i d e d feedback may be even more

v a l u a b l e (Lamberg, 1980) . F a u l t y feedback may l e a v e s t u d e n t s w i t h t h e impress ion

t h a t 'good' w r i t i n g is what is l e f t a f t e r ' bad ' w r i t i n g is

removed from t h e t e x t . S t u d e n t s who have r e c e i v e d mos t ly

c o r r e c t i v e feedback , e i t h e r from t e a c h e r s o r from peer e d i t o r s ,

g e n e r a l l y r e f l e c t a c o r r e c t i v e s t a n c e i n t h e i r s e l f - f e e d b a c k ,

which c a n l i m i t t h e i r s e l f - e d i t i n g c a p a b i l i t i e s a s w e l l

(Lamberg, 1977; McDonald, 1978) .

Page 92: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

S t u d e n t s i n t h e s t u d y g roup d i d n o t d e m o n s t r a t e s t r o n g

feedback s k i l l s , d i d n o t appear a b l e t o g i v e c o n s t r u c t i v e

feedback t o t h e writer, nor were t h e y a b l e t o make use

themse lves o f t h e feedback t h e y had provided . T h i s cou ld s u g g e s t

t h a t e d i t o r i a l feedback was g i v e n o n l y t o f u l f i l l a p e r c e i v e d

r equ i r emen t , b u t had no g e n u i n e v a l u e i n t h e e d i t i n g p r o c e s s .

Teacher e v a l u a t i o n p r o v i d e s d i r e c t i o n

Teache r s do n o t u s u a l l y g i v e emphasis t o r e v i s i o n o r

e d i t i n g i n t h e i r marking ( B i r d s a l l , 1979) , c u s t o m a r i l y a s s e s s i n g

o n l y t h e f i n a l d r a f t . They do n o t u s u a l l y e v a l u a t e c o n t e n t and

o r g a n i z a t i o n of t h e rough d r a f t b u t d e a l w i th s u r f a c e c o n c e r n s ,

such a s s p e l l i n g , grammar, and p u n c t u a t i o n : t h e a r e a s most o f t e n

tended t o by inexpe r i enced writers and inexpe r i enced e d i t o r s

(Beach, 1979; Bo lke r , 1 9 7 8 ) .

I t would be u n r e a l i s t i c t o e x p e c t e l emen ta ry s c h o o l

t e a c h e r s t o e d i t t h e work of t h e i r s t u d e n t s w i t h t h e same r i g o r

a s p r o f e s s i o n a l e d i t o r s e d i t t h e work o f expe r i enced writers,

b u t i t may be v a l u a b l e f o r s t u d e n t s t o unde r s t and t h e

r e l a t i o n s h i p t h a t d o e s exis t between expe r i enced w r i t e r s and

expe r i enced e d i t o r s , i f o n l y t o p u t t o rest t h e n o t i o n t h a t

e d i t i n g is j u s t a m a t t e r of p o i n t i n g o u t e r r o r s and t h a t

r e v i s i o n is j u s t a synonym f o r c o r r e c t i n g e r r o r s (Crowhurst ,

1979a, l 9 7 9 b ) .

Page 93: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

I n f l u e n c e of Wri t ing Models

Exper ienced writers f r e q u e n t l y c i t e t h e impor t an t r o l e

played i n t h e i r development a s writers by t h e i n f l u e n c e of o t h e r

w r i t e r s : t e a c h e r s o r p r o f e s s o r s who wrote and sha red w r i t i n g ,

p a r e n t s o r r e l a t i v e s who wro te , p e e r s o r s i b l i n g s who were

a c t i v e writers, have been r e s p o n s i b l e n o t o n l y f o r p rov id ing

models f o r writers, b u t o f t e n p r o v i d i n g feedback a s w e l l .

w r i t e r s a r e v a s t l y encouraged by human i s t i c r e s p o n s e s (Coe,

1985; L i t t l e , 1980) b u t r e q u i r e s p e c i f i c i t y and immediacy i n

t h o s e r e sponses .

Exper ienced writers may o f f e r a p p r e c i a t i v e comments on

p a r t i c u l a r p i e c e s o f l i t e r a t u r e , o r may r e c g o n i z e t h e e f f e c t o r

i n f l u e n c e of a p a r t i c u l a r a u t h o r on t h e i r own w r i t i n g , b u t t h i s

u s u a l l y a p p e a r s t o t a k e p l a c e a t a much l a t e r s t a g e i n t h e i r

l i t e r a r y development. I n t h e e a r l y s t a g e s of w r i t i n g , t h e more

v a l u a b l e models appea r t o have been t h o s e which were c l o s e r and

more r e a d i l y a c c e s s i b l e (Megna, 1976; Pomerenke, 1984) . For t h i s

r e a s o n , t h e work of a pee r may p r o v i d e a more e f f e c t i v e model

f o r t h e beg inn ing s t u d e n t t han t h e ' s e a m l e s s ' w r i t i n g of an

acknowledged l i t e r a r y g i a n t . A growing body of r e s e a r c h i s

a f f i r m i n g t h e impor t an t r o l e t h a t model l ing and feedback p l a y s

i n t e a c h i n g w r i t i n g (Anes, 1985; Bartholomae, 1985; C a r r o l l ,

1984; NCTE p o s i t i o n pape r , 1984; Spencer , 1983; Be lange r , 1983)

Crowh.urst, 1982, 1 9 7 9 ) .

Page 94: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

Some t e a c h e r s p r o v i d e a c t i v e mode l l i ng and feedback f o r

t h e i r s t u d e n t s , demons t r a t i ng t h e w r i t i n g p r o c e s s by s h a r i n g

t h e i r own work and becoming n o t t e a c h e r - e d i t o r s b u t peer-

e d i t o r s ( S t r a s s e r , 1984) . These t e a c h e r s a f f o r d a n o p p o r t u n i t y

f o r s t u d e n t s t o become p a r t of a w r i t i n g community, and s o t o be

guided by o b s e r v a t i o n and by p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h e less o f t e n

t a u g h t a s p e c t s of t h e w r i t i n g p roces s : e d i t i n g , r e v i s i n g ,

mind-changing and d i s c o v e r y th rough w r i t i n g . I n o t h e r

c l a s s rooms , t e a c h e r s may i n v i t e p r o f e s s i o n a l writers t o ho ld

workshops, s emina r s , o r v i s i t s w i t h t h e s t u d e n t s . S t u d e n t s a r e

a b l e t o o b s e r v e f i r s t hand t h a t n o t o n l y do expe r i enced writers

need t o e d i t and r e v i s e , t h i s is an impor t an t and ongoing p a r t

of t h e w r i t i n g p r o c e s s f o r t h e s e w r i t e r s . Among expe r i enced

w r i t e r s , changing o n e ' s mind means o n l y t r y i n g a new t h o u g h t ,

n o t a d m i t t i n g f a i l u r e o r wrongness i n t h e o r i g i n a l thought .

S t u d e n t s a l s o obse rve t h a t when expe r i enced writers a l t e r copy

t h e y do i t by s e a r c h i n g f o r unexpected nuances , by s t r e n g t h e n i n g

images o r i n c r e a s i n g t h e d e n s i t y of t h e m a t e r i a l , n o t by

s e a r c h i n g o u t and c o r r e c t i n g e r r o r s ( S t r a s s e r , 1984) .

Rohman and Wlecke (1964) no ted t h a t l e a r n i n g t o write

by w r i t i n g , and t e a c h i n g w r i t i n g by c o r r e c t i n g were n o t a lways

s a t i s f a c t o r y t e c h n i q u e s f o r p roduc ing good writers. Many

r e f e r e n c e s i n t h e l i t e r a t u r e appear t o c o r r o b o r a t e t h e i r

s u g g e s t i o n t h a t c o r r e c t i n g may n o t be t h e most e f f e c t i v e

Page 95: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

t e chn ique f o r t each ing w r i t i n g , b u t t h e i r s u g g e s t i o n t h a t one

does n o t l e a r n t o write by w r i t i n g d o e s n o t f i n d agreement among

expe r i enced w r i t e r s (Elbow, 1973; F u l w i l e r , 1982; Geuder, 1974;

M o f f e t t , 1968; Shaugnessy, 1977; Walshe, 1983; Walvoord, 1984) . ~ n d e e d , D. Murray (1968) and o t h e r expe r i enced writers i n s i s t

t h a t w r i t i n g is n o t j u s t one way of l e a r n i n g t o write, i t is t h e

"on ly way of l e a r n i n g t o write."

The d i s c r e p a n c y may l i e somewhere between t h e

expe r i enced writer 's view of what t h e w r i t i n g p r o c e s s i n v o l v e s ,

and t h e c lass room t e a c h e r ' s view of what t h a t p r o c e s s e n t a i l s .

The writer 's view o f w r i t i n g s t r e s s e s e d i t i n g , b u t n o t t h e kind

of c o r r e c t i v e , o r e r r o r - s e e k i n g e d i t i n g which o f t e n happens i n

t h e c lass room.

E d i t i n g is a r e a c t i o n t o feedback , and feedback can be

d e f i n e d s imply a s i n f o r m a t i o n on per formance (Lanberg, 1980)' .

Feedback is n o t n e c e s s a r i l y n e g a t i v e , c o r r e c t i v e , e r r o r - s e e k i n g

o r c r i t i c a l i n a p e j o r a t i v e s ense . Hea l thy and p r o d u c t i v e L

feedback can have a p o s i t i v e e f f e c t upon subsequent performance

(Beach 1979; Benson, 1979; Denman, 1975; L i t t l e , 1980; Olds ,

1970; F. Smith , 1976) .

Classroom feedback can come from many s o u r c e s ;

t e a c h e r s , p e e r s , o t h e r s t u d e n t s , o r t h e writers. There a r e

va ry ing k i n d s o f feedback , and g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s have been made

about some o f t h e s e c a t e g o r i e s , which would i n d i c a t e t h a t n o t

a l l feedback is e q u a l l y u s e f u l . Peer feedback may be more u s e f u l

t han t e a c h e r feedback ( M o f f e t t , 1981) because in fo rma t ion p e e r s

88

Page 96: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

g i v e each o t h e r can d i f f e r from t h e i n f o r m a t i o n t e a c h e r s p r o v i d e

( R u s s e l l , 1 9 8 5 ) . T h i s may r e f l e c t t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t p e e r

agendas d i f f e r from t e a c h e r agendas , b u t pee r feedback can

p r o v i d e b o t h u s e f u l q u e s t i o n s abou t c o n t e n t , and s u g g e s t i o n s

whi,ch t h e writer may f i n d e a s i e r t o fo l low. S t u d e n t s more

r e a d i l y a c c e p t and use peer cr i t icism ( C h r i s t e n s e n , 1982) and

ev idence i n c r e a s e d m o t i v a t i o n t o write and r e v i s e (James, 1981) .

F u r t h e r , s t u d e n t s can l e a r n s t y l e and o r g a n i z a t i o n th rough

r ead ing each o t h e r s ' p a p e r s ( C h r i s t e n s e n , 1982) and may d e v e l o p

b e t t e r s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n t h e c l a s s room (Pianko , 1979) .

However, n o t a l l p e e r feedback a u t o m a t i c a l l y f a l l s i n t o

t h e s e h i g h l y p r o d u c t i v e c a t e g o r i e s . Unless s t u d e n t s have l e a r n e d

how t o p r o v i d e feedback , t h e k i n d s of i n f o r m a t i o n they o f f e r nay

be l i t t l e more t h a n ' w a r n f uzzy ' comments ( "Th i s is n i c e " , e t c ) .

Or e r r o r i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . I f t h e e r r o r i d e n t i f i c a t i o n is skewed

th rough t h e p e e r ' s own weaknessess i n grammar o r s p e l l i n g , t h e

r e s u l t w i l l be a f u r t h e r d e g r a d a t i o n of t h e p r o c e s s , p r o v i d i n g L

i n c o r r e c t e r r o r i d e n t i f i c a t i o n .

E f f e c t i v e n e s s of feedback can b e measured by changes i n

subsequen t performance, A s t h e feedback i n t h i s i n s t a n c e was n o t

g i v e n t o t h e o r i g i n a l a u t h o r , t h e r e is no way of knowing i f t h e

comments made by t h e s t u d e n t s would have a f f e c t e d subsequen t

performance, and one can o n l y s p e c u l a t e upon r e s p o n s e s which

might have been made by t h e o r i g i n a l a u t h o r .

S p e c i f i c i t y and c l a r i t y a r e e s s e n t i a l i n g r e d i e n t s i n

Page 97: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

e f f e c t i v e feedback f o r e d i t i n g (I?. s m i t h , 1976; P. Smith ,

1984) . Peer feedback , o r peer e d i t i n g , w h i l e a l s o r e q u i r i n g

s p e c i f i c i t y and c l a r i t y , o f f e r s t h e advan tage of p r o v i d i n g t h i s

i n fo rma t ion a t a l e v e l which is u s e f u l t o t h e w r i t e r : b o t h

writer and e d i t o r a r e a t o r near t h e same l e v e l and have t h e

same g e n e r a l c a p a b i l i t i e s .

The e d i t o r who o v e r - e d i t s , o r e d i t s a t a l e v e l n o t

w i t h i n r e a c h o f t h e writer, is i n e f f e c t i v e (I?. Smith, 1 9 7 6 ) , and

t h i s is sometimes seen a s a weaknesses i n t e a c h e r e d i t i n g :

t e a c h e r s may comment e x t e n s i v e l y , p o i n t i n g o u t numbers of

problems i n a l l a s p e c t s of t h e w r i t i n g (Lamberg, 1977) ,and t h e s e

comments may a t t i m e s b e n e g a t i v e i n t o n e a s w e l l ( S e a r l e and

D i l l o n , (1980) .

Peer e d i t o r s who have l e a r n e d how t o p r o v i d e e f f e c t i v e

feedback , c a n o f f e r comment i n an amount and a t a l e v e l which

w i l l b e u s e f u l t o t h e writer.

There is an a d d i t i o n a l advantage: a s t h e pee r e d i t o r

improves i n awareness , h e o r s h e a l s o d e v e l o p s s t r o n g e r

s e l f - f e e d b a c k o r s e l f - e d i t i n g p r o c e s s e s . T h i s improvement i n t h e

l e v e l of w r i t i n g by t h e peer e d i t o r is a f r e q u e n t outcome o f

good pee r e d i t i n g . S t u d e n t s i nvo lved i n p e e r e d i t i n g become bo th

g i v e r s and r e c e i v e r s of i n f o r m a t i o n and by a t t e n d i n g t o

p a r t i c u l a r a s p e c t s i n t h e p a r t i c u l a r a s p e c t s of t h e w r i t i n g of

o t h e r s , t h e y w i l l improve t h e i r subsequen t compos i t i ons (Hogan,

1984 ; Lamberg, 1977) . Peer e d i t i n g t h u s o f f e r s many advantages :

s t u d e n t s c a n b e n e f i t from t h e e d i t o r i a l s u g g e s t i o n s of p e e r s ,

90

Page 98: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

t h e s t u d e n t doing t h e e d i t i n g l e a r n s from t h e p r o c e s s , and t h a t

s t u d e n t ' s work improves a s w e l l . Teachers , r e l i e v e d from t h e

burden of be ing s o l e r e a d e r and s o l e e d i t o r f o r t h e w r i t i n g of

35-40 s t u d e n t s , a r e a b l e t o p r o v i d e more q u a l i t y t i m e w i th

writers on an i n d i v i d u a l o r s m a l l g roup b a s i s .

Peer e d i t i n g is a s t r a t e g y which c a n o f f e r s t u d e n t s a

way t o l e a r n e d i t i n g : b o t h e x t e r n a l e d i t i n g and i n t e r n a l

e d i t i n g . A s no t ed , e d i t i n g t h e work of p e e r s can s t r e n g t h e n and

d e v e l o p t h e a b i l i t y t o e d i t o n e ' s own work, and having work

e d i t e d by p e e r s p r o v i d e s feedback which can s t r e n g t h e n and

deve lop one' s s e l f - feedback p r o c e s s , b u t e d i t i n g must be

c o n s c i o u s l y t a u g h t i f s t u d e n t s a r e t o l e a r n t o communicate

e f f e c t i v e l y i n t h e c o u r s e of t h e p r o c e s s . Obse rva t ion of

s t u d e n t s i n t h e s u b j e c t g roup l e a d s t o t h e s u g g e s t i o n t h a t

working w i t h t h e w r i t i n g p r o c e s s may n o t , by i t s e l f , be

s u f f i c i e n t t o e n s u r e t h a t s t u d e n t s become c a p a b l e e d i t o r s .

P r e - e d i t i n g t r a i n i n g and p r a c t i c e i n e d i t i n g can h e l p s t u d e n t s L

l e a r n how t o p r o v i d e e f f e c t i v e feedback -- b o t h f o r s e l f - e d i t i n g

and f o r p e e r e d i t i n g .

P r e - e d i t i n g behaviour can b e g i n w i t h h e l p i n g s t u d e n t s

t o i d e n t i f y s p e c i f i c s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses i n p i e c e s of

anonymous w r i t i n g ( B u t l e r , 1983) and p r o g r e s s th rough t o t h e

k i n d s of e d i t o r i a l g u i d e s and c h e c k l i s t s which a s s i s t t h e

neophyte e d i t o r t o r e c o g n i z e some e f f e c t i v e ways t o a s s i s t a

writer i n improving a p i e c e of work. (See APP I 1 f o r examples of

e d i t o r i a l c h e c k l i s t s ) .

Page 99: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

S t u d e n t a t t i t u d e s toward e d i t i n g ,

There is a s t r o n g s u g g e s t i o n i n t h e l i t e r a t u r e t h a t

s t u d e n t s do n o t ' l i k e ' e d i t i n g and r e v i s i n g (Belanger and

Rogers, 1983; ~ i r d s a l l , 1979; Bo lke r , 1978; Bonds, 1980;

Champagne, 1980; Daly, 1979; D. Graves , 1983; F. Smith , 1982;

~ i v , 1 9 8 4 ) . Many r e a s o n s have been sugges t ed t o accoun t f o r t h i s

a p p a r e n t a v e r s i o n , i n c l u d i n g a n x i e t y (Daly, 1 9 7 9 ) ; l a c k o f

involvement w i th t h e work, a r equ i r emen t t o c r e a t e i n a u t h e n t i c

work, o r a s s o c i a t i n g t h e need t o ' do i t a g a i n ' w i th f a i l u r e (D.

Graves , 1983) ; a f e e l i n g of inadequacy when t h e work d o e s n o t

'come o u t r i g h t t h e f i r s t t i m e ' (F. Smith , 1 9 8 2 ) ; o r s imply l a c k

of r e c o g n i t i o n on t h e p a r t of t h e s t u d e n t a s t o why o r how

m a t e r i a l shou ld b e r e v i s e d ( Z i v , 1984) . T h i s l a c k of awareness

r e g a r d i n g r e v i s i o n cou ld be s een a s a f a c t o r which cou ld be

add res sed by t e a c h e r i n p u t , most p a r t i c u l a r l y by comments

t e a c h e r s write on s t u d e n t work, b u t s t u d i e s have shown t h a t

comments from t e a c h e r s , w h i l e meant t o be h e l p f u l , a r e o f t e n

any th ing b u t ( B i b b e r s t i n e , 1976; Bo lke r , 1978; G r o f f , 1975;

S e a r l e and D i l l o n , 1983; Ziv, 1984) . Teacher comments can l a c k

t h e s p e c i f i c i t y 1 which cou ld make them c o n s t r u c t i v e .

(1) For example, t h e u b i q u i t o u s "AWK" o f f e r s no s u g g e s t i o n a s t o

why t h e p h r a s e o r s e n t e n c e is awkward, no r d o e s i t o f f e r

c o n s t r u c t i v e s u g g e s t i o n s f o r s o l v i n g t h e problem.

Page 100: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

These t y p e s of comments may r e f l e c t t h e p o s s i b i l i t y

t h a t some t e a c h e r s , l i k e some s t u d e n t s , may r e c o g n i z e t h a t

something is n o t a s i t should be, b u t a r e u n c l e a r abou t

p r e c i s e l y what t h a t something is o r how i t might b e improved. I t

is a l s o p o s s i b l e t h e problem h a s been c l e a r l y r ecogn ized , b u t

t h e t e a c h e r d i d n o t have s u f f i c i e n t t i m e t o p r o v i d e an adequa te

e x p l a n a t i o n f o r t h e s t u d e n t . P r e s s u r e of numbers o f w r i t t e n

compos i t i ons w a i t i n g t o be marked can create s e v e r e problems f o r

t e a c h e r s . However, t h e t e a c h e r who writes "SPn on work a t leas t

o f f e r s a c o n c r e t e s t a t e m e n t by d i r e c t i n g t h e s t u d e n t t o a

s p e c i f i c a c t i o n .

Given n o n - s p e c i f i c d i r e c t i o n , s t u d e n t s who a r e unsu re

o r confused can n o t h e l p b u t become more unsu re and con fused ,

and less w i l l i n g t o l e a v e themse lves open t o f u r t h e r n e g a t i v e

comment, and less a p t t o e i t h e r e d i t o r t o r e v i s e . The s t u d e n t s

i n t h e s t u d y group demons t ra ted a w i l l i n g n e s s t o unde r t ake

e d i t i n g a s t h e y knew i t , b u t a n a l y s i s of t h e i r e d i t o r i a l

comments and e d i t i n g p r o c e s s e s would s u g g e s t t h e y need

a s s i s t a n c e i n unde r s t and ing and l e a r n i n g e f f e c t i v e e d i t i n g

t echn iques . I t appeared t h a t a number of s t u d e n t s i n t h e s t u d y

group began t o e d i t b e f o r e t h e y had comple t e ly r ead t h e t e x t

m a t e r i a l . Teaching p r e - e d i t i n g p r o c e s s e s t o s t u d e n t s can

encourage them t o t a k e t i m e t o r ead work t o g e t t h e s e n s e o f i t

b e f o r e p i c k i n g up t h e i r e d i t i n g p e n c i l s , and can a l s o encourage

them t o t h i n k abou t t h e i r own work b e f o r e t h e y e d i t i t

( P h i l i p p s e n , 1987) . 93

Page 101: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

P r e - e d i t i n g a c t i v i t i e s

P r e - e d i t i n g p r a c t i c e may h e l p s t u d e n t s t o i d e n t i f y

s p e c i f i c s t r e n g t h s i n w r i t i n g and t o make c o n s t r u c t i v e comments

based upon t h e s e s t r e n g t h s . S t u d e n t s need c a r e f u l coaching i n

peer e d i t i n g : t h e y o f t e n f i n d i t d i f f i c u l t t o respond a s

e d i t o r s , and when t h e y do , r e s p o n s e s may be skimpy and g e n e r a l

(Crowhurst , 1979) . G u i d e l i n e s o r c h e c k l i s t s may h e l p s t u d e n t s

unders tand some s p e c i f i c s which peer e d i t o r s may watch f o r , b u t

t h e r e is a danger t h a t s t u d e n t s w i l l s imply s e i z e on a few

p h r a s e s and l i m i t t h e i r r e sponses t o t h o s e r e p l i e s (Crowhurst ,

1 9 7 9 ) . Teaching s t u d e n t w r i t e r s t o be s p e c i f i c i n t h e i r

r e s p o n s e s h e l p s p r e v e n t t h i s approach.

I n some c l a s s rooms , t e a c h e r s encourage s p e c i f i c i t y i n

feedback by p rov id ing a c t i v e mode l l i ng and demons t r a t i ng t o

s t u d e n t s a p e r s o n a l involvement i n t h e w r i t i n g p roces s . These

t e a c h e r s f r e q u e n t l y i n v o l v e themse lves i n t h e pee r e d i t i n g

p r o c e s s a s w e l l , s u b m i t t i n g t h e i r work t o t h e s t u d e n t s f o r

e d i t o r i a l s u g g e s t i o n s .

T h i s t y p e of a c t i v e r o l e model l ing a p p e a r s t o y i e l d

promis ing r e s u l t s , a l t h o u g h formal , c o n t r o l l e d s t u d i e s have n o t

y e t been under taken t o s u b s t a n t i a t e t h i s impress ion .

I n o r d e r t o p r o v i d e e f f e c t i v e and s y m p a t h e t i c

a s s i s t a n c e t o s t u d e n t writers, i f may be n e c e s s a r y f o r t e a c h e r s

t o become a c t i v e writers themselves . By s o d o i n g , t h e y may

a c q u i r e d i f f e r e n t sets of c r i t e r i a f o r w r i t i n g , which may i n

Page 102: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

t u r n l e a d t o r e p l a c i n g emphasis on t e x t - d e c o r a t i n g and

e r r o r - c o r r e c t i n g w i t h a more u s e f u l set of e d i t i n g s t r a t e g i e s .

The u se of a more c o l l e g i a l approach toward w r i t i n g i n t h e

c lass room may r e s u l t i n t e a c h e r s and s t u d e n t s becoming b o t h more

enabled and more e n a b l i n g i n t h e w r i t i n g and e d i t i n g p r o c e s s .

Given t h a t t h e t e a c h e r is c a p a b l e of p rov id ing t h e

d i r e c t i o n and gu idance which can h e l p s t u d e n t s l e a r n e f f e c t i v e

e d i t i n g t e c h n i q u e s , peer e d i t i n g may become a powerful t o o l i n

c lass room w r i t i n g .

