Supplementary Files
Submitted : 2019-01-27
Accepted : 2019-02-11
Published : 2019-02-26
Abstract
Revision is a complex, yet important phase in writing to improve the quality of a text. Some revision models are created in order to explain its components and the ways these components work. However, analysis of available models shows that they are proposed mainly for expert writers, who can complete the complex revision process individually, without the need of support or feedback. Most of the available models also do not include audience as a component. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to introduce an alternative revision model for novice writers at or higher than high-school level with a focus on audience and feedback. Firstly, definition of revision is made, which is followed by summaries of importance of audience and feedback in writing. Secondly, available revision models in literature that serves as the basis of the alternative model are reviewed. Finally, the alternative revision model is introduced with its components and the way these components work is explained. The revision model presented in this paper will contribute to literature on writing by filling the gap in revision models by proposing a model for novice writers and highlighting the importance of audience and feedback.
References
Alamargot, D., & Chanquoy, L. (2001). Through the models of writing. Dordrecht-Boston-London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Black, K. (1989). Audience Analysis and Persuasive Writing in College Level Writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 23(3), 231-253.
Bracewell, R. J., Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1978). The development of audience awareness in writing. Resources in Education, 12, 154-433.
Butterfield, E.C., Hacker, D.J., & Albertson, L.R. (1996). Environmental, cognitive and metacognitive influences on text revision: assessing the evidence. Educational Psychology Review, 8(3), 239-297.
Carvalho, J. B. (2002). Developing audience awareness in writing. Journal of Research in Reading, 25(3), 271-282.
Cohen, M., & Riel, M. (1989). The effect of distant audiences on students’ writing. American Educational Research Journal, 26(2), 143.
Crowhurst, M. & Piche, G. L. (1979). Audience and Mode of Discourse Effects on Syntactic Complexity in Writing at Two Grade Levels. Research in the Teaching of English, 13(2), 101-109.
Ede, L., & Lunsford, A. (1984). Audience addressed/audience invoked: The role of audience in composition. College Composition and Communication, 35(2), 155-171.
Elbow, P. (1981). Writing with power. New York: Oxford University Press.
Karchmer-Klein, R. (2007). Audience Awareness and Internet Publishing: A Qualitative Analysis of Factors Influencing How Fourth Graders Write Electronic Text. Action in Teacher Education, 29(2),39-50.
Fitzgerald, J. (1992). Variant views about good thinking during composing: Focus on revision. In M. Pressley, K. Harris, & J. Guthrie (Eds.), Promoting academic competence and literacy in school (pp. 337-360). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Fitzgerald, J. (1987). Research on Revision in Writing. Review of Educational Research, 57(4), 481-506.
Fitzgerald, J ., & Markham, L. (1987). Teaching children about revision in writing. Cognition and Instruction, 4(1), 3-24.
Flower, L. (1979). Writer-Based Prose: A Cognitive Basis for Problems in Writing. College English, 41(1), 19-37.
Flower, L.S., & Hayes, J.R. (1980). The dynamic of composing: Making plans and juggling constraints. In L.W. Gregg, & E.R. Steinberg (Eds). Cognitive processes in writing, (pp.31-50). Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.
Flower, L.S., & Hayes, J.R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32, 365-387.
Flower, L., Hayes, J. R., Carey, L., Schriver, K.A., & Stratman, J. (1986). Detection, diagnosis, and the strategies of revision. College Composition and Communication, 37(1), 16-55.
Graham, S., MacArthur, C. A., & Schwartz, S. (1995). Effects of goal setting and procedural facilitation on the revising behavior and writing performance of students with writing and learning problems. Journal of Educational Psychology,87(2), 230–240.
Gregg, N., Sigalas, S.A., Hoy, C., Wisenbaker, J., & McKinley, C. (1996). Sense of audience and the adult writer: a study across competence levels. Reading and Writing: an Interdisciplinary Journal, 8, 121-137.
Hayes, J. R. (2004). What triggers revision? In L. Allal, & L. Chanquoy (Eds.), Revision: Cognitive and instructional processes (pp. 9–20). Norwell, NJ: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Hayes, J. R. (2000). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In R. Indrisano & J. Squire (Eds.), Perspectives on Writing, Research, Theory, and Practice. (p.6-44). Newark: I.R.A.
Hayes, J.R. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In C. M. Levy, & S. Ransdell (Eds.). The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences and applications (pp. 1–27). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hayes, J.R., & Flower, L.S. (1983). Uncovering cognitive processes in writing: an introduction of protocol analysis. In P. Mosenthal, S.Walmsley, & L. Tamor (Eds), Research on writing: principles and methods, (pp. 206-219). New York: Longman.
Hayes, J.R., & Flower, L.S. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In L.W. Gregg, & E.R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing: An interdisciplinary approach (pp. 3–30). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hayes, J. R., Flower, L. S., Schriver, K. A., Stratman, J., & Carey, L. (1987). Cognitive processes in revision. In S. Rosenberg (Ed.), Advances in psycholinguistics: Vol.2. Reading, writing, and language processing (pp. 176–240). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Holliway, D. (2004). Through the eyes of my reader: A strategy for improving audience perspective in children’s descriptive writing. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 18(4), 334-350.
Kroll, B.M. (1984). Writing for readers: three perspectives on audience. College Composition and Communication, 35(2), 172-185.
McCutchen, D., Francis, M., & Kerr, S. (1997). Revising for meaning: Effects of knowledge and strategy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(4), 667–676.
Midgette, E., Haria, P., & MacArthur, C. (2008). The effects of content and audience awareness goals for revision on the persuasive essays of fifth-and eighth-grade students. Reading and Writing, 21(1), 131-151.
Monahan, B. D. (1984). Revision Strategies of Basic and Competent Writers as They Write for Different Audiences. Research in the Teaching of English, 18(3), 288-304.
Oliver, E. I. (1995). The Writing Quality of Seventh, Ninth, and Eleventh Graders, and College Freshmen: Does Rhetorical Specification in Writing Prompts Make a Difference? Research in the Teaching of English, 29(4), 422-450.
Roen, D. H., & Willey, R. J. (1988). The effects of audience awareness on drafting and revising. Research in the Teaching of English, 22(1), 75–85.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1983). The development of evaluative, diagnostic and remedial capabilities in children’s composing. In M. Martlew (Ed.), The psychology of written language. Developmental and educational perspectives, (pp. 67-95). New York: Wiley and Sons.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1985). The development of dialectical processes in composition. In D. Olson, N. Torrance, & A. Hildyard (Eds.). Literacy, language and learning: the nature and consequences of reading and writing (pp. 307-329). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Smith, W. L., & Swan, M. B. (1978). Adjusting Syntactic Structures to Varied Levels of Audience, The Journal of Experimental Education, 46(4), 29-34, DOI: 10.1080/00220973.1978.11011640
Traxler, M., & Gernsbacher, M. (1992). Improving written communication through minimal feedback. Language and Cognitive Process, 7, 1-22.
Traxler, M.J., & Gernsbacher, M.A. (1993). Improving written communication through perspective taking. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8 (3), 311-334.