Sugges t ions f o r f u r t h e r s t u d y

F u r t h e r s t u d y might p r o f i t a b l y be under taken on

t h e f o l l o w i n g t o p i c s :

1. Beach (1979) s u g g e s t s s t u d e n t s might pay more

a t t e n t i o n t o e d i t i n g and r e v i s i o n i f t e a c h e r s demons t ra ted more

i n t e r e s t i n t h i s s t a g e of t h e w r i t i n g . What would be t h e r e s u l t

i f t e a c h e r s marked e d i t i n g and r e v i s i o n r a t h e r t han f i n a l

compos i t i ons? Would s t u d e n t s i n f a c t respond by becoming more

a c t i v e e d i t o r s ?

2. Would s t u d e n t s perform b e t t e r i f t h i n k i n g t i m e was

prov ided f o r i n t e r n a l e d i t i n g , b e f o r e s t u d e n t s began w r i t i n g ? I f

t h e r e was a demons t r ab l e d i f f e r e n c e i n performance by s t u d e n t s

who d i d have t i m e f o r p r e - e d i t i n g a c t i v i t i e s , o r i n t e r n a l

e d i t i n g , what would be t h e minimum l e n g t h of t i m e needed t o

b r i n g abou t an a l t e r e d l e v e l of achievement?

Page 103: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

3. S e a r l e and D i l l o n (1980) s u g g e s t s t u d e n t s do n o t write

because t h e y a r e t o l d i n a v a r i e t y of ways t h a t t h e y canno t write.

Would w r i t i n g improve i f s t u d e n t s were a f f i r m e d i n t h e i r a b i l i t i e s t o

write and i n t h e i r a b i l i t i e s t o p r o v i d e e f f e c t i v e feedback and

e d i t i n g ?

4. What a r e t h e s p e c i f i c d i f f e r e n c e s demons t ra ted by

s t u d e n t s whose t e a c h e r s model w r i t i n g and t a k e a c t i v e p a r t i n

c lass room w r i t i n g , and s t u d e n t s whose t e a c h e r s do n o t p a r t i c i p a t e a t

t h i s l e v e l ?

5 . Experienced writers o f t e n d i s p l a y i d i o s y n c r a t i c w r i t i n g

behav iou r s . Would s t u d e n t e d i t i n g and w r i t i n g improve i f t hey were

p e r m i t t e d t o have g r e a t e r i n p u t i n t o t h e i r w r i t i n g behaviours? (For

example, choos ing t h e i r own w r i t i n g implements, l o c a t i o n s , t i m e s ,

e t c ) . 6. Would a n a l y s i s of t h e c l a s s room b e h a v i o u r s o f t e a c h e r s

who a r e themse lves writers r e v e a l any d i f f e r e n c e s i n approach o r

a t t i t u d e between t h i s g roup a g roup o f non-wri t ing t e a c h e r s ?

Page 104: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

APPENDIX ONE

T h i s is a copy of t h e s t a n d a r d t e x t p rov ided f o r each

s t u d e n t :

THE BOAT

M e and my dad and my u n c l e , w e was gonna

b u i l d a b o a t . I n my basement. And my

u n c l e , he had a l l t h e p l a n s and s t u f f . And

S O w e s t a r t e d t o b u i l d i t and i t took a l l

w i n t e r . I g o t t o do some of t h e s t u f f

b u t m o s t l y j u s t ho ld t h i n g s . Then when w e

g o t i t f i n i s h e d w e went t o t a k e i t o u t t h e

door and t h e b o a t was t o b i g t o go th rough

t h e door . And I s u r e laughed.

Page 105: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

STUDENT RESPONSES:

Each s t u d e n t h a s been a s s i g n e d a number, and r e sponses

a r e d e s c r i b e d under t h e number a s s i g n e d t o t h e s t u d e n t .

~ u n b e r i n g was random and does n o t i n d i c a t e r ank ing .

I t e m (1) shows s t u d e n t e d i t i n g , i t e m ( a ) is s t u d e n t

r e v i s i o n . A l l e n t r i e s a r e r e p o r t e d e x a c t l y a s w r i t t e n , and

s p e l l i n g h a s n o t been c o r r e c t e d .

1. My Dad, my u n c l e and I were going t o b u i l d a boa t . I n my

basement. And my u n c l e had a l l t h e p l a n s and s t u f f . And s o w e

s t a r t e d t o b u i l t i t and i t too,k a l l w i n t e r . I had t o do some of

t h e s t u f f b u t mos t ly j u s t ho ld t h i n g s . Then when we f i n i s h e d w e

went t o t a k e i t o u t t h e door and t h e b o a t was t o b i g . I t would

n o t go th rough t h e door . I s u r e laughed!

a ) My Dad, my u n c l e , were going t o b u i l d a b o a t because w e

needed a new one our o l d one had p a t c h e s on it. W e b u i l t t h e

b o a t i n ou r basement.

2. My Dad, my Uncle and I were going t o b u i l d a b o a t i n my

basement, my u n c l e had a l l t h e p l a n s and s t u f f . And s o w e

s t a r t e d t o b u i l d . I t t ok a l l w i n t e r . I g o t t o do some of t h e

Page 106: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

s t u f f b u t mos t ly j u s t ho ld t h i n g s . Then when w e g o t i t f i n i s h e d

w e went t o t a k e i t o u t t h e door and t h e b o a t was t o b i g t o go

th rough t h e door , and I s u r e laughed!.

a ) On December, my dad and I were going t o b u i l d a b o a t .

3. My dad and my u n c l e and I . Was gonna b u i l d a b o a t , I n my dad

and my u n c l e ' s basement, W e had a l l t h e p l a n s and s t u f f and s o

w e s t a r t e d t o b u i l d i t and i t took a l l w i n t e r . I g o t t o do some

of t h e s t u f f b u t mos t ly j u s t I ho ld t h i n g s . When w e g o t i t

f i n i s h e d w e wanted t o t a k e i t o u t t h e door b u t t h e b o a t was t o

b i g t o go th rough t h e door . And w e laughed!

a ) My dad and my unc le and I was gonna b u i l d a b o a t . W e a r e

b u i l d t h e b o a t because w e want t o go f i s h i n g .

4 . My and my dad and my u n c l e were going t o b u i l d a b o a t i n my

basement. My u n c l e had a l l t h e p l a n s and s t u f f , s o w e s t a r t e d t o

b u i l d i t . I t took a l l w i n t e r . I g o t t o do some of t h e s t u f f b u t

mos t ly j u s t ho ld t h i n g s . Then when w e g o t i t f i n i s h e d w e went t o

t a k e i t o u t t h e door and t h e b o a t was t o b i g t o go th rough t h e

door . I s u r e laughed!

a ) My Dad, my Uncle and I were going t o b u i l d a boa t .

5. My Dad, my u n c l e and I were going t o b u i l d a b o a t i n my

basement. My u n c l e had a l l t h e p l a n s and s t u f f . And s o w e

Page 107: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

s t a r t e d t o b u i l d i t and i t took a l l w i n t e r . I g o t t o do some of

t h e s t u f f , b u t mos t ly j u s t hold t h i n g s . Then when w e g o t

f i n i s h e d , w e went t o t a k e t o b u i l d i t and i t took a l l w i n t e r . I

g o t t o do some of t h e s t u f f b u t mos t ly j u s t ho ld t h i n g s . Then

when w e g o t i t f i n i s h e d w e went t o t a k e i t o u t t h e door and t h e

b o a t was t o b i g t o go th rough t h e d o o r , and I s u r e laughed.

( 'To ' i n t h e l a s t l i n e is c i r c l e d , and ' s p ' no t ed . )

a ) On December 1 9 t h , my dad, my u n c l e and I s t a r t e d t o b u i l d a

b o a t .

6 . My dad and my u n c l e and I were go ing t o b u i l d a b o a t i n my

basement. And my u n c l e h e had a l l t h e p l a n s and s t u f f . And sowe

s t a r t e d t o b u i l d i t . I t took a l l w i n t e r . I g o t t o do some of t h e

s t u f f b u t mos t ly j u s t h o l d i n g t h i n g s . Then when w e g o t i t

f i n i s h e d w e went t o t a k e i t o u t t h e door . The b o a t was t o b i g t o

go th rough t h e door . And I s u r e laughed!

a ) My dad and my u n c l e and I were going t o b u i l d a bba t . MY

u n c l e had a l l of t h e p l a n s . And s o w e made t h e b o a t o u t of wood.

7 . My dad , my u n c l e and m e w e were goning t o b u i l d a b o a t i n t h e

basement. My u n c l e had a l l t h e p l a n s and t h e s t u f f w e need s o w e

s t a r t e d t o b u i l t t h e b o a t and i t took a l l w i n t e r . I g o t t o do

some of t h e work b u t mos t ly h o l d i n g t h i n g s . When w e g o t i t

f i n i s h e d w e went t o t a k e i t o u t t h e door and t h e b o a t was t o b i g

t o go th rough t h e door . I laughed hard!

Page 108: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

a ) ad and I and my u n c l e , w e were going t o b u i l d a b o a t . I n my

basement. My u n c l e , h e had a l l t h e p l a n s and s t u f f . And s o w e

s t a r t e d t o b u i l d t h e b o a t and w e took a l l w i n t e r . I g o t t o do

some s t u f f b u t m o s t l y j u s t ho ld s t u f f . Then when w e f i n i s h e d and

when w e went t o t a k e i t o u t t h e door and t h e b o a t was t o b i g t o

go th rough t h e door . And I laughed

8. My dad my Uncle and I a r e going t o b u i l d a boa t . I n our

basement. My unc le h a s a l l t h e p l a n s and i n s t r u c t i o n s . So w e

began t o b u i l d t h e b o a t and i t took a l l w i n t e r . I g o t t o do some

of t h e work b u t mos t ly j u s t ho ld ing t h i n g s . Then when i t was

f i n i a l l y f i n i s h e d w e took i t o u t t h e door . The b o a t was t o l a r g e

t o go th rough t h e door and I laughed!

a ) My dad, u n c l e and I a r e going t o b u i l d a b o a t i n our

basement. My u n c l e h a s a l l t h e p l a n s and i n s t r u c t i o n s s o w e

s t a r t e d t o b u i l d t h e b o a t . I t took a l l w i n t e r . I g o t t o do some

of t h e work b u t mos t ly j u s t ho ld ing t h i n g s . Then when i t was

f i n a l l y f i n i s h e d w e took i t o u t t h e door . The b o a t was t o l a g g e

t o go th rough t h e door and I l a u g h t e d .

9. Red ' x ' s were added between word ' u n c l e ' and t h e comma i n t h e

f i r s t s e n t e n c e ; on t h e word ' w e ' f o l l o w i n g t h e c o m a ; on t h e

p e r i o d fo l lowing basement ' ; on t h e comma fo l lowing ' unc le ' , and

on t h e exc l ama t ion m a r k .

a ) My dad and my u n c l e and I . W e a r e going t o b u i l d a b o a t i n my

Page 109: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

u n c l e s basement. My Uncle h a s p l a n s and s t u f f . W e s t a r t e d t o

b u i l d i t and it took a l l w i n t e r . I g o t t o do some of t h e s t u f f

b u t mos t ly ho ld t h i n g s . When w e f i n i s h e d w e whent t o t a k e i t o u t

t h e door and t h e b o a t was t o b i g t o go th rough t h e door , and I

s u r e laughed.

10. My dad , my u n c l e and I , w e were going t o b u i l d a b o a t i n my

basement. My u n c l e , he had a l l t h e p l a n s and s t u f f . So w e

s t a r t e d t o b u i l d i t and i t took a l l w i n t e r . I t o do some of t h e

s t u f f b u t mos t ly j u s t ho ld t h i n g s . Then when w e f i n i s h e d i t w e

went t o t a k e i t o u t t h e door and t h e b o a t was t o b i g t o go

th rough t h e door . And I s u r e laughed!

a ) My dad , my u n c l e and I , w e were going t o b u i l d a b o a t i n my

basement. My u n c l e , h e had a l l of t h e p l a n s and s t u f f . So w e

s t a r t e d t o b u i l d i t and i t took a l l w i n t e r . I was a l lowed t o

(do) some of t h e s t u f f b u t mos t ly ho ld t h i n g s s o t h e n when w e

b i g t o go th rough t h e door . I s u r e laughed!

11. ( ' ~ e and my dad and my u n c l e ' , was c i r c l e d and 'wrond

o r d e r 1 no ted . 'Was gonna' was c i r c l e d , and ' unproper e n g l i s h '

noted. The p e r i o d i n t h e f i r s t s e n t e n c e was marked ' uneces sa ry ' . 'And', ' h e ' , and 'And' were c i r c l e d i n t h e nex t s e n t e n c e , and

t h e p e r i o d fo l lowing ' s t u f f ' changed t o a comma. 'Unecessary '

was w r i t t e n under ' H e ' . I n l i n e t h r e e , a comma was i n s e r t e d .

between ' i t ' and ' a n d ' . A v e r t i c a l l i n e was drawn between

Page 110: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

'mos t ly ' and ' j u s t ' and t h e word ' h o l d ' was changed t o ' h e l d ' . A

red box was drawn around ' t o go th rough t h e door '- , and 'And' and

t h e word ' unnecessary ' was no ted on bo th . )

a ) My d a d , my u n c l e and I were going t o b u i l d a b o a t i n my

basement. My u n c l e had a l l t h e equipment , s o w e s t a r t e d t o b u i l d

it. I t took a l l w i n t e r . I g o t t o do some t h i n g s b u t mos t ly I

he ld s t u f f . When w e g o t i t f i n i s h e d w e went t o t a k e i t o u t t h e

door , t h e b o a t was t o b i g . I s u r e laughed .

12. ( T h i s s t u d e n t used a code. 'L' s t o o d f o r l anauge ( s i c ) , 'S'

s p e l l i n g and ' S l ' s p e l l i n g and l anauge ( s i c ) . 'L' was marked

over t h e f i r s t two words, ' M e ' and ' a n d ' ; 'S1' was marked over

'was ' and 'gonna ' . I n l i n e two, ' h e ' was c r o s s e d o u t and ' n o t

n e s s a r y ' added. I n l i n e two ' s p e c f y ' was w r i t t e n over ' s t u f f ' .

I n l i n e t h r e e , 'had a chance t o d o ' r e p l a c e d ' g o t t o d o ' . I n

l i n e f o u r , ' s t u f f ' was marked ' s p e c f e y ' . I n l i n e f i v e ' t h e '

b e f o r e ' doo r ' was d e l e t e d , ' door ' was changed t o ' d o o r s ' . I n

l i n e s i x , 'basement ' was added b e f o r e ' d o o r ' . )

a ) My dad and I , and my u n c l e , were going t o b u i l d a b o a t . I n

our basement. My u n c l e had a l l t h e p l a n s and t o o l s . I t took a l l

w i n t e r t o b u i l d . I had a chance t o do some of t h e s t u f f b u t ho ld

s t u f f mos t ly . When w e g o t i t f i n i s h e d i t would n o t go through

t h e door . I looked and laughed. The end.

13. ( T h i s s t u d e n t a l s o used a code. Only N S (new s e n t e n c e ) was

103

Page 111: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

exp la ined . No meaning was g i v e n f o r ' W W ' ' SP ' o r 'WS' . 'WW' w a s

noted on : M e and my dad and my u n c l e , w e was gonna; And my

unc le ; and s t u f f ; . s t u f f ; b u t mos t ly j u s t ho ld t h i n g s . ' I n ' was

marked 'SP ' ; ' t o go th rough t h e door ' was marked 'WS' . unexpla ined b r a c k e t s were p l aced around ' h e ' , ' and ' and ' t h e n ' . )

a ) My u n c l e , dad and I , were going t o b u i l d a b o a t i n my

basement. My u n c l e had a l l of t h e p l a n s and t o o l s t o b u i l d i t s o

w e s t a r t e d t o b u i l d it. I t looked good b u t took u s a l l w i n t e r t o

b u i l d it.

I was al lowed t o h e l p on t h e b o a t , b u t t h e most work I d i d was

ho ld ing t h i n g s f o r them. When i t was comple te , w e t r i e d t o t a k e

i t o u t of t h e basement, b u t t h e door was t o o sma l l . and I

laughed.

14. (The s t u d e n t c i r c l e d ' M e a-nd my dad and my u n c l e ' and ' w e was

gonna' and no ted 'bad grammar' .) The t e x t was e d i t e d t o read: I n

my basement. My u n c l e had a l l t h e p l a n s and s t u f f , sd w e s t a r t e d

t o b u i l d . I t took a l l w i n t e r . I g o t t o do some of t h e s t u f f b u t

mos t ly j u s t ho ld t h i n g s . When i t was f i n i s h e d , w e went t o t a k e

i t o u t t h e door and t h e b o a t was t o b i g t o f i t th rough t h e door .

I s u r e laughed!

a ) My dad , u n c l e and I were going t o b u i l d a b o a t i n my

basement. My u n c l e had a l l t h e p l a n s and s t u f f , s o w e s t a r t e d t o

b u i l d . I t took a l l w i n t e r . I g o t t o do some of t h e s t u f f b u t

mos t ly j u s t ho ld t h i n g s . When i t was f i n i s h e d , w e went t o t a k e

Page 112: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

i t o u t t h e door it was t o b i g t o f i t th rough t h e door . I s u r e

laughed!

15. My dad , u n c l e and I a r e going t o b u i l d a b o a t . I n our

basement. my u n c l e had a l l t h e p l a n s f o r it , s o w e s t a r t e d t o

b u i l d i t , i t took a l l w i n t e r . I g o t t o do some of t h e work b u t

mos t ly I j u s t he ld t h i n g s . when w e g o t i t f i n i s h e d w e took i t

o u t s i d e b u t i t was t o b i g t o go through t h e door , I s u r e

laughed!

a ) My dad , u n c l e and I a r e going t o b u i l d a b o a t i n ou r

basement. My u n c l e had a l l t h e p l a n s f o r i t , s o w e s t a r t e d t o

b u i l d i t , i t took a l l w i n t e r . I g o t t o do some of t h e work b u t

mos t ly I j u s t h e l d t h i n g s . When w e g o t f i n i s h e d w e took i t

o u t s i d e b u t i t w a s t o b i g t o go th rough t h e d o o r , I s u r e d i d

laugh! '

16. My dad , u n c l e and I were going t o b u i l d a b o a t . I n my

basement. And my u n c l e , h e had a l l t h e p l a n s and s t u f f a l l

ready. s o w e s t a r t e d t o b u i l d i t , and i t took u s a l l w i n t e r t o

b i l d . I g o t t o do some of t h e s t u f f b u t m o s t l y j u s t ho ld ing

t h i n g s . when w e g o t i t f i n i s h e d w e went t o t a k e i t o u t t h e door

b u t t h e b o a t w a s t o b i g t o go th rough t h e door . And I s u r e

laughed!

a ) My dad, u n c l e and I , were going t o b u i l d a b o a t . I n my

basement. and my unc le , h e had a l l t h e p l a n s and s t u f f a l l

Page 113: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

ready. So w e s t a r t e d t o b u i l d i t , and i t took us a l l w i n t e r t o

b i l d it. I g o t t o do some of t h e s t u f f b u t I mos t ly j u s t ho ld ing

t h i n g s . When w e g o t i t f i n i s h e d w e went t o t a k e i t o u t t h e door ,

b u t t h e b o a t was t o b i g t o go th rough t h e door . and I s u r e

laughed !

17. ( T h i s s t u d e n t marked ' x ' s ove r ' m e ' , ' a n d ' , ' w a s ' , ' gonna ' ,

and ' b o a t ' i n s e n t e n c e one. An arrow p o i n t e d t o t h e p e r i o d a t

t h e end of t h e s e n t e n c e . Marks were p l aced over 'And' , ' s t u f f ' ,

and 'And' i n s e n t e n c e two. I n t h r e e an a r row p o i n t e d t o ' i t ' .

Marks were p l aced over ' s t u f f ' i n s e n t e n c e f o u r ; ' f i n i s h e d ' , ' w e ' , and ' t h e ' i n f i v e ; and ove r ' d o o r ' , and 'And' i n s i x . )

a ) My d a d , u n c l e and I were going t o b u i l d a b o a t i n my basement.

My u n c l e had a 1 t h e p l a n s and t h i n g s . W e s t a r t e d t o b u i l d t h e

b o a t and i t took a l l w i n t e r . I g o t t o do some of t h e t h i n g s b u t

I mos t ly h e l d t h i n g s . When w e g o t i t f i n i s h e d w e went t o t a k e i t

o u t door . The b o a t was t o b i g t o go th rough t h e door . I s u r e

laughed.

18. ( T h i s s t u d e n t e d i t e d o n l y t h e f i r s t s e n t e n c e , w r i t i n g 'My

dad and My Uncle and I f o r ' M e and my dad and my unc le ' , 'were

going t o ' f o r 'was gonna' and d e l e t i n g t h e p e r i o d a f t e r ' b o a t ' .)

a ) My u n c l e , dad and I were going t o b u i l d a b o a t i n o u r

basement. My u n c l e had a l l t h e p l a n s and equipment. I t took a l l

w i n t e r t o b u i l d it. I m o s t l y j u s t had t o hold t h e t h i n g s . I

laughed when i t w a s t o b i g t o t a k e o u t t h e door .

Page 114: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

19. ( T h i s s t u d e n t marked t h e s t a n d a r d copy w i t h a s e r i e s of

' x ' s . I n s e n t e n c e one, t h e s e marks were p l aced over t h e words

' m e ' , 'my', and ' u n c l e ' , ' w e ' , 'was ' , ' g o n n a ' , and t h e p e r i o d

a f t e r ' b o a t ' . I n two, ' s t u f f ' , and ' and ' were marked and

p u n c t u a t i o n a f t e r ' u n c l e ' and ' s t u f f ' d e l e t e d . I n s e n t e n c e ,

' s t u f f ' and 'Then' were marked. I n t h e p e r i o d a f t e r ' d o o r ' was

changed t o a comma. 'And I s u r e laughed ' was d e l e t e d and an ' x '

p l aced above i t . )

a ) My u n c l e , dad and I were go ing t o b u i l d a b o a t i n my

basement. And my u n c l e had a l l of t h e p l a n s and equipment s o w e

s t a r t e d t o b u i l d i t and i t t o a l l w i n t e r . I g o t t o do some of

t h e work b u t mos t ly j u s t g o t t o ho ld t h i n g s . When w e g o t i t

f i n i s h e d w e went t o t a k e i t o u t t h e door and t h e b o a t was t o b i g

t o go th rough t h e door and I b u r s t i n t o l a u g h t e r

20. My dad , Uncle and I were going t o b u i l d a boa t . I n my

basement. And my u n c l e , he had a l l t h e p l a n s etc. And s o w e b

s t a r t e d t o b u i l d i t and i t took a l l w i n t e r . I g o t t o do some of

t h e s t u f f b u t m o s t l y j u s t he ld t h i n g s . Then when w e g o t i t

f i n i s h e d w e went t o t a k e i t o u t s i d e and t h e b o a t was t o b i g t o

go th rough t h e door . And I s u r e d i d laugh!

a ) My dad , Uncle and I were going t o b u i l d a b o a t . I n my

basement. And my unc le , h e had a l l t h e p l a n s etc. And s o w e

s t a r t e d t o b u i l d i t and i t took a l l w i n t e r . I g o t t o do some of

t h e s t u f f b u t I mos t ly j u s t h e l d t h i n g s . Then when w e g o t i t

Page 115: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

f i n i s h e d w e went t o t a k e i t o u t s i d e and t h e boa t was t o b i g t o

go th rough t h e door . And I s u r e d i d laugh!

21. My u n c l e , my dad and I a r e going t o b u i l d a boa t . I n my

basement. And my u n c l e had a l l t h e p l a n s and s t u f f . And s o w e

s t a r t e d t o b u i l d i t , I t took a l l w i n t e r . I g o t t o do some of t h e

s t u f f . Mostly I j u s t g o t t o ho ld t h i n g s . Then when w e g o t i t

f i n i s h e d w e went t o t a k e i t o u t t h e door and t h e b o a t was t o b i g

t o go th rough t h e door . And I s u r e laughed!

a ) My u n c l e , my dad and I a r e going t o b u i l d a b o a t . I n my

basement. And myuncle had a l l t h e p l a n s and s t u f f . And s o w e

s t a r t e d t o b u i l d t h e boa t . I t took a l l w i n t e r . I g o t t o do some

of t h e s t u f f . Mostly I j u s t g o t t o hold t h e t h i n g s . Then when w e

g o t i t f i n i s h e d w e went t o t a k e i t o u t t h e door t h e boa t was t o

b i g t o g e t th rough t h e door . I t was s u r e funny.

22. ( T h i s s t u d e n t made no r e v i s i o n s b e f o r e r e w r i t i n g t h e t e x t . )

a ) My dad my u n c l e and I , were going t o b u i l d an army b o a t i n

our basement. My dad had a l l t h e p l a n s and s t u f f . So w e s t a r t e d

t o b u i l d i t and i t took 6 y e a r s t o make. When i t was f i n i s e d w e

went t o t a k e i t o u t t h e door b u t i t was t o b i g s o w e wreak i t

and s t a r t a l l over a g a i n .

23. My dad , my u n c l e and I were going t o b u i l d a b o a t i n my

basement. My u n c l e had a l l t h e p l a n s and s t u f f . So w e s t a r t e d t o

Page 116: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

b u i l d i t and i t took a l l w i n t e r . I g o t t o do some of t h e t h i n g s

b u t m o s t l y j u s t ho ld t h i n g s . Then when w e g o t i t f i n i s h e d w e

went t o t a k e i t o u t t h e door and t h e b o a t was t o o b i g t o go

th rough t h e d o o r , and I s u r e laughed!

a ) My dad , my u n c l e and I were going t o b u i l d a b l u e and ye l low

s a i l b o a t s o w e cou ld go f i s h i n g and j u s t s a i l around. We

s t a r t e d t o b u i l d t h e - s a i l b o a t i n my basement. W e used a l l s o r t s

of t o o l s t o b u i l d t h e s a i l b o a t and i t took a w i n t e r . I g o t t o do

some t h i n g s b u t t h e y were v e r y ha rd s o I mos t ly g o t t o hold t h e

t o o l s . When w e g o t i t f i n i s h e d w e went t o t a k e i t o u t t h e door

and BAM! w e c r a shed i n t o t h e w a l l and a p i c t u r e f e l l down.

24 . M e and my dad and my unc le , w e were going t o b u i l d a b o a t .

I n my basement. And my u n c l e , h e had a l l t h e p l a n s and s t u f f .

And s o w e s t a r t e d t o b u i l d i t , and i t took a l l w i n t e r . I g o t t o

do some of t h e s t u f f b u t mos t ly j u s t ho ld t h i n g s . Then when w e

g o t i t f i n i s h e d w e went t o t a k e i t o u t t h e door and &e b o a t was

t o b i g t o go th rough t h e door . And I s u r e laughed!

a ) My dad my u n c l e and m e , were going t o b u i l d a b o a t i n my

basement. My u n c l e had a l l t h e p l a n s and s t u f f . The boa t is a

s a i l b o a t , i t is 10 f e e t long. I t is going t o b e l i g h t g reen . W e

dec ided t o b u i l d t h e b o a t because my grandpa is s i c k and w e have

t o s a i l ove r and see him because w e d o n ' t have anogh money t o

f l y . So w e s t a r t e d . t o b u i l d i t and i t took a l l w i n t e r .

Page 117: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

25. My dad and my u n c l e and I were go ing t o b u i l d a b i g b i g b o a t

f o r f i - sh ing i n our basement. My unc le , he had a l l t h e p l a n s on

how t o b u i l d t h e b o a t . And s o w e s t a r t e d t o b u i l t i t , i t took

a l l w i n t e r . I g o t t o do some of t h e work b u t mos t ly j u s t ho ld

t h i n g s . When t h e b o a t was f i n i s h e d w e went t o t a k e i t o u t s i d e ,

b u t t h e b o a t was t o b i g t o go th rough t h e door . And I s u r e

laughed !

a ) On O c t 1973 my dad wanted t o b u i l d a b o a t t o s a i l a c r o s s t h e

ocean. So h e s t a r t e d t o b u i l d , w i t h t h e h e l p of my unc le .

26. ( T h i s s t u d e n t c i r c l e d ' m e and my' and ' w e was gonna ' , t h e n

began t o r e v i s e t h e s t o r y . )

a ) When my dad and I g o t home my u n c l e had a g r e a t i dea . H i s

i d e a was t o b u i l d a b o a t i n our basement. My dad w a s n ' t s u r e

abou t t h e i d e a b u t he s a i d i t was OK anyways.

27. My dad , my u n c l e , and m e , were going t o b u i l d a b o a t , i n my

basement. My u n c l e had a l l t h e p l a n s and s t u f f . And s o w e

s t a r t e d t o b u i l d and i t took a l l w i n t e r . I g o t t o do some of t h e

s t u f f b u t m o s t l y j u s t ho ld t h i n g s . When w e were f i n i s h e d w e went

t o t a k e i t o u t t h e door and t h e b o a t was t o b i g t o go th rough

t h e d o o r , and I laughed!

a ) Yes t e rday my dad was watching a t e l e v i s i o n show abou t b o a t s

28. My dad , my u n c l e and I , w e a r e go ing t o b u i l d a boa t . I n my

Page 118: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

basement. And my u n c l e , h e had a l l t h e p l a n s and equipment. And

s o w e s t a r t e d t o b u i l d i t and i t took a l l w i n t e r . I g o t t o do

some of t h e equipment work b u t mos t ly j u s t ho ld t h i n g s i n p l a c e .

Then when w e g o t it f i n i s h e d (day) w e went t o t a k e i t o u t t h e

door and t h e b o a t was t o b i g t o go th rough t h e door , And I s u r e

laughed!

a ) My dad my u n c l e and I w e were b u i l d i n g a b o a t i n our

basement. My u n c l e , he had a l l t h e p l a n s and t h e equipment f o r

working. And s o w e s t a r t e d t o b u i l d t h e b o a t i t took u s a l l

w i n t e r . I worked on t h e equipment b u t mos t ly j u s t ho ld ing t h i n g s

f o r my u n c l e and my dad. W e f i n i s h e d i t t h e n w e took i t o u t t h e

door t h e n t h e most f u n n i e s t t h i n g hapened w e c o u l d n ' t g e t i t

through t h e door , Then I s u r e laughed.

29. (The s t u d e n t no ted "you shou ld check your s e n t e n c e

s t r u c t u r e , " t hen began a r e v i s i o n . )

a ) M e and my unc le Bob and f a t h e r , went t o b u i l d a b o a t , i n a r e

basement. My Uncle Bob b rough t a l l t h e p l a n s and m a t e r i a l . The b

b o a t took a l l w i n t e r t o b u i l d . I g o t t o do some of t h e work b u t

I mos t ly g o t m a t e r i a l s f o r my dad and unc le . When w e f i n i s h e d

t h e b o a t w e t r y e d t o p u t i t th rough t h e door b u t i t was t o b i g .

I s t o o d t h e r e and l a u g h t .

30. (The s t u d e n t p r i n t e d " R e Do" on t h e t e x t b e f o r e r e v i s i n g . )

a ) My dad , u n c l e and I , w e were going t o b u i l d a b o a t i n ny

basement. My u n c l e had a l l t h e p l a n s . So w e s t a r t e d t o b u i l d t h e

Page 119: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

b o a t t h e b o a t took us a l l w i n t e r t o b u i l d . My u n c l e and dad l e t

m e do some of t h e work most j u s t t o hold t h i n g s . When t h e b o a t

was a l l f i n i s h e d w e t r i e d t o g e t i t th rough t h e door b u t i t

d i d n ' t f i t .

31. (The s t u d e n t r e v i s e d wi thou t e d i t i n g t h e paragraph . )

a ) M e and m q dad , and my u n c l e , were going t o t r y and b i l d a

b o a t . I my basement. My u n c l e had a l l t h e p l a n s t o b u i l d t h e

boa t . So w e a l l s t a r t e d t o b u i l d i t and i t took a l l w i n t e r .

32. My and my dad and my u n c l e , w e were going t o b u i l d a boa t .

I n my basement. My u n c l e , h e had a l l a t h e p l a n s and o rgan ized .

So w e s t a r t e d t o b u i l d i t , i t took a l l w i n t e r . I g o t t o do some

of t h e t h i n g s b u t mos t ly j u s t ho ld t h i n g s . Then when w e f i n i s h e d

i t w e went t o t a k e i t o u t t h e door and t h e b o a t was t o b i g , t o

go th rough , and I laughed!

a ) (Th i s s t u d e n t d i d n o t r e v i s e t h e s t o r y . )

33. ( T h i s s t u d e n t ' s name was w r i t t e n on t h e f i r s t page, b u t t h e

t e x t was n o t e d i t e d . The s t u d e n t began a r e v i s e d v e r s i o n . )

a ) My dad , u n c l e and I is going t o b u i l d a b o a t i n my basement.

My u n c l e he h a s t h e b r a i n s a t b u i l d i n g t h e b o a t . So w e s t a r t e d

t o b u i l d t h e b o a t and i t took a l l w i n t e r . Mostly a l l I had t o do

was j u s t ho ld up n a i l s , boa rd , e t c . When w e f i n i s h e d t h e b o a t i t

was t o b i g t o go th rough t h e door and I s u r e laughed .

Page 120: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

34. M e , my dad and my u n c l e , w e were gonna b u i l d a b o a t i n my

basement. My u n c l e had a l l t h e p l a n s . W e s t a r t e d t o b u i l d t h e

b o a t and i t took a l l w i n t e r . They l e t m e do some of t h e work b u t

mos t ly j u s t h o l d i n g t h i n g s . Then when w e g o t i t f i n i s h e d and w e

went t o t a k e i t o u t t h e door b u t t h e b o a t was t o b i g , t o go

th rough t h e door , I s u r e laughed a t t h a t !

a ) Me, my dad and my u n c l e , w e were go ing t o b u i l d a b o a t , i n my

basement. My u n c l e had a l l t h e p l a n s . W e s t a r t e d t o b u i l d t h e

b o a t and i t took a l l w i n t e r . They l e t m e do some of t h e work,

b u t mos t ly j u s t ho ld ing t h i n g s . Then when w e g o t i t f i n i s h e d and

w e went t o t a k e i t o u t t h e d o o r , b u t t h e b o a t was t o b i g t o go

thorugh t h e door , I s u r e laughed a t h a t !

35. ( T h i s s t u d e n t moved d i r e c t l y t o r e v i s i n g . )

a ) M e my dad and my u n c l e , were go ing t o b u i l d a b o a t i n my

basement. My u n c l e had a l l t h e t h i n g s needed. I t tok a whole

w i n t e r and g o t t o o h e l p . When i t w a s f i n i s h w e were going t o

t a k e i t o u t i t wouldnl t f i t . I laughed s o ha rd i j u s t abou t g o t

s i c k .

36. ( T h i s s t u d e n t moved d i r e c t l y t o r e v i s i n g . )

a ) My d a d , my u n c l e and I were going t o b u i l d a b o a t i n my

basement. My u n c l e had a l l t h e p l a n s and s o w e s t a r t e d t o b u i l d

i t and i t took . a l l w i n t e r . I was t h e o n l y one who d i d t h e work.

The o n l y t h i n g my dad and my u n c l e d i d was l a z e around e a t i n g

Page 121: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

c h i p s and popcorn and watching TV w h i l e I was working.

37. ( T h i s s t u d e n t moved d i r e c t l y t o r e v i s i n g . )

a ) M e and my dad and my u n c l e were going t o make a b l a c k and

b l u e s a i l b o a t i n t h e d u s t y basement. MY u n c l e had a l l t h e p l a n s

and t o o l s s o w e s t a r t e d t o b u i l d our s a i l b o a t . B u i l d i n g t h e

s a i l b o a t took a l l w i n t e r and I g o t t i r e d . I g o t t o b u i l d some

t h i n g b u t mos t ly I j u s t h e l d t h e t o o l s . When w e g o t i t f i n i s h e d

w e went u p s t a i r s t o b r i n g i t o u t s i d e . When w e t r i e d t o t a k e i t

through t h e door THUMP i t wouldn' t go th rough boy d i d laugh .

38. ( T h i s s t u d e n t moved d i r e c t l y t o r e v i s i n g . )

a ) My my dad and I were going t o b u i l d a b o a t i n our basement. I

was going t o be a f i b e r g l a s s b o a t t o go f i s h i n g i n . My u n c l e had

a l l t h e t o o l s and p l a n s t o beg in . I t took a l l w i n t e r t o b u i l d i t

b u t f i n a l y i t was f i n i s h e d , w e c o u l d n ' t g e t i t o u t of t h e door

s o w e had t o f i t i t th rough t h e window b u t t h a t d i d n ' t f i t . W e

c u t a l o t o f t h e w a l l o u t b u t w e f i n a l y g o t i t through .

The fo l lowing a r e r e s p o n s e s t o a r e q u e s t f o r

s u g g e s t i o n s on how t h e s t o r y might be improved:

1. Your s p e l l i n g is f i n e b u t your word use is n o t v e r y good. I

changed your word u s e around. Try working on t h a t . The s t o r y

i t s e l f was j u s t f i n e . I s u r e l i k e d t h e p a r t where t h e b o a t cou ld

n o t g e t t h rough t h e door . I t w a s v e r y amusing.

Page 122: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

2. No r e sponse .

3. Change t i t l e . Why a r e you going ( t o b u i l d t h e b o a t ) Was i t

hard o r ea sy?

4. No response .

5. S p e l l i n g .

6. No r e sponse .

7. Redo

8. Don ' t write t h e l i t t l e words t h a t don1 t mean any th ing . write

t h e ones - . t h a t have more meaning and unde r s t and ing .

9 . No response . !

10. No r e sponse .

11. Word o r d e r . unproper e n g l i s h . uneces sa ry ( p u n c t u a t i o n ) . more

d e t a i l .

12. Specfy ( 3 n o t a t i o n s ) . Not n e s s a r y (my u n c l e , he had a l l t h e

p l a n s . ' H e ' was c r o s s e d o u t . ) S p e l l i n g . Take more t i m e and

Page 123: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

p r a c t i s e your l anguage s k i l l s .

13. I t h i n k you shou ld look over t h i s ass ignment and rewrite i t

over i n a more o r d e r l y way. S p e l l i n g .

14. Bad grammar ( 2 n o t a t i o n s )

15 th rough 23 made no r e sponses .

24. Watch your s p e l l i n g and t e l l more abou t t h e b o a t , l i k e t e l l

what k ind and how b i g what c o l o r and why you want i t ?

25. Change t i t l e . What d i d you do f o r t h e rest of t h e w i n t e r ?

26. Do over . Not bad, b u t cou ld u s e b e t t e r grammer.

27. Make a b e t t e r t i t l e f o r t h e s t o r y . Why d i d t h e y d e c i d e t o

b u i l d a boa t . P u t more d e t a i l . Pu t b e t t e r s t a r t i n g . Pu t some

exc i t emen t i n s t o r y .

28. What was your u n c l e s name. How o f t e n d i d he come. When d i d

you f i n i s h e d t h e b o a t t hen what d i d you do a f t e r you laughed and

couldn ' t g e t i t th rough t h e door .

29. You shou ld check your s e n t e n c e s t r u c t u r e .

Page 124: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

30. Redoo!

31. No response .

32. I t would be a good i d e a t o check i t over and r i g h t i t a g i a n

and check i n d i c o n a r y f o r words your n o t s u r e o f . o t h e r w i s e v e r y

n i c e .

33. No comment

34. No comment

35. You should have used b e t t e r grammer.

36. No comment

37. No comment

38. No comment

Page 125: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

PEER - EVAUTATION AM) - SEW +. EVALUATION

WPiting Resource Center

Ohio Resleyan University

(E'ran the Writing R e s o u r c e Centre, O h i o Wesleyan University. Used w i t h penaission.)

Page 126: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

SURViX ON ATTITTUDE5 ABOUT bEUTCIG

Directions: 0elov are a ser ies of statanents about uriting. Thare M no right o r mug ans-rters t o these statements. Pleaae indicate the degree t o *mfsh each s t a t a n t applies t o you by cLrc- u h e t h ~ you (1) s t r o n g u a p s e , (2 1 a p e l ($1 are unce*&, (L) dispqnet or

s t rons ly disagree ui t& the sratmaent. khi la some ot chase satementa mas seaa reoetitious, take your time and tm t o be as honest as pojsibU,

I have no fear of my uritinq being e ~ a h ~ t 8 d . ................... . . ~ . ~ . ~ ~ e . . . * ~ ~ ~ ~ 2 3 5-

T m a camposition course is a very frightening c c p r i c e ........... ........-..1 2 3 b- 5,

h n d 5 q in a canposition makes me f e e l good ............... .........................l - 2 - 3- L 5- i\ly mind seaus t o go blank h e n I start ................. t o uork on a canposition.. .1 2 3- 3,s- Expressing ideas through writing seam t o be a waste of time,..............-....... 1- 2- 3- L 5- I uould enjoy submitting my mititkg to . magulnes for e l u t i o n and publication.. .l- 2, 3 & 5-

Page 127: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

Proof reading checkl i s t

Iden t i fy the e r ro r s you have made i n your essay, and mark the boxes which correspond t o the mistakes you have found. Each Checklist may be used f o r th ree (3) consecutive weeks.

WEEK 1 ' WEEK 2 WEEK 3 ! I I

Run-on Sentences ! i

Fa i lu re t o Use a : i

C o m a Where Needed 4 t

Sentence Fragments 1 I

Coma Spl ices I

1

Sub1 ec t-Verb Agreement 4 I

Verb Tenses 1 #

4 I

I

-

Pronoun Agreement i I I U

I Misspelling 4 I

Controll ing idea not 1 r, I i

. car r ied through 1 b I 1 !

Diction (Especially , slang tenus t ha t a r e 1 out of place) I

Transi t ions not made i I

! c l e a r l y I

I I

1 Controll ing idea not i c l ea r ly s ta ted

I Paragraphs too long. 1 too shor t , o r non- 1 1

I

ex i s t en t I I 1

i I

&

I 8

Ideas not s ta ted c l e a r l y I i or l og i ca l l y

! , .

- WEEK 1-Most Connnon Error WEEK 2-Most Common Error WEEK 3-Most Common Error

Page 128: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

SELF-EVALUATION CHECK SHEET FOR STUDENT USE

Before typing or writing the final draft of a paper, ask yourself the following questions and note your answers with a "yes," "no," or "?" in the appropriate box.

DO I HAVE

an adequate introduction?

a thesis statement that is limited, clearly focused, and specifically stated?

PAPER

a paragraph division for each major point? - I r l i r r C for each paragraph, a to ic sentence r;e which clearly states t e controlling idea?

for each paragraph, a sufficient development in a controlled structure (i.e., time order, comparison, contrast, example)?

for each sentence, a clear relationship to the controlling idea of the para- graph (i.e., no sentences which are' irrelevant to this idea)?

transitional words/phrases and other means of coherence to help the reader move from one idea to another? n-n u [ consistent point of view (avoidance of shifts in person, number, tense, tone)?

an' adequate conclusion? ' 5 nnni

HAVE I CHECKED

1) spelling?

2) punctuation (apostrophes, commas, periods, etc.)?

3) sentence correctness (NO fragments, comma splices, dangling modifiers, pronouns with unclear or missing antecedents, lack of agreement between subject-verb/pronoun-referent)?

Page 129: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

STEPS IN ACADEMIC AND PROFESSIONAL WRITING -- -

Pre-Writing: produce a r i c h mass of information and ideas by "clustering'," brainstorming, f r e e wr i t ing , group .work, research , f ieldwork, -

in terv iews, etc.

Rough Draft ing: g e t subs tance rap id ly , no t worrying about c a r e f u l organiza t ion , mechanics, o r even complete sentences.

Writing F i r s t Dra f t : re-organize rough d r a f t - adding, d e l e t i n g , s h i f t i n g a s necessary - and g e t t h e mechanics r i g h t .

Conferencing: g e t advice from group, peer e d i t o r , f r i e n d s , family, o r teacher /supervisor .

Revising: use t h e advi.ce t o make paper c l e a r e r and more focused, with b e t t e r d e t a i l s and evidence.

Edit ing: check f o r d i c t i o n , s p e l l i n g , punctuat ion, and

Proofreading: even i f a p ro fess iona l has typed your paper, you a r e r e spons ib le f o r d e t e c t i n g a l l "typos," miareadings, omissions, and o t h e r e r r o r s .

Evaluation:

R e - W r i t i n g :

review t e a c h e r l s / s u p e r v i s o r l s assessment of t h e s t rong po in t s and weak po in t s , a c t i v e l y i n t e r n a l i z i n g t h i s information f o r use i n subsequent papers.

whenever poss ib le , demonstrate t h a t you have i n t e r n a l i z e d e v a l u a t o r ' s assessment by r e - v r i t i n g a t l e a s t a s e c t i o n of t h e paper.

Page 130: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

Every wr i t e r must revise and e d i t the f i r s t d r a f t of a paper. I n f a c t , many professional wr i te r s f e e l the r e a l work cf wri t ing begins w i t h tne rewriting. Sentences are corrected so t ha t they sound be t t e r ; words a re changed so t h a t ideas have grea te r impact and paragraphs are reorganized and rearranged i n order t o make the paper nore powerful. I t is during the ed i t i ng process t ha t a rough d r a f t .is transfcrmed in to a f in i shed pro duc t . Since there are m y d i f f e r en t kinds of e r r o r s t c look fo r while ed i t i ng , i t ' s a good idea to read the pager t h ~ r o u g h l g severa l times, focusing on a d i f f e r en t aspect each time. Below are suggestions f o r ed i t i ng your paper.

The f i r & time 7ou read the papw, check t k e paragra?hs. --Is your t hes i s c l e a r l y s t a t ed?

--Is there a l o g i c a l progression of ideas?

--Boes each paragrapn have a main idea?

--Should one paragraph be divided in to two or can two paraeraphs be combined?

--Are ang paragraphs unrelated to t'ce topic?.

--Eave you included most of the information from your oat l ine?

--Does your cpening paragraph spark i n t e r e s t i n tke tcpic?

--Does your ccncluding paradraph s w a r i z e the paper?

After you have ccrrected ycur garagraphs, read the paper again, focusing on the sentences.

--Is there con t inu i ty between sentences? 6

--Is .every sentence a conglete sentence with a subject and verb?

--Is there enougk'variety i n sentence s t ruc ture?

--Are most sentences i n the ac t ive voice?

--Is each sentence t o the point? Eave you avoided wordiness?

Your t h i r d reading should focus on language. /

--Have you eliminated c l i ches? .. *

--Are there o r i g i n a l phrases?

--Are words repea.ted too often?

--Zave you included sensory language?

--Iiave you chosen powerful descr ip t ive words?

Page 131: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

College Compositions

F i r s t Readinq (React)

1. Underline o r c i r c l e words o r sentences which seem p a r t i c u l a r l y e f f e c t i v e o r p a r t i c u l a r l y weak.

2 . Ask yourse l f : what i s the purpose of t h e paper? What c e n t r a l poin t i s i t t r y i n a . t o make?

3. Consider your r e a c t i o n t o the paper and i t s sub- j e c t . Is i t p o s i t i v e o r negat ive? Does t h e paper hold your i n t e r e s t ?

Second Readinq ( ~ n a l y z e )

Again, what i s t h e main i d e a o r purpose of t h e paper? Is i t s t a t e d e x p l i c i t l y ? I f so , underl ine t h e sen- t e n c e ( ~ ) . I f n o t , formulate a t o p i c o r t h e s i s sen- tence yourse l f .

I f t h e r e i s no main i d e a , then what a r e t h e minor ideas? How many a r e t h e r e and why don ' t they add up t o a main idea?

Can you t r a c e t h e flow of t h e main idea? I f s o , how is the idea c a r r i e d through? Through 10gica l ex- p lana t ion , throuah i l l u s t r a t i o n ( s p e c i f i c examples) , through c h r o n o l o ~ i c a l process , throuph comparison/ c o n t r a s t ?

If you cannot follow t h e flow, where does t h e pro- gress ion break down? Are t h e r e any sentences o r proups of sentences which seem i r r e l e v a n t ?

&

Are t h e r e any po in t s which need more e labora t ion? Would you l i k e t h e w r i t e r t o expla in anything i n g r e a t e r d e t a i l o r perham supply a s p e c i f i c example t o i l l u s t r a t e and c l a r i f y t h e po in t?

I f t h e paper holds your i n t e r e s t i s i t because you f i n d the t o p i c inhe ren t ly i n t e r e s t i n g o r because t h e w r i t e r has c rea ted t h e i n t e r e s t f o r you through h i s / he r p a r t i c u l a r approach, o r use of language?

1

Are a l l sentences c l e a r and grammatical? Go back t o the . sen tences o r words you underlined o r c i r c l e d i n #1 of t h e " reac t" sec t ion . Can you descr ibe why these usages a r e e f f e c t i v e o r weak?

Are t h e var ious po in t s i n t h e paper optimally organ- ized? What would be t h e e f f e c t . of rear rangina t h e ideas ?

* ---- Does t h e w r i t e r make smooth t r a n s i t i o n s between ideas?

Page 132: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

The Proof of the Pudding

T i t l e (1) Is the t i t l e imaginative and provocative? (2) Is the t i t l e appropriate? Does i t r e f l e c t a narrowed . .. topic?

=- - Introductory Paragraph (1) Is there a one-sentence cont ro l l ing idea? (2) Does it make some d e f i n i t e asser t ion? Is i t c l ea r ly s t a t ed? (3) Does i t suggest a s t ruc tu re f o r the essay? (4) Does the r e s t of t he introductory paragraph lead i n t o the C.I.? - On the Word Level (1) Spel l ing e r r o r s (2) Poor word/choice/unidi - t ic locut ions (3) Redundancies (4) Verb tense e r ro r s (5) Incorrect verb fonn e r ro r s (6) Confusion between ad jec t ives and adverbs (7) Apostrophe e r r o r s

Agreement between words. (8) Lack of subj ect-verb agreement (9) Lack of pronoun-antecedent agreement

On the sentence Level (1) Awkward/wordy sentences (2) Vague sentences/insufficiently f ac tua l (3) Fragments (4) Run-ons /comma s p l i c e s (5)' I n t e r i o r comma e r r o r s (6) Good sentence va r i e ty?

Oa the Paragraph Level (1) Does each paragraph have a well-stated C.I.? (2) Is each paragraph r e s t r i c t e d t o one bas ic C.I.? (3) Is this idea adequately developed within the paragraph? (4) Is there smooth t r a n s i t i o n between sentences? ( 5 ) Is there smooth t r a n s i t i o n between paragraphs?

Concluding Paragraph (1) Is there a sense of c losure? Does the conclusion r e s t a t e the C . I . ,

r e cap i tu l a t e o r summarize arguments, o r draw conclusions?

Overall - The Whole Composition (1) Is the ' topic a s u f f i c i e n t l y narrowed and adequately handled one? (2) Is the ove ra l l organization of the essay handled well?

Page 133: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

CRITICIZING W R I T I N G

CONTENT A. Does t h e a u t h o r know what he is t a l k i n g a b o u t ? B. What is h i s a u t h o r i t y ? C. I s h i s s u b j e c t o r h i s t r e a t m e n t o f i t i n any way new? D. Is t h e s u b j e c t of any s i g n i f i c a n c e t o t h e a u d i e n c e ? V A L I D I T Y A. I s t h e a u t h o r be ing t r u t h f u l ? B. A r e h i s f a c t s c o r r e c t ? C. Does he e x a g g e r a t e o r o t h e r w i s e b i a s h i s s u b j e c t ? PERSONA/VOICE A. What s o r t of p e r s o n d o e s t h e a u t h o r seem t o be? B. Does t h e w r i t i n g "sound l i k e " a p e r s o n ( v s . a machine) ? C. Is t h e v o i c e c o n s i s t e n t ? ATTITUDE A. Who is t h e l i k e l y a u d i e n c e ? B. What is t h e a u t h o r ' s a t t i t u d e toward t h e a u d i e n c e ? C. Does t h e writer speak over o r under t h e h e a d s of h i s a u d i e n c e ? TONE A. How d o e s t h e a u t h o r view h i s s u b j e c t (comic , s e r i o u s ,

i r o n i c , e tc .) ? B. I s h i s t o n e a p p r o p r i a t e t o h i s s u b j e c t ? C. I s t h e t o n e c o n t r o l l e d ( v s . o v e r d o n e ) ? DICTION AND SYNTAX A. Does t h e a u t h o r h a n d l e l anguage w e l l ? B. A-re h i s words w e l l chosen? Economical? C. A r e h i s s e n t e n c e s c l e a r ? Do t h e y a i d t h e r e a d e r i n s e e i n g h i s

purpose? ORGANIZATION A. I s t h e paper w e l l o r g a n i z e d ? B. Is t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n e n t i r e l y c l e a r ? - - DEVELOPMENT A . A r e t h e p o i n t s of t h e paper s u f f i c i e n t l y deve loped? B. A r e t h e r e s u f f i c i e n t d e t a i l s ? C. Are t h e d e t a i l s a p p r o p r i a t e ? D. A r e a l l t h e p o i n t s r e l e v a n t ? - PURPOSE A. What is t h e p u r p o s e o r p o i n t of t h e p a p e r ? B. I s t h e p u r p o s e e n t i r e l y c l e a r ? C. Does e v e r y t h i n g i n t h e paper c l e a r l y r e l a t e t o and h e l p d e v e l o p

t h e purpose? D. I s t h e p o i n t of t h e paper wor th making? MECHANICS A. Is t h e paper f r e e of e r r o r ( s p e l l i n g , p u n c t u a t i o n ,

granmar , e t c . ) ? B. Does t h e writer know t h e c o n v e n t i o n s of p r i n t ? Is t h e paper w e l l w r i t t e n ?

Good w r i t i n g is t h e s k i l l f u l c o n t r o l of a l l t h e s e a s p e c t s (1-10)

Page 134: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

.. Ulle E. Lewes Director , Writing Resource Canter Ohio Wesleyan University Delaware, Ohio 43015 614-369-4431, X-101

TIPS FOR STUDENTS EVALUATING PAPERS OF THEIR PEERS --

When you f i r s t receive a paper,' r e s i s t the urge to begin reading it s t r a i g h t through word by word, correct ing every l i t t l e - e r r o r you see. Scan it f i r s t f o r major problems.

1. Read the f i r s t and last paragraphs of the paper to datennine whether they have a common thes i s and focus. If they have l i t t l e in common, you may have on your hands a paper which has switched topics somewhere in the middle. You can of ten f i nd the place where the paper shifts topics s inp ly by read- ing t he f i r s t sentence of each paragraph.

2. S U the paper t o check whether the t he s i s has been developed and "proved." In addit ion, watch f o r many sho r t paragraphs with very general topic sentences: such paragraphs may represent nothing more than a co l l ec t i on of poss ible intro- ductions t o various aspects of the topic, r a the r than a sequent ia l line of reasoning to "prove" one thes is .

IF TBE PAP= CONTAINS ERRORS 1. OR 2., RETURN IT TO TEE STUDENT DlMZDIATELY FOB RE-WRITXXG. URGE THE WRITEB TO CONSULT OUR BANDOUTS ON ESSAY ORGAN- rZBTION AND OUTLMLNG FOR HELP I N RE-STRUCTURING AND ,DmOPINC THE ESSAY.

I

3. Exnm4ne the intkoductory paragraph. Does it have a thesis sentence t h a t accurately announces the main th rus t of the paper? Do the subsequent sentences give a preview of the progression of ideas t o be developed in proving t he t he s i s statement?

4. Check t he organizational s t r u c t u r e of t h e paper. Is the ou t l i ne of the paper discernible? Can t he reader skimming the paper reproduca t he plan which t he wr i t e r followed? (When reading long papers, I f ind it usefu l t o ac tua l ly j o t down the sequence of ideas being presented.)

5. Do the sub-points develop the topic w i t h s u f f i c i e n t completeness? Obviously it is eas i e r t o de t ec t f a u l t s in what is included, and harder to detach oneself t o con- s i d e r omissions. Nonetheless, once you have determined that the paper does have a c l e a r plan, it is worthwhile t o ask whethez it includes everything that it ought.

6. Is the development f r e e from r epe t i t i on and irrelevance? Has the student t rea ted the same point in two d i f f e r e n t places? Are there sentences o r e n t i r e paragraphs that

Page 135: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

d r i f t away from the t he s i s of the paper? (A r e l a t ed problem is prooortion: has the s tudent given a minor point mora space o r emphasis than i ts r e l a t i v e importance j u s t i f i e s ? )

7. Are the ideas arranged in a l og i ca l o r appropriate seauence? L i k e completeness, t h i s a rea is easy to overlook, but It is worth taking a minute t o ask, "Is this the most e f f ec t i ve organizat ional plan the s tudent could have chosen?"

8. Check f o r proper in tegra t ion of source mate r ia l and quoWtions. - - A s tudent ' s research paper sometimes is too deoendent upon quoted mater ia l , o r f a i l s to i n t eg ra t e quoted mater ia l smoothly w i t h the s tudent ' s own points, o r paraohrases l a rge sect ions from a few sources. The student may have to re-write the

- errt ire paper i f he/she has allowed t h e sources to dominate the paper.

O n l y a f t e r checking f o r the e igh t problems noted above s h k d you focus on grammar, usage, punctuation, and spel l ing. Unless the b

mechanical e r rors are overwhelming in number, they will not i n t e r f e r e with r eadab i l i t p near ly as much a s these l a rge r problems do.

Page 136: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

NON-JUDGMENTAL PESR EVALUATIOX

Make a d e s c r i p t i v e statement about the e s say , paragraph by paragraph.

For Example: The f i r s t paragraph s e t s the scene and s t a t e s t h a t the t h e s i s is .

The second parapraph seems confusing because i t somewhat c o n t r a d i c t s i n the f i r s t paragraph.

The t h i r d paragraph is f u l l of v i v i d examples, by I don ' t see a top ic sentence.

The f o u r t h paragraph picks up aapect of t h e s i s , but I wish the re were a few support ing d e t a i l s t o he lp me understand.

The f i f t h parapraph has a f i n k , long sentence which I simply cant t f i g u r e out.

The s i x t h paragraph: I l i k e d t h i s best! I enjoyed your second example about ...

And so f o r t h ...

Page 137: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

NON-JUDGlrlEN'SAL SELF-EVALUATION

For Length and Development.

Count number of:

words paragraphs poin ts you think you have developed ques t ion you th ink you have answered

For Mechanics.

Count number (or$) of:

c o r r e c t l y s p e l l e d words sentences with c o r r e c t beginning and end punctuation sentencas with c o r r e c t i n t e f n a l punctuation

For S ty3re.

Count numbers of:

modifiers phrases and c lauses d i f f e r e n t types of modif iers ( s i n g l e word, phrase, c l a u s e ) words o r phrases which show comparison ( i n c l u d i n g f i g u r e s

of speech) d i f f e r e n t sentence p a t t e r n s d i f f e r e n t types of sentences (s imple , compound, complex)

Page 138: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

CONTEXT Does i t show o r i g i n a l , wor thwhi le t h i n k i n g ? Does i t f u l f i l l t h e a s s i g n m e n t ?

INTRODUCTION Does i t a r o u s e i n t e r e s t ? Does i t i n c l u d e a t h e s i s , e i t h e r s t a t e d o r i m p l i e d , which

c l e a r l y shows t h e wr i ter ' s a t t i t u d e toward t h e s u b j e c t ? I s i t a p p r o p r i a t e ?

BODY Does e a c h p a r a g r a p h have one main i d e a , e i t h e r s t a t e d o r

i m p l i e d , which c l e a r l y r e l a t e s t o and d e v e l o p s t h e t h e s i s ? Does e a c h p a r a g r a p h c o n t a i n s p e c i f i c d e t a i l s which expand o r

c l a r i f y t h e main i d e a of t h e p a r a g r a p h ? I s e v e r y s e n t e n c e c l e a r l y r e l a t e d t o t h e t h e s i s ? Has t h e writer employed c l e a r , l o g i c a l t r a n s i t i o n s t o e n a b l e

t h e r e a d e r t o f o l l o w h i s t r a i n of t h o u g h t ? I s t h e wri ter 's d i c t i o n a p p r o p r i a t e and a c c u r a t e ? A r e t h e s e n t e n c e s c o n c i s e and a c t i v e ?

CONCLUSION I s it l o g i c a l and c l e a r l y r e l a t e d t o t h e t h e s i s ? Does i t d e v e l o p n a t u r a l l y from t h e m a t e r i a l , o r d o e s i t seem f o r c e d and a r t i f i c i a l ?

MECHANICS, USAGE AND SPELLING Are t h e r e m i s s p e l l e d words? A r e t h e r e any s e n t e n c e f r a g m e n t s ? A r e t h e r e any i n e x c u s a b l e comma e r r o r s , such a s t h e use of a

comma i n p l a c e of a p e r i o d o r semico lon? A r e t h e r e o t h e r p u n c t u a t i o n e r r o r s ? Do t h e s u b j e c t s and v e r b s a g r e e i n number? Do t h e pronouns have d e f i n n i t e a n t e c e d e n t s , w i t h which t h e

pronouns a g r e e i n number and p e r s o n ? Are t h e v e r b t e n s e s c o n s i s t e n t t h r o u g h o u t t h e p a p e r ?

NOTE: Read your paper a l o u d whenever p o s s i b l e , d e v e l o p i n g your own a b i l i t y t o be o b j e c t i v e l y a n a l y t i c a l . I n s t e a d of r e l y i n g on someone e lse 's p r o o f r e a d i n g , e d i t i n g and r e v i s i n g , p r a c t i c e u n t i l you can do i t y o u r s e l f .

Page 139: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

- Are there any sentences t h a t don't make sense?

- Do you have a s t rong opening l i n e o r sentence?

- Does every paragraph t e l l something important?

- re there any l i ne8 tha t need more co lor fu l words?

- Could someone repeat the experiment by following your notes?

- Check t o see t h a t you haven't begun more than three sentences with the same word.

(Fraa the Writing Resource Centre, Delta School District. Used with permission. )

Page 140: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

The Edi t ing Committee has "spot checked" your wri t ing . Our comments a r e below:

. . One th ing I r e a l l y l i k e d about your w r i t i n g w a s --

The a r e a I checked was : (Ci rc le One) * Word Choice * Opening * ~ n d & * Content

0.K. I * Sequence * Sentence S t r u c t u r e u

Here's my suggest ion of what t o change:

Ed i to r

One th ing I r e a l l y l i k e d about your w r i t i n g was

The a r e a I checked w a s : (Circle One) * Word Choice * Opening * ~ n d i n ~ * Content

O.K. I * Sequence * Sentence S t r u c t u r e u Here's my suggest ion of what t o change:

Ed i to r

One th ing I r e a l l y l i k e d about your w r i t i n g was

The a r e a I checked was : (Circle One) * Word Choice * Opening * Ending * Content

I 0.K. I * Sequence * Sentence S t r u c t u r e u Here's my suggest ion of what t o change:

Ed i to r

133

Page 141: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

1. Content (Ideas)

J * Complete

(Subject) * Clear * Interesting

* Are my thoughts complete? * Co they make sense? * Did I express uiy ideas clearly? * Will my audience understand what I have said? * Will they have a "complete and clear" picture in their

minds? * Will my audience find my ideas interesting?

Could I edit to ... add more details or description to expand - my ideas or to make them clearer?

2. Opening J * catch attention * set the stage * state the main idea

* Will the first sentences catch my audience's attention? * Does it set the stage for whet is to follow? * If it is a story, does the beginning tell who the hero is, what he is doing, and whea and where he is doing it? (5 W's) * If it is an exposition, does the opening state the main idea to be elaborated on?

Could I edit to . . . add, replace', remove or rearrange wrds or phrases so the opening would be more effective?

3. Sequence (Organization) J * logical * smooth * focused

* Are my ideas put in a logical order with a beginning, middle, and end? * Does each sentence flow smoothly onto the next one? * Are all my sentences related to the topic? Did I stick to my subject by keeping my ideas focused?

. Could I edit to ... - rearrange the sentences so my ideas would be clearer and easier to follow? - remove or replace parts that do not relate to the topic?

Page 142: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

4. Word Choice (Vocabulary) J * p r e c i s e * i n t e r e s t i n g * var ied

* Did I enr ich my sentences wi th a v a r i e t y of f r e s h , l i v e l y and i n t e r e s t i n g words? * Did I choose t h e b e s t , most p r e c i s e words t o make my ideas c l e a r ?

Could I e d i t t o . . . - add more 'describing' words? - rep lace t i r e d , overused o r unclear words? - remove unnecessary words?

5. Sentence S t r u c t u r e J * var ied sentence length * word & phrase order * type (kind)

* Did I use a v a r i e t y of longer and s h o r t e r sentences f o r emphasis and i n t e r e s t ? * Did I use a v a r i e t y of sentence p a t t e r n s by changing t h e words o r phrases? * Did I use a v a r i e t y of sentence types (i.e., s tatement, quest ion, command), i f appropr ia te?

Could I e d i t t o ... combine o r rearrange whole sentences o r t h e i r p a r t s t o provide v a r i c t y ?

6. Ending J * t i e i d e a together * sums up thoughts * provides conclusion

* Does my f i n a l sentence conclude the ideas EC t h a t they seem t i e d together and f in i shed? * Is t h e r e an echo of t h e beginning of my piece i n the ending? * Are t h e thoughts summed up, o r conclusions drawn?

Could ' I e d i t t o . . . add, remove o r rearrange words o r phrases t o s t rengthen the ending ?

Page 143: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

Let's be Editors who CARE!.

" ~ n Editor is an Author's best friend!"

Now it's your turn to help your friend strengthen his or her

writing. Give the author some helpful hints by making some

comnents below:

One thing I really liked cbcut your writing was

Now you might work on this area to strengthen it:

- Word Choice - Opening - Ending - More Ideas 1 . Circle

- More Details - Sequence - Sentence Structure ] One

Here's my suggestions of what to change:

Author Editor

Page 144: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

"LET'S EDIT" PENCILS

Are the ideas ... * complete thoughts ?

understands ble and elear ? interesting and appropriate for

e a& ce . ?

Does t h e beginning . . . * hook the audience ?

'1 3 g * set the "stage * o r state the main idep?

Do all the sentences . . .. * follow a lo ical order7

ce * low smooth y rorn one to the no f 7 f * ocus on he fopic?

Page 145: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard
Page 146: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

BIBILIOGRAPHY

AMARIA, R.P., Brian, L.A. & Heath, G.O.M. (1969). Individual versus cooperative learning. Educational Research 11 pp 95-103 -

AMES, Nancy H. (1985). ~ a j o r differences between product and process approaches to composition: Topic choice, revision and the writing conference. (ED 261379)

ANDREWS, Deborah C. (1985) . Writer's slump and revision schemes: Effects of computers on the composing process. Collegiate Microcomputer, - 3 (4) pp 313-16

ANDREWS, Richard (1982). The role of editing in English. Use of English, - 34 (1) pp 61-68

APPLEBEE, Arthur N. (1978) Writing in the secondary school. Available through Eric Document Reproduction Service, Arlington, Virginia. (ED240546)

APPLEBEE, Arthur N. (1983). Learning to write in secondary school. (Final report) California: Stanford University.

APPLEBEE, Arthur N., & Langer, Judith A. (1983). ~eading and writing as natural activities. Education Digest, pp 30-32

APPLEBEE, Arthur N. and others (1984) . Contexts for learning to write: Studies of secondary school instruction. Writing Research: Multidisciplinary inquiries into the nature of writing. California: Stanford University.

APPLEGATE, Mauree (1954). Helping children write. Evanston, ILL: Row Peterson & Company

ARBUR, Rosemarie (1977). The student-teacher conference. College Composition and Communication, - 28 pp 338-342

ARMSTRONG, Cherry1 (1984). A process perspective on poetic discourse. Presented at the 35th annual conference on College Composition and Communication New York.

139

Page 147: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

ARNHEIM, Rudolf (1969). Visual Thinkinq. Berkeley: University of California Press. .

ARTLEY, A.Steri; Hildreth, Gertrude; Townsend, Agatha; Beery, Althea; & Dawson, Mildrea (1954). Interrelationship between the language arts. Champlaign, ILL: NCTE Research Collection.

ASHTON WARNER, Sylvia (1965). Teacher. New York: Simon and Shuster

ATLAS, M. (1979). Writer insensitivity to audience: Causes and cures. Presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Assoc., San Francisco.

AUSTIN, J.L. (1969). How to do things with words. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press

AUTEN, Ann (1984a). Computers and reading. Language Arts.1 - (4) pp 56-58

AUTEN, Ann (1984b) Computers in English: How and why. English Journal.73 - (1) pp 54-56

BADDELY, A.D., & Wing, A.D. Spelling errors in handwriting. In U. Frith (Ed.), Cognitive processes in spelling. New York: Academic Press

BAILEY, Richard W. & Fosheim, Robin (Eds). (1983) Literacy for life: The demand for reading and writing. New York: Modern Language ~ssociation

BAIN, Robert (1974). Reading student papers. College Composition and Communication. - 25. pp 307 -309.

BAMBERG, Betty (1978). Composition instruction does make a difference. Research in the Teaching of English. - 12 (1) P 57

Page 148: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

BARNES, Douglas (1979). From communication to curriculum. New York: Penguin Books

BARNET, Sylvan, Berman, Morton, & Burto, William (1984). titerature for composition: Essays, fiction, poetry, and drama. Toronto, Canada: Little, Brown and Company

BARR, Mary, et al. (1982) . What's going on? Language/learninq episodes in British and American classrooms, Grades 4 - 13. New Jersey: Boynton/Cook -

BARRETT, J. Mandel (1978). Losing one's mind: Learning to write and edit. College composition and Communication. - 29 p.366

BARRS, Myra (1983) . New orthodoxy about writing: Confusing process and pedagogy. Language Arts. - 60 (7) pp 831-884

BARTHOLOMAE, David (1980). The study of error. College Composition and Communication. - 31 pp 253 - 269.

BARTHOLOMAE, David (1985). Against the grain. in Tom Waldrep (Ed.), Writers on Writing pp 19-30 New York: Random House

BARTHOLOMEW, Bruce (1982). A stuaent learns to write. English Journal. - 71 (1) p 32

BARTLETT, Elsa J. (1981). Learning to write: Some cognitive and linguistic components. Centre for Applied Linguistics, Washington, D.C.

BARTLETT, Elsa J. (1982). Learning to revise: Some component processes. In M. Nystrand (Ed.), What writers know: The language process and structure of written discourse. New York: Academic Press

BEACH, Richard (1979). The effects of between draft teacher evaluation versus self-evaluation in High School students' revising of rough drafts. Research in the Teaching of English. - 13 pp 111-119

Page 149: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

BEACH, Richara (1986). em on st rating techniques for assessing writing in the writing conference. College Composition and Communication. (37 - (1) pp 56-65

BEACH, Richard, & Bridwell, Lillian S. (Eds.), (1984). - New directions in composition research. Perspectives in writing research. New York: Guilford Press,

BEACH, Richard, & Eaton, Sara (1984). Factors influencing self-assessing and revising by college freshmen. In Beach, Richard & Bridwell, Lillian S. (Eds.), New directions in composition research. Perspectives in writing research. New York: Guilford Press

BEAN, John C. (1983). Computerized word-processing as an aid to revision. college Composition and Communication. - 34 (2) pp 146-148.

BEAR, Meta (1939). Children's growth in the use of written language. Elementary English Review. - 16, pp 312-319

ae BEAUGRANDE, Robert (1983). Linguistic and cognitive processes in developmental writing. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching. - 21 (2) pp 125 - 144.

BEAVEN, Mary H. (1977). Individualized goal setting, self- evaluation, and peer evaluation. In Cooper, Charles R. & * Odell, Lee (Eds.), Evaluating writing: Describing, measuring, judgiq. pp 135-156 Urbana, ILL: NCTE

BECHTEL, R. (1979). Presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association.

BECK, Gordon (1984). A workshop in logic and rhetoric. In Leo ~ a u ~ h e r t ~ . (Ed. ) , The tez

BECK, Isabel L., anu others. (1984). Improving the comprehensibility of stories: The effects of revisions that improve coherence. Reading Research Quarterly. - 19 (3) pp 263 - 277.

Page 150: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

BELANGER, Joe & Rodgers, Denis (1983). Revise, reivse: A checklist and classroom procedures. English Quarterly. - 16 (1) pp 20-27. (EJ286543)

BENSON, Nancy L. (1979). The effects of peer feedback during the writing process on writing performance, revision behaviour and attitude toward writing. PhD aissertation, University of Colorado at Boulder, Colorado.

BENTON, Stephen L. & Blohm, Paul J. (1986)- Effect of question types and position on measures of conceptual elaboration in writing. Research in the Teaching of English. - 20, (1) pp 98-108.

BENTON, Stephen L. and others, (1984). Employing adjunct aids to -

facilitate elaboration in writing. Research In The Teaching of English. - 18 (2) pp 189-200,

BERG, Leila (1977) . Reading and loving. London: Routleage and Kegan Paul.

BERGDAHL, David (Ed.) (1983). Research in the teaching of the English language arts. Teaching English Lanquage Arts, - 9 (2). Southeastern Ohio Council of Teachers of English, Dept. of English Language and Literature, Ohio University, Athens, Ohio.

BEREITER, Carl, and Scardamalia, Marlene (1981). From conversation to composition: The role of instruction in a developmental - process. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology, Vol. Two. Hillsiae, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum

BEREITER, Carl & Scardamalia, Marlene (1982). Levels of inquiry in writing research. In Mosenthal, Walmsley & Tamor (Eds.), Research in writing: Principles and methods. New York: Longman.

BERKENKOTTER, Carol (1983a). Student writers and their audiences: Case studies of the revising decisions of three college freshmen. Paper presented at the 16th Canadian Council of Teachers of English, Montreal, Canada,

Page 151: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

BERKENKOTTER, Carol (1983b). Decisions and revisions: The planning strategies of a publishing writer. College Composition and Communication. - 34 (2) pp 156 - 158.

BERKENKOTTER, Carol (1984). Student writers and their sense of authority over texts. College Composition and Communication. 35 (3) DD 312-19

BERTHOFF, Anne E. (1981). The Making of meaning: Metaphors, models and maxims for writing teachers. Upper Montclair, New Jersey: Boynton/Cook.

BERTHOFF, Anne E. (Ed) (1984). Reclaiming the imagination: Philosophical perspectives for writers and teachers of writinq. Upper Montclair, New Jersey: Boynton/Cook.

BEYER, Barry K. (1979). Prewriting and rewriting to learn. Social - Education, pp 187-180.

BIBBERSTINE, Richard (1976). A study of selected areas of teacher influence upon the written composition of fourth graders. Dissertation Abstracts, - 27 p 3604-A.

BIRDSALL,- Eric R. (1979) . Avoiding whad jaget with no-grade, garded papers. College Composition and Communication. - 30 pp 220-2

BIRNBAUM, J.C. (1982). Reading and composing behavior of selected fourth -and- seventh-grade students. Research in the Teaching of English. - 16 p 241

BISSEX, G. (1980). Gyns at wrk: a child learns to write and read. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press

BIZARRO, Patrick (1983). Teacher as writer and researcher: The poetry dilemma. Language Arts. - 60 (7) pp 851 - 859.

BLACK, Lynette C. (1982). Basic writing: progressive proofreadinq. Paper presented at the 33rd conference on College ~ok~osition and Communication, San Francisco, CA.

Page 152: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

BLAU, Sheridan (1983). Invisible writing: Investigating cognitive processes in composition. College Composition and Communication. - 34 (3) pp 297 - 312.

BLOOM, Lynn Z. (1982). Re-creating creators: Teaching students to edit autobiographical materials. Paper presented at the 33rd conference on College Composition and Connunication, San Francisco, CA. (ED219748)

BLOOM, Lynn Z. (1985). How I Write. In Tom Waldrep (Ed.), Writers on Writinq. pp 31-38. New York: Ranaom House.

BOIARSKY, Carolyn (1980). Cut and paste and other revision- - activities. English Journal. - 69 pp 44-48.

BOIARSKY, Carolyn (1981). The eleven functions of revision. Paper presented at the 32nd annual meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication. Dallas.

BOIARSKY, Carolyn (1983). Model for analyzing revision. Paper presented at the 34th annual meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Connunication, Detroit, MI.

BOLKER,- Joan (1978). Reflections on reading student writing. College English. - 40-- pp 181-185

BOLKER, Joan (1984). Narrative writing. Educational Review. - 36 (3) pp 263-75.

BONDS, Lesie, and others. (1980). Effects of positive and negative comments on children's creative writing. ERIC (ED200959)

BOOLEY, Heather A (1984). Discovery and change: How children redraft their narrative wiiting. ~aicational Review. (3) pp 263-75.

BORNSTEIN, Diane D. (1978). Readings in the theory of grammar. Cambridge, Mass: Winthrop publishers

Page 153: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

BOUCHARD, Kathy A. (1983) . What do they do as they write?: Observations of four fourth-grade writing workshop participants. M.Ed. Thesis, Texas Woman's University.

BRACEWELL, Robert J. (1983). Investigating the Control of writing Skills. In P. Mosenthal, L. Tamor & S. Walmsley (Eds.), Research On Writing: Principles and Methods. New York: Longman' s

BRACEWELL, Robert J; Scardamalia, Marlene; & Bereiter,Carl (1978). The development of audience awareness in writing Resources in Education, October. pp 154-433.

BRACEWELL, Robert J.; Scardamalia, Marlene; & Bereiter, Carl. (1979). A test of two myths about revision. Technical report presented to the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.

BRACHER, Peter (1979). Rewriting and the teaching of composition. Arizona English Bulletin, - 21 pp 95 - 98.

BRADDOCK, Richard; Lloyd-Jones, Richard; & Schoer, Lowell (1963). Research in written composition: The state of knowleuge about composition. Champlain, ILL: NCTE

BRAND, Alice Garden (1978). Reversing the revision blues. In Gene Stanford (Ed.), Activating the passive student: Classroom practices in teaching English. pp 77-83 Urbana, ILL: NCTE.

BRANDT, Anthony (1982, March). Writing readiness. Psychology Today. pp 55 - 59.

BRANNON, Lil, Knight, Melinda, & Nverow-Turk, Vara (1982). Writers writing. Upper Montclair, New Jersey: ~oynton/Cook

BRAUNGART, Diane S. (1985). Unaerstanding the writing process: Introducina students to comnosina. Trenton, NJ: New Jersey State Dept. of Education

Page 154: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

BRENT, Harry (1985). Epistemological presumptions in the writing process: The importance of content to writing. In Tom Waldrep (Ed.), Writers on writing. pp 45-62, New York: Random House

BRIDWELL, Lillian S. (1980). Revising strategies in twelfth garde students: Transactional writing. Research in the Teaching of English. - 14 (3) pp 197-222

BRIDWELL, Lillian S., Nancarrow, Paul Reed, & Ross, Donald (1984). The writing process and the writing machine: - Current research on word processors relevant to the teaching of composition. In Richard Beach & Lillian Bridwell (Eds.), New directions in composition research. New York: Guilford Press.

BRITISH COLUMBIA MINISTRY OF EDUCATION (1983) The young writers project. Victoria, B.C.: Queen's Printer

BRITTON, J., with Burgess, Martin, McLeod & Rosen. (1975). - The development of writing abilities. London: MacMillan.

BROWN, Jane (1985). Emphasizing revision with word processing in freshman English classes. Paper presented at the 5th Southeastern Writing Centre Assoc. Conference, Atlanta, GA

BROWNELL, Thomas (1983). A writing course final exam. Exercise Exchange. - 29 (1) . pp 19 - 22.

BRUFFEE, Kenneth A. (1980). A short course in writing: Practical rhetoric for composition courses, writing workshops and tutor training programs. (2nd Edition) Cambridge, Mass: Winthrop Publishing.

BRUNER, Jerome (1971). On knowing: Essays for the left hand. New York: Atheneum.

BRUNER, Jerome S. (1978). Toward a theory of instruction. Mass: Belknap Press.

BUDDMEIER, Richard E. (1981). Discovering writing ownership in the process of learning to write. (ED234377)

Page 155: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

BUECHLER, Scott (1983). Does seeing what I say help me know what I think? Four students revisins. presented at the 34th con•’. - - - - - - on College Composition and Communication, Detroit, MI.

BURHANS, Clinton S. (1966). The would-be writer. Mass: Blaisdell

BURKE, Kenneth (1969). A rhetoric of motives. Berkeley: University of California Press

BURKHOLDER, Robert (1985). Transcendental re-seeing: Teaching revision using the works of Emerson and Thoreau. Teachinq English in the Two-Year College. - 12 (1) pp 14-21.

BURNS, Hugh & Culp, George (1980). Stimulating invention in English composition through computer-assisted instruction. Educational Technology. - 20 pp 5-10.

BURROWS,

BURROWS,

BURROWS,

BURROWS,

BURROWS,

Alvina (1952a). Teaching children in the middle grades. Boston: D.C. Heath and Company

Alvina (1952b) . Writing as therapy. Elementary English. - 29 p 136.

Alvina; Parke, Margaret B.; Edmund, Neal R; DeBoer, John J.; Horn, Thomas D.; Herrick, Virgil E.; & Str-ickland, Ruth, (1959). Children's writing: Research in composition and related skills. Champlaign, ILL: NCTE -

Alvina (Ed) (1961). Writing skills in the elementary grades. Champlaign, ILL: NCTE

Alvina Treut, and others. (1984). They all want to write: Written English in the elementary school. Fourth Edition, Urbana, ILL: NCTE

BUTLER, Sydney (1980). Unstuffing stuffed rabbits. The English Quarterly. - 13 (1) pp 21-30

BUTLER, Sydney (1983). The bridge to real writing: Teaching editing skills. English Quarterly. - 16 (3) pp 40-48 (ED 229 639)

Page 156: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

BUXTON, E. (1959). An experiment to test the effects of writing frequency and guided practice upon students' skill in writing expression. Alta Jrnl. of Educ. Research. - 5 pp 94-99.

CALABRESE, Marylyn (1982). I don't grade papers any more, English Journal. 71 (1) p 28 -

CALKINS,

CALKINS,

CALKINS.

CALKINS,

CALKINS,

Lucy McCormick (1978) . Children write and their writing becomes their textbook. Language Arts. - 55 (7) pp 804-910.

Lucy McCormick (1980a). Notes and comments: Children's rew;iting strategies. Research in the Teaching of English. 14 p. 331-341. -

Lucy McCormick (1980b). Research update: Children learn the writer's craft. Language Arts. - 57 pp 207-213

Lucy McCormick (1982). A study of children's rewriting. Final report for NCTE Research Foundation project 80:ll. NCTE, urbana, ILL

Lucy McCormick (1983). Lessons from a child: On the teaching and learning of writing (ED263614)

CAMP, Gerald (Ed,) (1982). Teaching writing: Essays from the Bay Area writing project. Berkeley: University of Calif.

CAMP, Gerald (1983). Teaching writing: Essays from the Bay Area writing project. Montclair, New Jersey: Boynton/Cook

CANADIAN PRESS STYLEBOOK (1940, revised and extended '47,'54,'57, '66,'74; minor changes '78; further revised and edited ' 83). Toronto, Ontario: Canadian Press

CANUTESON, John (1977)..Conferences as evaluative devices in freshman composition, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication, Kansas City, Missouri. (ED 143027)

Page 157: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

CARINO, Peter A. (1985). The annotatea paragraph: An exercise for

CARKEET,

CARLMAN,

CARLSON,

CARLSON,

CARLSON,

CARROLL,

CARROLL,

- -

developing revision skills in basic writing classes. Exercise Exchange. - 31 (1) pp 28 -30.

D. (1977). Understanding syntactic errors in remedial writing. College English. - 38 pp 682-695.

Nancy (1982). Recognizing variety in writing behaviours. English Quarterly. - 15 (1).

Craig (1984). God and grammar. In Leo Daugherty (Ed.), The teaching of writing at Evergreen: A collection of strategies. pp 22-33. Olympia, WA:Evergreen State College

Diana M., and Roellich, Carol (1983). Teaching writinq easily and effectively to get gesults. Part 11: The evaluation process. Paper presented at the 2nd NCTE Spring Conference, Seattle, WA

Ruth Kearney (1979). Sparkling words: 315 practical and creative writing ideas. Boulder, Colorado: Paladin House.

Joyce Armstrong (1982). Ratiocination and revision or clies in the wiitten draft. English Journal. - 71 (7) pp 90-92.

Joyce Armstrong (1984). Process into product: Teacher awareness of the writing process affects students' written products. In R. Beach & L. Bridwell (Eds.) , New directions in com~osition research. New York: Guilford Press.

CARTER, Ronnie D. (1982). By itself peer group revision has no power. Paper presented at the 72nd NCTE,Washington, DC.

CARTER, Ronnie D. (1983). A survey of revision practices in today's advanced com~osition courses. PaDer resented at 34th con•’ on College ~om~osition and ~ommu'nication, Detroit, MI.

CASE, Donald (1985). Processing professorial woras: Personal computers and the writing habits of university professors. College Composition and Communication. - 36 (3) pp 317-22..

Page 158: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

CATANO, James V. (1985). Computer-basea writing: Navigating the fluid text. College Composition and Communication. 36 (3) pp 309-316. -

CAVIN, G.E. (1983). Readin', ritin' and revision. Clearing House, 57 (3) pp 119-123. -

CELLARIUS, Richard (1984). Guide to writing papers and reports. In Leo ~ a u ~ h e r t ~ (Ed.), The teaching-of kiting at Evergreen: A collection of strategies. pp 34-43. Olympia, Washington: Evergreen State College.

CHAMPAGNE, Mireille, and others (1980). Children's problems with focus and cohesion in revising. Presented at the American Educational Research Association conf, Boston. (ED 186901)

CHIMOMBO, Moira (1986). Evaluating compositions with large classes. ELT Journal. - 40 (1) pp 20-26.

CHOMSKY, C. (1971). Write now, read later. Childhood Education 47 pp 296-299. -

CHRISTENSEN, Linda, (Ed.), and others (1982) . A guide to teaching self/peer editing. Madison, WI: Wisconsin University.

CHRISTIANSEN, Pauline Grabill (1978) . From inside out: Writing from subjective to objective. Cambridge, Mass: Winthrop

CIOFFI, Grant (1984). Observing composing behaviours of primary-age children: The interaction of oral and written language. In Richard Beach and Lillian S. Bridwell (Eds.), - New directions in composition research, NY: Guilford Press

CLAPP, Ouida H. (Ed.) (1975). Classroom practices in teachinq English: On righting writing. Urbana, ILL: NCTE

CLAPP, Ouida H. (Chair), and the Committee on Classroom Practices (1977). Classroom practices in teaching English: Teaching the basics, really! Urbana, ILL: NCTE.

Page 159: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

CLARK, John R. & Motto, Anna Lydia (1986). The uses of paroay and excess in composition. Exercise Exchange. - 31(2) p 11-13.

CLARK, William A. (1975). How to completely individualize a writing program. English Journal. pp 66 - 69.

CLAY, Marie (1975). What did I write? Aukland, N. Zealand: Heinemann. Also (1979) Mass: Northeast Offset Inc.

CLIFFORD, John (1980). Teaching composing collaboratively. Arizona English Bulletin. - 22 pp 95 - 98.

COHEN, Alan S. (1984). The Viking portable. Exercise Exchange 30 (1). pp 24-25. -

COE, Richard M. (1985). Forming substance. In Tom Waldrep (Ed) Writers on writing. pp 63-70 New York: Random House

COLES, William E. Jr. (1974) Teaching composing. New Jersey: Hayden

COLES, William E. Jr. (1975) Composing: Writing as a self-creating -

-process. New Jersey: Hayaen

COLES, William E. Jr. (1978) The plural I: The teaching of writing. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

COLLIER, Richard M. (1983). The word processor and revision strategies. College Composition and Communication. 34 pp 149-155. -

COLLINS, James L. & Williamson, Michael M. (1984). Assigned rhetorical context and semantic abbreviation in writing. In Richard Beach and Lillian S. Bridwell (Eds.) - New directions in composition research. N.Y: Guildford Press

COMBS, Martha (1985) . Exploring the .composing process with microcomputers. Presented at the 2nd National Reading and Language Arts ~ducators' conference, Kansas City, MO.

Page 160: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

COMPRONE, Joseph J. (1985). Composition, intellectual life, and the process of writing as public knowing. In Tom ~aldrep (Ed.), Writers on writing. pp 71-86 New York: Random House

COOK, John M. (1983). The technical writing student as editor. Technical Writing Teacher. - 10 (2-3) pp 114-117.

COOK-Gumperz, J. & Gumperz, J. (1978). From oral to written culture: The transition to literacy. In M.F. Whitman (Ed.), Variations in writing. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum

COOPER, Charles R. (1975). Responding to writing. In alter T. Petty & Patrick J. Finn (Eds.) , The writing processes of students: Report of the first annual conference on language arts. State University of New York, Buffalo, NY.

COOPER, Charles R. (1977). Holistic evaluation of writing. In C.R. Cooper & ~ e e ode11 (Eds.) , Evaluating writinq: Describing, measuring, judging. NCTE, Urbana, ILL.

COOPER, Charles R., Cherry, Roger, Copley, Barbara, Fleischer, Stefan, Pollard, Rita, & Sartisky, Michael (1984). Studying the writing abilities of a university freshman class. Strategies from a case study. In R. Beach & L.S. -Bridwell (Eds.), New directions in composition research. pp 19-52. New York: Guilford Press.

COOPER, Elizabeth J. (1982). Style: Applications for the student writer. Presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Council of Teachers of English, Saskatoon, Sask.

COOPER, Marilyn (1984). The pragmatics of form: How do writers discover what to do when? In R. Beachand L.S. Bridwell (Eds.), New directions in composition research. New York: Guilford Press

COOPER, Marilyn & Holzman, Michael (1985). Counterstatement reply College Composition and Communication. - 36 pp 97-100

CORBETT, Edward P.J. (1985). The Rites of Writing. In Tom Waldrep (Ed) Writers on writinq. pp 87-98 N.Y.: Random House

Page 161: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

CRABLE-SUNDMACHER, Doranne (1984). Teaching writing with learning partners. In Leo Daugherty (Ed) The teaching of writinq at Evergreen: A collection of strategies. Olympia, Washington: Evergreen State College

CRONIN, Frank C. (1980, Spring). Creative, rhetorical, and editorial revisions: An autobiographical account. Ohio English Language Arts Bulletin. pp 15 - 18.

CRONNELL, Bruce, and others (1982a). Cooperative instructional application of writing research. Final Report, 2 Southwest Regional Laboratory for Educational ~esearch and Development. Los Alamitos, Calif.

CRONNELL, Bruce, and others (1982b). Computer-based practice in editing. Southwest Regional Laboratory for Educational Research and Development, Los Alamitos, Calif.

CROSS, Mary (1982). The tricks of the trade. ABCA Bulletin. - 45 (3).

CROWE, Beryl (1984). One-act plays on program themes. In Leo Daugherty (Ed) The teaching of writing at Evergreen: A collection of strategies. Olympia, Washington: Evergreen

- State College

CROWHURST, Marion (1979a) . Writing for classmates. ~ h h w a ~ One. 2 (3) pp 32-35. -

CROWHURST, Marion (1982). Grade seven writers explore revision. Highway One. - 5 (2) pp 11-23

CROWHURST, Marion & Piche, G. (1979). Audience and mode of discourse of facts on syntactic complexity of writing at two grade levels. Research in Teaching of English. - 13 pp. 101-109.

CROWLEY, Gillian (1981). Revising and composing. M.A. Thesis, University of Calgary, Alberta.

CUNNINGHAM, Donala & Dobler, G. Ronald (1977). Teaching by the numbers: An exercise in organization and revision. Fall. Exercise Exchange, pp 36-40.

154

Page 162: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

CURTZ, Thad (1984) . "I think I'll talk about technique." In Leod Daugherty (Ed) The teaching of writing at Evergreen: A collection of strategies. pp 54-57. Olympia, Washington: Evergreen State College

DAIKER, Donald A. et a1 (1979). Sentence combining and the teachinq of writing. Department of English, University of Central Arkansas

DALY, John A. (1979). Writing apprehension in the classroom. Research in the Teaching of English. - 13 pp 37-45

DALY, John A. & Hailey, Joy Lynn (1984). Putting the situation into writing research: State and disposition as parameters of writing apprehension. In R. Beach and L.S. Bridwell, (Eds) New directions in composition research. New York: Guilford Press

DALY, John A. & Miller, M.D. (1975). The development instrument to measure writing apprehension. the Teaching of English. - 9 pp 242-249

of an Research in

DANIELS, Havey A. & Zemelman, Steven (1985). A writing project. Portsmouth, New Hampshire: Heinemann Educational Books

DANISH, Barbara (1981). Writing as a second language.,Teachers and Writers New York.

DAUGHERTY, Leo (1984). A workshop in writing for the real world. in Leo Daughtery (Ed) The teaching of writing at Evergreen: A collection of strategies. pp 58-81 Olympia, Washington: Evergreen State College

DAVIDSON, Robert S. (1982). Towards the effective teaching of writing -- What have we learned? English Quarterly. - 15 (3) pp 62-70

DAVIS, Barbara G., Scriben, M., & Thomas, S. (1981). The evaluation of composition instruction. Pt. Reyes, CA: Edgepress

Page 163: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

DAVIS, Kenneth & Hollewell, John (Eds.), (1977). Inventing and playing games in the English classroom. NCTE, ILL.

DE CASTELL, Suzanne, with Luke, Alan & Egan, Keiran (1986). -

~ i t e r a c ~ , society and schooling : A Reader. London: Cambridge University Press

DEEM, James (1985). Transcribing speech: An initial step in basic writing. College Composition and Communication. - 36 (3) pp 360-62.

DeFORD, D. (1980) . Young children and their writing. Theory Into Practice. - 19 pp 157-162.

DELLA-PIANA, Gabriel (1978). Research strategies for the study of revision processes in writing poetry. In Charles Cooper & Lee Odell (Eds.), Research on composing, points of departure. NCTE, Urbana, ILL.

DELLA-PIANA, Gabriel & Endo, George T. (1977). Writing as revision. Paper presented at the annual American Educational Research Association, N.Y. (ED 137791)

DELLINGER, Dixie Gibbs (1982). Out of the heart: How to design writing assignments for high school courses. The National Writing Project, California.

DENMAN, Mary Eael (1975). I got this here hang-up: Noncognitive processes for facilitating writing. College Composition and Communication. - 26. pp 305-309

DIAUTE, C.A. (1982). Psycholinguistic Foundations of the Writing Process. Research in the Teaching of English. - 15 pp 5-22.

DIAUTE, Colette (1983). The computer as stylus and audience. College Composition and Communication. - 34 (2) pp 134-45

DIAUTE, Colette (1984). Performance limits on writers. In Richard Beach and Lillian S. Bridwell (Eds.) , New directions in composition research. New York: Guildford Press.

Page 164: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

DIAUTE, Colette (1986). Physical and cognitive factors in revising: Insights from studies with computers. Research in the Teaching of English. - 30 (2) pp 141-59

DIAUTE, Colette & Kruidenier, John (1985). A self-questioning strategy to increase young writersf revising processes. Applied Psycholinguistics. - 6 (3) pp 307-18

DIEDERICH, P.B. (1974). Measur'ing growing in writing. NCTE, Urbana, ILL.

DILLER, Karl Conrad (1971). Generative grammar, structural linguistics and language teaching. Rowley, MASS: Newbury House

DIMITROFF, George (1984). Some ideas Susan told me about. In Leo Daugherty (Ed.), The teaching of writing at Evergreen: A collection of strategies. pp 82-82. Olympia, Washington: Evergreen State College

DIMMLICH, David (1985). Adapt or revise: A student learning guide or competency sheet. Self-Instructional Competency Based Teacher Training Manual. Adult, Vocational and ~echnical Training, Illinois State Board of Education, Springfield.

DITTMER, Allan (1976, April). Gateway to student involvement. Media and Methoas. pp 46-48

DOBSON, Lee (1983). Report on Early Writers. Vancouver, B.C.: Educational Research Institute of British Columbia.

DONALDSON, Margaret (1978). Children's minds. New York: W.W. Norton

DOYLE, W. (1981). Accomplishing writing tasks in the classroom. Presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Los Angeles, CA

DUDENHEFER, John P. Jr. (1975) An experimental study of two techniques of composition revision in a developmental English course for technical students. PhD dissertation, University of Mississippi

Page 165: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

DUFFY, Thomas M. & Kabance, Paula (1982). Testing a readable writing approach to text revision. Journal of Educational Psychology. - 74 (5) pp 733-748

DUKE, Charles R. (1975). The student-centered conference and the writing process. English Journal. - 64 pp 44-47.

DUKE, Charles R. (1977) . Responding to student writing . Connecticut English Journal. - 9 pp 148-159.

DUKE, Charles R (1980). An approach to revision and evaluation of student writing. Ohio Language Arts Bulletin pp 19-24

DUKE, Charles R. (Ed.), (1984). Writing exercises from 'Exercise Exchanae' (Vol. 11) NCTE, Urbana, Ill.

DWORSKY, Nancy (1973). The disaster workshop. College English. 35 pp 194-195. -

DYSON, Anne Haas (1983). The role of oral language in early writing process. Research in the Teaching of English. - 17 (1)

EDMUND, N.R. (1958). A study of the relationship between prior experience and the quality of creative writing done by seventh-grade pupils. Journal of Educational Research. - 51 pp 481-492

&

EDMUND, N.R. (1957). Story writing in the seventh grade. Elementary English. - 34 pp 305-306

EDMUND, N. (1961). Writing in the intermediate grades. Elementary English pp 21-31

EFFROS, Charlotte (1973). An experimental study of the effects of guided revision and delayed grades on writing proficiency of college freshmen. Final Report (HEW), New Haven

West Haven, Conn. (ED 079764) University,

ELBOW, Peter (1973). Wrltlng. London: Oxford Press

158

Page 166: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

ELBOW, Peter (1981). Writing with power: Techniques for mastering the writing process. London: Oxford Press.

ELBOW, Peter (1983). Teaching thinking by teaching writing. Change 15 (6) pp 37-40 -

ELGIN, Suzette Haden (1982). The great grammar myth. The National Writing Project, University of California, Berkeley.

ELLMAN, Neil (1979/80). Structuring peer evaluation for greater student independence. In Classroom practices in teachinq English: How to handle the paper load. pp 130-132 Urbana, Illinois: NCTE

EMIG, Janet (1971). The composing process of twelfth graders. National Council of Teachers of English, Urbana, 111.

EMIG, Janet (1978). Hand, eye, brain: Some basics in the writing process. In Cooper and Odell (Eds.), Research in Composing. NCTE, Urbana, Illinois.

EMIG, Janet (1983) . In Goswami and Butler (Eds.) , The web of meaning: Essays in writing, teaching, learning, thinking. -Upper Montclair, New Jersey: ~oynton/Cook.

EMMANUEL, Lenny (1984). The third stanza. Journal of Teaching Writinq. 3 (2) pp 269-84 -

ENGEL, Mary F. & Sawyer, Thomas M. (1983). Contractual revision. Presented at the 34th conference on College Composition and Communication, Detroit, MI

ESTABROOK, Iris W. (1982) . Talking about writing -- developing independent writers. Language Arts. - 59 (7) pp 696-706

EWOLDT, Carolyn (1984). Problems with rewritten materials, as exemplified by "To Build A Fire." American Annals of the Deaf. 129 (1) pp 23-28 --

159

Page 167: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

FADIMAN, Clifton & Howard, James (1979). Empty pages: A search for writing competence in school and society. California: f

FAGAN, Bon (1985). Executive writing and internal revision. English Quarterly. - 18 (2) pp 69-74

FAIGLEY, Lester & Skinner, Anna (1981). Analyzing revision. College Composition and Communication. - 32 pp 400-414

FAIGLEY, Lester & Skinner, Anna (1982). writers' processes and writer's knowledae :A review of research. Technical report #6, prepa;ed through the Writing Program ~ssessment Project under the sponsorship of the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education.

FAIGLEY, Lester & Witte, S. (1984). Measuring the effects of revisions on text structure. In Richard Beach and Lillian S. Bridwell (Eds.), New directions in composition research. New York: Guilford Press

FASSLER, Barbara (1978). The red pen revisited: Teaching - composit~on through student conferences. College English. 40 pp 186-190 -

FEARING, Bertie E. & Allen, Jo (1984). Teaching technjcal writing in the secondary school. ERIC Clearinghouse on Reaaing and Communication Skills, Urbana, Ill. NCTE.

FELDMAN, Paula R. (1984). Using microcomputers for college writing -- What students say. Presented at the Conference of the Delaware Valley Writing Council, and Villanova University English Department, Villanova, PA

FIELDEN, John S. (1982, May-June). What do you mean you don't like my style? Harvard Business Review. pp 128-138

FIELDEN, John S. & Dulek, Ronald E. (1988, Summer). Acquiring an effective business writing style. Business Horizons. pp 46-49

Page 168: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

FINKEL, Donald (1984). Writing communities. In Leo Daugherty (Ed.), The teaching of writing at Evergreen: A collection of strateqies. pp 89-92 Olympia WA: Evergreen State College

FISCHER, Olga Howard & Fischer, Chester A. (1985). ~lectrifying the composing process: Electronic workspaces and the teaching of writing. Journal of ~eaching Writing. - 4 (1) p 113-21.

FISH, Stanley (1980). Is there a text in this class? The authority of interpretive communities. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

FITSCHEN, Kenneth (1986). Effective advice to beginning writers: Revise on hard copy. Teaching English in the Two-Year College. - 13 (2) pp 104-08.

FITZGERALD, Frances (1979). America revised. New York: Vintage

FITZGIBBON, Joseph (1980, March). Reducing the drudgery of correcting compositions. Media and Methods. pp 27-29.

FLANIGAN, Michael C. & Menendez, Diane S. (1980). perception and Change: Teaching revision. College English. - 42 pp 256-266.

FLAVELL, John H. (1977). Cognitive development. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall

FLINN, Jane Zeni (Ed.), (1981). Reflections on writing: Programs and strategies from classrooms K-12. Gateway Writing Project, Missouri University, St. Louis, MO.

FLORIO, S. (1979). The problem of dead letters: Social perspective on the teaching of writing. The Elementary School Journal. 80 pp 1-7 -

FLORIO, Susan & Clark, Christopher M. .(1982). Functions of writing in an elementary classroom. Research in the Teaching of English. 6 (2) pp 115-130.

Page 169: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

FLOWER, Linda & Hayes, J.R. (1981a). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication. - 32 pp 365-387.

FLOWER, Linda 61 Hayes, J.R. (1981b). The pregnant pause: An inquiry into the nature of planning. Research in the Teaching of English. - 15 (3). pp 229-243.

FLOWER, Linda & Hayes, J.R. (1981~). Plans and the cognitive process of composing. In C. Frederiksen, M. Whiteman & J. Dominic J. I~ds.), Writing and the nature, development and teachina of written communication. Hillside. N.J.

FLOWER, Linda., Hayes, J.R., and others (1985). Diagnosis in revision: The experts' option, Technical Report (27) Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.

FLOWER, Linda, Hayes, John R., Carey, Linda , Schriver, Karen, & Stratman, James (1986) . Detection, diagnosis, and the strategies of revision. College Composition and Communication. - 37 (1) pp 16-55.

FLYNN, Elizabeth A. (1983) . Composing responses to literary texts: - A process approach. College Composition and Communication. 34 (3) pp 342-348. -

FORBES, Christopher J. (1986) . Developing editing skills in the beginning technical writing class. Technical Writing Teacher. - 13 (2) pp 122-34.

FOSTER, David (1983). A primer for writing teachers: Theories, theorists, issues, problems. Upper Montclair, New Jersey: ~oynton/Cook.

FOX, Barry (1980). Intervention in children's writing: What is the -

teacher's role? Highway One: Journal of Canadian Language Education. - 3 (3) pp 22-25.

FOX, James (1980) Teaching writing. TESL Talk. - 11 (4)

Page 170: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

FOX, ROY E. (1980). Treatment of writing apprehension and its - effects on composition. ~esearch i n the Teaching of

English. - 14 (1) pp 39-50.

FRANK, Marjorie (1979). If you're trying to teach kids how to write you've gotta have this book. Nashville, Tennessee: Incentive Publications

FREDERICK, Vicki (1985). A study of revision in the 1984 Wisconsin writing assessment. Bulletin #5304. Wisconsin State Dept. of Public Instruction, Madison. isc cons in.

FREDERIKSEN, Carl H. & Dominic, Joseph F. (Eds.), (1981). Writing: The nature, development and teaching of written communication. Vol. 11, Writing process: Development and communication. Collection of papers originally presented at the National Institute of Education's First Conference on Writing, June 1977. (ED221888)

FREEDMAN, Aviva & Pringle, Ian (1980). The writing abilities of a representative sample of grade 5, 8 and 12 students. The Carleton Writing Project, Part 11, Final Report. Carletoh Board of ducati ion, Ontario, Canada.

FREEDMAN; Benedict (1983). The writer's two dialogues. Teacher Education Quarterly. - 10 (3) pp 23-37.

FREEDMAN, Sarah Warshauer (1984a) . Evaluation of and response to student writing: A review. American Educational Research Association Technical Report, New Orleans, Louisiana.

FREEDMAN, Sarah Warshauer (1984b). The registers of student and professional expository writing: Influences on teachers' responses. In R. Beach and L.S. Bridwell (Eds.) , New directions in composition research. New York: Guilford Press

FREEDMAN, Sarah Warshauer (1985). The acquisition of written language: response and revision. In Writing research: Multidisciplinary inquiries into the nature of writing series. Stanford University, California.

Page 171: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

FREEDMAN, S.W. & Calfee, R. (1983). Holistic assessment of writing: Experimental design and cognitive theory. In P. Mosenthal, L. Tamor, & S. Walmsley (Eds.), Research on writing: Principles and methods. New York: Longman

FREISINGER, Randall R. (1980). Cross-disciplinary writing workshop: Theory and practice. College English. - 42 (2) pp 154-167

FRIEDMANN, Thomas (1983). Identification, rewriting, mastery: alternative exercises for basic and introductory students. Presented at the 34th conference on Collese - - - - Composition and Communication, Detroitt MI.

FULWILER, Toby, and Young, Art (1982). Language connections -- writing and reading across the curriculum National Council of Teachers of English, Urbana, ILL

GALDA, Lee (1984). The relations between reading and writing in young children. In R. Beach and L.S. Bridwell (Eds.) , - New directions in composition research New York: Guilford Press

GALLANT, Mavis (1988). Interviewed in Athabaska University Magazine, (1) p 36 Athabaska, Alberta, Canada.

GARNER, Hugh (1973). One damn thing after another. Toronto, Ontario: McGraw ill

GEBHARDT, Richard C. (1977). Imagination and discipline in the writing class. English Journal. - 66 (9), pp 26 - 32.

GEBHARDT, Richard C. (1983) . Writing processes, revision and rhetorical problems: A note on three recent articles. College Composition and Communication. - 34 (3) pp 294-96

GEE, T.W. (1985). Of ships and sealing wax: Drafting and revising processes in grade twelve students' examination writing. English Quarterly. - 18 (2) pp 82 - 88.

GENSLER, Kinereth and Nyhart, Nina (1978). The poetry connection. Teachers and Writers New York.

Page 172: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

GENTRY, Larry A. (1980). Textual revision: A review of the research. Southwest Regional Laboratory for Educational Research and Development, Los Alamitos, CA (ED192355.)

GEOFFRION, Leo D. (1982). The feasibility of word processing for students with writing handicaps: Journal of ~ducational Technology Systems. - 11 (3) pp 239-250.

GERE, Anne R. (1977). Writing and writing. English Journal. p 60-64

GERE, Anne R. (1979). The How's of teaching composition. Washington State Council of Teachers of English.

GERE, Anne R. (1982). Students' oral response to written composition. Washington University, Seattle, WA.

GERE, Anne R., Schuessler Brian F., & Abbot, Robert D. (1984) . Measuring teachers' attitudes toward writing instruction. In R. each and L.S. Bridwell (Eds.) , New directions in composition research. N.Y.: Guilfora Press,

GERE, Anne R. & Smith, Eugene (1979). Attitudes, language and change. NCTE. Urbana, Illinois.

GERRARD, Lisa (1983). Writing with Wylbur: Teaching freshman composition with a mainframe computer Available through Eric Document Reproduction Service, Arlington, VA

GEUDER, Patricia A. and others (1974). They really taught us how to write. NCTE, Champlain, ILL.

GIACOBBE, Mary Ellen (1980). A writer reads, a reader writes. New York: Newkirk and Atwell

GIACOBBE, Mary Ellen (1981). Kids can write the first week of school. Learning. - 9 pp 130-132

GIBSON, Deborah (1985). A student-centered writing curriculum. Paper presented at the annual meeting of TRI-TESOL, in Bellevue, Washington.

165

Page 173: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

GIBSON, Walker (1979). The writing teacher as a dumb reader. College Composition and Communication. - 30 pp 192-5

GILBERT, William H. [1983). Voice: Reading to hear and revising to control. English Quarterly. - 16 (3) pp 32-39.

GLATTHORN, Allan A. (1981). Writing in the schools -- improvement through effective leadership. NASSP, Virginia.

GLAVICH, Sister Mary Kirene. (1980). Writing in circles: A way around the paper problem. Ohio Language Arts Bulletin. pp 57-60.

GOLDEN, Catherine (1986). Composition: Writing and the visual arts. Journal of Aesthetic Education. - 20 (3) pp 59-68.

GOLDING, William (1987). Interviewed by MaryLynn Scott in Aurora - 11 (1) pp 36-40

GOOD, T.L. & Beckerman, T.M. (1978). Time on task: A naturalistic study in sixth graae classrooms. Elementary School Journal 78 pp 193-201 -

GORMLEY, Kathleen A. & Sarachan-Deily, Ann Beth (1982). Rewriting: what do deaf students do when they revise? presented at Alexander Graham Bell Assoc. conference, ~orbnto, Canada

GORRELL, Robert (1985). Of practice and preaching. In Tom Waldrep, (Ed.), Writers on writinq. pp 99-108, NY: Random House

GRAVES, Donald (1975). An examination of the writing process of 7-year old children. Research in the Teaching of English. 9 pp. 227-241.

GRAVES, Donald (1979). Let children show us how they write. University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH.

GRAVES, Donald (1981). A new look at research in writing. In S. Haley-Jones (Ed.), Perspectives on writing in grades one to eight. NCTE, Urbana, Ill.

Page 174: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

GRAVES, Donald (1982). Research update: How do writers develop? Language Arts. - 59 (2) pp 173-179.

GRAVES, Donald (1983). Writing: Teachers and children at work. New Hampshire: Heinemann Educational Books.

GRAVES, Donala (1985). The enemy is orthodoxy. Highway One. - 8 (1) pp 153-63.

GRAVES, Donald & Calkins, Lucy McCormick (1979). Research update: Andrea learns to make writing hard. Language Arts. - 56 pp 569-576.

GRAVES, Donald & Murray, Donald M. (1980). Revision in the writers workshop and in the classroom. Journal of Education. pp 38-56.

GRAVES, Richard (Ed.) , (1984) . Rhetoric and Composition: A Sourcebook for teachers. (ED243104)

GRAVES, Richard (1985). A dance to the music of the mind. In Tom Waldrep (Ed.), Writers on writing. pp 109-116 New York:

. Random House

GRAVES, Robert & Hodge, Alan (1979). The reader over your shoulder. New York: Vintase Books (Random House)

GREGG, Lee W. & Steinberg, Erwin R. (Eds.) , (1980). Cognitive processes in writing. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum

GRICE, H. (1975). Logic and converstaion. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.) , Syntax and semantics (Vol. 111) New York: Academic Press.

GRIFFIN, C. Williams (1982). Teaching writing in all disciplines. In C. Griffin (Ed.), New directions for teaching and learning. 12 San Francisco, CA: Higher Education Series ( ~ o s s e y - B ~ E )

Page 175: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

GROFF, Patrick (1975). Does negative criticism discourage children's compositions? Language Arts. pp 1032-1034

GRUBGELD, Elizabeth (1986). Helping the problem speller without supressing the writer. English Journal. - 75 (2) pp 58-61

GULA, Robert J. (1983). Beyond the typewriter. Independent School. 42 (3) pp 44-46. -

GUNDLACH, Robert A. (1982). How children learn to write: Pers~ectives on children's writina for educators and - d

parents. National Institute of Educators, Washington, DC. Available through ERIC document reproduction service, Arlington, VA (ED241950)

GUNDLACH, Robert A. (1985). How children learn to write. Exeter, New Hampshire: Heinemann Educational Books

GUTH, Hans P. (1985). How I write: Five ways of looking at the blackbird. In Tom Waldrep (Ed.), Writers on writinq. pp 117-132 New York: Random House.

GWYN, Cindy & Swanson-Owens, Deborah (1980). Essay euiting: -Helping students teach themselves. San Francisco State University, CA. (ED192327)

HAIRSTON, Maxine (1981a). Not all errors are created equal: Nonacademic readers in the professions respond to lapses in usage. College English. - 43 (8) pp 794-806.

HAIRSTON, Maxine (1981b) Successful writing. New York: Norton

HALEY, Gwen (1983). Student writing. English Journal. - 72 (2) pp 38-40

HALL, M.A., Moretz, S.A. & Statom, J. (1976). Writing before grade one -- a study of early writers. Language A K ~ S . - 53 pp. 582-5

HAMMOND, Eugene R. (1983). Teachinq writing. New York: McGraw- Hill.

168

Page 176: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

HANSEN, Barbara (1978). Teaching revision. Exercise Exchange. pp 10-15

HANSEN, Barbara (1978b). Rewriting is a waste of time. College English. - 39 pp 956-960.

HANZELKA, Richard, and others (1981). Pleasant Valley K-6 writing guidelines and a writing process model. Davenport, Iowa. Mississippi Bend Area Educational Agency,

HARDAWAY, Francine (1975). What students can do to take the burden off you. College English. pp 577-580.

HARRINGTON-BROGAN, Victory Shirley (1983). Instructional writing suggestions in elementary school language arts textbooks: An analysis based on opinions of writing authorities. Doctoral Dissertation, State University of New York, Buffalo.

HARRIS, Jeanette (1985). Student writers and word processing: A preliminary evaluation. College composition and Communication. 36 (3) DD 323-30.

HARRIS, -Muriel (1978). Evaluation: The process for revision. Journal of Basic Writing. pp 82-90

HARSTE, J. & Burke, Woodward (1983). The young child as writer, reader and informant. NIE Final ReDort. Lanauase

a. - Education Department, NIE-G-80-0121, Bloomington, Inaiana

HARTZOG, Carol P. (1983). The UCLA writing program for university administrators. Presented at the California Association of Faculty in Technical and Professional Writing. Santa Barbara, California

HASWELL, Richard H. (1983). Minimal marking. College ~nglish. 45 (6) pp 600-604. -

HAUGEN, Nancy S. (Ed.), and others. (1981). A guide to the teacher's role in the writing program. Dept. of Curriculum and Instruction: Wisconsin Univ., Madison.

Page 177: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

HAUSER, Carin (1986). The writer's inside story. Language Arts. 63 (2) pp 153-59. -

HAWISHER, Gail E. (1986). The effects of word processing on the revision strategies of college students. Paper presented at the 70th American Educational Research Association conference, San Francisco, CA

HAWKINS, Thom. (1976). Group inquiry techniques for teaching writing. NCTE, Urbana, Illinois

HAWKINS, Thom. & Brooks, Phyllis (Eds.) , (1981). New directions for college learning assistance: Improving writing skills. San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass

HAYES, J.R. & Flower, L.S. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In L. Gregg and E. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing: An inter-disciplinary approach. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum

HAYES, J.R. & Flower. L.S. (1983). uncovering cognitive processes in writing: An introduction to protocol analysis. In P. Mosenthal, L. Tamor, & S.A. Walmsley (Eds.) , Research on writing: Principles and methods. New York: Longman

HAYES, John R., and others (1985). Cognitive processes in revision. CDC Technical Report #12. Carnegie-Mellon Univ. Pittsburgh

HAYS, Janice N. (Ed.), and others (1983). The writer's mind: Writing as a mode of thinking. NCTE, Urbana, ILL.

HAYES, anice W. (1982). The effect of audience considerations upon the revisions of a s r o u ~ of basic writers and more

e - competent junior and senior writers. Educational Resources Information Centre, Urbana, ILL. (ED204802)

HEATH, Shirley Brice (1983). Ways with words. London: Cambridge University Press.

HENNINGS, Dorothy Grant (1983). Words processed here -- Write with your computer. Phi Delta Kappan. - 65 (2) pp 122-124.

Page 178: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

HERMAN, Steve (1984). The teaching of field-journal writing. In Leo Daugherty (Ed.), The teaching of writing at Evergreen: A collection of strategies. pp 101-106. Olympia, Washington: Evergreen State College

HICKS, Joyce (1978). Structured revision tasks. Exercise Exchange. pp 15-17.

HILDICK, Wallace (1965). Word for word: The rewriting of fiction. New York: W.W. Norton.

HILDRETH, Gertrude (1947). Learning the three Rs. Milwaukee: Educational Publishers

HILL, Ada, and Boone, Beth (1982). If Maslow taught writing: A way to look at motivation in the composition classroom. The National Writing Project, California.

HILLOCKS, George Jr. (1975). Observing and Writing. National Council of the Teachers of English, Urbana, ILL.

HILLOCKS, George Jr. (1982). The interaction of instruction, - teacher comment, and revision in teaching the composing process. Research in the Teaching of English. - 16 (3) p 261-278

HINK, Kaye E. (1985). Let's stop worrying about revision. Language Arts. 62 (3) pp 249-54. - -

HIRSCH, E.D. Jr. (1977). The Philosophy of Composition. Illinois: University of Chicago Press

HITCHENS, David (1984). The directed fantasy writing workshop. In - ~ e o ~aughtery (Ed.), The teaching of writing at ~vei~reen: A collection of strategies. pp 93-100. Olympia, Washington: Evergreen State College

HOBHOUSE, Janet (1975). Anybody who was anybody: A biography of Gertrude Stein. New York: Putnam

Page 179: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

HODGINS, Audrey (1983). Idea exchange for English teachers. National Council of Teachers of English. Illinois.

HOGAN, Pat (1984) . Peer editing helps students improve written products. Highway One. - 7 (3) pp 51-54. (EJ313607)

HOLDAWAY, Don (1979). The foundations of literacy. Toronto: Ashton Scholastic

HOLT, Suzanne L. & Vacca, Joanne L. (1981) . Reading with a sense of writer: Writing with a sense of reader. Language Arts. 58 (8) pp 937-941. -

HORNER, Winifred Bryan (1983). Composition and literature: Bridging the gap. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press

HORTON, Susan R. (1982) . Thinking Through Writing . Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press

HOUSE, Beverly A. & Cone, Randy E. (1983). The effect of re-writing exercises on student achievement of business letter- writing skills. Delta Pi Epsilon Journal. - 25 (1) p31-37

HOWGATE, Lynn (1982) . Building self-esteem through the writing process. Univ. of California: National Writing Project

HUDSON, Kathleen (1982). Writers' comments on writing: Implications for a composition class. Paper pre,sented at the 72nd NCTE conference, Washington, DC.

HUFF, Roland (1983). Teaching revision: A model of the drafting process. College English. - 45 (8) pp 800-816.

HULL, Glynda A. (1984). The editing process in writing: A performance study of experts and novices. Learning Research and Development Centre, Pittsburgh Univ., PA,

HUMES, Ann (1981). The composing process: A summary of the research. Southwest Reqional Laboratory for Educational Research and w eve lo pent, Los ~lamitos,-calif.

-

Page 180: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

HUMES, Ann (1983). Research on the composing process. Review of Educational Research. - 53 (2) pp 201-205

HUMPHRIES, Will (1984). A new way of teaching logical organization. In Leo Daugherty (Ed.), The teaching of writing at Evergreen: A collection of strategies. pp 107-110. Olympia, Washington: Evergreen State College

ILACQUA, Alma A. (1980). "I like it!" doesn't make it good: Writing is (a) discipline. Arizona English Bulletin. 22, pp 89-94. -

IRMSCHER, William (1969). Ways of writinq. New York: McGraw Hill

IRMSCHER, William (1979). Teaching expository writing. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

JACKO, Carol M. (1978). Small group triad: An instructional mode for the-teaching of w;iting. College Composition an6 Communication. - 29 pp 290-292

JACOBS, Suzanne E. & Karliner, Adela B. (1977). Helping writers to think: The effect of speech roles in individual

- conferences on the quality of thought in student writing. College English. - 38 pp 489-505

JAMES, David R. (1981). Peer teaching in the writing classroom. English Journal. - 70 (7) pp 48-50.

JEFFERY, Christopher (1981). Teachers' and students' perceptions of the writing process. Research in the Teaching of English. IS (3) p 215. -

JOHANNESSEN, Larry R., et al. (1982). Designing and sequencing prewriting activities. NCTE, ILL.

JOHNS, Ann M. (1986) . Coherence and academic writing: Some definitions and suggestions for teaching. TESOL Quarterly. 20 (2) pp 247-65.

Page 181: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

JOHNSON, Mildred I. & Sterkel, Karen (1984). Writing with the computer brings positive results. Business Education Forum. 38 (5) pp 32-35. -

JONES, Richard (1984). An update of NEH/PNWC monograph Writing and reflectins on dreams and writing again. In Leo Daughtery (Ed.), he teaching of writing at Evergreen: A collection of strategies. pp 111-14. Olympia, Washington: Evergreen State College

JONES, Thelma Ludwig (1977). An exploratory study of the impact on student writing of peer evaluation. PhD Dissertation, Michigan State University

JORDAN, Stella (1984). A strategy for teaching descriptive outlines and using them to critique essays. In Leo Daughtery, (Ed.), The teaching of writing at Evergreen: A collection of strategies. p 115-16. Olympia, Washington: Evergreen State College

JUDY, Stephen N. (1980). The ABC's of literacy: A guide for educators and parents New York: Oxford Dictionary Press.

JUDY, Stephen N. (1982). Publishing in English Education New Jersey: ~oynton/Cook.

JUDY, Stephen N. (1980). The ABC's of literacy: A guide for parents and eaucators. Oxfora Dictionary Press. New York.

JUDY, Stephen N. & Judy, Susan J. (1979). The red pencil blues. In Stephen Judy (Ed .) , The English teacher's handbook: Ideas and resources for teaching English. Cambridge, MASS: Winthrop Publishers

JUDY, Stephen N. & Susan J. Judy (1981). An introduction to the teaching of writing. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

KANE, Janet H. (1983). Computers for composing. Presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Montreal, Quebec.

Page 182: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

KANTOR, Kenneth J. (1984). Classroom contexts and the development of writing intuitions: An ethnographic case study. In Richard Beach & Lillian S. Bridwell (~ds.1. New . - - . . - directions in composition research. New York: Guilford Press

KANTOR, Kenneth J. & Perron, Jack (1977). Thinking and writing: Creativity in the modes of discourse. Language Arts. 54 (7) pp 742-749. -

KARENGIANES, Myra L. (1981). The effects of peer editing on the writing proficiency of low achieving tenth grade students. Journal of Educational Research. - 73 (4) pp 203-207.

KAUFER, David S., and others (1986) . Composing written sentences. Research in the Teaching of English. - 20 (2) pp 121-140

KEHL, D.G. (1970). The art of writing evaluative comments on student themes. English Journal. - 59 pp 972-80.

KEITH, Philip M. (1977). TCDIDC, a revising heuristic: Or on beyona the toadstool. Presented at the Conference on College Composition and Communication, Kansas City, MI. (ED1478181

KEITH, Philip M. (1983). Shaping at the point of utterance rather than afterwards. Presented at the Minnesota council of Teachers of English 24th annual conference. MINN. .

KELLER, Rodney D. (1983). How Johnny/Jane writes: The complex word. Presented at 34th conference on College Composition and Communication. Detroit, MI.

KELLY, Kathleen (1982). We have met the audience and it is us: teachers as audience in the com~osition class. Presented '. at the 33rd Conference on College Composition and Communication. San Francisco, CA

KESSEL, Barbara Bailey (1982). Meet me at reader/writer junction. Presented at the 75th annual Illinois Association of Teachers of English conference, Champlaign, ILL.

Page 183: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

KING, Martha (1978). Research in composition: A need for theory. Research in the ~ e a c h i n ~ of English. - 12 pp 193-202

KING, Martha (1985). Proofreading is not reading. Teaching English in the Two-Year College. - 12 (2) pp 108-112

KING, Martha & Rentel, V.M. (1981). How children learn to write: A lonuitudinal study. Ohio State

d

University Research J?ounda;ion, Columbus, Ohio.

KINKHEAD, Joyce (1985). Tutors in the writing centre. Presented at the 36th annual meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication. Minneapolis, MINN

KIRBY, Dan R. & Liner, Tom (1980). Revision: Yes, they do it and yes, you can teach it. English Journal. pp 41-45

KLAUS, Carl H. and Jones, Nancy (Eds) (1984). Courses for change in writing: A selection from the NEH/Iowa Institute. Upper Montclair, NJ: Boynton/Cook.

KLEIN, Julie (1983). The post-Morten plan: Teaching writing across the disciplines. Exercise Exchange. 2tJ (2) pp 33-41

KLINE, Christine (19 ) . Influence of LOGO revision strategies on the written revision practice of young children: A stepping stone. School district of South Orange, Maplewood, New Jersey.

KNAPP, John V. (1976). Contract/conference evaluation of freshman composition. College English. - 37 p647-53

KNEEBONE, R.M.T. (1962). New writing. Hertfordshire, England: Garden City Press

KNOBLAUCH, C.H. (1985). How I write: An improbable fiction. In Tom Waldrep, (Ed.), Writers on writing. pp 133-146 New York: Random House

176

Page 184: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

KNOBLAUCH, C.H. & Brannon, Lil (1978). Rhetorical traaition and the teaching of writing. National Council of Teachers of English, Urbana, ILL

KOCH, Carl, and Brazil, James (1977). Strategies for teaching the composition process. National Council of Teachers of English, Urbana, ILL

KRAUS, W. Keith (1978). Murder, mischief and mayhem: A process for creative research papers. National Council of Teachers of English, Urbana, ILL

KROLL, Barry M. (1985). Rewriting a complex story for a young reader: The development of audience-adapted writing skills. Research in the Teaching of English. - 19 (2) pp 120-139

KROLL, Barry M. & Schafer, J.C. (1978). Error analysis and the teaching of composition. College Composition and Communication. - 29 pp 243-248

KROLL, Barry M. & Vann, Roberta J. (Eds.), (1981). ~xploring speaking-writing relationships: Connections and contrasts. National Council of

- Teachers of English, Urbana, ILL

KRUPA, Gene H. (1979). Primary trait scoring in the classroom. College Composition and Communication. 30 pp 214-215 -

KUCER, Stephen B. (1985). The parallel role of revision in reading and writing. Presented at the 35th annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, San Diego, CA

KUHLMAN, Sondra Mose (1980). A positive approach to revisions. College Student Journal. - 14 pp 184-185

KURTH, Ruth J. & Stromberg, Linda J. (1984). Using word processing in composition instruction. Presented at the fifth annual meeting of the American Reading Forum, Sarasota, FLA

Page 185: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

KWALICK, Barry (Ed) (1983). Selected papers from the 1982 conference 'New York Writes: Kindergarten Through College' Instructional Resource Centre, City University of New York.

LAGANA, Jean R. (1972). The development, implementatlon and evaluation of a model for teaching composition which utilizes individualized learning and peer grouping. PhD dissertation, University of Pittsburgh

LAiqBERG, Walter J. (1977, May). Feedback on writing: Huch more than teacher corrections. Journal of the colorad0

Language Arts Society. pp 33-38

LAMBERG, Walter J. (1980). Self-provided and peer-provided feedback. College Composition and Communication. 31 pp 63-69 -

LAMME, Linda Leonard & Chilaers, Nancye M. (1983). Composing process of three young chidlren. Research in the Teaching of English. - 17 (1) pp 31-50

LAND, Robert E. (1984). Revision strategies of seventh and eleventh graders.--Available through Eric Document Reproduction Service, Arlington, VA (ED261410),

LANEY, James D. (1983). Composition in the intermediate grades: How to promote thinking and creativity. Presented at the annual meeting of the California Educational Research ~ssociation, Los Angeles, CA

LANHAM, Richard A. (1974). Style: An anti-textbook. London: Yale University Press

LANHAM, Richard A. (1981). Revising business prose. New York: Charles ~cribner and Sons

LANDRUM, Roger (1979). A day dream I had at night: Teaching children to make their own readers. Teachers and Writers. New York, NY

Page 186: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

LANGER, Judith A. & Applebee, Arthur N. (1983). Learning

LANSING,

LANSING,

to manage to writing process: Tasks and strategies Available through ERIC document reproduction service, Arlington, VA (ED234420)

Margaret L. (1984a). Computers in composition: A biblioara~hv of research and ~ractice. Available throuqh ERIC document reproduction service, ~rlington, VA. (~~249499)

Margaret L. (1984b). Student writers and word processors: A case study. Available through ERIC document reproduction service, Arlington, VA. (ED249491)

LAQUE, Carol Feiser & Sherwood, Phyllis A. (1977). A laboratory approach to writing. NCTE, ~rbaza, ILL.

LARSON, R. (1975) . Children and writing in the elementary school: Theory and techniques. New York: Oxford University Press

LARSON, R. (1980). The writer's mind. Keynote address at - the Skidmore Writing Conference, Saratoga Springs

LAURENCE, P. (1976). Errors' endless train: Why students don't perceive errors. Journal of Basic Writing. 1 pp 23-43 -

LEAHY, Ellen (1984, Jan.). A writing teacher's shopping and reading list for software. English Journal. pp 62-65

LEES, Elaine 0. (1979). Evaluating student writing. College Composition and Communication. - 30 pp 370-374

LEES, Elaine 0. (1985). Proofreading with the ears: A case study of text-to-voice performance of student's writing. Collegiate Microcomputer. - 3(4) pp 339-344

LEGR, Fran (1982). Creative writing as good writing. Language Arts. - 59 (3) pp 291-29s

179

Page 187: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

LEONARD, Michael H. (1976). Practice makes better: Notes on a writing program. English Journal. Sept. pp 59-62

LEVIN, James A. (1983). Writing with computers in the classrooms: You get exactly the right amount of space. Theory Into Practice. - 22 (4) pp 291-295

LEWES, Ulle Erika (1981). Peer-evaluation in a writing seminar. Available through ERIC document reproduction service, Arlington, VA (ED 226355)

LEWIS, Claudia (1981). Writing for young chidren -- a hand- book for would-be writers. and for teachers and parents. New York: penguin Books

LITTLE, Marjorie D., Smith, Susan C. & Wyszkowski, Margaret P.-(1980). Humanistic response to writing: One means of encouraging growth in student writers through evaluation. New Mexico State Writing Institute Curriculum Publication - 1. Las Cruces, NM

LLOYD JONES, Richard (1985). Playing for mortal stakes. In Tom Waldrep (Ed.), Writers on writinq. pp 153-165 New York: Random House

LOBAN, Walter, Ryan, Margaret & Squire, James R. (19613. Teaching language and literature. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World Inc.

LONG, Littlejohn (1976) . Writing exercises from Exercise Exchange. NCTE Urbana, ILL

LORCH, Sue (1985). Confessions of a former sailor. In Tom Waldrep (Ed.) Writers on writinq. pp 165-173 New York: Random House

LOVEJOY, Kim Brian (1986). The Gricean model: A revising rubric. Presented at the 36th annual Conference on College Composition and Communication, MINN

LOYIE-PHILIPPSEN, Lynda (1987). Beyond prewriting. Resource papers published by Delta School Board, Delta B.C.

180

Page 188: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

LUBAN, Nina, Matsuhashi, Ann & Reigstaa, Tom (1978). one- to-one to write: Establishing an individual conference writing place. English Journal. - 67 pp 30-35

LUNDSTEEN, Sara W. (ED) (1976). Help for the teacher of written composition: New directions in research National Conference on Research in English.

LUNSFORD, A. (1979). Cognitive development and the basic writer. College English. - 41 pp 38-46

LUNSFORD, A. (1985). Confessions of a developing writer. In Tom Waldrep (Ed.), Writers on writinq. pp 173-182 New York: Random House

LUTZ, William (1985). How I write. In Tom Waldrep (Ed.), Writers on writinq. pp 183-190 NY: Random House

LYNCH, Catherine & Klemans, Patricia (1978). Evaluating our evaluation. College English. - 40 pp 166-180

LYMAN, -Roll0 L. (1931). A co-operative experiment in junior high school composition. School Review. - 34 pp 748-757

MacKAY, Carol & Taylor, Patricia (1978). Righting writing: A guide to composition. Department of

English, University of California.

MacRORIE, Ken (1980) . Telling writinq. Rochell Park, New Jersey: Hayden Book Co.

MacRORIE, Ken (1982). I can figure out what they're saying: An interview with Marcia Urnland. English Journal. 71 (4) pp 22-29 -

MADIGAN, Chris (1984). The tools that shape us: Composing by hand vs composing by machine. English Education. - 16 (3) pp 143-150

Page 189: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

MAILER, Norman (1981). Advertisement for myself. NY: Putnam

MAIMON, Elaine P. (1979). Talking to strangers. College Composition and Communication. - 30 pp 364-369

MAIMON, Elaine P. (1981). Writing in the Arts and Sciences. MASS: Winthrop Publishers

MALLETT, M. & Hewsome, B. (1977). Talking, writing and learning. London: Evan/Methune

MANDEL, Barret J. (1978). Losing one's mind: Learning to write and edit. College Composition and Communication. - 29 pp 362-368

MARDER, Daniel (1984). Envisioning and revisioning. Rhetoric Review. - 3 (1) pp 13-19

MARIK, Ray (1982). Special education students write: Class- room activities and assignments. National Writing Project, California.

MARR, David (1984). Extravagent interest: An attempt to summarize a theory of writing in social space. In Leo Daugherty (Ed.), The teaching of writing. at Evergreen: A collection of strateqies. pp 135-147 Olympia, Washington: Evergreen State College

MARTIN, Clyde (1955). Developmental interrelationships among language variables in children of the first grade. Elementary English. - 32 p 167-171

MARTIN, Nancy (1983). Mostly about writing. Upper Montclair, New Jersey: ~oynton/~ook

MARTIN, Nancy, et a1 (1976). Writing and learning across the curriculum, 11-16. London: Wilmer Brothers

MARTIN, William R. (1983). Evaluating on the right side. Presented at 73rd annual meeting of the National Council of Teachers of English, Denver, COL

182

Page 190: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

MAVROGENOS, Nancy A. & Padak, Nancy D. (1982). The reading road to writing. Journal of Educational Research. 75 (6) p 354 -

MARTINEK, Thomas J. & Johanson, Susan B. (1979). Teacher expectations: Effect of dyadic interaction and seif-concept in elementar; age children. Research Quarterly. - 50 (1) pp 60-70

MAYER, John S. & Brause, Rita S. (1984). Learning through teaching: Lessons from a first grade. Language Arts. 61 (3) pp 285-290 - -

MAYER, John S. et a1 (1983). Learning to write, writing to learn. New Jersey: Boynton/Cook

MAZER, Norma Fox (1986). I love it, it's your best book. English Journal. - 75 (2) pp 26-29

MCALLISTER, Carole (1985). The word processor: A visual tool for writing teachers. Journal of Development and Remedial Education. - 8 (3) pp 12-15

McCALLLIM, Peggy (1979). Children's frustrations show in writing. Query. 9 (2) pp 37-39

McDONALD Jr., W.V. (1978). The revising process and the L

marking of student papers. College Composition and Communication. - 29 pp 167-170.

McFARLAND, Betty (1977). Writing and proofreading: An alternative program for basic composition courses. Presented at the annual meeting of the Southeastern conference on English in the Two- Year college. Nashville, TENN. (ED150618)

McGINLEY, Kevin (1983). Reforming the paragraph. - ELT Journal. - 37 (2) pp 150-153

McLAUGHLIN, Gerald W. (Ed.) , (1985). Effective writing: Go tell it on the mountain. Assoc. for Institutional Research, AIR professional file - 21

183

Page 191: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

MCLEAN, James I. (1984). Writing for learning: Practical application of research findings. Presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Telles, Texas.

McPHILLIPS, Shirley P. (1985). The spirit of revision: Listening for the writer ' s conscience. Language Arts. 62 (6) pp 614-618 - -

McQUADE, Donald & Atwan, Robert (1980, 1983). Thinking in writinq. New York: Alfred A. Knopf

MEADE, R.S. & Ellis, W.G. (1970). Paragraph development in the modern- age of rhetoric. ~ n ~ l i s h Journal. - 59 pp 219-226

MEEK, M. (1983). Achieving literacy. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul

MEGNA, Jerome F. (1976, Summer/Autumn) . Teaching writing skills through peer evaluation. The ~nglish Record. pp 98-106

MICHAELS, S. (1981). Sharing time. Differential access to literacy. In J. Cook and J. Gumperez (Eds.) ,- Schoolhouse Ethnography Project. NIE 6 78-0082 Washington, DC

MILLER, Jr., James E. & Judy, Stephen N. (1978). Writing in reality. New York: Harper and Row Publishers

MILTZ, V.E. (1980). First graders can write: Focus on communication. Theory Into Practice. - 19 pp 179-185

MOCHAMER, Randi Ward (1985). Teaching writing as thinking across the secondary curriculum: An annotated bibliography. Available through ERIC document reproduction services, Arlington, VA (ED2594011

Page 192: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

MOFFETT, J. (1968). Teaching the universe of discourse. Boston, Mass: Houghton ~ittlin.

MOFFETT, J. (1981). Active voice: A writing program across the curriculum. New Jersey: Boynton/Cook

MOFFETT, J. & Wagner, Betty Jane (1973). Student-centered language arts and reading, K-13: A hand-book for teachers. Boston. Mass: Houshton Mifflin

MOHR, Marian M. (1984). ~ebision: The rhythm of meaning. Upper Montclair, New Jersey: ~oynton/Cook

MONAHAN, Brian (1984). Revision strategies of basic and competent writers as they write for different audiences. Research in the Teaching of English. 18 (3) pp 288-304 -

MONKARSH, Frances Celniker (1985). The nature of the writing process: A review of the literature. Available throuqh ERIC document reproduction service, ~ r l i n ~ f o n , VA (ED264584) -

MOORE, David Thonton May (1981) . Discovering the pedagogy of experience. Harvard Education Review. - 51 (2)

MOORE, Dennis (1982). Language of learning. Review of Education. - 8 (4)

MOORE, Michael (1983). Writing to learn, writing to teach. English Journal. - 72 (3) p 34

MORGAN, Betsy (1975, Fall). A case study of a seventh grade writer. The English Record. pp 28-39

MORROW, Keith (1979). The communicative approach to language teaching. In C. J. Brumf it & K. Johnson (Eds.) , The communicative approach to language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Page 193: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

MORROW, Lesley Mandel (1978). Analysis of syntax of six, seven and eight-year old children. Research in the Teaching of English. - 12 (2) pp 143-148

MOSENTHAL, Peter & Na, T.J. (1981). Classroom competence and children's individual differences in writing. Journal of Educational Psychology. - 73 pp 106-121

MOSENTHAL, Peter, Tamor, L & Walmsely, S. (Eds.) , (1983) . iesearch on writing: principles and methods. New York: Longmans

MOSS, R. Kay (1982). The writing processes of young children: A review of related research. Presented at the 32nd annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, Clearwater, ~iorida

MULLINS, Carolyn J. (1980). The complete writing guide. Englewood Cliffs, New York: Prentice-Hall

MURRAY, Donald M. (1968). A writer teaches writing: A practical method of teaching composition. Boston, MASS: Houghton ~ifflin.

MURRAY, Donald M. (1978a). Teach the motivating forces of revision. English Journal. - 67 pp 56-60

MURRAY, Donald M. (1978b). Internal revision: A process of discovery. In Charles R. Cooper and Lee Odell -

(Eds.), Research on composing: Points of departure. National Council of Teachers of English, Urbana, ILL.

MURRAY, Donald M. (1979a). Writing process/response exercise. Exercise Exchange, Fall. pp 61-63

MURRAY, Donald M. (l979b). The listening eye: ~eflections on the writing conference. College English. - 41 pp 13-18

MURRAY, Donald M. (1982). Learning by teaching: Selected articles on writing and teaching. ERIC (ED2309621

186

Page 194: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

MURRAY, Donald M. (1985). Getting under the lightning. In Tom Waldrep (Ed.), Writers on writinq. pp 215-224 New York: Random House.

MURRAY, Patricia (1985). Doing writing. In Tom Waldrep (Ed.), Writers on writing. pp 225-240 New York: Random House

MYERS, Greg (1985). The social construction of two biologists proposals. Written Communication. - 2 (3) pp 219-245

MYERS, M. (1980) . A model for the composing process. National Writing Project Occasional Paper 3 Bay Area Writing Project, University of ~erkeley, CA

MYERS, M. (1981). What kina of people talk that way? English Journal. - 70 (7) pp 24-28

MYERS, M. and Gray, James (1983). Theory and practice in the teaching of composition: Processing, distancing and modelling. NCTE, Urbana, ILL

NELSON, M.W. (1981). Writers teaching writers. University of Georgia. Available through ERIC' document reproduction service, Arlington, VA (ED2i741.4)

NEUMEYER, Peter F. (1982a). The creation of charlotte's web: from drafts to book. Horn Book Magazine. 58 (5) pp 489-497 -

NEUMEYER, Peter F. (1982b). The creation of Charlotte's web: From drafts to book. Part 11. Horn Book Magazine. - 58 (6) pp 617-625

NEUMEYER. Peter F. (1985). The creation of E.B. White's . - - .-- - - , - -

'The T K U ~ D ~ ~ of the swan1: The man"scriwts. Horn Book Magazine. - 61 (1) pp 17-28

NEWELL, A. & Simon, H.A. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall InC.

Page 195: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

NEWKIRK,

NEWKIRK,

NEWKIRK,

NEWKIRK,

Thomas (1980) . Writing and critical reading. Presented at the Skidmore Writing Conference, Saratoga Springs, Florida.

Thomas (1981). Barriers to revision. Journal of Basic Writing, 2 pp 50-61

Thomas (1984). Anatomy of a breakthrough: A case study of a college freshman writer. In R. Beach & ~illian S. ridw well (Eds.) , New directions in composition research. New York: Guilford Press

Thomas, and Atwell, Nancie (Eds.), (1982). Under- standing writing -- ways of observing, learning, ana teachinq . Boston: Northwest Reqional Exchange

NEWMAN, Barbara J. (1980 Winter/Spring). Peer evaluation in teaching composition. Ohio English Language Arts Bulletin. pp 61-64

NEWMAN, Jerrie M. (1982). The effect of formal revision in improving writing skills. Available through ERIC document reproduction service, Arlington, VA

NEWMAN, Robert E. (19 ) . Reading, writing and self esteem. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall

NICKELL, Samila Sturgel (1985). The best of both worlds: writing conferences on the computer. Presented at the 36th Conference on College Composition and Communication. Minneapolis, MINN

NOCK, David A. & Nelson, Randle W. (Eds.) , (1978) . Reading writing and riches. Kitchener, Ontario: Between The Lines Press

NOLD, Ellen (1979). Revising: Toward a the0 at the 31st annual Conference on Co Composition and Communication

NOLD, Ellen (1980). Revising. In C. Frederiksen, M. Whiteman & J. Dominic, J. (Eds.), Writing: The nature, development and teaching of written composition. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum

188

Page 196: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

NOLD, Ellen (1982). Revising: Intentions and conventions. -- - - - In R. Sudol (Ed.), Revising: New essays for teachers of writing. NCTE, Urbana, ILL

NUGENT, Susan Monroe (Ed .) (1985) . Developing audience awareness. The Leaflet. New England Association of Teachers of English - 84 (1)

NYSTRAND, M. (1982). An analysis of error in written communication. In M. Nystrand (Ed.), What writers know. New York: Academic Press -

ODELL, L. & Cohick, Joanne (1975 Dec.). You mean write it over in ink? English Journal. pp 48-53

ODELL, L. & Cooper, C.R. (1980). Procedures for evaluating writing: Assumptions and needed research. College English. - 42 pp 35-43

ODELL. L. & Goswani, D. (1982). Writing in a non-academic setting. ~esearch in- the ~ e a c h i n ~ of English. - 16 pp 201-224

O'DONNELL, Cathy (1980). Peer editing: A way to improve writing. Presented at the combined annual meeting of the Secondary English Section Conference and the Conference on English Education. Omaha, NEB ERIC (EDl89604).

O'HARE, Frank (1973). Sentence combining: Improving student writing without formal grammar instruction. NCTE, Urbana, Illinois.

OLSON, Carol Booth (1984) . Fostering critical thinking skills through writing. ~dicational ~eadershi~. 42 (3) pp 28-39 -

OLSON, Carol Booth (1986). Practical ideas for teachinq writing as a process. Presented at the 70th annual meeting of the American Educational Research Ass. San ~rancisco, CA

Page 197: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

OLSON, David R. (1977a). Oral and written language and the cognitive processes of children. Journal of Communication. - 27 (3)

OLSON, David R. (1977b). From utterance to text: The bias of language in speech and writing. Harvard Educational Review. - 47 pp 257-281

O'MEALY, Joseph & Register, James (1984). Editing/drilling/ draf t-guiding : A three•’ old approach to the services of a writing workshop. College Composition and Communicaiton. - 35 (2) pp 230-233

Cynthia S. (1984). The t comments ana student's re

lransaction between teacher's - - - - - - - - - - - - - visions: Catalysts and

obstacles, Available throuah ERIC document

PALEWICZ-ROUSSEAU, Pam & Madoras, Lynda (1979) . - The alphabet connection. New York: Schocken Books

PAPERT, Seymour (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books

PAULILS, Chris (1985). Holistic scoring: A revision strategy. Clearing House. - 59 (2) pp 575-60 .

PAULSEN, (1984). Critical reasoning and good writing. In Leo Daugherty (Ed.), The teaching of writing at Evergreen: A collection of strategies. pp 155-161 Olympia, Washington: Evergreen State College

PAVLINSIN, Peggy Irene (1983). Teaching revision: an experiment . Presented at the 34 th annual meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication, Detroit, MI

PEACOCK, Colin, and Roger, Angela (1984). Success in writing: A classroom study with slower learning pupils in three Scottish secondary schools. Scottish Curriculum Development Service, Stirling University, Edinburgh, scotland.

Page 198: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

PEACOCK, Colin & Roger, Angela (1984). Teaching revision: An experiment. Presented at the 34th annual meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication, Detroit MI

PECHAR, Levin (1978). Peer evaluation. English Journal. - 67 pp 61-63

PELLEGRINI, Anthony (1984). Symbolic functioning and children's early writing: The relations between kindergartener's play and isolated word-writing fluency. In R. Beach and Lillian S. Bridwell (Eds.), New directions in composition research. New York: Guilford Press.

PELTON, Claire L. (1983). The teaching of writing: No time for bromides. Teacher Education Quarterly. - 10 (3) pp 1-8

PERCY, Walter (1978). e n is, how queer language is, and what one has to do with the other. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

PERL, Sondra (1978). Five writers writing: Case studies of the composing process of unskilled college writers. PhD dissertation, New York University.

PERL, Sondra (1979). The composing process of unskilged college writers. Research in the Teaching of English. - 13 pp 317-336. .

PERRIN, Robert (1984). Writing in the elementary classroom. Available through ERIC document reproduction service Arlington, VA (ED251854)

PETERSON, Bruce T. (Ea)(1986). Convergences: Transactions. in reading and writing. NCTE, Urbana, ILL

PETERSON, Linda (1985). Repetition and metaphor in the early stages of composing. College Composition and Communication. - 36 (4) pp 429-443

PETTY, Walter R. (1984). There are gaps and there are gaps. English Education. - 16 (1) p 35

Page 199: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

PFERRER, Suzanne (1980). The effect of multiple revision on freshman writing. Prsented at the Conference on College Composition and Communication, Washington, DC. Available through ERIC document reproduction service, Arlington, VA (ED191048)

PIANKO, Sharon (1979). Description of the composing process of college freshmen writers. Research in the Teaching of English. - 13 pp 5-22

PITMAN, Sir James (1966). As difficult as ABC: The case against the traditional orthography as a learning medium. London, England: Haycock

PLIMPTON, George (Ed.), (1963). Writers at work: The Paris Review interviews (Second Series). New York; Viking Press

PLIMPTON, George (Ed.), (1967). Writers at work: The Paris Review interviews (Third Series). New York: Vikinq Press

PLIMPTON, George (Ed.), (1976). Writers at work: The Paris Review interviews (Fourth Series). New York: Viking Press

POLANSKI, Virginia G. (1985). Freshmen composition students increase heuristic use of early drafts. English Quarterly. - 18 (2) pp 97-105

POMERENKE, Paula J. (1984). Rewriting and peer evaluation: A positive approach for business writing classes. ABCA Bulletin. - 47 (3) pp 33-36

PONSOT, Marie, and Dean, Rosemary (1982). Beat not the poor desk -- Writing: What to teach, how to teach it, and why. New Jersey: Boynton/Cook

PORTER, Roy E, Gould, Arthur, Dierks, Jack, Hayes, Carole, Gould, Arthur Sr., Miller, Dale, Springer, Michael, and others (1979) The writer's manual. Palm Springs CA: ETC Publications.

PRANDT, G.M. (1979). Learning how to begin. and end a story. Language Arts. 56 pp 21-25

192

Page 200: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

PRATT, Mary Louise (1977). Toward a speech and theory of literary discourse. Blooming ton and London: Indiana University Press.

PRIMEAU, Ronald (1974). Film-editing and the revision process: Student as self-editor. College Composition and Communication. - 25 pp 405-410

PROGOFF, Ira (1981). At a journal workshop -- the basic text and guide for using the intensive journal process. New York: Dialogue House Library

PUFAHL, John P. (1986). Alone on the word processor: Writing ana rewriting. Teaching English in the Two-Year College. 13 (1) pp 25-29 -

PURVES, Alan C. (1984) . Paradox of research. English Education. 16 (1) pp 8-13 -

RABAN, B. (1982). Influences on children's early writing Available through ERIC document reproduction service, Arlington, VA (ED222921)

RACKHAM, -JEff (1980). From sight to insight: Steps in the writing process. New York: Rinehart and Winston

RAINER, Tristine (1978). The new diary: How to use a journal for L

self-guidance and expanded creativity. California: J.P. Tarcher

REED, Arthea; Kerr, M.E.; and Meaker, Marijane (1985). Help students learn how to write fiction. presented ac-the 75th annual meeting of the National Council of Teachers of English, ~hilade~hia, PA.

REID, Louann (1983). Talking: The neglected part of the writing process. Presented at the 2nd annual National Council of Teachers of English spring conference, Seattle, WA.

RENEHAN, William (1977). Seven year olds talking and writing. Australian Council for Educational Research. Victoria.

Page 201: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

RENTZ, Kathryn C. (1985). Some discouraging words about checkmark grading. Bulletin of the Association for Business Communication. - 48 (2) pp 20-23

RICO, Gabriele (1983). Writing the natural way: Using right- brain techniques to release your expressive powers. Los Angeles, California: J.P. Tarcher

RILES, Wilson (1982). Handbook for planning an effective writing program: Kindergarten through grade twelve. California State Department of Education, Sacramento, California.

RILEY, Judith (1984). The problems of drafting distance education materials: The problems of revising drafts of distance education materials, and drafting behaviours in the production of distance education material. British Journal of Educational Technology. - 15 (3) pp 192-238

RITTOE, Wess, R.C. (1982). Teacher as model. College Composition and Communication. Available through ERIC document reproduction service, Arlington, VA (ED217478)

RIVAS, F. (1977). Write/rewrite: An assessment of revision skills. National Assessment of Educational Progress, . -

Writing Report 05-W-04, Denver, Colorado.

RIVERS, Joan & Meryman, Richard (1985). Enter Talking New York: Delacourte

RIZZOLO, Patricia (1982). Peer tutors make good teachers. Improving College and University ~eaching. - 30 (3) pp 115-110

ROBB, Thomas, and others (1986). Salience of feedback on error and its effect on EFL writing quality. TESOL Quarterly. 20 (1) pp 83-95 -

ROBINSON, Richard D. & Hulett, Joycelin (1984). Reading and writing in the school and home. Missouri University

RODRIGUES, Dawn (1985). Computers and basic writers. College Composition and Communication. - 36 (3) pp 336-339

194

Page 202: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

RODRIGUES, Raymond J. (1984) . The computer-based writing program from load to print. English Journal. - 73 (1) pp 27-30

ROEN, Duane H. (1985). Empirical considerations of episoaic perspective taking. Presented at the 36th annual Conference on College Composition and communication, Minneapolis, MINN

ROEN, Duane H. & Haseltine, Patricia (1985). Revisin expository prose from the perspective of text91inguists: A second analysis and assessment. Presented at American Educational Research Association meeting, Chicago, ILL

ROGALSKI, William (1979). Magazine aavertisement analysis: A group approach to rewriting. Exercise Exchange. pp 24-26

ROHMAN, D. Gordon (1965). Pre-writing: The stage of discovery in the writing process. College Composition and Communication. - 16 pp 106-112

ROHMAN, D. Gordon (1985). The ins and outs and ups and downs of writing. In Tom Waldrep (Ed.), Writers on writing. New York: Random House.

ROHMAN, D. Gordon & Wlecke, Albert 0. (1964). Pre-writing: The construction and application of models for. concept formation in writing. Cooperative research project #2174 Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan.

ROLLIN, Betty (1982). Am I getting paid for this? Toronto, Ontario: Little, Brown and Company.

ROSE, Mike (1980). Rigid rules, inflexible plans, and the stifling of language: A cognitivist analysis of writer's block College Composition and Communication. 31 (4) pp 389-401 -

ROSE, Mike (1984). Writer's block: The coqnitive dimension. Conference on College Compositionand Communication Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois Press

Page 203: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

ROSE, Mike (Ed.), (1985). When a writer can't write: Studies in writer's block and other composing-process problems. Perspectives in Writing Research Series. Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois Press

ROSENBAUM, Nina J. (1984). Current problems with research in writing using the microcomputer. Presented at the spring conference of the Delaware Valley Writing Council and Villanova University University. Villanova, PA.

ROSENBAUM, Nina J. (1985). Issues and problems with research involving word processing: A teacher's experience. Collegiate Microcomputer. - 3 (4) pp 357-363

ROSSI, ~illian (1982). Vision and re-vision. National Writing Project, University of California, Berkeley, CA

ROUNDY, Nancy (1983a). A program for revision in business and technical writing. Journal of Business Communication. 20 (1) pp 217-236 -

ROUNDY, Nancy (1983b). Modeling the communication context: A procedure for revision and evaluation in business writing. Journal of Business Communication. - 20 (3) pp 27-46

ROUNDY, Nancy (1983~). Audience analysis: A guide to revision in technical writing. Technical Writing Teacher. 10 (2/3) - pp 94-100

ROUNDY, Nancy (1984). Revision pedagogy in technical writing. Presented at the 35th meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication, New York, NY.

ROUSE, John (1985) . Scenes from the writing workshop. College English. - 47 (3) pp 217-236

ROBIN, Donald L., Piche, Gene L., Michlin, Michael L., & Johnson, Fern L. (1984). Social cognitive ability as a predicator of the quality of fourth-graders' written narratives. In Richard Beach and Lillian S. Bridwell (Eds.), New directions in composition research. New York: Guilford Press

196

Page 204: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

RUSSELL, Connie (1983). Putting research into practice: Conferencing with young writers. Language Arts. - 60 (3) pp 333-340

RUSSELL, Connie (1985). Peer conferencing and writing revision: A study o•’ the- relationship. service ~ulletin-48, Wisconsin Council of Teachers of English (ED260392)

RUTLEDGE, George E. (1983). An introduction to the process- conference approach to the teaching of writing skills in ABE programs. Presented at the American Association for Adult and Continuing Education, meeting, ~hiladephia, PA

SAGER, Carol (1973). Improving the quality of written composition through pupil use of rating scale. Presented at the annual convention of the National Council of Teachers of English, Philaaelplhia, Penn. ERIC (ED089304)

SALVAATORI, Mariolina (1983). The teaching of writing as 'problematization' . Teacher Education Quarterly. - 10 (3) pp 38-57

SAMPSON, Gloria Paulik (1980) . Teaching the written language using a functional approach. TESL TALK. - 11 (2) pp 38-44

SAMPSON, Gloria Paulik & Carlman, Nancy (1982). A hierarchy of stuaent responses to literature. English Journal. - 71 (1) p. 54

SAMUELSON, Janet (1986). Empowering the powerless: Authority in the writinu classroom. Presented to the 37th annual

d

meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication, New Orleans, LA

SANFORD, Elizabeth (1985). Discovering revision. Available through ERIC document reproduction service, Arlington, Virginia. (ED258231)

SAUR, Pamela S. (1985). Teaching rereading and rewriting to 'basic writers'. Presented at the Basic Writing Conference, St. Louis, MO.

Page 205: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

SAWKINS, M.W. (1975). What children say about writing. In W.T. Petty, & P. Finn (Eds.) , The writing processes of students: Report of the first annual conference on language arts. Buffalo: State University of New York

SCARDAMALIA, M. (1981). How children cope with the cognitive demands of writing. In C.H. Frederiksen, J.F. Whiteman & F.F. Dominic (Eas.), Writing: The nature, development and teaching of written communication (Vol. 11) Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum

SCARDAMALIA, Marlene & Bereiter, Carl (1983). The development of evaluative, diagnostic and remedial capabilities in children's composing. In M. Martlew (Ed.) , The psychology of written language: A developmental approach. London: John Wiley and Sons.

SCARDAMALIA, Marlene & Bereiter, Carl (1985). Helping students become better writers. School Administrator. - 42 (4) p 16

SCHANCK, Emily T. (1986). Word processor versus 'The Pencil': Effects on writing. Requirement for a master's degree, Kean College of New Jersey.

SCHANK, R. & Abelson, R. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals and understandina. Hillside. New Jersev: Lawrence Erlbaum

SCHNIEDER, Annete (1983) . Written products and writing problems: Assisting students in other disciplines. English Quarterly. - 16 (2) pp 41-45

SCHRADER, Vincent E. (1984). Teaching journalism on the micro. English Journal. - 73 (4) pp 83-94

SCHULTZ, John (1982). Writing from start to finish: The story workshop. Basic Forms Rhetoric-Reaaer. New Jersey: Boynton/Cook.

SCHUMACHER, Gary M. and Martin, Denise (1983). A categorical 9. Presented at the 33rd meeting of the National Reading Conference, Austin, Texas.

Page 206: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

SCHWARTZ, Helen J. (1984). Teaching writing with computer aids. College English. - 46 (3) pp 239-247 (EJ294751)

SCHWARTZ, Mimi (1982). Computers and the teaching of writing. Educational Technology. - 22 pp 27-29

SCHWARTZ, Mimi (l983a) . Two journeys through the writing process. College Composition and Communication. - 34 (2)

pp 188-201

SCHWARTZ, Mimi (1983b). Revision profiles: Patterns and implications. College English. - 45 (6) pp 549-558 (EJ287949)

SEARLE, Dennis & Dillon, David (1980). The message of marking: Teacher written responses to student writing at intermediate grades. Research in the Teaching of English. - 14 (3) pp 233-242

SEARS, Peter (1985). What do you say about a terrible poem? Teachers and Writers Magazine. - 16 (5) pp 1-3

SELF, Warren P. (1983). Research and the classroom. Presented at the 34th annual Conference on College Composition and Communication. Detroit, MI

SELFE, Cynthia L. (1984). Reading as a writing and revising strategy. Presented at the 35th annual Conference on College Composition and Communication. New York, NY

SELFE, Cynthia L. and Wahlstrom, Billie J. (1979). Beyond Bandaids and Bactine: Computer-assisted instruction and revision. Available through ERIC document reproduction service, Arlington, Virginia (ED232182)

SHANKLIN, N. (1981). Relating reading and writing: developing a transactional theory of the writing process. Dept. of Reading, University of Indiana, Bloomington.

SHAUGHNESSY, Mina (1977). Errors and expectations: A guide for the teacher of basic writing. New York: Oxforci University Press

199

Page 207: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

SHERWOOD, Phyllis (1980). Nonlinear revising. Presented at the Wyoming Conference on aching Freshman and Sophmore English. Laramie, WYO.

SHIFLETT, Betty (1973). Story workshop as a method of teaching writing. College English. - 35 pp 141-160

SHUMAN, R. Baird (1975). What about revision? English Journal. 64 PP 41-43 -

SHUMAN, R. Baird (1981). Education in the 80s. National Education Association, Washington, DC. ERIC (ED199762)

SIEGEL, Muffy E.A. & Olson, Toby (Eas.), (1983). Writing talks: Views on teaching writing from across the professions. Upper Montclair, New Jersey: ~oynton/Cook

SIMON, Herbert A. & Ericsson, K. Anders (1984). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. Cambridge, MASS: Bradford Books, M.I.T. Press.

SLATER, Charles (1983, April). A program for teaching writing. Educational ~igest . pp 54-55

SMITH,

SNITH,

SMITH,

SMITH,

SMITH,

Eugene (1984). Conducting a follow-up study of students in writing courses. ~ v a i l a b l e ~ h ERIC document reproduction service, Arlington, VA (ED247596)

Frank (1979) . The language arts and the learner's mind. Language Arts. - 56 (2) pp 118-125

Frank (1980). Myths of writing. Language Arts. - 58 pp 792-98

Frank (1982). Writing and the writer. Toronto, Ontario: College Publishing, Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Myrna J. & Bretcko, Barbara (1974). Research on individual composition conferences. presented at the annual meetins of the Conference on College Composition and ~ommunicafion, Anaheim, CA. ERIC (ED901709)

200

Page 208: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

SMITH, Peggy F~xall (1984). Grammar texts and workbooks? ~anished to the storeroom. Academic Theory. - 20 (1) pp 121-125

SNIPES, Wilson Currin (1973). Oral comp0sin.g as an approach to writing. College Comoposition and Communication. - 24 pp 200-205

SOMMERS, Elizabeth A. (1984). What reserach tells us about composing and computing. Presented to the Computer Educators League. Buffalo, New York.

SOMMERS, Jeffrey (1985). Enlisting the writer's participation in the evaluation process. Journal of Teaching Writinq. - 4 (1) pp 95-103

SOMMERS, Nancy (1980). Revision strategies of student writers and experienced writers. College Composition and Connunicaiton. - 31 pp 378-387

SOMMERS, Nancy (1982). Revision strategies of student writers and experienced adult writers. National Institute of Education, Washington, DC. ERIC (ED220839 CS207146)

SOMMERS, Nancy & McQuade, Donald (1984). Student writers at work. New York: St. Martin's Press.

SOWERS, S. (1979). A six-year old's writing process: The first half of the first grade. Language Arts. - 56 pp 829-835

SPEAR, K. (1984) . Writers and writing. College Composition and Communication. 18 D 288

SPENCER, Jacqueline (1982). Learning to write through imitation. The English Quarterly. - 15 (4) pp 42-46

SPINA, Linda & Welhoelter, Dorothy (1981). Writing bugs become reading bugs. Presented at the 14th annual meeting of the Missouri State Council of the International ~eading Assoc., Columbia, NO (ED205990)

Page 209: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

STALLARD, Charles (1974). An analysis of writing behaviour of good student writers. ~esearch in the ~eaching of English. - 8 pp 206-218

STANFORD, Gene (Ed.), (1979). How to handle the paper load. Class-room practices in teaching English. Urbana, ILL: NCTE.

STEGMAN, Michael 0. (1984). Beyond correctness: The computer and the composing process. Presented at New York State Department of Education spring conference, Albany, NY.

STEVENS, Peggy Walker (1984). How to tell the world about your program. Journal of Experimental Education. - 7 (2) pp 4-7

STEWIG, John Warren (1983). Teaching language arts in early childhood. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston

STIFFLER, Randall (1985). Writing within limits, writing without N's. Exercise Exchange. 30 (2) pp 28-29

STINE, Peter W. (1977). Listen, my children, and you shall hear: An oral approach to correcting written errors. Presented at the annual Conference on College composition and Communication, Kansas City, MO. (ED144106)

STOCK, Patricia (Ed.),(1983). •’forum: Essays on theory and practice in the teaching of writing. Upper Montclair, New Jersey: ~oynton/Cook

STRASSER, Susan (1984). I'm a writer and I want my students to know it. rn ~ e b Daugherty (Ed.), The teaching of writinq at Evergreen: A collection of strategies. Olympia, WA: Evergreen State College

STRICKLAND, James (1983). New directions in rhetorical invention. Presented at the 34th College Composition and Communication conference, Detroit, Michigan. (ED2321491

STRICKLAND, James (1985). Beyond word processing: Rhetorical invention with computers. Presented at the-~nglish Assoc. of the Penn State Universities Conference, Clarion, PA

Page 210: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

STRICKLAND, Ruth (1944). A good start in school. Indianapolis: State of Indiana Department of Public Instruction

STRICKLAND, Ruth (1951). The language arts in the elementary school. Boston: D.C. Heath and Company

STRICKLAND, Ruth (1961). Evaluating childrens composition. Elementary English. pp 64-73

STROMBERG, Linda & Kurth, Ruth J. (1983) . Using word processing to teach revision in written composition. Presented at the 33rd annual meeting of the National ~eading Conference, Austin, Texas

STUART, Simon (1969; 1973). SAY: An experiment in learning. New York: Agathon Press

STUBBS, Gordon T. (1980). in Sheila A. Egoff (Ed.), Only cowards: readings on children's literature. Toronto: Oxford University Press

STUBBS, Michael (1980). The sociolinguistics of reading and writing. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul

SUDOL, Ronald (Ed.) , (1982) . Revising: New essays for- teachers of writing. ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills. NCTE, Urbana, ILL (ED218655)

SUDOL, Ronald (1985) . Applied word processing : Notes on authority, responsibility and revision in a workshop model. college-composition and Communication. - 36 (3) pp 331-35

SUDOL, Ronald (1986). What's new about word-processed writing? ADE Bulletin. - 83 pp 43-45

SWARTZ, Heidi, Flower, Linda S., & Hayes, John R. (1984) . Designing protocol studies of the writing process: An introduction. In Richard Beach and Lillian S. rid well (Eds.), New directions in composition research. New York: Guilford Press.

Page 211: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

TATE, Gary & Corbett, Edward P.J. (1981). The writing teacher's source book. New York: Oxford University Press

TAYLOR, Karl K. (1984). Eighteen writers writing: The processes of inexperienced and experienced writers. Teaching English in the Two-Year College. - 10 (3) pp 219-225

TAYLOR, Patricia Simmons, Peltzman, Faye & McCuen, Jo Ray (1982). In the trenches: Help for the newly recruited, shellshocked, and battle-fatigued teachers of writing. University of California.

TCHUDI, Stephen (1983). Writing teachers: what we say about what we do. Fifteen essays for teachers of writing at the secondary and college levels. Michigan Council of Teachers of English. ERIC (ED230952)

TCHUDI, Stephen (1984). The teacher/writer; model learner, human being, Language Arts. - 61 (7) pp 712-716

TCHUDI, Stephen (1985). The Write Idea. In Tom Waldrep (Ed.) . Writers on Writing. pp 271-282 New York: Random House.

TCHUD1,-Steven & Tchudi, Susan (1981). An introduction into the teaching of writing. New York: Wiley

TEICHMAN, Milton (1985). What college freshmen say about word L

processing, perspectives on computing: ~p~iications in the Academic and Scientific Community. - 5 (3) pp 43-48

TER BORG, L. (1983). The heuristic function of language. MA thesis. University of Calgary, Alberta.

THIESMEYER, John (1984). Teaching with the text checkers. Presented at the spring conference of the Delaware Valley Writing Council and Villanova University English department. villanova, Pennsylvania.

THOMPSON, George J. (1978). Revision: Nine ways to achieve a disinteiested perspective. College ~om~osition and Communication. - 29 pp 200-202

Page 212: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

TIERNEY, R. & LaZonsky, J. (1980). The rights and responsibilities of readers and writers: A contractual agreement. Reading Education Report #15. Centre for the Study of Reading, Urbana, ILL

TORBE, Mike & Protherough, Robert (Eds.),(1976). Classroom encounters: Language and English teaching. NCTE, Urbana, ILL

TRACEY, Richard (1983) . The word processor and the writing process. Teaching English in the Two-Year College. 10 (1) pp 27-33 7

TRIMBUR, John (1986). Peer tutoring: A contradiction in terms. Writing Center Journal. - 7 (2) pp 21-28

war on the.nonreviser. Arizona English Bulletin #22 pp 157-161

TSUJIMOTO, Joseph I. (1984). Re-visioning the whole. English Journal. - 73 (5) pp 52-55

TUTTLE,.Frederick B. Jr. (1978). Composition: A media approach. National Education Association, Washington, DC

TYRRELL, Paul & Johnston, Brian (1983). Challenge versus L

judgement in responding to students' writing. English In Australia. - 66 pp 37-43

WALL, Susan V. (1982). Internal revision: Case studies of first year college writers. Presentea at the 72nd annual meeting of the NCTE, Washington, DC

WALSHE, R.D. (1982a, Sept.), Every child can write: Learning and teaching written expression in the 1980s. Primary English Teaching in Australia. Rozelle, Australia.

WALSHE, R.D. (1982b) . The writing revolution, English in Australia. - 62 pp 3-15

Page 213: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

WALSHE, R.D. (Ed.),(1983). Donald Graves in Australia: Children want to write. Primary English Teaching Association, Rozelle, Australia

WALVOORD, Barbara Fassler (1982). Helping students write well: A guide for teachers in all disciplines. New York: Modern Language Association

WALVOORD, Barbara Fassler & Singer, Daniel (1984). Process- oriented writing instruction in a case-method class. Presented at the American Management Association, Boston.

WARDLOW, Elwood M. (1985). Effective writing and editing: A guidebook for newspapers. Reson, Virginia: American Press Institute.

WARNOCK, John (1985). How I write. In Tom Waldrep (Ed.), Writers on writinp. pp 289-304 New York: Random House

WARNOCK, Tilly (1985). How I write. In Tom Waldrep (Ed.) , Writers on writing pp 305-316 New York: Random House

WARTERS, S. (1978). Writing processes of college basic writers. MA Thesis, University of Calgary, Alberta

WASSON, John M. (1975,'72,'70,'66,'63). Subject and structure: An anthology for writers. Toronto, Ontario: Brown and Co.

WATT, Daniel (1983). Word processors and writing. Independent School. - 42 (3) pp 41-43

WEATHERS, Winston (1985). The Winston Weathers writing way: A self-examination. In Tom Waldrep (Ed.), Writers on writing. pp 317-328 New York: Random House

WELTY, Eudora (1984). One writer's beginnings. Cambridge: Harvard University Press

WHEELER, Thomas C. (1979). The great American writing block: Causes and cures of'the new illiteracy. NY: Viking Press.

Page 214: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

WHITE, Edward M. (1985). ~eaching and assessing writing: Recent advances in understanding, evaluating and improving student ~erformance. Jossev-Bass Hiaher Education Series.

WHITEMAN, Marcia Farr (Ed.) , (1981) . The nature and development and teaching of written composition Vol I. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum ~ssociates.

WHITNEY, Margaret M. (1983). The computer and writing. English Journal. - 72 (7) pp 24-31

WIESS, Adair B. (1984). MORE: A classroom approach to the development of writing skills at the upper high school level. Presented at the annual meeting of the Florida Council of Teachers of English. Cocoa Beach, FLA

WILLINSKY, John (1985). To publish and publish and publish. Language Arts. - 62 (6) p 619-623

WILLIS, Meredith Sue (1984). Personal fiction writing: A guide to writing from real life for teachers, students and writers. New York State Council on the Arts. (ED2604431

WILSON, ~illian Scott (1949) . Creative writing in a first grade. Elementary English. - 26 p 241-249

WILSON, Sloan (1976). What shall we wear to the party? New York: Arbor House

WINTER, Clotilda (1957). Interrelationships among variables in children of the first and second grades. Elementary English. - 34 pp 108-113

WINTEROWD, W. Ross (1986). Viewpoints: Dramatism and the composition process. Research in the Teaching of English. 20 (3) pp 317-327 -

WITTE, Stephen P. (1983). Topical structure and revision: An exploratory study. College Composition and Communication. 34 (3) pp 313-341 -

Page 215: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

WITTE, Stephen P. & Faigley, L. (1981). Coherence, cohesion and writing quality. College Composition and Communication 32 pp 189-204 -

WITTY, Paul & Martin, William (1957). An analysis of childrens compositions written in response to a film. Elementary English. - 34 pp 158-163

- a machine-in the English classroom? English Journal. - 73 (1) PP 34-37

WOOD, Margo (1981). An overview of the development of the writing process in children. New England Reading Association Journal. - 16 pp 32-35

WOODMAN, Leonora (1975). Creative editing: An approach to peer criticism. Presented at the annual conference of the NCTE San Diego, CA (ED1162171

WORLEY, Lloyd (1984). Using word processing in composition classes. Presented at the 35th annual Conference on College Composition and Communication, New York.

WOTRING, A.M. (1981). Writing to think about high school chemistry. Two studies of writing in high school science. Bay Area writing Project Classroom Research series. Berkeley, California. L

WRESCH, William (1983). Computers and composition instruction: An update. College English. - 45 (8) pp 794-789

WRESCH, William (1984). The computer in composition instruction: A writer's tool. NCTE, Urbana, Illinois.

WRIGHT, Wynn (Ed.),(1981). Handbook for writing practices. Washington Elementary School District Six, Phoenix, ARIZ

WUNSCH, Daniel R. (1982). The effects of written feedback, rewritinq and qorup oral feedback on business letter writing abilit;. Delta Pi Epsilon Journal. - 24 (4) pp 129-138

Page 216: PEER-EDITING PROCESSES OF SOME - Summitsummit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5264/b14999961.pdf · 2020. 8. 18. · peer-editing processes of some grade six students using a standard

WYMAN, Linda (Ed.) , (1983) . Revising. Missouri English Bulletin. 41 (6). Missouri Association of Teachers of English -

YOUNG, R.E. (1980). Arts, crafts, gifts and knacks. Visible Language. - 14 pp 341-350

YOUNG, Richard, Becker, Alton & Pike, Kenneth, L. (Eds.), (1970). Plots in discourse, and editing: Focus and loading. In Rhetoric, Discovery and Change. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich

ZEMELMAN, S. (1977). How college teachers encourage students' writing. Research in the Teaching of English. - 11 pp 227-234

ZIEGLER, Alan (1986). Peer Editing. Cited in Teachers and Writers Magazine. 17 (4) pp 10-11

ZIV, Nina D. (1984). The effect of teacher comments on the writing of four college freshmen. In Richard Beach and Lillian S. Bridwell (Eds.), New directions in composition research. New York: Guilford Press.

ZUREK, Jerome (1986). Research on writing process can aid news- writing teachers. Journalism Educator. 41 (4)- pp 122-34